If the power of creation is godliness and seeing as evolution is kind like a form of creation and we beings are ultimately responsible for evolution, does that make all living things gods?

Ummm, I missed the how we are resposible for evolution part....

Evolution is not a separate entity. Creatures cause evolution, even if only unconsciously.

There must be some dots connecting creatures' existence to being a cause for evolution...

I mean evolution exists within both, the actual world without living creatures and the one with...

Biological evolution cannot exist without biological existence, but...

It does not necessarily follow that a creature is responsible for it's own evolutionary growth, especially consdiering the timeline involved for such a thing to be established.

I do not think it is a valid argument.

You never know maybe pantheists have it right.

We are all gods, but don't know it.

I create poo when I eat, does that count?

What is natural selection, but selective breeding? Do animals not choose with who they will reproduce?

Sometimes they do... in that generation. It takes much longer than one generation to establish evolutionary differences, besides that...

Natural selection is not selective breeding... both can and do change genetic make-up, but the only one which does with intent is selective breeding. Natural selection is a misnomer because of the term 'selection'... it is without intent.

We certainly did not intend to evolve before we knew what it was...

I would say that based on your premise your statement would be true.

i.e. your premise is "If the power of creation is godliness" where it appears that you are considering 'creation' to simply be the manipulation of preexisting energy and matter.

I create things (forms) all the time that didn't exist before. (especially if "creation" is nothing more than rearranging existing matter and energy.

Therefore by your definition of creation I am a creator. No question about it.

But don't ask me to create something out of nothing.

Although, after having read Allan Guth's theory of Inflation and knowing something about the laws of quantum mechanics and of quantum fields, I tend to feel that I'm even armed with the knowledge of how it may be possible for even me to create something out of nothing.

However, I confess that putting this into practice in a laboratory would probably be beyond my skill level.

None the less, I feel that I understand the theory behind how it could work (assuming we accept the laws of quantum mechnanics to preexist).

Most people would claim that God is the creator of the quantum fields.

Since I can't even begin to imagine creating a quantum field from scratch (especially considering that my own physical essence depends upon quantum fields in the first place) I can't imagine being the creator of a quantum field.

That doesn't mean that I can't do it. It just means that I'm unware that I can do it if indeed I can.

But that was a sidetrack.

Based on your definition of "creation" (i.e. the ability to rearrange matter and energy) then I would have to say that I do indeed qualify as a creator based on that definition because I most certainly can and do rearrange matter and energy all the time.

I'm always creating new "forms". For better or worse.

It was just an argument of absurdity. But while animals don't consciously choose to evolve, they don't choose a mate that is believed to give their offspring a genetic advantage. More mundanly through brighter colors, enchanting song, shows of superior strength. etc., a mutation could be seen to by a potential mate as genetic advantage. While I would not argue that they are thinking of the long term development of their species as a whole, they are unwittingly making a choice to participate in evolution.

I don't think very many humans are thinking about improving the human race when they mate.

Actually that's not totally true. Scientists have been finding out that elephants are mating to males with smaller tusks as they realize they are being hunted for those tusks. I'd say that's a conscious decision.

But, like Abra said, we humans obviously aren't doing that ourselves.

Wait a minute, what are pheromones? They are invisible chemical signals sent from one individual to another which affect behavior. Actually studies now successfully argue their influence over meaningful behaviors once thought to be completely controlled by conscious personal choice, such as sexual willingness and attraction. They also introduce the possibility that we may be constantly communicating with each other and making interpersonal judgments of which we are unaware. The possible implications of this invisible sense are significant and far-reaching. I would say this definitely has some effect on our choice of sexual partner.

Considering that evolution is caused by the needs of the organism and it's environment for the most part. How does that make us responsible for evolution exactly?

I actually like the concept of us all being gods in our own life. It gives us personal power and we all need to exert it with total individual responsibility for what we do. So at that level I would agree.

To imagine us all as being with lightening bolts in our hands perpetrating personal retribution on all that do not agree with us, no, I would not agree with that analogy.

It is same argument that I have been making since the start. Evolution is not an external force. It happens via our (humans and all other living organisms)choices, choices of sexual partner, choices of mimicry, the will to survive and pass on our unique genes. These are notdecisions made by an outside authority. They are mad each individual organism. That organism may or may not be thinking of the long term effect their choices will have on their species, but these choices are at the heart of evolution. The only way to not be a part of evolution is to not procreate or in the case of some organisms divide. Therefore all organisms are responsible for their own species' evolution.

you got part of it right.

then howcome we haven't figured out how to get Alzheimers, PKU, TySacs, etc. out of our genes? And what's with the huge increase with the Autism spectrum disorders? Of course, considering that some of the most brilliant people today seem to be coded for Asperger's syndrom, we might be making a move in the right direction.

What say you Abra? Techies, artists, some of the best writers and most brilliant math types - maybe just what we needed. mmmm?

Now - we just need to figure out who to breed with for longevity - OH YEA - those mexican people. Well, the original ones anyway, you know all those Indians we put on reservations, yep among the longest lived people in the world.

Someone was thinkin' when they rounded em all up on reservations. Now if that Cherokee Nation of tribe can outlive the swine flue (the lates Black Death threat) they may just take over and put those longevity genes to good use.

So what do ya think?

(my time out is over - final exams begin on Monday. Dang I'm tired!

I could not say for sure. I'll think on it and come up with a hypothesis. Perhaps it is a matter of Opportunity cost.

Thomas I feel as though I understood the point you were trying to make but perhaps it was simply worded awkwardly. No, humans are not directly responsible for their own evolution. No animal is. However to say that humans are in no way inspired or drawn to procreation with certain individuals based on specific genetic factors and requirements, is also incorrect in my opinion. I just feel two sides here ignoring one another.

I think human females will in fact gravitate to certain men that on a purely biological level, offer their offspring the absolute best shot at passing on those physical traits to be successful in the world. This occurs on an unconscious and a conscious level. However the problem is that the traits that human females look for today in males may have not changed very dramatically over the past 500,000 years. So what we desire and feel to be important physical attributes may not be as significant as they once were in today's world.

Oh and on an unrelated side note, that squirrel has rather disproportionate testes.