What is missing from the theory of evolution

?I did not say that the Natural Laws were "designed."I said the Directed Evolution was inherent in the Natural Laws which control our Evolution.

Sez who?Pierre Cardin Teilhard saw the direction of Evolution headed towards the end game of Omega Point:

This is a science thread in one of the science forums. Please try not to let Biblical issues intrude too much.

Since Revelation is totally irrelevant to this topic and refers to stuff that should have happened over 1500 years ago, No, I will not go down that rabbit hole in this thread.

Hi Kofh2u Not sure he saw this as evolution per se or that the omega point would be achieved by current humans. IIRC, he saw the growth of the oosphere as more of a divine force.EnjoyEdited by RAZD, : i

Kewl. How would one go about testing that idea?

Hi Genomics, Can't test it, it is a philosophical hypothesis, it can be considered logically valid, but it remains hypothetical.Enjoy

The history of change we see in genomes is not due to human intelligence. The differences between humans and chimps is not due to guided mutations of the kind you are referencing. What we are asking about is the history of biology, and that does not include modern genetic manipulations.

Even if you are correct, a hypothesis is the first Scientific Step into considering an idea.What is scientifically correct is to furnish examples where a hypothesis might explain phenomenon previously misunderstood, not explained, or explained only hypothetically with other suggestions.I would argue that since Instincts are formed from previous life experiences of our species, they evidence an example were we "remember" things that took place in previous generations, after the people had been born, and because they found responses to certain experience were effective.Since these experiences were decision based, i.e., a choice in response made to circumstances like snakes and spiders, say, the instinct is a mental construct that appears in our mind.We KNOW something intuitively and instinctively which comes down to us and DIRECTS us from an ancient resouvier in our Unconscious mind.

What Jung and Freud did was reason and observe:Carl Jung:The Collective Unconscious is a storehouse of all the experiences of humankind transmitted to each individual.
As the repository for all past experiences, it includes even our pre-human animal ancestry.
(Assumably through the genetic processes, though unknown to Freud and Jung at the time.)It becomes the primary base of a person's pyche, direc ting and influencing behavior.
It is the deepest and most inaccessable level of the psyche.
Jung believed that a person accumulates and files all of his past experiences, so does humankind, collectively.Jung was supported by Freud in that Freud predicted our eventual discovery of what he called "Phylogenetic Memory."
Jung said, "the form of the world into which a person is born is already inborn in him, as a virtual image." (Jung, 1953, pg 188).

Many thanks for such a touchy relpy. Sorry for delayed acknowledgement. But I wish I could get in touch with you personally. We are often caught between what we have learned from our culture, society, parents, religion and what we learned from our education; or say we are often caught between our heart and our mind. But truth cannot be two. It has to be and is one. But to reach that truth, we should leave no path and opinion unsampled, if it has any slightest of appeal to our heart or mind, no matter how many times it has been held invalid in past.
This is what I feel. But I will always respect your views.
Dayalanand

Click on the email link at the bottom of his message. Or send him a PM by clicking on the Send Private Message link under his name in the author column.

What a load of crap.

The defies most definitions of what instincts are. Many inherited instincts are observed and pretty constant from culture. It's more likely that in the pre-modern world people without such instincts died. For instance there are a number of social instincts and reactions that have proven beneficial for a complex social species, people without such traits may become outcasts or less liked within the population meaning they were less likely to reproduce. These social instincts are such a part of human behavior that we say that people without them have a disability. One example I believe is Asperger's syndrome and varying forms of it. They are not. The decision comes from breaking the "normal" behavior. We are directed yes.... but by behaviors often needed to be part of a population. Those that didn't have them in the past died or were less likely to reproduce.

...you answered your own criticism in that "inherited instincts" means they are traits which are sourced in our genes.