Primal Instincts of Life (as we understand it)


Recommended Posts

With the recent Supreme Court ruling overturning of Roe verses Wade there are strong disagreements on a clear definition of life – especially defining intelligent human life.  There is no explanation in science for why life is so resilient, abundant and diverse on our little planet and yet there is absolutely no evidence that such life exists anywhere else in our vast universe.  I am convinced that we will never find life as we know it anywhere else in the universe. 

There are several reasons why I have come to this conclusion.  First because our universe is so vast that if there is life as we know it is anywhere else it will be too rare to discover.  I am convinced that that life as we know it cannot naturally exist anywhere else and that the only reason life exists on earth is because a intelligence that we do not comprehend has uniquely manipulated the elements so.  It is impossible for such life to evolve on its own in this universe that is so intrusive to life as we know it.

I have studied and pondered and have concluded that there are three elements of life that I call primal instincts that must exist of such life to be sustainable and not become extinct – even on this earth – let alone anywhere else in this universe.

The first primal instinct or element, I call the predator instinct.  Life must seek out and destroy (kill) other life for nutrients needed to survive.  This is a life and death struggle between other (often like kinds) of life that only the most fit will or can survive.  To survive other life must die.

The second primal instinct or element, I call the territorial protector and defender.  To survive, life must have a strategy to hide from, repel or defeat other life that is either seeking them for their resources or competing with them for the same resources.  In essence more than being a predator, life must have a strategy to protect itself from predators that will kill them. 

The third primal instinct or element is the drive to reproduce. 

 

Without these three primal instincts no individual or species is sustainable.  Likewise, should these primal instincts become misused or misdirected the result will be that the individual genetic material will no longer be present in the gene pool and if sufficient individual genetic material is lost from the gene pool the species will become extinct.  Scientifically we classify such individuals and species as “unfit”.  Only the “fittest” genetic (and life instinct or intelligence) survive.  

It is my opinion that the human genetic material is so vast and diverse that individuals lost from the genetic pool is just not much of a concern at present.  But if succeeding generations are convinced or misdirected from the primal instincts that we must realize that such recruiting efforts place our species on the endangered species list.  As will all life as we know it – we are only a generation away from intinction.  I have no problem or concern with anyone pursuing a LGBTQ+ lifestyle.  But I am concerned (opposed) if such lifestyle is to become “Prideful” and in any way presented as a beneficial sustainable optional lifestyle for a species.

 

The Traveler

Edited by Traveler
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Vort said:

I did not. What was the resolution?

It was a comet that had not been discovered at the time of the transmission.

https://phys.org/news/2017-06-wow-mystery-space.html

Quote

The team reports that radio signals from 266/P Christensen matched those from the Wow! signal 40 years ago. To verify their results, they tested readings from three other comets, as well, and found similar results. The researchers acknowledge that they cannot say with certainty that the Wow! signal was generated by 266/P Christensen, but they can say with relative assurance that it was generated by a comet.

This was apparently disputed:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wow!_signal

Quote

This hypothesis was dismissed by astronomers, including members of the original Big Ear research team, as the cited comets were not in the beam at the correct time. Furthermore, comets do not emit strongly at the frequencies involved, and there is no explanation for why a comet would be observed in one beam but not in the other.

Citations:

http://naapo.org/WOWCometRebuttal.html

https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn28747-famous-wow-signal-might-have-been-from-comets-not-aliens/

https://www.cnet.com/science/aliens-wow-signal-comets-antonio-paris-seti/

I have no idea why they cited the second source (New Scientist) as discrediting the comet theory, when it clearly supports it.

The other two make some good arguments. But they are no stronger than the arguments made by Antonio Paris.  And the biggest problems they have with the comet idea can be explained by the fact that two of them were in the vicinity at the time and there was some interaction.

Edited by Carborendum
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/25/2022 at 11:38 AM, Traveler said:

It is my opinion that the human genetic material is so vast and diverse that individuals lost from the genetic pool is just not much of a concern at present.  But if succeeding generations are convinced or misdirected from the primal instincts that we must realize that such recruiting efforts place our species on the endangered species list.  As will all life as we know it – we are only a generation away from intinction.  I have no problem or concern with anyone pursuing a LGBTQ+ lifestyle.  But I am concerned (opposed) if such lifestyle is to become “Prideful” and in any way presented as a beneficial sustainable optional lifestyle for a species.

 

Just today elsewhere I saw someone propose that the rise of the LGBTQ lifestyle was nature's way of culling the species. I largely think most of it's a cultural trend myself, but it was an interesting idea. But how much, then, does nature want to cull? "Children of Men"'s civilization lost childbirth for around 20 years and it was a social/political disaster. Fictional, sure, but it can be considered. 

Unless we can achieve a working cloning situation in a timely manner to satisfy this Prideful population you speak of, I don't see these Primal Instincts being easily dismissed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Backroads said:

Just today elsewhere I saw someone propose that the rise of the LGBTQ lifestyle was nature's way of culling the species.

I've heard of this in variant forms, primarily about plain old-fashioned homosexuality specifically.  Since then, I've spent some time thinking about it.  And there may be a logic to it.  But when we bring in the Plan of Salvation into it, the picture changes quite a bit.

Scientifically, naturally, according to man's understanding:

It is possible that nature has some mechanism that says that the available elements, nutrients, resources, etc. can only successfully sustain evolutionary natural selection trends to a certain point.  After that point, some nutrient deficiency will trigger a trend of increased non-heterosexual behavior.  Perhaps, a look at all the nutrients required for human biology have a limiting element that specifically effects heterosexual tendencies.

It's within the realm of reasonableness.

Counterpoint:

If we believe only in man's science as described above, then it stands to reason that non-heterosexual individuals are specifically NOT supposed to reproduce.  They are specifically NOT supposed to raise/rear children.  Nature itself is demanding that this be the case.

So, why would we allow these individuals to propagate the species?  Their argument completely falls apart on their own terms. 

Yet, trans men are being placed in jail cells with biological women and impregnating them.  Gay couples are being allowed to adopt and use surrogates to make babies just so they can be raised by homosexual couples?

Consider the Plan of Salvation:

The Lord has told us:

  • Multiply & replenish the earth.
  • There is enough and to spare.

If these are both true, then the theory should not be used to justify non-heterosexual behavior.

Either way, homosexual propagation, raising, or rearing is not justified.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
4 hours ago, Carborendum said:

 

Either way, homosexual propagation, raising, or rearing is not justified.

The only way that non-heterosexuality can be even semi sustainable is to recruit from the heterosexual gene pool.

 

The Traveler

Edited by Traveler
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Backroads said:

Just today elsewhere I saw someone propose that the rise of the LGBTQ lifestyle was nature's way of culling the species. I largely think most of it's a cultural trend myself, but it was an interesting idea. But how much, then, does nature want to cull? "Children of Men"'s civilization lost childbirth for around 20 years and it was a social/political disaster. Fictional, sure, but it can be considered. 

Unless we can achieve a working cloning situation in a timely manner to satisfy this Prideful population you speak of, I don't see these Primal Instincts being easily dismissed.

The problem with cloning is the problem of replication error.   Scientifically we know this exist in the natural reproduction of species which is considered part of evolution.  The replication error that are a disadvantage to the primal instinctive advantage of an individual in the gene pool - nature will eliminate that mutation or that mutation will eventually eliminate that species.  It would seem that any disadvantage to any of the primal instincts will eliminate the individualerl or species.

 

The Trave

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

One principle that would seem obvious that there is a life cycle that must produce an intelligent species capable of moving from where life started to another inhabitable environment before the sun evolves - red giant or supernova.  But a problem with an intelligent species - as we see with humans - is that as intelligence evolves that the species does not destroy itself.   It appears to me that such cannot happen without religion.  In short that if the human species abandons intelligent religious notions - it will illuminate its  evolving species from existence.  Which is a primary suggestion by many scientists as to why we have not found evidence of intelligent life.

 

The Traveler

Edited by Traveler
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

When I started this thread, I intended the responses to be broad based.  I am very interested in other view points and the logic behind opinions.  And so I will introduce perhaps the greatest conundrum of life as we know it.  That conundrum is the origins of such life.  The religious notion of the origins of life is that not only is the deck stacked by very advanced intelligence but that there is something missing that is provided by such advanced intelligence that we have no empirical evidence of.   The basic scientific concept is that in the physical elements of life ever exist together - that life will always result.

The problem with the scientific notion is that the 3 primal instincts is somewhat of a ghost within the machine.   It would seem that all other appearances of life can be reversed engineered except for the primal instincts.  

It almost seems that there is a back door into life as we think we know it - via way of artificial intelligence.  One obvious difference is that artificial intelligence does not have need for the primal instincts.  The life cycle does not play the same and therefore the primal instincts do not apply.

From our LDS theology we understand that life as we know it is not real.  Or perhaps I should say not eternal life.  The primal instincts are only suited for mortal life and mortal life competition and life cycles.  It is my opinion that most religions are not suited well for differentiating mortal life (as we know it) and eternal life (as we can only speculate it).  Other than our LDS theology the only other religious notions that see that even attempt to deal with this is Buddhism and Hinduism.  

Because of the logical problems with traditional Christianity (which has similar foundations with Islam and Judaism) with such things - It seems to me that this is the primary engine that has caused the great divide between science and religion.

 

The Traveler

 

Edited by Traveler
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share