Is Unity as 1 equivalent to Causality?

[thedoc]

The creature that hatches out of it is defined by the creature who lays it.

Is the creature that hatches out of an egg identical to the creature that lays the egg?

Is a child identical to the parent? Are they not both human? Do they not share degrees of identity?

Many generations ago the ancestors of humans were not humans, where was the division between man and not man.

[Impenitent]

Then why call it a chicken egg?

The egg is identified by the creature that hatches out of it, not by the creature that lays it.

The creature that hatches out of it is defined by the creature who lays it.

The creature, egg, and hatchling are defined by their relations, and in the respect to the chicken example reflect as 3 in 1 and 1 in 3.

"The creature that hatches out of it is defined by the creature who lays it."

defined by the creature who lays it...

which chicken told you this?

-Imp

[Eodnhoj7]

Is the creature that hatches out of an egg identical to the creature that lays the egg?

Is a child identical to the parent? Are they not both human? Do they not share degrees of identity?

Many generations ago the ancestors of humans were not humans, where was the division between man and not man.

The answer is in the point you made "division". Man gave birth to man. Their is not missing link and rumor is that evolution is starting to "dye out", in regards to the version where man came from "x" organism. I want to emphasize that as "rumor" though.

The argument lies in definition. Man may be new, according to your argument, but hominids still gave birth so man is strictly and extension of the hominid and hominids existed all along. Or man existed all along and changed in grades. Change in grades not necessitate change in form. Blue may differ from red but both are grades of light.

[thedoc]

The argument lies in definition. Man may be new, according to your argument, but hominids still gave birth so man is strictly and extension of the hominid and hominids existed all along. Or man existed all along and changed in grades. Change in grades not necessitate change in form. Blue may differ from red but both are grades of light.

No, Hominids did not exist all along, hominids evolved from other organisms that were not hominids. You post like you are getting your information from a YEC site, and that information is wrong.

[thedoc]

The answer is in the point you made "division". Man gave birth to man. Their is not missing link and rumor is that evolution is starting to "dye out", in regards to the version where man came from "x" organism. I want to emphasize that as "rumor" though.

Evolution is not dying out as you claim, except to creationist who try go give a false reading to the fossil record. All species are transitional species form one species to another, humans will evolve into something else that may not be human as we know it.

[Eodnhoj7]

The argument lies in definition. Man may be new, according to your argument, but hominids still gave birth so man is strictly and extension of the hominid and hominids existed all along. Or man existed all along and changed in grades. Change in grades not necessitate change in form. Blue may differ from red but both are grades of light.

No, Hominids did not exist all along, hominids evolved from other organisms that were not hominids. You post like you are getting your information from a YEC site, and that information is wrong.

Good present the evidence as humans "lost" many of the evolutionary benefits their ancestors had (long hair, strength, stronger bones/ligaments, etc.). The standard "missing" link questions has also not be answered. Also certain bacteria, we theoritically evolved from, can exist in environments we cannot. Complexity does not equal adapting to the environment and surviving.

If you are arguing for the evolutionary idea where we "adapt" to the environment, through change, then yes I agree with that.

In regards to the "evolution dying out", if you look at the post I stated it as "rumor". A rumor is a rumor, not strict fact. Some religious organizations, such as the Catholic Church hold your theory to be non-contradictory. So I am arguing neither for or against a religious perspective, as it is unnecessary.

The problem is that evolution is based upon cycles of adaptation, as the basic unit (cells, etc.) remain as one of the same causal elements. These degrees of change, manifests through the cause, observe many differences in a linear format however the cause is still rotating through itself.

Example with "a" equaling cause and (x,y,z,yz) equaling causal grades (effects): a → ax → ay → az → ayz

"a" continualling rotates through the linear procression of the causal grades as it is an ever present unifying median.

Effect cannot exist without cause for effect is strictly an approximate cause; therefore a cause in itself.

[thedoc]

Good present the evidence as humans "lost" many of the evolutionary benefits their ancestors had (long hair, strength, stronger bones/ligaments, etc.). The standard "missing" link questions has also not be answered. Also certain bacteria, we theoritically evolved from, can exist in environments we cannot. Complexity does not equal adapting to the environment and surviving.

If you are arguing for the evolutionary idea where we "adapt" to the environment, through change, then yes I agree with that.

Effect cannot exist without cause for effect is strictly an approximate cause; therefore a cause in itself.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_ ... _evolution

An effect existing with a cause is strictly a human experience and does not dictate how the universe operates.

[Eodnhoj7]

Good present the evidence as humans "lost" many of the evolutionary benefits their ancestors had (long hair, strength, stronger bones/ligaments, etc.). The standard "missing" link questions has also not be answered. Also certain bacteria, we theoritically evolved from, can exist in environments we cannot. Complexity does not equal adapting to the environment and surviving.

If you are arguing for the evolutionary idea where we "adapt" to the environment, through change, then yes I agree with that.

Effect cannot exist without cause for effect is strictly an approximate cause; therefore a cause in itself.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_ ... _evolution

"This timeline is based on studies from anthropology, paleontology, developmental biology, morphology, and from anatomical and genetic data. It does not address the origin of life, which discussion is provided by abiogenesis, but presents one possible line of evolutionary descent of species that eventually led to humans"

****It presents one possible line, it does not argue it exists. Arguing possibility and actuality are two seperate things.

An effect existing with a cause is strictly a human experience and does not dictate how the universe operates.

The human experience is an extension of the universe and in these respects the observation of cause and effect was a result of the universe and not man according to your logic, that is assuming the universe is superior. The universe argues for cause and effect whenever a person argues for it.

You yourself admit to not knowing how the universe operates, and if this is the case and you consider "possibilities" as proof, then by default you contradict yourself.

Also you have not defined "effect" at all for you argument. You strictly leave it "definitionless" or negative in structure. In these respects, considering effect is defined within my presented argument, a positive is always considered proof over a negative.

[thedoc]

OK, deny the evidence and propose a possibility instead.

[Eodnhoj7]

OK, deny the evidence and propose a possibility instead.

Possibility for what exactly? This thread is about the nature of Causality as Unity/1.