How will things pan out long term for science/mankind?

Enlighten me.

Paul.

'In the long run we're all dead'

Less religion because of improved education/communications technology. The introduction of laws to restrict infidelity might follow - once people realise sex is pretty much the most important thing to most people (we're more dna replicators than anything else) the criminal justice system should move to reflect that.

campermon wrote:'In the long run we're all dead'

campermon wrote:It took approximately 13 700 000 000 years for the universe to create me! (and you too!). There is, and only will be, one Campermon (MrsC is always telling me that I’m ‘one of a kind’… ).

A single chain of "cause and effect" from bang to you, yes campermon, do you mark that chain as being positive or negative?

And the continuation of that chain?

Paul.

The pedantic easily mash broad explanations. The Victorian film clip dates from 1903; QV died in 1901. Strictly speaking, not Victorian to the pedantic, a reasonable person would allow.

On the various perspectives as I see them, I generalize, yet (time machine allowing), a modern biologist could update CD about his own subject.... So a difference understandind exsists, one from another.

The difference between what is understood today and past knowledge. Oh, my two varied perspectives right there.

The path of learning. Infant to adulthood. In old English, primary school, secondary school, college, university, and so on.

Generally, CD theory is taught in secondary school as an introduction to the subject. (blend) college, the in-depth finer points are taught in university.

Method: overlay one observed principle, 'path of learning knowledge' over the various perspectives.

Secondary school to university standard explained...... Do you see it?

Paul.
pfrankinstein

Name: paul.

Country: UK
Look after your broom.', past Down through generations.'
https://youtu.be/LAh8HryVaeY?si=2AWv_WI18ady5Pap

Paul.

All we see is duplicitous misrepresentation of rigorous human endeavours by someone suffering a terminal case of intellectual penis envy ...

Calilasseia wrote:All we see is duplicitous misrepresentation of rigorous human endeavours by someone suffering a terminal case of intellectual penis envy ...

If I had any clout, I would update Darwin's Punch magazine cartoons.

https://youtu.be/QtXby3twMmI?si=Jrhzebw7BhmGbe6K

Paul.

Calilasseia wrote:All we see is duplicitous misrepresentation of rigorous human endeavours by someone suffering a terminal case of intellectual penis envy ...

Darwin did it not me you understand. The theory of evolution has stood ; and still stands the test of time.

Typecast to explain just biology the subject, after all the theory was designed to answer a specific question, that of 'The origin of species,' The process of evolution understanding of the subject does not contain the word 'theory', ... A plus.

Paul.

The_Metatron wrote: What do you think the word “theory” means?

oohh please, let me, let me.

Theory has a range of uses.

The use can range from meaning mere idle speculation, to perhaps a hypothesis that can be tested, to a law or set of axioms that have been tested over time and have found to be reliable over a wide variety of conditions. Of course this last theory continues to be tested/checked.

Then of course there is how Paul uses the word theory (especially with respect to evolution):
A confused mish-mash of meanings, scientific concepts, semantic definitions all conflated in a lack of understanding.

romansh wrote:

The_Metatron wrote: What do you think the word “theory” means?

oohh please, let me, let me.

Theory has a range of uses.

The use can range from meaning mere idle speculation, to perhaps a hypothesis that can be tested, to a law or set of axioms that have been tested over time and have found to be reliable over a wide variety of conditions. Of course this last theory continues to be tested/checked.

Then of course there is how Paul uses the word theory (especially with respect to evolution):
A confused mish-mash of meanings, scientific concepts, semantic definitions all conflated in a lack of understanding.

I'm familiar with the word 'theory' and its usage in its various connotations... Thank you.

The point I make. Title: 'The Theory of Evolution', has mixed meaning for the less educated: ambiquity. Easily shrugged off.

OTH..The process of evolution, the mechanism of 'descent with modification by means of A type of selection, is all around you.


.....

Shall we implode , by my reckoning our understanding of the subject itself, without a doubt happens by means of the mechanism.

Paul.

The Process of evolution.... The Theory of Evolution. ... two perspectives of the same subject.

The_Metatron wrote:

pfrankinstein wrote:

Calilasseia wrote:All we see is duplicitous misrepresentation of rigorous human endeavours by someone suffering a terminal case of intellectual penis envy ...

Darwin did it not me you understand. The theory of evolution has stood ; and still stands the test of time.

Typecast to explain just biology the subject, after all the theory was designed to answer a specific question, that of 'The origin of species,' The process of evolution understanding of the subject does not contain the word 'theory', ... A plus.

Paul.

Why is that a plus? What do you think the word “theory” means?

If the theory of evolution becomes "fact" then automatically would the hypothosis of evolution also become fact.

The hypothesis of evolution, Darwin's gut instinct i reakon That spark...

Correct . What was evolution before it was biology. ( my bad english).

Evolution, according to Charls Darwin, evolution is the process of descent with modification by means of Natural Selection.

i hasten to add, other flavours of "selection are now available.

Paul.

pfrankinstein wrote:I'm familiar with the word 'theory' and its usage in its various connotations... Thank you.

I believe you. That is why I find your posts so disappointing.

pfrankinstein wrote:The point I make. Title: 'The Theory of Evolution', has mixed meaning for the less educated

Exactly right. For the more educated the Theory of Evolution has a very specific meaning.

pfrankinstein wrote:The Process of evolution.... The Theory of Evolution. ... two perspectives of the same subject.

And here case in point, you resort to:

romansh wrote:A confused mish-mash of meanings, scientific concepts, semantic definitions all conflated in a lack of understanding.

The_Metatron wrote:

pfrankinstein wrote:

Calilasseia wrote:All we see is duplicitous misrepresentation of rigorous human endeavours by someone suffering a terminal case of intellectual penis envy ...

Darwin did it not me you understand. The theory of evolution has stood ; and still stands the test of time.

Typecast to explain just biology the subject, after all the theory was designed to answer a specific question, that of 'The origin of species,' The process of evolution understanding of the subject does not contain the word 'theory', ... A plus.

Paul.

Why is that a plus? What do you think the word “theory” means?

You misunderstand me sir. Not you fault , the point I am trying to make is that 'The theory of evolution' is easily quashed by those who's mind has been turned by religion. The 'its just a theory' bring the shutters down excuse.

Because I have had difficulty in the forum proposeing 'The process of evolution', I reason that it is a subject in its own right.

Leys face it. A child can invisage, imagine, see with the minds eye 'descent with modification by means of primal selection' in a protoplanetary disc for example.

Paul.

romansh wrote:

pfrankinstein wrote:I'm familiar with the word 'theory' and its usage in its various connotations... Thank you.

I believe you. That is why I find your posts so disappointing.

pfrankinstein wrote:The point I make. Title: 'The Theory of Evolution', has mixed meaning for the less educated

Exactly right. For the more educated the Theory of Evolution has a very specific meaning.

pfrankinstein wrote:The Process of evolution.... The Theory of Evolution. ... two perspectives of the same subject.

And here case in point, you resort to:

romansh wrote:A confused mish-mash of meanings, scientific concepts, semantic definitions all conflated in a lack of understanding.

Funny thing Is, I have ran my museing past AI (with my imagination ). The puddle woke up, AI asked questions about its origin.

Suppose my explanation to AI was in the form of a brief. How would you start yours sir?

Paul.

"Dear AI. Are you the modern-day technological equivalent of the Oracle of Delphi?"

What isn't a process? The name of a process, for one. All together, now...

THWOTH wrote:"Dear AI. Are you the modern-day technological equivalent of the Oracle of Delphi?"

I'm really just an ordinary man who asks himself searching questions about his reality.

So i grammer check (use AI) for written presentation only, lazy spelling correction and punctuation no more than that.

Am I a sootthsayer, something special, so i tell myself no. I reason everybody has the ability to step back from; and take stock.

The method: To place phenominon into context. To place phenominon into context by its own measure.

How was the "subject" understood in the past, how is the subject understood today, how will the subject be understood in the future?

If anyone is claiming to have all the subject in its entirety. Be a fool. I'm looking forward to the many Bbs many process.

Darwin past. AI future. Top to bottom. And all opinions inbetween.

Any mention of the primary colours in scripture?

Paul.

Cito di Pense wrote:What isn't a process? The name of a process, for one. All together, now...

Zacktly what isn't a process. Adds weight to argument that everything by 'The mechnsm'.

Everything evolves by the selecting agents described. Primal natural human artificial. ....

Paul.