Spearthrower wrote:Non-random, because living organisms are competing for survival, those less competitive are eliminated and don't pass down characteristics which limited their success, while those whose genetic legacy lends survival benefit are represented statistically more frequently in successive generations. Rocks don't possess genes, Paul. None of the things you talk about possess these characteristics.

Reproductive output, because a selection process necessarily entails some benefit accrued - rocks don't accrue benefits, Paul - living organisms passing on their favoured genetic traits to future generations accrue a benefit.

Survival, which isn't just about not dying, but also about reproducing which means passing along genetic information to the next generation wherein the beneficial genetic heritage continues to confer a selective advantage. Rocks don't 'survive' or 'not survive' Paul, this would be an example of a category mistake - one of the many logical failures which both ensure your idea remains stupid, and also stops you from understanding why your idea is stupid.

Whatever else we might be able to say about Dick, this was one thing he did that has real value in my view, namely centring the notion of survival on the genes, because it focuses everything on inheritance, which removes the hostages from the equation.

hackenslash wrote:

Spearthrower wrote:Non-random, because living organisms are competing for survival, those less competitive are eliminated and don't pass down characteristics which limited their success, while those whose genetic legacy lends survival benefit are represented statistically more frequently in successive generations. Rocks don't possess genes, Paul. None of the things you talk about possess these characteristics.

Reproductive output, because a selection process necessarily entails some benefit accrued - rocks don't accrue benefits, Paul - living organisms passing on their favoured genetic traits to future generations accrue a benefit.

Survival, which isn't just about not dying, but also about reproducing which means passing along genetic information to the next generation wherein the beneficial genetic heritage continues to confer a selective advantage. Rocks don't 'survive' or 'not survive' Paul, this would be an example of a category mistake - one of the many logical failures which both ensure your idea remains stupid, and also stops you from understanding why your idea is stupid.

Whatever else we might be able to say about Dick, this was one thing he did that has real value in my view, namely centring the notion of survival on the genes, because it focuses everything on inheritance, which removes the hostages from the equation.

Paul doesn't care about the difference between an ancestor and a precursor. With Paul, all squares are rectangles, which is OK, and all rectangles are squares, despite not all being squares, which is not OK.

In Paul-world, in some dim way, the pre-biotic world bequeathed something to the future. What it is, he don't say. I mean, the past always bequeaths something to to future, namely, possibility. That works until the possibility of impossibility is realized. What is not selected? If Paul would declare the impossible as "not selected", then he'd say where he's coming from. If he says, "Everything is possible", then nothing is selected.

If it's potential in cosmology he wants, he should check out the 'Electric Universe' and the SAFIRE project.

hackenslash wrote:If it's potential in cosmology he wants, he should check out the 'Electric Universe' and the SAFIRE project.

Aaaaaahhhhhh. You know what he wants. There are plenty of jokes among deconstructionists about the words "origin" and "original" and "originate". Paul may not have mastered the merest notion of what deconstruction is good for, but by the same token, he won't have the first clue as to when it's application is useless. So amusing and sad that something that could also have been used to foster liberal and pluralistic goals is now the tool of authoritarians and nihilists. You may conclude that Paul is so stupid as to be harmless, compared (say) to arugula2, but really, they're from the same cloth.

I was just making similar points elsewhere about creationists and the various anti-science conspiracies. Paul is like a less coherent Kent Hovind, which some would see as harmless. How many antivaxxers have died because they bought into bullshit that tracks directly back to Hovind and his ilk?

And, of course, this has always been the motivation in trying to dilute it with counters. Clearly, given the disparity in mortality by demographic as the stats in the US show, there's good correlation between the prevalence of creationism and dying a preventable death.

Today I am wearing black underwear... because of the Big Bang.

While I'm wearing brown because I adore the combination of cumin and capsaicin...

hackenslash wrote:While I'm wearing brown because I adore the combination of cumin and capsaicin...

... because of the Big Bang.

Dunno, mate. My underwear is better described by Navier-Stokes than Einstein's field equations...

Mind you, it was a banging curry, a vindaloo-hot kahari.

hackenslash wrote:
Mind you, it was a banging curry, a vindaloo-hot kahari.

Well, you know what you've got to thank for the process that created vindaloo?

...

Yah... the Big Bang!


I was really hoping to eat some daal today, but Indian food is fucking expensive here, and I really should earn some money this year before eating out!

ThrowerSurvival, which isn't just about not dying, but also about reproducing which means passing along genetic information to the next generation wherein the beneficial genetic heritage continues to confer a selective advantage. Rocks don't 'survive' or 'not survive' Paul, this would be an example of a category mistake - one of the many logical failures which both ensure your idea remains stupid, and also stops you from understanding why your idea is stupid.snip

Rocks do not survive... in a complex system, when inorganic materials are drawn toward a star.
A process happens. The result of that PROCESS gives us our solar system.

Primordial evolution is is not an exact copy of the biological process, the key characteristics present themselves as I have shown again and again. How should the first most basic version of Darwinian EVOLUTION look; what might you expect?

.....

Suppose Darwin proposed 'The Origin of our various planets.'

Key question. Would Charles include the EVOLUTION mechanism in his observations?

Fact is I do not believe Darwinian evolution has no basic representation of itself on another level.

After all mans answer to the locomotion and the science answers shows clear signs of the MECHANISM.

Knowledge is stored and passed down on each and every level.

Paul.

Spearthrower wrote:

hackenslash wrote:
Mind you, it was a banging curry, a vindaloo-hot kahari.

Well, you know what you've got to thank for the process that created vindaloo?

...

Yah... the Big Bang!


I was really hoping to eat some daal today, but Indian food is fucking expensive here, and I really should earn some money this year before eating out!

I'm embarrassed for you and the way you portray yourself.

Must I Pont out to you again the subject you understand. Biological science.

Ironically the subject is EVOLUTION, not your lazy Knowledge on the subject.

You can discern between cause and effect. Cause Darwin's process, effect speciation.

Plainly you do not know what your about.

Basic prerequisite
[priːˈrɛkwɪzɪt]
NOUN
a thing that is required as a prior condition for something else to happen or exist

Primordial evolution; Darwinian evolution.

Paul.

pfrankinstein wrote:
Suppose Darwin proposed 'The Origin of our various planets.'

That's rather a nonsensical point though, Paul - had he done so, it wouldn't have included anything at all to do with the work for which he is remembered. Had he written a book on the origin of planets, it wouldn't have entailed any of the mechanisms involved in evolution by natural selection.

pfrankinstein wrote:Key question. Would Charles include the EVOLUTION mechanism in his observations?

No.

Absolutely not.

And I say this while pointing out that I have told you many times that you are equivocating, so if you attempt to do so here, I can readily point to half a dozen of my posts clearly explaining to you that the term 'evolution' just means 'change', but in Biology, the term means 'changes in the statistical frequencies of alleles over generations' and this would in and of itself put paid to any attempt to conflate the two for all the many reasons I've explained to you dozens of times.

Your refusal to accept fact does not make fact go away.

pfrankinstein wrote:Fact is I do not believe Darwinian evolution has no basic representation of itself on another level.

Case in point: this is not a fact. This is your opinion which you've attempted to make into a fact.

Of course, that it's your opinion is irrelevant to what's true - people believe in all manner of utterly stupid things for utterly stupid reasons - you, for example, believe that you're a great thinker despite not having even an elementary grasp of any of the subject matter.

pfrankinstein wrote:After all mans answer to the locomotion and the science answers shows clear signs of the MECHANISM.

A typically incoherent assertion that is also entirely irrelevant to anything.

pfrankinstein wrote:Knowledge is stored and passed down on each and every level.

No. Knowledge is not passed down in biological evolution. Knowledge is not passed down in the evolution of a solar system. You are wrong, for the reasons directed to you many times, regardless of your unwillingness or inability to address them.

So all this post amounts to is you yet again repeating the same stupid shit but apparently expecting a different outcome.

pfrankinstein wrote:

Spearthrower wrote:

hackenslash wrote:
Mind you, it was a banging curry, a vindaloo-hot kahari.

Well, you know what you've got to thank for the process that created vindaloo?

...

Yah... the Big Bang!


I was really hoping to eat some daal today, but Indian food is fucking expensive here, and I really should earn some money this year before eating out!

I'm embarrassed for you and the way you portray yourself.

Must I Pont out to you again the subject you understand. Biological science.

Ironically the subject is EVOLUTION, not your lazy Knowledge on the subject.

You can discern between cause and effect. Cause Darwin's process, effect speciation.

Plainly you do not know what your about.

That's nice for you. Of course, it means a lot to me for you to tell me how embarrassed you are for me considering what a total muppet you've made of yourself here over the course of a decade and more. It would be a damn sight more worrying if you held the converse position.

As usual Paul, I will point out that your self-aggrandizing merely reiterates that you're running entirely on hubris fumes - there's nothing whatsoever going on under the hood.

It's readily apparent to everyone reading who in this thread knows what they're talking about, and who would struggle to achieve a standard high school qualification.

What's the unit of inheritance in the evolution of a solar system, Paul?

Can't wait to watch you flail cluelessly at this, as you've done each time when pressed to provide something other than repetition of the 7 word label!

Written your thesis yet? If not, maybe just use the blank paper for something actually worthwhile, eh?

Spearthrower wrote:What's the unit of inheritance in the evolution of a solar system, Paul?

Can't wait to watch you flail cluelessly at this, as you've done each time when pressed to provide something other than repetition of the 7 word label!

Written your thesis yet? If not, maybe just use the blank paper for something actually worthwhile, eh?

Dude.

It's a process

Cause Darwin's process, effect speciation.

It doesn't really need be said any more, but of course, even this is wrong. It's not so much 'wrong' as 'not even wrong' - it's just the typical exposition of how out of your depth you are.

A process is not a thing, Paul.

What you call 'Darwin's process' is actually not very much to do with Darwin at all today. He exposed the idea of natural selection, but he wasn't aware of Mendel's work in genes, so he didn't understand how traits were passed down - incomplete. Had this never been shown to be the case, then Darwin's idea would have fallen apart - how can an organism evolve without inheritance? Setting aside Pokemon, of course, although I am sure it's more up your alley than science.

But more importantly, today we know very well that evolution doesn't only occur by natural selection: it also occurs by genetic drift - the undirected resampling of alleles statistically across a population. This in turn entails other factors of which you are also ignorant, for example, that the law of large numbers ensures that when the total number across a population of a given allele is low, that the consequent change in allelic distribution in future generations is dramatically larger than any factor of selection; in fact, allelic drift can overcome selection depending on the relationship between the selection coefficient and population size. But of course, how could anyone discuss this with you when you are incapable of even grasping what evolution entails, what selection means, or any of the other component parts of this subject? It's not that you're not a 'great thinker' - it's that whatever it is you're thinking is entirely superfluous to any form of utility of empirical truth.

But back to the point at hand, the 'process' necessitates a suite of ingredients: i.e. heritability, differential survival, and natural variation. So if you want to claim that biological evolution is simply a continuation of the same process as solar system evolution then, by now, you might have been expected to come up with the analogous components - had you done that, you would have achieved something of note, but of course, the universe doesn't work how your uninformed imagination and colossal hubris tells you it works, so your ideas is fetid bollocks easily dismissed as the undereducated witterings of someone deeply ignorant of the topic matter.

Greg the Grouper wrote:

Spearthrower wrote:What's the unit of inheritance in the evolution of a solar system, Paul?

Can't wait to watch you flail cluelessly at this, as you've done each time when pressed to provide something other than repetition of the 7 word label!

Written your thesis yet? If not, maybe just use the blank paper for something actually worthwhile, eh?

Dude.

It's a process

One process, no less.

Cito di Pense wrote:

pfrankinstein wrote:

Cito di Pense wrote:

hackenslash wrote:

If buttered crumpets are the product of molecules and heat, why hasn't anyone before me proposed that the Oort Cloud is composed entirely of buttered crumpets?

Wait! Are you saying that... something is composed of something else?

I'm asking if the Darwinian process has a primitive relative or echo in the past.

If you have to ask, you can't afford it. How are these relatives related, Paul? What's a "relationship", if you never put any work into developing it? You obviously imagine there is one, but you don't say what it is, because it exists only in your imagination.

Shall we have the prior condition "must be present; or magic from nowhere argument.

Shall I ridicule you further.

The solar system Evolves or we go on and pretend, with no insight evolved.

Just saying.

Paul.

.