pfrankinstein wrote:

Spearthrowers 2nd link wrote:Stellar evolution is not biological evolution, even though they rather unfairly share the same word!

The word 'evolution' has a Darwinian unambiguous meaning in science, that = descent modification selection. To describe stellar change as evolution is wrong, slovenly imo, that is unless one See's Darwin's mechanism and a process.

Paul.

Stellar evolution refers to the birth, life and death of a star. It has a definite meaning in astrophysics. A lot of astrophysics books are titled "stellar evolution".

The word evolution is not a word used exclusively in biology; evolution in general does not refer to the theory of evolution, but to anything that changes over time usually via specific processes.

The Oxford Dictionary has it as the theory of evolution as 1, and "the gradual development of something" as 2.

http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/evolution

Darkchilde wrote:

pfrankinstein wrote:

Spearthrowers 2nd link wrote:Stellar evolution is not biological evolution, even though they rather unfairly share the same word!

The word 'evolution' has a Darwinian unambiguous meaning in science, that = descent modification selection. To describe stellar change as evolution is wrong, slovenly imo, that is unless one See's Darwin's mechanism and a process.

Paul.

Stellar evolution refers to the birth, life and death of a star. It has a definite meaning in astrophysics. A lot of astrophysics books are titled "stellar evolution".

The word evolution is not a word used exclusively in biology; evolution in general does not refer to the theory of evolution, but to anything that changes over time usually via specific processes.

The Oxford Dictionary has it as the theory of evolution as 1, and "the gradual development of something" as 2.

http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/evolution

True, physics uses the term "evolution" to mean any shit that changes with time. So for example, Newton's laws define the time evolution of classical systems from an initial state, Schroedinger's equation describes the time evolution of a quantum state from an initial value....

Evolution in the Darwinian sense has the extra ingredient of some mechanism for introducing variability and the ingredient of natural selection.

Spearthrower wrote:Well, to be fair, the word 'evolution' existed long before Darwin came to use it.

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=evolve

Latin: "to unroll," especially of books; figuratively "to make clear, disclose; to produce, develop," from ex- "out" (see ex-) + volvere "to roll"

Interestingly Charles Darwin only used the word 'evolution' once in his book 'The origin of species', and that was near the end.
So the story goes [i can't find the link] Victorian high society enjoyed formal dinner parties, on such an occasion an invited guest skim read the last chapter so that he could partake in the discussion and not feel left out, "Oh Darwin's 'evolution', yes exclaimed the guest". The term stuck so here we are today using a one word slang term to express a very important theory.

How true the insight is i am not sure, but it seems to make sense to me.

Paul.

You can blame Herbert Spencer for that!

As far as I can recall, the reason why Darwin hardly ever used the term 'evolution' was because he was expressly not suggesting that there was 'progress', as that refers back to the scala natura, i.e. higher and lower beings. In fact, I remember reading Darwin's notes many years ago and recall him noting to himself in the margins something like 'don't use the term higher or lower when talking about organisms'. Quite distinctly, one of the main points he was making is that an amoeba is just as suitably evolved for its niche as an elephant is for its niche. All extant organisms are equally 'evolved', and if we were to put evolution as an axis on a graph, it would only infer time, not quality.

That does reflect back on some of your points incidentally. The notion of progressiveness, of moving towards something as if by intention.

hey pfrankinstein, why dont you go here http://www.originlife.org/

they are giving away millions in funding for real science research, lets see how far you get

Actually Blindfaith, in all seriousness that's a fantastic idea. I think it will really help Paul learn how to communicate his ideas better and see what kind of support is needed.

Submitters are encouraged to offer unconventional hypotheses that nonetheless can be subject to experimental validation.

*not holding breath*

All submissions will be reviewed by a panel of scientific experts. Submissions should contain a statement of work to be performed and a letter of institutional support where appropriate. Submissions that suggest a multidisciplinary approach should describe how the necessary research capabilities will be provided. Submissions that rely on extraterrestrial sources of key materials must describe in detail how those materials would have been generated. Submissions involving the supernatural or that violate physical laws will not be considered.

pfrankinstein wrote:
The word 'evolution' has a Darwinian unambiguous meaning in science, that = descent modification selection. To describe stellar change as evolution is wrong, slovenly imo, that is unless one See's Darwin's mechanism and a process.

Paul.

What utter and complete drivel!

Spearthrower wrote:You can blame Herbert Spencer for that!

As far as I can recall, the reason why Darwin hardly ever used the term 'evolution' was because he was expressly not suggesting that there was 'progress', as that refers back to the scala natura, i.e. higher and lower beings. In fact, I remember reading Darwin's notes many years ago and recall him noting to himself in the margins something like 'don't use the term higher or lower when talking about organisms'. Quite distinctly, one of the main points he was making is that an amoeba is just as suitably evolved for its niche as an elephant is for its niche. All extant organisms are equally 'evolved', and if we were to put evolution as an axis on a graph, it would only infer time, not quality.

That does reflect back on some of your points incidentally. The notion of progressiveness, of moving towards something as if by intention.

Indeed. There a couple of attributes I wouldn't mind pinching from other organisms. More efficient healing/limb regrowth for one.

Biological immortality, immunity to various diseases and conditions, ability to see U.V., magnetoreception, gills, flight, armour plating.... wouldn't the universe be a different place if evolution worked like that?

These days, I'd be happy to settle for a spine designed for walking upright...

This statement relates directly to life/species evolving:

From the furthest macroscopic perspective one can see NS as being: 1, type of environment reacting on 2, type of lifeform producing a selected result. The result relates to extinction or survival.

The above statement = the most basic explanation of NS. If you simply alter 'type of lifeform' for 'type of material', and also NS for 'Primal selection' then the first chapter of evolution, the process Primordial evolution [inorganic] becomes apparent.

..............................

I'm attempting to see evolution as a single process that begins with the bb. For there to be such an occurrence, for that to happen then evolution must be seen as being self perpetuating. Simply, in a nut shell envisage the bb as starting one process, that process creates multiple types of environments by way of planets in solar systems. =Variation in the expression of the single process.

Rushed.

Paul.




Because i tend to see everything as evolving [exploded view].

pfrankinstein wrote:... evolution must be seen as being self perpetuating.

Could you expand on this, please? Are you proposing some sort of mechanism for self perpetuation?

One question:

Can you identify the selection mechanisms?

While parsimony is a useful rule of thumb, it doesn't stand to reason that everything can be simplified down to one process. For this hypothesis to be acceptable, it will require more than just words to support it. It will require a mechanism, it will require an evidential basis, and as the suggestion is that this process started in the quark-gluon plasma after the initial expansion, it will require a logic shown through mathematical modelling.

Spearthrower wrote:While parsimony is a useful rule of thumb, it doesn't stand to reason that everything can be simplified down to one process.

There is strong circumstantial evidence that what i propose fits in with the observed with the observed evidence thus far.

1, One process, three domains, three types of selection, predominantly three broad types of Evolution.

2, The movement/evolution of selection from the non-conscious, subconscious to the conscious.

3, The fact that 'cognitive selection' emerged from 'natural selection'.

4, Chronological emergence.

5, Size of spheres/domains template the iceberg on consciousness.

6,The movement from basic to complexity of the process.

7, Rocks store knowledge, slightly more complex, DNA stores knowledge, and again, intelligence artificially stores knowledge outside of biology..

8, In the sphere of the inorganic, the cosmos, the process of Primordial evolution is at work.

Statement; *Everything that descends down through time becomes modified, the nature of that modification is always selected by the laws of physics, Primal selection.

For the statement to hold true, then 'descent with modification by means of natural selection' must have a primitive connotation also. Same words, modification in the meaning of the wordsby regression yes, but when crossed to Darwins meaning the words they still hold their new affirmative meaning.

9, The bb as the common ancestor.

..........................

We are in pseudoscience, mischief me yes.

The iceberg of consciousness, the pyramid, the all seeing eye.

Paul.

For this hypothesis to be acceptable, it will require more than just words to support it. It will require a mechanism, it will require an evidential basis, and as the suggestion is that this process started in the quark-gluon plasma after the initial expansion, it will require a logic shown through mathematical modelling.

Suppose i told you to go read a book , and then i asked you to explain briefly what happened in the first chapter, would you read all the chapter to me, or just give me the feel of the chapter broadly speaking?

Chapters of evolution thrower, for more You need to get off first base.

*The big bang a single beginning denotes a single process, that single process = evolution.

Paul.

http://youtu.be/C88yb-OVNmw

I'm attempting to see evolution as a single process that begins with the bb. For there to be such an occurrence, for that to happen then evolution must be seen as being self perpetuating.

The Primodial tree bore fruit, the Earth and a tree of life, the tree of life bore fruit, good intelligence [?]

Paul.

Déjà vu.