One bang one process.

newolder · **#1761** by **newolder** » Jan 24, 2022 6:17 pm

pfrankinstein wrote:...

Tell me again how the Darwinian process appeared as if by magic.

...

How did stars shine before there were stars?

See, anyone can ask inane questions.

You have enough information in the topic to dissuade you from entertaining such thoughts of 'magic' in future. Off you pop, now.

Spearthrower · **#1762** by **Spearthrower** » Jan 24, 2022 7:42 pm

Our pro bono is over Paul. Go gibber at someone else.

Spearthrower · **#1763** by **Spearthrower** » Jan 24, 2022 7:48 pm

newolder wrote:
How did stars shine before there were stars?

Professor of Metaphysico-theologo-cosmolonigology wrote:All things that are, always were.

Cito di Pense · **#1764** by **Cito di Pense** » Jan 25, 2022 8:32 am

Spearthrower wrote:
newolder wrote:
How did stars shine before there were stars?

Professor of Metaphysico-theologo-cosmolonigology wrote:All things that are, always were.

Well, there goes the history profession. Those who do not remember the mistakes of the past are doomed. Hell, we're all doomed. Let's get on with it.

pfrankinstein wrote:
Tell me again how the Darwinian process appeared as if by magic.

No wherefrom, no wheretoo explanation about it?

Magic is such an underachievement when you have available the words "irreducible complexity". Complexity is irreducible for anyone, such as you, who will not learn. You write the same sentences that a creationist would, and then you reject theism. Your confusion is how you get the notion other people are confused.

pfrankinstein wrote:
Tell me again how the Darwinian process appeared as if by magic.

No wherefrom, no wheretoo explanation about it?

What are you banging on about, now? I think it's time to do some processing.

pfrankinstein · **#1765** by **pfrankinstein** » Jan 26, 2022 5:32 pm

newolder wrote:
pfrankinstein wrote:...

Tell me again how the Darwinian process appeared as if by magic.

...

How did stars shine before there were stars?

See, anyone can ask inane questions.

You have enough information in the topic to dissuade you from entertaining such thoughts of 'magic' in future. Off you pop, now.

You can answer the star question with google, there is no stop start question for stars; that is the explanation/answer flows. That is the evolution and potential for stars began with the big bang.

Now you answer; the origin of the Darwinian mechanism and NS.

Did the Darwinian process itself evolve by a less complex process?

Is human selection a possible emerging advancement of NS?

If you see SCIENCE as striving to understand and manipulate nature, does it follow that intelligent SELECTION is an advancement of natural selection.

The implications of understanding that intelligent SELECTION emerged from ns.Triangulation

Like I say.

It is not EVOLUTION process that changes but the circumstances (domain material).

Paul.

hackenslash · **#1766** by **hackenslash** » Jan 26, 2022 5:47 pm

No. Selection of organisms by humans IS natural selection, not an extension of it. Humans are natural entities, and their selective effect on organisms come in the form of an environmental constraint on survivability, which is what NS is.

You have no idea of what you're on about, and no interest in having an idea of what you're on about.

You might just as well fill your posts with the onomatopoeic word for jerking off, because all any of us can glean from them is fapfapfapfapfapfapfapfapfapfapfapfapfapfapfapfapfapfap.

pfrankinstein · **#1767** by **pfrankinstein** » Jan 26, 2022 5:54 pm

Shall I reiterate.

The big bang a single beginning denotes a single process..

That process is EVOLUTION.

That process can be divided into three phases/chapters. 4 5 6 7 8

Division is perform by noting three totally different environments/domains and material.

pfrankinstein · **#1768** by **pfrankinstein** » Jan 26, 2022 6:03 pm

hackenslash wrote:No. Selection of organisms by humans IS natural selection, not an extension of it. Humans are natural entities, and their selective effect on organisms come in the form of an environmental constraint on survivability, which is what NS is.

You have no idea of what you're on about, and no interest in having an idea of what you're on about.

You might just as well fill your posts with the onomatopoeic word for jerking off, because all any of us can glean from them is fapfapfapfapfapfapfapfapfapfapfapfapfapfapfapfapfapfap.

A species in the wild may go extinct. Loss of habitat IS rescues the subject.
Under ns the species would go extinct.

The intervention of IS overruled ns. Intelligent SELECTION is Cleary different to NS.

pfrankinstein · **#1769** by **pfrankinstein** » Jan 26, 2022 6:10 pm

https://youtu.be/ub747pprmJ8

https://youtu.be/5-hae1dbQXY?list=PLzEG ... 1SCJkkPCZy

newolder · **#1770** by **newolder** » Jan 26, 2022 6:14 pm

pfrankinstein wrote:...

You can answer the star question with google, there is no stop start question for stars; that is the explanation/answer flows. That is the evolution and potential for stars began with the big bang.

There were no stars until at least 100 million years after the epoch of last scattering but that timescale will be improved upon soon after the JWST starts to report back. So, there was a start to stars after the hot dense phase.

The "potential for stars", and other complex states of matter, is closely related to other physical factors. Taking a single example: a slightly bigger cosmological constant would separate the matter so quickly that stars would not have formed and a slightly smaller cc may have resulted in a re-collapse before stars got made. Is the cc we experience a unique solution in physics, do we require some anthropic selection from a larger set, or is something other the driver? At this early stage, who knows?

Now you answer; the origin of the Darwinian mechanism and NS.

That would be the origin of self-replicating molecules subject to modification, I guess, but I'm no biologist.

Did the Darwinian process itself evolve by a less complex process?

There is a path from the quark-gluon plasma of early time to the rules of BuckarooTM. It's not a path set in stone and there are many and diverse branches. The story involves thermodynamic gradients, chaotic dynamics and many, many players and dead ends. But you've learned this already in the topic hitherto. Your question adds nothing and isn't the great simplifier you may think it is.

Is human selection a possible emerging advancement of NS?

Do you have a question?

If you see SCIENCE as striving to understand and manipulate nature, does it follow that intelligent SELECTION is an advancement of natural selection.

I doubt it but I don't really have a clue what you ask.

The implications of understanding that intelligent SELECTION emerged from ns.Triangulation

Are what? What are these "implications"? Can you list them alphabetically?

Like I say.

It is not EVOLUTION process that changes but the circumstances (domain material). ...

I have no idea what you "say" is "like". :dunno:

pfrankinstein · **#1771** by **pfrankinstein** » Jan 26, 2022 6:25 pm

newolder wrote:
pfrankinstein wrote:...

You can answer the star question with google, there is no stop start question for stars; that is the explanation/answer flows. That is the evolution and potential for stars began with the big bang.

There were no stars until at least 100 million years after the epoch of last scattering but that timescale will be improved upon soon after the JWST starts to report back. So, there was a start to stars after the hot dense phase.

The "potential for stars", and other complex states of matter, is closely related to other physical factors. Taking a single example: a slightly bigger cosmological constant would separate the matter so quickly that stars would not have formed and a slightly smaller cc may have resulted in a re-collapse before stars got made. Is the cc we experience a unique solution in physics, do we require some anthropic selection from a larger set, or is something other the driver? At this early stage, who knows?

Now you answer; the origin of the Darwinian mechanism and NS.

That would be the origin of self-replicating molecules subject to modification, I guess, but I'm no biologist.

Did the Darwinian process itself evolve by a less complex process?

There is a path from the quark-gluon plasma of early time to the rules of BuckarooTM. It's not a path set in stone and there are many and diverse branches. The story involves thermodynamic gradients, chaotic dynamics and many, many players and dead ends. But you've learned this already in the topic hitherto. Your question adds nothing and isn't the great simplifier you may think it is.

Is human selection a possible emerging advancement of NS?

Do you have a question?

If you see SCIENCE as striving to understand and manipulate nature, does it follow that intelligent SELECTION is an advancement of natural selection.

I doubt it but I don't really have a clue what you ask.

The implications of understanding that intelligent SELECTION emerged from ns.Triangulation

Are what? What are these "implications"? Can you list them alphabetically?

Like I say.

It is not EVOLUTION process that changes but the circumstances (domain material). ...

I have no idea what you "say" is "like".

You claim to understand the subject. What you thought was all of it was only part of it.

The organon fits in several natural occurring levels.

Paul.

newolder · **#1772** by **newolder** » Jan 26, 2022 6:28 pm

Good luck in your job as a writer of fortune cookie notes. :thumbup:

pfrankinstein · **#1773** by **pfrankinstein** » Jan 26, 2022 6:31 pm

If you see that ns has advanced then you might swing the pendulum back in time and ask the ancestral origin question. Triangulate.

Basic. Like the most basic premise.

Easy logic .

Go figure.

newolder · **#1774** by **newolder** » Jan 26, 2022 6:34 pm

Answer: The number I was thinking of was, Graham's

pfrankinstein · **#1775** by **pfrankinstein** » Jan 26, 2022 6:50 pm

newolder wrote:Good luck in your job as a writer of fortune cookie notes.

I often ask myself. if the man who sees chapters might by learning express himself in sentence and word.

Should I learn more so I can be automatically dismissive of the natives.

Might i stretch beyond being rational and produce smarm.

Try answering my specific questions.

Take your science hard-on away from my leg.

My colour coded three of a kind beats your ace on several levels.

hackenslash · **#1776** by **hackenslash** » Jan 26, 2022 6:52 pm

pfrankinstein wrote:Shall I reiterate.

In case this question ever comes up again, the answer is no, not least because every one of us here could recapitulate from memory after a three-day bender and still make fewer mistakes than you.

hackenslash · **#1777** by **hackenslash** » Jan 26, 2022 6:56 pm

pfrankinstein wrote:A species in the wild may go extinct. Loss of habitat IS rescues the subject.

That's still natural selection, and it's still environment doing the selecting.

Under ns the species would go extinct.

No it wouldn't, because the rescue is part of NS.

The intervention of IS overruled ns. Intelligent SELECTION is Cleary different to NS.

No, it isn't, it's a subset of it, just like sexual selection, group selection and all the other types of selection falling under the rubric of NS. Worse, for your thesis, natural selection is itself a subset of a broader process - population resampling through selection and drift.

Every bit of this is either trivial, bollocks, wrong or a combination of the three.

pfrankinstein · **#1778** by **pfrankinstein** » Jan 26, 2022 7:00 pm

hackenslash wrote:
pfrankinstein wrote:Shall I reiterate.

In case this question ever comes up again, the answer is no, not least because every one of us here could recapitulate from memory after a three-day bender and still make fewer mistakes than you.

Wherefrom whereto.

https://youtu.be/Gi6yGuvKv_E

pfrankinstein · **#1779** by **pfrankinstein** » Jan 26, 2022 7:50 pm

hackenslash wrote:
pfrankinstein wrote:A species in the wild may go extinct. Loss of habitat IS rescues the subject.

That's still natural selection, and it's still environment doing the selecting.

Under ns the species would go extinct.

No it wouldn't, because the rescue is part of NS.

The intervention of IS overruled ns. Intelligent SELECTION is Cleary different to NS.

No, it isn't, it's a subset of it, just like sexual selection, group selection and all the other types of selection falling under the rubric of NS. Worse, for your thesis, natural selection is itself a subset of a broader process - population resampling through selection and drift.
J
Every bit of this is either trivial, bollocks, wrong or a combination of the three.

And e every type of SELECTION on the Earth that has bearing and relates to the succession, demise, of a species comes under the umbrella of ns.

But your NS is reliant on the stability of PS.

hackenslash · **#1780** by **hackenslash** » Jan 26, 2022 8:31 pm

Sorry, NS is reliant on the stability of the contents of your intellectual nappies? How does that work?

You don't get to invoke what you're trying to establish as explanation for something we already have a complete explanation for. This is not even wrong.

One bang one process.

Re: One bang one process.

Re: One bang one process.

Re: One bang one process.

One meringue one whatsis

Re: One bang one process.

Re: One bang one process.

Re: One bang one process.

Re: One bang one process.

Re: One bang one process.

Re: One bang one process.

Re: One bang one process.

Re: One bang one process.

Re: One bang one process.

Re: One bang one process.

Re: One bang one process.

Re: One bang one process.

Re: One bang one process.

Re: One bang one process.

Re: One bang one process.

Re: One bang one process.

Who is online