I put yours into perspective of its own.

What do you know of good intelligent SELECTION?

I know nowt.

Paul.

pfrankinstein wrote:What do you know of good intelligent SELECTION?

That it's unnecessary to invoke it, since intelligent anything is ALWAYS a subset of the natural.

I know nowt.

In the many tens of thousands of words you've expended on this nonsense, this is the first time we're in full agreement. This statement is functionally a tautology.

hackenslash wrote: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.

Should the Darwinian process itself evolve from a more primitive process..... yes.

Your comprehensive all understanding notion of the evolutionary process is trapped, encapsulated in the biological portion you hold so dear.

Are you telling me that Darwinian evolution the process is beyond the origin question?

The Origin of the process.

Give your convoluted answer, and I will give you a naturalist summery.

pfrankinstein wrote:Should the Darwinian process itself evolve from a more primitive process..... yes.

No (with qualification, which follows).

Evolution by natural selection is indeed evolvable. It's a stochastic process manifest in a stochastic system, so of course it's evolvable. However, the natural selection part is emergent from a process of evolution. In other words, the precursors to biology were themselves subject to an evolutionary process, a process with several stages preceding a biotic environment. Only in the final stages would selection be a thing, because only then is survivability a thing. Until differential survival is in the picture, there's nothing to select, because what's being selected for is survival.

This does not apply outside biology and biodiversity. Evolution yes, selection no.

Your comprehensive all understanding notion of the evolutionary process is trapped, encapsulated in the biological portion you hold so dear.

Except that I don't hold the biological portion dear, because my area of interest is and has always been the bigger picture you won't look at. That's why, for example, I can talk about entropy as the driver, because I understand well, well beyond the biology.

What's hilarious about this is that, prior to reading The Blind Watchmaker and subsequently joining the Dawkins forum, I didn't know the first thing about biological evolution. I only got started on that road because the people like you who routinely bowled up to evacuate their bowels at us weren't interested then in cosmology and large-scale physics, much less quantum theory.

That's right. I understand evolution BECAUSE of people like you. I was happily reading up on all the things you need to make your thesis fly without any reference to biology for a solid twenty years before appearing on the forum on which we met.

Tell me again how I'm tied up in biology.

Are you telling me that Darwinian evolution the process is beyond the origin question?

I'm saying it's irrelevant. What origin? Have you actually identified one? I know for certain that I'm not the most literate person in cosmology contributing to this thread, and I also know for certain that none of the contributors other than yourself are remotely wedded to this notion of an origin (which we've recently identified as being entirely Aristotelian and, as a result, falsified by reality).

Just to take your formulation from the start: 'One bang'

What bang? There was no bang. While some might think that the universe had a beginning, but there's nothing but conjecture in support of that, and the physics very definitely doesn't support it. All else aside, we can't put a robust figure on the scale of the universe. We can say it was smaller and denser in the past, and that's about it. That's the sum total of what we can learn from the pejoratively-named 'big bang'.

Give your convoluted answer, and I will give you a naturalist summery.

One of us could reasonably, with a bit of squinting and some charity, be called a naturalist. Guess which you that isn't.

hackenslash wrote:

pfrankinstein wrote:What do you know of good intelligent SELECTION?

That it's unnecessary to invoke it, since intelligent anything is ALWAYS a subset of the natural.

I know nowt.

In the many tens of thousands of words you've expended on this nonsense, this is the first time we're in full agreement. This statement is functionally a tautology.

Good intelligent SELECTION is a myth agreed.

I only see only human SELECTION.

Paul

hackenslash wrote:

pfrankinstein wrote:Should the Darwinian process itself evolve from a more primitive process..... yes.

No (with qualification, which follows).

Evolution by natural selection is indeed evolvable. It's a stochastic process manifest in a stochastic system, so of course it's evolvable. However, the natural selection part is emergent from a process of evolution. In other words, the precursors to biology were themselves subject to an evolutionary process, a process with several stages preceding a biotic environment. Only in the final stages would selection be a thing, because only then is survivability a thing. Until differential survival is in the picture, there's nothing to select, because what's being selected for is survival.

This does not apply outside biology and biodiversity. Evolution yes, selection no.

Your comprehensive all understanding notion of the evolutionary process is trapped, encapsulated in the biological portion you hold so dear.

Except that I don't hold the biological portion dear, because my area of interest is and has always been the bigger picture you won't look at. That's why, for example, I can talk about entropy as the driver, because I understand well, well beyond the biology.

What's hilarious about this is that, prior to reading The Blind Watchmaker and subsequently joining the Dawkins forum, I didn't know the first thing about biological evolution. I only got started on that road because the people like you who routinely bowled up to evacuate their bowels at us weren't interested then in cosmology and large-scale physics, much less quantum theory.

That's right. I understand evolution BECAUSE of people like you. I was happily reading up on all the things you need to make your thesis fly without any reference to biology for a solid twenty years before appearing on the forum on which we met.

Tell me again how I'm tied up in biology.

Are you telling me that Darwinian evolution the process is beyond the origin question?

I'm saying it's irrelevant. What origin? Have you actually identified one? I know for certain that I'm not the most literate person in cosmology contributing to this thread, and I also know for certain that none of the contributors other than yourself are remotely wedded to this notion of an origin (which we've recently identified as being entirely Aristotelian and, as a result, falsified by reality).

Just to take your formulation from the start: 'One bang'

What bang? There was no bang. While some might think that the universe had a beginning, but there's nothing but conjecture in support of that, and the physics very definitely doesn't support it. All else aside, we can't put a robust figure on the scale of the universe. We can say it was smaller and denser in the past, and that's about it. That's the sum total of what we can learn from the pejoratively-named 'big bang'.

Give your convoluted answer, and I will give you a naturalist summery.

One of us could reasonably, with a bit of squinting and some charity, be called a naturalist. Guess which you that isn't.

I'm seeing nature sure I am.
I know dodgy science castles built on narrow faulty restrained logic as a flimsy foundation fall.

Shall we wave our hands aimlessly. It changed it emerged it developed.

We can continue to pay lip service to the word EVOLUTION in the large without the penny dropping.

Paul.

pfrankinstein wrote:Good intelligent SELECTION is a myth agreed.

I only see only human SELECTION.

Which fucks your thesis, attendant cheese-covered sticks very much in evidence.

Newsflash: humans weren't around for the 'origins' portion of your guff.

I envisage big bang.

But then that's my personal preference, perhaps you subscribe to fad notions of the day simply because it tickles your ego, belittling that that was big. Your opinion is a nonsense.

Paul.

hackenslash wrote:

pfrankinstein wrote:Good intelligent SELECTION is a myth agreed.

I only see only human SELECTION.

Which fucks your thesis, attendant cheese-covered sticks very much in evidence.

Newsflash: humans weren't around for the 'origins' portion of your guff.

Go triangulate or is that beyond your expertise?

Paul

pfrankinstein wrote:I'm seeing nature sure I am.

We all see nature. That doesn't make you a naturalist.

As it happens, I'm not one, so this is a bit of a derail.

I know dodgy science castles built on narrow faulty restrained logic as a flimsy foundation fall.

I'd be surprised if you didn't at least grasp this notionally. However, your castle fell at the first assault well over a decade ago. It isn't stopping you from doing your impersonation of the Black Knight holding the keep, despite the fact that your castle, its bailey and all the surrounding lands have been occupied by a hostile force known as reality, and that you haven't the supplies to withstand the seige.

Shall we wave our hands aimlessly.

No, we should get on with the business of doing science which, unfortunately, involves discarding your cortical turd as not measuring up to reality and, by virtue of its being a turd, smelling the place up with its stench.

It changed it emerged it developed.

In fact, it evolved, but there was no selection.

It's a mystery how you still don't get this. Stochastic systems evolve. Not all of them have selection as a component of their evolution.

Even the most fuckwitted creationist would have grasped this by now. You don't care whether your idea is right or wrong, it's just a means of staying relevant. You aren't, it isn't, and the scientific world has no use for it, and nor does the forum. If you showed any proclivity for learning, this forum would have been as much of a goldmine to you as it has been to me. I owe the vast majority of my scientific education to the denizens of this little corner of the web, a scientific education some would say is not to be sniffed at. It's why a tiny, unknown, niche blog about science and logic is trundling on toward half a million views in a little over five years.

We can continue to pay lip service to the word EVOLUTION in the large without the penny dropping.

We don't merely pay lip service to it, we've explained in detail and at length why what the universe does is evolve, and why selection is not a factor. Nobody here is not light-years ahead of you.

frankly, your thesis would be exactly as groundbreaking if you asserted that turds exit the rectum with the same viscosity, and exactly as correct. Turds exiting the rectum do not imply specific viscosity any more than evolution implies selection. If you understood either evolution or selection, you might stand a chance of grasping that, but not only do you understand neither, you don't want to. You choose ignorance.

pfrankinstein wrote:I envisage big bang.

No, you don't. You envisage an extremely naïve and ill-informed version of what you suppose the big bang to be. Unfortunately, those of us with some grasp of the relevant physics realise that what you envisage is inversely as closely-related to reality as a hick is to his girlfriend.

But then that's my personal preference, perhaps you subscribe to fad notions of the day simply because it tickles your ego, belittling that that was big.

The notions I subscribe to are far from fad, and furnished you with the equipment you employ to evacuate your corticointestinal tract. The notions I subscribe to are known as 'science', and are the foundation of the modern world.

Your opinion is a nonsense.

I don't do opinion (except in well-defined circumstances, and always qualified as opinion), I do what the science tells us. It tells us you're an idiot. Of course, I'm free to disagree and say otherwise, just as you're free to contradict the science that tells us you're talking bollocks with not even the slightest grasp of the subject matter, but I'm always reluctant to argue against the science.

pfrankinstein wrote:

hackenslash wrote:

pfrankinstein wrote:Good intelligent SELECTION is a myth agreed.

I only see only human SELECTION.

Which fucks your thesis, attendant cheese-covered sticks very much in evidence.

Newsflash: humans weren't around for the 'origins' portion of your guff.

Go triangulate or is that beyond your expertise?

Paul

Why, are we done wiring plugs?

pfrankinstein wrote:Shall I reiterate.

Contrary to popular expectation, Polly did not actually want a cracker, but instead desired attention and a greater sense of self worth, but Polly sadly only knew the word 'cracker'.

pfrankinstein wrote:I envisage big bang.

But then that's my personal preference, perhaps you subscribe to fad notions of the day simply because it tickles your ego, belittling that that was big.

Love the ignorant irony here.

Greg the Grouper wrote:

pfrankinstein wrote:

hackenslash wrote:

pfrankinstein wrote:Good intelligent SELECTION is a myth agreed.

I only see only human SELECTION.

Which fucks your thesis, attendant cheese-covered sticks very much in evidence.

Newsflash: humans weren't around for the 'origins' portion of your guff.

Go triangulate or is that beyond your expertise?

Paul

Why, are we done wiring plugs?

Well, there we go. There's an algorithm for wiring plugs, and an algorithm for triangulation. Is there an algorithm for PRIMAL SELECTION which incorporates the algorithm for triangulation, vis a vis PRIMAL SELECTION?

Yep, there sure is. It's called PRIMAL SELECTION. A = A. Somebody up-thread mentioned tautology.

pfrankinstein wrote:I envisage big bang.

Ah, OK. Now we need an algorithm for ENVISAGE, a sort of DIY, a how-to. The answer: It comes naturally. The algorithm itself is the algorithm.

pfrankinstein wrote:It changed it emerged it developed.

Yeah, I can see how you might have a problem with that. Whatever is, just IS. Existence exists. Selection selects. So much primal.

pfrankinstein wrote:
Are you telling me that Darwinian evolution the process is beyond the origin question?

The Origin of the process.

What about the origin of the origin? It just IS, right? Existence exists.

pfrankinstein wrote:
I'm seeing nature sure I am.

Seeing isn't enough, Paul. You have to ENVISAGE.

pfrankinstein wrote:I will give you a naturalist summery.

Wankin' in a witter wonderland. In the middle we can build a strawman.

Summery? Yes, I think I can see dunderheads building in the distance. Soon the whole mess is going to hail.

Cito di Pense wrote:
Wankin' in a witter wonderland. In the middle we can build a strawman.

This is why I keep visiting this thread.

Evolving wrote:

Cito di Pense wrote:
Wankin' in a witter wonderland. In the middle we can build a strawman.

This is why I keep visiting this thread.

Pfrank's attempts to make us see the sense of his three kinds of evolution and how they are unified by one single process is kind of entertaining, but he can spare me the summery bit. Today's tops were 37°C and 97% relative humidity. That is too much of a good thing, although I must admit this year's season is milder than previous ones. By this time last year we had four days in the 40 to 45° range. Up to now there was only one over 40 so far and that only barely so.

Let's say you default on your mortgage and your financier decides to foreclose on and evict you.

We're going to call this "one bank, one process-server". Or so I envisage.

ONE BANG, ONE PROCESS: CHANGE WE CAN BELIEVE IN!

^ A game for all to play...

Let's say your brain fade becomes terminal and you are in need of a funeral.

That's "One blank, one procession". Or so I expect.

ONE BANG, ONE PROCESS: IF THE ENVIRONMENT FITS, YOU MUST SUBMIT!

Let's say your arse hurts and you rush off to get a diagnosis.

That's "One bowel, one prolapse". Or so I expect.

ONE BANG, ONE PROCESS: THIS IS REALLY GOOD SHIT!