pfrankinstein wrote:

Macroinvertebrate wrote:Except that you have whined multiple times about this thread not being in the science section, so you are obviously not content. There's a reason this thread will never be moved to the science section...IT'S NOT SCIENCE.

The chronological emergence of Natural selection and its apparent advance is not SCIENCE.

You do not have a clue.

Paul

Says the internet armchair quarterback who obviously has no fucking clue of what science is or how it works. Riiiiight......

Macroinvertebrate wrote:

pfrankinstein wrote:

Macroinvertebrate wrote:Except that you have whined multiple times about this thread not being in the science section, so you are obviously not content. There's a reason this thread will never be moved to the science section...IT'S NOT SCIENCE.

The chronological emergence of Natural selection and its apparent advance is not SCIENCE.

You do not have a clue.

Paul

Says the internet armchair quarterback who obviously has no fucking clue of what science is or how it works. Riiiiight......

One bang one process = Organon. You know what an organon = don't ya?

Here:

• ORGANON (noun)
A system of principles for philosophic or scientific investigations; an instrument for acquiring knowledge.

http://youtu.be/aRf6PILz0u8

Paul.

The supposition is testable.

Chiefly 'three' types of selection [Primal selection,[the laws of physics], Darwins natural selection and cognitive selection] explain our observed view of the universe. Take outside and test.

Paul.

John P. M. wrote:

pfrankinstein wrote:
As an atheist i penned the science supposition 'One bang one process', i then broadly divided the one process logically by noting total difference in both material and domain.

The Process of Primordial evolution, the process of Darwinian evolution, Cognitive evolution.

Each process related to the other. Am i describing ONE process or THREE?

Paul.

As I see it, they are only related in that one follows the other, in (our) retrospect. One thing leading to another, without a shared mechanism. And so I would say you are describing three processes, not one.

Analogies don't fully apply, but I'll attempt one anyway: Metal is formed in supernovae, and is abundant on earth. | Humans then mine, smelt and manufacture the metal into car parts. | The finished car is driven by a human.
These are processes that follow each other, but have different mechanisms. They are only related in that one follows the other - they are not part of one, continuous common process, other than perhaps in (our) retrospect.

Analogies are useful for explaining things in a 'as it is in the large as it is in the small train of thinking'.

Example: The uninitiated butterfly may [if it had the ability] contend that the 'egg' 'caterpillar' 'chrysalis' stages of its rise to becoming an adult are not related to itself such is the vastness of difference.

In that sense, with that understanding it is perfectly logical to assert 'ONE PROCESS divided by three punctuated processes' all related.

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

To template = to make loose comparison of one phenomenon to another by using a pre-existing frame.

Egg to butterfly = Bang to cognitive selection. Small large.

Paul.

Macroinvertebrate wrote:

pfrankinstein wrote:

Macroinvertebrate wrote:Except that you have whined multiple times about this thread not being in the science section, so you are obviously not content. There's a reason this thread will never be moved to the science section...IT'S NOT SCIENCE.

The chronological emergence of Natural selection and its apparent advance is not SCIENCE.

You do not have a clue.

Paul

Says the Internet armchair quarterback who obviously has no fucking clue of what science is or how it works. Riiiiight......

Understanding the subject of 'evolution' as rigorously as you obviously do; begs a question.

Darwin says "There is grandeur in this theory".

Do you believe that there will ever be a 'Grand theory of evolution' that explains/incorporates all?

SO. Science the gathering of knowledge evolves by descent with modification and by means of intelligent selection, we pass on more than just our genes.

Paul.

Consider: The Baudet de Poitou with, notably [but not otherwise] with thick, shaggy hair — symbol (therein) growth of the outer casing that is the external essence of the whole, yet, to itself, a biological suit. Portability not far removed from shagpile carpeting.

Evaluate in terms of movable instances of fibre in the utmost sense, the overall combination of fleecy jackets, identified by resemblance of the hair-like structure.

....

Abstract: tetrapodal being surface traversal unified inherent mobility device with tendency for luggage.

Carpet fibre to donkey fur, perhaps inversely self-referenced <> big-tall sideways.

Yes, inter-modal tri-polar action. It is.

Inter-subjective. Eternal cycling.

All.

JayWilson wrote:Consider: The Baudet de Poitou with, notably [but not otherwise] with thick, shaggy hair — symbol (therein) growth of the outer casing that is the external essence of the whole, yet, to itself, a biological suit. Portability not far removed from shagpile carpeting.

Evaluate in terms of movable instances of fibre in the utmost sense, the overall combination of fleecy jackets, identified by resemblance of the hair-like structure.

....

Abstract: tetrapodal being surface traversal unified inherent mobility device with tendency for luggage.

Carpet fibre to donkey fur, perhaps inversely self-referenced <> big-tall sideways.

Yes, inter-modal tri-polar action. It is.

Inter-subjective. Eternal cycling.

All.

Yes lets, why not, a simpleton can do it, seasy peasy.

Muddy the waters, play it down, belittle the large with a micro penis offering.

You just ramble a little of nothing with substance and presto there you go.

Carpets and donkeys. See how smart one can appear to look to the casual shallow observer.

Credit the thinking audience with some intelligence to differentiate between wheat and chaff.

Spouting crap Jay, genius or simpleton spoiler?

Paul.

This is sounding like Time Cube.

Replication. Repeating pattern. Simulation. Three-step process.

Ergo, imitation: dissent. Larger ongoing dialogue as a whole.

Lack of substance. Mirrored form. Thereby indicator of origin.

Genesis of ideas. Superfluous shell. Supposed extraction from zero.

Infinite self-catalysing. Non-sense = sense * 1/x. Minimal photon emission boiling device.

Second type of critique. Similar minimum photon emission boiling vessel. See?

Nothing to see here.

0.

Final assessment: stage 3/3. Ouroboros satiated.

Valuable content: eiπ + 1

var supposition = "one bang \= one process"; while (!content) {repeat|rephrase}; return;

Unanswered. Selection disadvantage. Fizzle.

CMBR, rest frame analogy. Negative inflation event. "Daisy, Daisy..."

Just what do you think you're doing, Paul?

...

"My God, it's full of stars!"

[]

pfrankinstein wrote:

Macroinvertebrate wrote:

pfrankinstein wrote:

The chronological emergence of Natural selection and its apparent advance is not SCIENCE.

You do not have a clue.

Paul

Says the internet armchair quarterback who obviously has no fucking clue of what science is or how it works. Riiiiight......

One bang one process = Organon. You know what an organon = don't ya?

Here:

• ORGANON (noun)
A system of principles for philosophic or scientific investigations; an instrument for acquiring knowledge.

http://youtu.be/aRf6PILz0u8

Paul.

LSD noun \ˌel-(ˌ)es-ˈdē\

: a semisynthetic illicit organic compound C20H25N3O derived from ergot that induces extreme sensory distortions, altered perceptions of reality, and intense emotional states, that may also produce delusions or paranoia, and that may sometimes cause panic reactions in response to the effects experienced —called also lysergic acid diethylamide

Source: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/lsd

Paul.

pfrankinstein wrote:
You just ramble a little of nothing with substance and presto there you go.

How ironic. Are you capable of writing a coherent sentence? Try really hard, OK? Don't hurt yourself.

Paul.

pfrankinstein wrote:

Analogies are useful for explaining things in a 'as it is in the large as it is in the small train of thinking'.

Example: The uninitiated butterfly may [if it had the ability] contend that the 'egg' 'caterpillar' 'chrysalis' stages of its rise to becoming an adult are not related to itself such is the vastness of difference.

In that sense, with that understanding it is perfectly logical to assert 'ONE PROCESS divided by three punctuated processes' all related.

Paul.

Using your example, what you have done in this thread is comparable to you going to an entomologist and saying:

"I think the process from egg, to larvae, to pupa, to butterfly is describable as one single process. This idea is scientific".

The entomologist then says: "OK, let's hear it.".

And then you say: "What? That's all I got. I have this idea that the stages are related through one single process. Egg --> Larvae --> Pupa --> Adult. This is scientific. It is testable. Just go have a look at the butterfly in its various stages."

And the entomologist says: "Ehm, sorry - but you've told me nothing of note, and you've got no science to back up what you say, so it's not scientific. It could well be scientific, but you haven't showed me any science so far. It's not my job to fill in the gaps of your proposal with science."

.

I'm having to control myself here. I want to start posting really strange, off-topic stuff, but I got warned of possible sanctions earlier in a run-in with someone who was telling us about his scientific theory - and the idea of sanctions seems a bit scary - whatever they are. Someone told me that sanctions could involve a ban on buying dairy products.

John P. M. wrote:

Using your example, what you have done in this thread is comparable to you going to an entomologist and saying:

"I think the process from egg, to larvae, to pupa, to butterfly is describable as one single process. This idea is scientific".

The entomologist then says: "OK, let's hear it.".

And then you say: "What? That's all I got. I have this idea that the stages are related through one single process. Egg --> Larvae --> Pupa --> Adult. This is scientific. It is testable. Just go have a look at the butterfly in its various stages."

And the entomologist says: "Ehm, sorry - but you've told me nothing of note, and you've got no science to back up what you say, so it's not scientific. It could well be scientific, but you haven't showed me any science so far. It's not my job to fill in the gaps of your proposal with science."

There is a bit more to the thread/supposition than that John, and you know it. Yes for the time being i generalise about 'The single process of Evolution', broad dissection, the movement of selection, patterns in nature.

Specific scenarios are required to explain the concept further. Perhaps i should recap and then move forward with a slightly more in-depth explanation of the process as i see it... Scrub that for now...

Alas 'simpleton spoilers' run amok and events over take me. How sad.

Paul.

pfrankinstein wrote:The supposition is testable.

Chiefly 'three' types of selection [Primal selection,[the laws of physics], Darwins natural selection and cognitive selection] explain our observed view of the universe. Take outside and test.

Anybody know what a "direct counter argument" is ?

Paul.

pfrankinstein wrote:Specific scenarios are required to explain the concept further. Perhaps i should recap and then move forward with a slightly more in-depth explanation of the process as i see it...

That's what we're waiting for.

pfrankinstein wrote:Scrub that for now...

Aww.

JayWilson wrote:

pfrankinstein wrote:Specific scenarios are required to explain the concept further. Perhaps i should recap and then move forward with a slightly more in-depth explanation of the process as i see it...

That's what we're waiting for.

pfrankinstein wrote:Scrub that for now...

Aww.

Read your last 5 or 6 posts here, stop being facetious.

Paul.

Even though I through this thread have often had trouble parsing your sentences and understanding you properly, what is clear is that you propose 'one process'. I could gather as much from the topic header(!).

You then describe three types of selection, and it seems that what is supposed to tie it all together into being 'one bang - one process' is those types of selection. But they are three different types of selection.

Tying it all together using semantics is one thing, tying it together by forming a scientific hypothesis describing it as one process through a specific mechanism is another.

For all I know - my intermittent trouble understanding you accounted for - you may be on to something, but as long as the 'beef' is missing from the argument, it's hard to tell.

pfrankinstein wrote:Read your last 5 or 6 posts here, stop being a dick, fuck off.

Paul.

OK, I apologise for that. I was trying to be humorous. That probably didn't come across well.

So... hey, yeah... I had a question from before I'd like you to answer, if you could.

Paul, you said:

pfrankinstein wrote:For example, Both atheists and Christians claim to know the unknown....

Then I asked:

JayWilson wrote:What would be an example of an atheist's claim of knowledge of the unknown?

Any response to that?