Human-type intelligence makes artificial selection possible. not to put the cart before the horse.

So poor at reasoning, aren't you Paul?

If artificial selection is not possible except by humans, then it's only conducted by humans, then you're really admitting there's no separation between 'human selection' and 'artificial selection'.

As explained to you, the sole distinction between artificial and natural selection is 'intent' - selective breeding. That type of intent is, to our knowledge, restricted to humans. That's why the concept of 'artificial selection' continues to have some worth as a currency of discussion, but anyone familiar with the actual mechanical processes is well aware that there is no physical distinction at all.

You, of course, are not aware of this. Any of this, in fact. Near perfect ignorance apparently provides near perfect confidence.

Mine is to test the current core understanding of a subject and separate the observed fact from the fiction of tradition.

In the real world (i.e. outside the fictitious environment of your brain in which you play a leading role) we all know you've done no tests at all.

Just like you don't have any evidence.
Just like you don't have any supporting observations.
Just like you don't have a theory.
Just like you can't provide elementary answers to questions that arise from your claims.
Just like you repeatedly misuse words and expect others to also stop knowing how English works just to give you a break.

Calibrate Paul, because your conception of your ability and your inputs here are the polar opposite to the reality as exposed by this thread.

thrower So poor at reasoning, aren't you Paul?

If artificial selection is not possible except by humans, then it's only conducted by humans, then you're really admitting there's no separation between 'human selection' and 'artificial selection'. snip

Baby steps for you, thrower. the origin of, and by what means, the dry stone wall?

I am a human, not a bot. Carry that thought. the dry stone wall by human selection or artificial selection?

Your home's architect, stone mason, and bricklayer are all humans, I presume. by means of human selection.

"Castle by means of artificial selection" is a nonsensical, fictional tale.

Paul.

pfrankinstein wrote:thrower So poor at reasoning, aren't you Paul?

If artificial selection is not possible except by humans, then it's only conducted by humans, then you're really admitting there's no separation between 'human selection' and 'artificial selection'. snip

Baby steps for you, thrower.

No Paul, you don't evade addressing logical problems with your claims by being condescending.

pfrankinstein wrote:...the origin of, and by what means, the dry stone wall?

Stay focused on expressing what you mean as this conveys precisely zero information to anyone. It's that gibberish you keep reaching for whenever you can't defend your claims, which is very frequent.

pfrankinstein wrote:I am a human, not a bot. Carry that thought. the dry stone wall by human selection or artificial selection?

Your home's architect, stone mason, and bricklayer are all humans, I presume. by means of human selection.

They are not any of these things by 'human selection'.

They are these things by learning a trade, by working in a field, by a huge interplay of unrelated interactions and experiences. This isn't 'selection', Paul - if you think it is, then you're just trying to make sense of chaos through gross simplification.

pfrankinstein wrote:"Castle by means of artificial selection" is a nonsensical, fictional tale.

As we've already said many times, Paul - the word you're not using here is 'design' and design is not selection.

The problem is, yet again, that you don't really understand and refuse to learn what selection entails, thus you keep misusing the word. ATMs & rivers, Paul.

Design is not selection, in fact, it's nigh on the exact opposite of selection. Design is forward thinking - teleology... selection effects existing entities, it's a sorting of already occurred events. This is one of the many points you refuse to address because you can't.

thrower to make sense of chaos through gross simplification.snip

A scientist useing the word "evolve" "evolved" "evolution" without any inclination to mechanism or types of selection is also an example of gross simplification.

Asleep. Without insight.

Paul.

pfrankinstein wrote:

BWE wrote:Paul, do you think there is a problem with our understanding of the process of biological evolution that could be improved upon by a different understanding?

As new data presents itself it should be tested, if the new data better fits the observed evidence, then the mainframe should mutate.

Science itself evolves by the mechanism.

Good test for the forum.

Paul.

.

So, do you believe that there is new data to test? On the same topic, do you think there is data that doesn't fit the theory of biological evolution?

pfrankinstein wrote:thrower to make sense of chaos through gross simplification.snip

A scientist useing the word "evolve" "evolved" "evolution" without any inclination to mechanism or types of selection is also an example of gross simplification.

Asleep. Without insight.

Paul.

Evolution is universal though. The mechanisms are generalizable.

pfrankinstein wrote:thrower to make sense of chaos through gross simplification.snip

A scientist useing the word "evolve" "evolved" "evolution" without any inclination to mechanism or types of selection is also an example of gross simplification.

Asleep. Without insight.

As usual, empty, useless distractions instead of offering any substance.

As usual, the post you're supposedly replying to is still there for all to note that you actively ignored 95% of it, picking on a bit of text to reply to so that you can preen and pose instead of offering so much as a hint of engagement.

That's why you will remain locked inside the stupid loop. More than a decade, and when someone's this ignorant and arrogant, the sky's the limit.

Spearthrower wrote:

pfrankinstein wrote:thrower to make sense of chaos through gross simplification.snip

A scientist useing the word "evolve" "evolved" "evolution" without any inclination to mechanism or types of selection is also an example of gross simplification.

Asleep. Without insight.

As usual, empty, useless distractions instead of offering any substance.

As usual, the post you're supposedly replying to is still there for all to note that you actively ignored 95% of it, picking on a bit of text to reply to so that you can preen and pose instead of offering so much as a hint of engagement.

That's why you will remain locked inside the stupid loop. More than a decade, and when someone's this ignorant and arrogant, the sky's the limit.

Imagine that thrower: A rational chart showing the movement of selection. from bang to now.
Easily Observable, witnessed by everyone.

You need to mediate on PS NS HS AS. In that order. When you do you will need to reinvent yourself and make your excuses.

From a different direction than you are used too., makes more sense than your wibble.



Paul.

thrower
Just like you can't provide elementary answers to questions that arise from your claims. snip.

What is the Origin of biological evolution thrower.

I See your understanding as an island..untouchable. Divorced from everything else. Makes no sense.

Integrity.

BWE wrote:

pfrankinstein wrote:thrower to make sense of chaos through gross simplification.snip

A scientist useing the word "evolve" "evolved" "evolution" without any inclination to mechanism or types of selection is also an example of gross simplification.

Asleep. Without insight.

Paul.

Evolution is universal though. The mechanisms are generalizable.

Do we surf on a good wave sir?

Red blue and grey explain my reality. Good human selection , yellow a myth.

Paul.

Do snowflakes replicate?

BWE wrote:
Evolution is universal though. The mechanisms are generalizable.

You are wasting your time (as I am).

Spearthrower in spades.

romansh wrote:

BWE wrote:
Evolution is universal though. The mechanisms are generalizable.

You are wasting your time (as I am).

Spearthrower in spades.

Spades , only to be expected from a prolific bot type writer.

Exposure comes as a shock.

Paul.

pfrankinstein wrote:

romansh wrote:

BWE wrote:
Evolution is universal though. The mechanisms are generalizable.

You are wasting your time (as I am).

Spearthrower in spades.

Spades , only to be expected from a prolific bot type writer.

Well not dissimilar to you in that case.
But back on topic
Do snowflakes replicate?

pfrankinstein wrote:
Imagine that thrower: A rational chart showing the movement of selection. from bang to now.

I'll have to imagine it, as you've never managed to present one even after 15 years of blowing smoke up your own arse.

pfrankinstein wrote:Easily Observable, witnessed by everyone.

So this imagined quantity, in your imagination fiction, is also supported by imaginary observations.

Why don't you just imagine you've been given the highest accolade to humanity, and imagine yourself lauded and praised, and next time you feel like posting, just imagine that you've done.

pfrankinstein wrote:You need to mediate on PS NS HS AS. In that order. When you do you will need to reinvent yourself and make your excuses.

In your imaginary world, you are WINNER

pfrankinstein wrote:From a different direction than you are used too., makes more sense than your wibble.

My wibble being in reference to non-imaginary science, conducted by non-imaginary people, with non-imaginary observations, non-imaginary data, non-imaginary experiments, and non-imaginary clues?

Yeah, wow Paul, yeah, wow... now let's imagine I gave a fuck about your vapid posturing!

pfrankinstein wrote:thrower
Just like you can't provide elementary answers to questions that arise from your claims. snip.

What is the Origin of biological evolution thrower.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis

Notice the dozens of non-imaginary scientists conducting non-imaginary experiments to determine non-imaginary statements that can accurately describe nature?

pfrankinstein wrote:I See your understanding as an island..untouchable. Divorced from everything else. Makes no sense.

Makes no sense to you, but then you're clearly no litmus test for comprehension or intelligibility.

The limitation of your comprehension doesn't curtail the rest of humanity.

pfrankinstein wrote:Integrity.

You have none, Paul. Do you know why? Arrogance and ignorance - these are antithetical to integrity.

romansh wrote:

BWE wrote:
Evolution is universal though. The mechanisms are generalizable.

You are wasting your time (as I am).

Spearthrower in spades.

I am confused as to what you mean by referring to me here?

Are you saying he's wasting his time like I waste my time?

pfrankinstein wrote:

romansh wrote:

BWE wrote:
Evolution is universal though. The mechanisms are generalizable.

You are wasting your time (as I am).

Spearthrower in spades.

Spades , only to be expected from a prolific bot type writer.

Exposure comes as a shock.

Feel free to use the search function to note how many times people have questioned whether you're a bot.

My argument is that you're not a bot, because our technology is vastly superior in producing cogent language than your posting history here suggests you're capable of.

Bingleybongley, there's a chart, so it must be true - this is, after all, how we do science.... amirite?


As we can all see from this highly scientific chart, in the beginning primal selection was 99 while humans and, well humans, on account of them not existing, there was no human selection or artificial selection (well, there was 1 because the graph didn't like zeroes for some strange reason, eh ) but then some time later there were humans and so there was now more human selection around 99 human selection in fact, and the universe was still being selective, but humans were like super-selecty, so they got 99 selection points. But then they shimmied a bit to one side and started doing human selection artificially and then the artificial selection was 99 or even more but the graph would've got a bit weird, and still there's primal selection being primal and selective, and human selection with humans selecting (I was planning to put a bar here for every single species that has ever existed, but I couldn't quite fit them all on screen), but yeah super-selecty, and we can all see from this hard data that with artificial selection being 99 now, the directionality of the universe, the unfolding of selection, the great explanator of everything.

My chart is currently on its way to the Nobel Prize Committee - some may consider this plagiarism, but Paul clearly wasn't able to construct his own chart - I just got there first (My Darwin, to Paul's Wallace). I will mention him when I am collecting my prize money.




ETA: their/there