pfrankinstein wrote:

Scar wrote:You should have a conversation with the timecube guy. If think you will understand each other very well.

Take a bath, have a soak, create an altered state of awareness for yourself and think.

Envisage a single chain of 'cause and effect' that begins with the big bang that leads directly to you.

Chiefly how many different types of environment does the chain pass through to result in you being there as a thinking man.

From the inorganic to the organic to your cognitive ability to think about the concept.

Chiefly three different domains, three types of material, three types of evolution/selection.

Paul.

Excellent. So, now what? Where do we go from here?

Jay.

Wiki Pseudoscience is a claim, belief, or practice which is presented as scientific, but which does not adhere to a valid scientific method, lacks supporting evidence or plausibility, cannot be reliably tested, or otherwise lacks scientific status.

Perhaps the moderator would like to explain/give the reasons why he decided to move the thread here.

The laws of physics show/bear out that Newtonian Primal selection is perfectly feasible, as does the basic premise.

Paul.

pfrankinstein wrote:

Wiki Pseudoscience is a claim, belief, or practice which is presented as scientific, but which does not adhere to a valid scientific method, lacks supporting evidence or plausibility, cannot be reliably tested, or otherwise lacks scientific status.

Perhaps the moderator would like to explain/give the reasons why he decided to move the thread here.

The laws of physics show/bear out that Newtonian Primal selection is perfectly feasible, as does the basic premise.

Paul.

Perhaps because in you opening post you said...

"Three chevrons = three main types of evolution operating in/on three different levels, three different environments, three different types of material.

Evolution began with the big bang.

Casually yes everything changes, formally everything *evolves because there are three types of selection"

...without explaining further the "Three chevrons" (that is not a valid gate address you need 7 chevrons) and without expanding on these three types of selection.

I have no problems that all that exists is a function of selection from the smallest to the largest scale but I see there as being as many types of selection as there are things that exist.

byofrcs wrote:I have no problems that all that exists is a function of selection from the smallest to the largest scale but I see there as being as many types of selection as there are things that exist.

So you envisage many many types of selection?

OK. Suppose you further collect together and divide those many types of selection.

'Natural selection' is a multi faceted concept yet we apply it broadly as a one.

I'm simply asserting that because there are chiefly three broad types of domain [outer space, Earth, Intellectual] and chiefly three types of material [inorganic,organic, mind] that there are chiefly three types of selection.

The way that the 'single chain of evolution' is dissected is perfectly legitimate, if one considers that it is the total difference in a phenomenon that makes it stand out.

Paul.

campermon wrote:eh?

Kind of blabby today, aren't you, campermon?

The_Metatron wrote:

campermon wrote:eh?

Kind of blabby today, aren't you, campermon?

And YOU Metatron.

Just noticed.*Moderator Metatron. Hows about moving this thread. Science!

Paul.

Machine wrapped with butter?

The Theory of Evolution only makes predictions with regard to the development of new species after life began.

However hard people try to expand its purview, in order to make it vulnerable to attack, they will not succeed.

pfrankinstein wrote:So you envisage many many types of selection?

OK. Suppose you further collect together and divide those many types of selection.

'Natural selection' is a multi faceted concept yet we apply it broadly as a one.

I'm simply asserting that because there are chiefly three broad types of domain [outer space, Earth, Intellectual] and chiefly three types of material [inorganic,organic, mind] that there are chiefly three types of selection.

The way that the 'single chain of evolution' is dissected is perfectly legitimate, if one considers that it is the total difference in a phenomenon that makes it stand out.

Paul.

Paul, you haven't even defined what you think a "domain" is, or what you mean by "types" of material. As far as I can tell, this thread is aptly located in its proper subforum.

pfrankinstein wrote:I'm simply asserting that because there are chiefly three broad types of domain [outer space, Earth, Intellectual] and chiefly three types of material [inorganic,organic, mind] that there are chiefly three types of selection.

Do Mars and Venus count as "outer space", and if so, does this not mean that Earth is being given a special status, as it belongs to a separate domain to which no other planet belongs? To put this another way, if Martians existed, can we not imagine a Martian version of you saying, "There are chiefly three broad types of domain [outer space, Mars, Intellectual]", can we not imagine a Venusian version of you saying, "There are chiefly three broad types of domain [outer space, Venus, Intellectual]", and so on?

That's a big problem for you, right there. A lot of what you say seems incoherent to me, but the small amount of coherence I've been able to extract from it seems to indicate that your theory effectively makes Earth the centre of the universe - unless you've explained this sloppily, and you just regard the surfaces of planets in general as being separate domains - in which case you need to work on it and come back.

To be fair, though, I don't want to get your hopes up. If you want this to be accepted as the next breakthrough in science, then this may not be the place to do it. Claims like this don't come to Rational Skepticism to get proved correct. This place is the sort of elephant's graveyard of bad claims. When a bad claim realizes that the end is near, wherever it is on the Internet, it finds its way here to die. You may think that it was your decision to bring your claim here, but in reality your claim knew that it needed putting out of its misery and, following some ancient instinct, made you do it.

Not sure what I've been smoking, but I think I actually understand that Paul is trying to say.

Just not sure what he wants to accomplish with it. My first thought and objection as I read the thread was that 'cosmic evolution' doesn't work the way biological evolution works, because there is no heredity present there for selection to work on.

Sure one can say there is a form of natural selection going on in the development of the cosmos, but it's a 'small pebbles are separated from the large through a sieve' kind of selection.
But as I've read on, that doesn't seem to be of any import to Paul, because he seems to agree that it's different. But then I don't see how one could erect a scientific theory of 'one bang = one process', since they are different and basically not connected except for that one thing lead to another. "One thing lead to another" I don't think counts as a scientific theory that tells us something new.

John P. M. wrote:Not sure what I've been smoking, but I think I actually understand that Paul is trying to say.

Oh, I can get some kind of idea. I'm sure numerous people here have speculated about the idea that something like evolution and natural selection could operate on a larger scale - I certainly have - and at least one other person above may have done. A lot of us aren't as close minded as many theists think. Anyone thinking about such things should realize that this is getting very speculative - and when you don't realize that you have crossed over into speculation you run into trouble. The OP seems to be trying to turn it all into some kind of theory that isn't explained coherently. There is already discussion about this kind of thing: the OP doesn't seem to add to it.

The_Metatron wrote:Paul, you haven't even defined what you think a "domain" is, or what you mean by "types" of material. As far as I can tell, this thread is aptly located in its proper subforum.

And you sir. You have not defined what you think "aptly" means or what you mean by "sub-forum".

Not impressed.

Paul.

Paul Almond

But as I've read on, that doesn't seem to be of any import to Paul, because he seems to agree that it's different. But then I don't see how one could erect a scientific theory of 'one bang = one process', since they are different and basically not connected except for that one thing lead to another. "One thing lead to another" I don't think counts as a scientific theory that tells us something new.

Suppose, just suppose that you didn't know any better for a moment, think. Then one may contend that the caterpillar was not connected/related to the butterfly. A Primordial process of evolution [inorganic] related to the Darwinian process.

Makes more sense than the Darwinian process poofing into existence from nowhere, out of the blue so to speak.

Paul.

Paul Almond wrote:That's a big problem for you, right there. A lot of what you say seems incoherent to me, but the small amount of coherence I've been able to extract from it seems to indicate that your theory effectively makes Earth the centre of the universe - unless you've explained this sloppily, and you just regard the surfaces of planets in general as being separate domains - in which case you need to work on it and come back.

My apologies i should explain. To gain a specific answer you must ask a specific question.

The question i ask = how is it i came into existence.

Yes as you rightly point out there are many types of enviroments out there, specifically outer space, the Earth and the interllectual enviroment matter for the purpose of answering my lead question.

Some ancient instinct, made you do it.

Thanks for your input. LOL

Paul.

The_Metatron wrote:Paul, you haven't even defined what you think a "domain" is, or what you mean by "types" of material. As far as I can tell, this thread is aptly located in its proper subforum.

Domain = A territory/area over which rule or control is exercised.

Type = Form or character impressed; style; semblance.

Material =The substance or matter of which anything is made or may be made.

Paul.

cursuswalker wrote:The Theory of Evolution only makes predictions with regard to the development of new species after life began.

However hard people try to expand its purview, in order to make it vulnerable to attack, they will not succeed.

I'm a great believer in the concept of context = coherence, mine is to place 'Darwinian evolution [forward slash] biological evolution into context of its own advancement by using itself as its own measure, both the process itself and our understanding of the process.

Many who understand 'evolution' probably do not realise that there has been a shift in the way we view the subject, naturalist/biologist, naked eye/ microscope hence the forward slash.

Yes. Mine is to broaden out the theory of evolution, to do so i must accept Darwins theory as plausible fact.
No. My ideas do not make 'it' [?] vulnerable to attack, in total contrast to your conjecture, a broader understanding can only serve to compliment and enhance the Theory of evolution.

Paul.

JayWilson wrote:

Excellent. So, now what? Where do we go from here?

Nowhere until the thread is moved away from pseudoscience and recategorised.

How many 'moderators' does it take to change a light bulb?

Paul.

JayWilson wrote:

Excellent. So, now what? Where do we go from here?

A thought for you Jay..."Moments of conception".

Cheifly how many different kinds of phenominon be catergorised as Moments of conception?

The big bang. [Inorganic.]

The orgasm. [organic]

The eureka moment. [mind]

Paul.

pfrankinstein wrote:Nowhere until the thread is moved away from pseudoscience and recategorised.

How many 'moderators' does it take to change a light bulb?

I don't think it's going to get moved unless and until you present something coherent and... errr... scientific. I wouldn't even call this pseudoscience, to be honest, because it's little more than gibberish.