One bang one process.

Spearthrower · **#4021** by **Spearthrower** » Jan 14, 2023 5:29 pm

Make this easy:

Provide a single instance of me saying evolution isn't a process.

I've alerted the mods to your incessant lies, so here's your opportunity to prove that you are not lying.

I've already provided a dozen instances proving you wrong, proving that I have never said evolution isn't a process, proving that you keep writing this lie then ignoring when people challenge you on it.

So over to you: provide justification for your claim about my position from this thread, or acknowledge that it's a fucking lie.

Spearthrower · **#4022** by **Spearthrower** » Jan 14, 2023 5:30 pm

http://www.rationalskepticism.org/post2 ... l#p2794574

Spearthrower wrote:
pfrankinstein wrote:You troll the thread sir. Right here right now that is what you are doing. An attempt to derail.

As usual, you run away and toss out diversions - as if anyone's deceived by your litany of bullshit.

pfrankinstein wrote:What is Evolution?

You have the answer but you can't answer, .

Again, you're just lying at me as if I don't know that I've answered your question dozens of times.

So your manufactured diversion when caught lying is just to lie some more!

http://www.rationalskepticism.org/post2 ... n#p2793243

Spearthrower wrote:
pfrankinstein wrote:What is evolution?

Feel free to read the literal litany of definitions provided to you already in this thread, and that's even before you started repetitively asking it.

Evolution is the change in the distribution of alleles in a population.

pfrankinstein · **#4023** by **pfrankinstein** » Jan 14, 2023 5:34 pm

By what mechanism change, by what mechanism the unfolding?

If it has a mechanism then it can be described as a process.

An exploded view of evolution mine. A wheel within a wheel train of thinking.

Did the 'theory of process' unfold in the mind of Charles Darwin, did his 'theory of process' change the world.

In each, unfold, change by The mechanism.

Paul.

Spearthrower · **#4024** by **Spearthrower** » Jan 14, 2023 5:37 pm

Post 541:

Darkchilde wrote:
pfrankinstein wrote:
Spearthrowers 2nd link wrote:Stellar evolution is not biological evolution, even though they rather unfairly share the same word!

The word 'evolution' has a Darwinian unambiguous meaning in science, that = descent modification selection. To describe stellar change as evolution is wrong, slovenly imo, that is unless one See's Darwin's mechanism and a process.

Paul.

Stellar evolution refers to the birth, life and death of a star. It has a definite meaning in astrophysics. A lot of astrophysics books are titled "stellar evolution".

The word evolution is not a word used exclusively in biology; evolution in general does not refer to the theory of evolution, but to anything that changes over time usually via specific processes.

The Oxford Dictionary has it as the theory of evolution as 1, and "the gradual development of something" as 2.

http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/evolution

And 542

twistor59 wrote:True, physics uses the term "evolution" to mean any shit that changes with time. So for example, Newton's laws define the time evolution of classical systems from an initial state, Schroedinger's equation describes the time evolution of a quantum state from an initial value....

Evolution in the Darwinian sense has the extra ingredient of some mechanism for introducing variability and the ingredient of natural selection.

A membership built on incessant lies and blagging.

Spearthrower · **#4025** by **Spearthrower** » Jan 14, 2023 5:41 pm

pfrankinstein wrote:By what mechanism change, by what mechanism the unfolding?

Pretending it's one class of things to describe requires buying into the vacuity of your position, which is precisely what you're attempting and failing to argue.

pfrankinstein wrote:If it has a mechanism then it can be described as a process.

That's not in your definition provided - no mention of 'mechanism' at all.

pfrankinstein wrote:An exploded view of evolution mine.

An ignorant, poorly informed, egotistical view of a topic you have no capacity to engage in.

pfrankinstein wrote: A wheel within a wheel train of thinking.

Like a hamster thinking it's getting somewhere.

pfrankinstein wrote:Did the 'theory of process' unfold in the mind of Charles Darwin, did his 'theory of process' change the world.

In each, unfold, change by The mechanism.

You keep talking about Darwin because you wish your idea had anything like the value his had. It doesn't. It's bananas or banal, depending.

And you're still here in a pseudoscience subforum of a small internet forum after having been booted from most science fora - not at all equivalent to Darwin's achievements, and only you seem perplexed by that. It's a direct result of you having no idea what you're talking about while being too arrogant to notice, and lying all the time about everything.

pfrankinstein · **#4026** by **pfrankinstein** » Jan 14, 2023 5:44 pm

thrower Evolution is the change in the distribution of alleles in a population. snip

You describe biological evolutionist. That is you answer a different question to the one asked.

What is Evolution? Is a specific question. Precision is everything. Science requires it, else a gifted writer may propose fiction.

We already have you answer.

Tedious. Savvy you sir?

Paul

pfrankinstein · **#4027** by **pfrankinstein** » Jan 14, 2023 6:10 pm

thrower Evolution is the change in the distribution of alleles in a population. snip

You describe biological evolutionist. That is you answer a different question to the one asked.

What is Evolution? Is a specific question. Precision is everything. Science requires it, else a gifted writer may propose fiction.

We already have you answer.

Tedious. Savvy you sir?

Paul

pfrankinstein · **#4028** by **pfrankinstein** » Jan 14, 2023 6:13 pm

Frequently, I tell myself that I have nothing.

Because I contend that nature was making selection before NS. sometimes wonder if Charles Darwin had charged himself with a different initial question than the one he asked.Instead of the origin of species, suppose he had asked himself a different question: "The origin of all the different planets in our solar system."

Do you think he would have proposed a mechanism and a type of selection? Only me who sees it?

Advanced theoretical evolution is not a subject. So I explain my theory to myself.

I'd be out of step with everyone else. In that regard, I'd be a misfit.

Paul.

Spearthrower · **#4029** by **Spearthrower** » Jan 14, 2023 6:18 pm

pfrankinstein wrote:

You describe biological evolutionist.

Biological evolution, yes.

pfrankinstein wrote:That is you answer a different question to the one asked.

No, I answered what Biological evolution is because this is another one of your equivocations.

There's a distinction between evolution - change over time, and Biological evolution - it's a distinction you spent half this thread trying to contend isn't a distinction at all.

Ergo, you can't now claim that I am answering a different question, else you've also acknowledged that there's a distinction.

It's the usual with you.

Regardless, I also provided links showing that a) people have told you what evolution is since this thread's inception 12 years ago and you've continually ignored it and b) you used to argue just as confidently that the change of a star over time doesn't amount to evolution.

The reason your argument keeps changing is because you don't know what you're talking about and it's all an act.

pfrankinstein wrote:What is Evolution? Is a specific question. Precision is everything.

It's been answered dozens of times in this thread, despite your tactic of repeatedly stonewalling anything that doesn't conform to your agenda.

pfrankinstein wrote:Science requires it,...

This thread has already shown how little you know about science, so no declarative statements about science from you have any value to them at all.

pfrankinstein wrote:... else a gifted writer may propose fiction.

Then you'll need to finally pull your finger out of your arse and show what this supposed fiction is, because you're all mouth and no trousers.

pfrankinstein wrote:We already have you answer.

Greatest thinker since Darwin, can't even write a sentence a 6 year old would be expected to manage.

pfrankinstein wrote:Tedious. Savvy you sir?

Yes, your posts are tediously ignorant and you are tediously arrogant.

Spearthrower · **#4030** by **Spearthrower** » Jan 14, 2023 6:19 pm

pfrankinstein wrote:Frequently, I tell myself that I have nothing.

Because I contend that nature was making selection before NS. sometimes wonder if Charles Darwin had charged himself with a different initial question than the one he asked.Instead of the origin of species, suppose he had asked himself a different question: "The origin of all the different planets in our solar system."

And straight back to the equivocation.

The origin of our solar system's planets is not analogous to evolution by natural selection.

Thus Darwin wouldn't have wondered that, because he wasn't clueless, and if he had, he'd have died unknown. In fact, the very discovery he made is precisely contrary to your contention - the way life diversifies requires an explanation that isn't necessary to describe the diversity of planets.

pfrankinstein wrote:Do you think he would have proposed a mechanism and a type of selection? Only me who sees it?

Advanced theoretical evolution is not a subject. So I explain my theory to myself.

I'd be out of step with everyone else. In that regard, I'd be a misfit.

You wouldn't be accepted for a course on elementary theoretical evolution.

Spearthrower · **#4031** by **Spearthrower** » Jan 14, 2023 6:29 pm

I tell myself that I have nothing.

Then speak up and make yourself listen, because you sure as shit aren't willing to listen to anyone else but you.

fluttermoth · **#4032** by **fluttermoth** » Jan 14, 2023 11:00 pm

Spearthrower wrote:

Yes, your posts are tediously ignorant and you are tediously arrogant.

Probably the truest sentence written on the internet today.

It's hard to believe Paul's been waffling on like this for so many years, it's rather tragic, he could have gone and got a couple of degrees in something in that time :roll:

romansh · **#4033** by **romansh** » Jan 14, 2023 11:32 pm

Spearthrower wrote:
pfrankinstein wrote:What is evolution?

Evolution is the change in the distribution of alleles in a population.

Ahh but what is the process for the change in allele distribution? Just rattling your chain.

Paul ... after all these months are we any closer to an answer to "Do snowflakes replicate?"

pfrankinstein · **#4034** by **pfrankinstein** » Jan 15, 2023 9:31 am

fluttermoth wrote:
Spearthrower wrote:

Yes, your posts are tediously ignorant and you are tediously arrogant.

Probably the truest sentence written on the internet today.

It's hard to believe Paul's been waffling on like this for so many years, it's rather tragic, he could have gone and got a couple of degrees in something in that time

The leading protagernist (writer troll) refuses to get off first base. I am forced into the loop.

In many ways, I see the writer troll as useful. Because of him, I am forced to examine the core understanding of the phenomenon (evolution).

Because of him, I am forced to repeat myself. Repatician is a Victorian method of teaching that is still used today. The x-table is still taught that way.

The writer troll has already conceded that evolution is a process; now he treads water and actively ignores.

A very sad state of affairs.

Paul.

pfrankinstein · **#4035** by **pfrankinstein** » Jan 15, 2023 10:04 am

romansh wrote:
Spearthrower wrote:
pfrankinstein wrote:What is evolution?

Evolution is the change in the distribution of alleles in a population.

Ahh but what is the process for the change in allele distribution? Just rattling your chain.

Paul ... after all these months are we any closer to an answer to "Do snowflakes replicate?"

Time travel to the past is theoretically possible.

Imagine if time travel was possible today. You and I could go back to Down House; you could pull Charles Darwin's chain about genetics, and I could ask him about my theory of process.

And if it happens to be snowing on that particular day, We'd be quids in.

To test and retest, you would have to travel more than once.

Just saying.

Paul

THWOTH · **#4036** by **THWOTH** » Jan 15, 2023 10:04 am

pfrankinstein wrote:
THWOTH wrote:I'm bored with redundant arguments from definitional literalism - it's merely hiding behind words. Can you try something else now please Paul?

Do you consider your very existence, your being here, the result of an uninterrupted chain of "cause and effect" from bang to now?

By casting a line back to the big bang, you can see that the line passes through three distinct chapters.

The chapters are defined by the majority of their forms. I take "type" into account. both types of environment and material.

By such means, the three chapters are divided. Interestingly, the chapters are totally different, so much so that some may never grasp that they are related.

I'd have it that way. Charles Darwin noticed total differences in species. Unperturbed, he made the connection—the relation—by means of a common ancestor.

With my "one bang, one process" theory, I count the big bang as a type of ultimate common ancestor.

For me, the process of evolution began when time started. It is my standard model. Other flavours are available.

Paul.

Causality is neither a novel, controversial or disputed matter. Personally assigning it the weight and import of a scientific theory or law, and then claiming on the internet that your apprehension of causality represents an entirely fresh approach to understanding the universe and everything in it, is an exercise in elevating the trivial while placing yourself (literally) at the centre of all things.

On a related note: have you ever suffered a percussive head injury?

Spearthrower · **#4037** by **Spearthrower** » Jan 15, 2023 10:05 am

pfrankinstein wrote:
fluttermoth wrote:
Spearthrower wrote:

Yes, your posts are tediously ignorant and you are tediously arrogant.

Probably the truest sentence written on the internet today.

It's hard to believe Paul's been waffling on like this for so many years, it's rather tragic, he could have gone and got a couple of degrees in something in that time

The leading protagernist (writer troll) refuses to get off first base. I am forced into the loop.

This is how you have always protected your bad ideas.

Again, everyone can return back to the first pages of this thread and see that's what you've done to everyone throughout.

You refuse to acknowledge or address any of the challenges to your contentions, yet still think you can just blag and bully them through. Reminder: no you fucking can't - your ideas are shit and the only way you continue promulgating them is a mixture of ignorance and arrogance.

pfrankinstein wrote:In many ways, I see the writer troll as useful. Because of him, I am forced to examine the core understanding of the phenomenon (evolution).

You're a bullshit artist. You provably never inspect your ideas, you provably work overtime to protect your claims from criticism, you provably are evasive, obfuscatory, and too cowardly to face up to challenges to the sack of putrescent shite that passes for your thoughts here.

pfrankinstein wrote:Because of him, I am forced to repeat myself.

Everyone can return to the first few dozen pages of this thread - before I posted in the thread - and note that Paul was repeating himself after about the 2nd post because that's the sum of his thoughts - about a dozen words.

pfrankinstein wrote: Repatician is a Victorian method of teaching that is still used today. The x-table is still taught that way.

For brain-dead rote learning.

pfrankinstein wrote:The writer troll has already conceded that evolution is a process; now he treads water and actively ignores.

I don't know what you think lying through your teeth nets you other than being seen as a fucking liar, but the moderators have been notified of your repeated lies - it's up to them to do something about your dishonesty as you clearly have no intellectual scruples.

pfrankinstein wrote:A very sad state of affairs.

More like a loose-wristed wank in public.

Spearthrower · **#4038** by **Spearthrower** » Jan 15, 2023 10:06 am

pfrankinstein wrote:
romansh wrote:
Spearthrower wrote:
pfrankinstein wrote:What is evolution?

Evolution is the change in the distribution of alleles in a population.

Ahh but what is the process for the change in allele distribution? Just rattling your chain.

Paul ... after all these months are we any closer to an answer to "Do snowflakes replicate?"

Time travel to the past is theoretically possible.

No.

pfrankinstein wrote:Imagine if time travel was possible today. You and I could go back to Down House; you could pull Charles Darwin's chain about genetics, and I could ask him about my theory of process. And if it happens to be snowing on that particular day, We'd be quids in.

To test and retest, you would have to travel more than once.

Just saying.

Paul

Just saying that you're obviously evading the direct question yet again, in what now amounts to around 50 pages of evasion.

You deserve to be kicked off this forum for incessant trolling. You're the only one who's going to be sad when that happens, so perhaps start modifying your dishonest behavior accordingly.

pfrankinstein · **#4039** by **pfrankinstein** » Jan 15, 2023 10:10 am

pfrankinstein wrote:
Repatician is a Victorian method of teaching that is still used today. The x-table is still taught that way.

thrower For brain-dead rote learning. snip.

Please do engage your brain and think before you post..

Paul.

THWOTH · **#4040** by **THWOTH** » Jan 15, 2023 10:14 am

The question is not how people are taught, but what they are taught, by whom, and why.

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.

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