What is the protocol and why?

https://youtu.be/s2o4zxtqNZ4

Love's that riff sting.

Paul.

romansh wrote:

pfrankinstein wrote:Excuse me good sir. Where do I mention God.

Excuse me, good Sir, where do you mention whether you think snowflakes replicate or not?

The origin on "Natural selection.?

If "natural selection is an actual "thing". Accepted as A calculation made by nature;, result presented.

What of possible constituent parts of NS from a chapter perspective.

Primal selection one third of NS?

Why the slant of thirds. Three and four types of "selection explain my reality.

I work with the three 'types' I most easily observe. I mean I do not have to prove that 'human selection as a relevent player.

The combustion engine evolved (Check for mechanism ). By descent with modification by means of human selection.

Knowledge of the combustion engine stored and passed on by multiples of generations.

So yes. By means of Human selection the origin and explanation of the motor car.

By means of P.S., NS, human selection simply explains my reality.

The chronological emergence in each case is undeniable.

https://youtu.be/Of1cv_Fikxc

https://youtu.be/RbmS3tQJ7Os




Paul.

Saying similar sounding sentences over and over is still not a convincing argument. Who are you actually trying convince Paul? Is it yourself?

THWOTH wrote:Saying similar sounding sentences over and over is still not a convincing argument. Who are you actually trying convince Paul? Is it yourself?

Rational by "sentences"..?

A given the laws of physics emerged before the laws of biology?

Primal selection before Darwins Natural selection?

A given?

Paul.

THWOTH wrote:Saying similar sounding sentences over and over is still not a convincing argument. Who are you actually trying convince Paul? Is it yourself?

Before there was BIOLOGICAL generations. There were "no" generations (primordial evolution).inorganic evolution. (?)

At the other end of the measure you have Science evolving, .. (check for mechanism).

From "no generations to "biological generation to the multi - generational endeavour of Science.

Just say in.

Paul.

But saying similar sounding sentences over and over is still not a convincing argument Paul.

THWOTH wrote:Saying similar sounding sentences over and over is still not a convincing argument. Who are you actually trying convince Paul? Is it yourself?

A kind of locked in effort mine sir. Solitary.

If I say "one" thing that makes sense then I celibrate.

Remarkable when I think about it. The "where from" question of NS.

B4 NS was NS it was P.S..

Sooooooosh.

Paul.

THWOTH wrote:But saying similar sounding sentences over and over is still not a convincing argument Paul.

Other flavours are available. Granted. But then we move to the question of "rational perspective.

Who's perspective to trust.

Paul.

THWOTH wrote:But saying similar sounding sentences over and over is still not a convincing argument Paul.

Do I update "Charles Darwin with modern day thinking.

Paul.

THWOTH wrote:But saying similar sounding sentences over and over is still not a convincing argument Paul.

At a glance the perspective, A chapter of Evolution. A sum. Discern inorganic, organic, and envioroment.

What is a " chapter of Evolution. How was that divided.

The total difference between "type" marked each out as a chapter.

Paul.

THWOTH wrote:But saying similar sounding sentences over and over is still not a convincing argument Paul.

Did you have to learn what a "chapter of Evolution " is?

I don't know maybe my perspective is off.

A flight of fancy "one explained by one" , certainly a most basic anylasis based on presumption.

The implications of the basic assumtion rationalised " also complex'.?

Paul.



Paul.

THWOTH wrote:But saying similar sounding sentences over and over is still not a convincing argument Paul.

Do you think scientists should think "mechanism when the hear the word " Evolution.?

Paul.

THWOTH wrote:But saying similar sounding sentences over and over is still not a convincing argument Paul.

I attempt to reinvent a subject.

A reboot by a small "change/interpratation of factors leads to a different understanding.

What is Evoulution.?

citation Charles Darwin.

Paul.

You can only report on "slang use of a word when that word has a key definition from which to measure.

What is Evolution, what is it today, what will it be tomorrow. By its own measure. Not what it represents today.

Paul.

.

THWOTH wrote:But saying similar sounding sentences over and over is still not a convincing argument Paul.

By observation Science.

The three and four types of "selection i logically divide ; "explain my realty.

Everybody can observe and test my theory ; any time.

Paul.

THWOTH wrote:But saying similar sounding sentences over and over is still not a convincing argument Paul.

I confirm my perspective frequently with soundbittes . Guilty.

Banner "evolution = all that is BIOLOGY and speciation.

Banner: according to Darwin evolution is a "process".

As a matter of fact "speciation and biology confirm " the hypothosis of process.

Already a given. So... ; a theory of process
.

Paul.




Paul.

pfrankinstein wrote:
What is Evoulution.?

Evolution in the context of selection and Darwin has a very definite meaning.
citation

pfrankinstein wrote:

THWOTH wrote:But saying similar sounding sentences over and over is still not a convincing argument Paul.

By observation Science.

The three and four types of "selection i logically divide ; "explain my realty.

Everybody can observe and test my theory ; any time.

Paul.

We call this pseudoscience, and we call it that for a reason you know. You don't even realise you're obliging other people to do your homework for you - to disprove your quaint philosophy to your satisfaction. But because you will not, or more likely cannot, do your own homework all you're left with is the repetitious restating of your philosophy as fact - by saying similar sounding sentences on the internet. This does not comprise a convincing rational argument by any measure Paul.

The flaw is not that people here do not understand your sentences Paul. It's that you don't understand science, what it is, how it operates, and the epistemological burden it places on those making claims and assertions about the natural world.

So I'll suggest again (and I mean this quite gently, and charitably), that your endeavours here are not concerned with trying to convince others that your philosophy is right, true, correct, and/or factually accurate--you have failed spectacularly in that singular task--but instead, that your endeavour here is to affirm your philosophy first and foremost to yourself.

My question to you is this Paul: why do you want so very much to be right about something you have gotten so very, very wrong for so very, very long?

THWOTH wrote: We call this pseudoscience, and we call it that for a reason you know. =

I think Paul is practicing pseudo-semantics rather than pseudo-science.

I think it is fair to say the universe is evolving in the sense looking back we can see different epochs of the universe's development. Where Paul seems confused is confounding evolution in the sense of development and natural selection.

I sincerely believe Paul is one of the universe's gifted special needs people.

romansh wrote:

THWOTH wrote: We call this pseudoscience, and we call it that for a reason you know. =

I think Paul is practicing pseudo-semantics rather than pseudo-science.

I think it is fair to say the universe is evolving in the sense looking back we can see different epochs of the universe's development. Where Paul seems confused is confounding evolution in the sense of development and natural selection.

I sincerely believe Paul is one of the universe's gifted special needs people.

There's no need to rinse him on the basis of his presumed cognitive capacities romansh. Paul recognises the role and power of Science in our contemporary lives, and its ability to describe and explain the natural world and natural phenomena. His folly is in claiming that his ideas about the natural world must be, and indeed by his lights are, fundamentally scientific because they hold a certain descriptive and explanatory power for him. This is why I labelled his ideas a philosophy - and the more insistent he becomes the more that philosophy becomes an ideology.