romansh wrote:

THWOTH wrote:Anyone for eugenics?

Is that HS or AS?

A multi diamentional animation / hologram of Pegasus, by means of AI. Artificial selection.

Winner of the "grand national ; by means of human selection.

Paul.

https://youtu.be/uuZE_IRwLNI

romansh wrote:ChatGPT in action:
Is this an accurate description for Darwinian evolution: it requires a system that 1) replicates, 2) there are small variations in the replication process, 3) The environment favours only some of the replicates?

Yes, that is a generally accurate description of the basic process of Darwinian evolution.

First, there must be a system that can replicate, such as organisms or genes. Second, there must be variation in the replication process, which can arise through errors in DNA replication, mutations, or recombination. This variation creates differences between the replicates.

Third, the environment must provide selective pressure, such that only certain variations are favored. For example, if a particular trait confers a survival advantage, individuals with that trait are more likely to survive and pass on their genes, leading to an increase in the frequency of that trait in the population over time.

These three factors - replication with variation and selective pressure from the environment - are the basic ingredients of Darwinian evolution, which can lead to the gradual accumulation of changes in populations over generations.

The process I just descibed said nothing about the system being biological.

You're absolutely right. The process I described could apply to any system that replicates and has variation subject to selective pressure from the environment, not just biological systems. In fact, the principles of Darwinian evolution have been applied to other systems, such as computer algorithms and even cultural practices. The key idea is that any system that can replicate with variation subject to selective pressure can undergo a process of evolution by natural selection. Thank you for pointing out the need for clarification.

Is snowflake formation Darwinian evolution?

No, snowflake formation is not an example of Darwinian evolution. ...

Amazing ... a coherent discussion.

Just because snowflake does not spore life does not mean it is not a process of evolution . .... Comet.?

Not to measure survival of fittest. Every snowflake has a story to tell about emerging ; if its very being ; choronolgical order came about by means of " descent with modification by means of a primitive type of selection . So yeah snowflakes evolve.

They have a story to tell, same as me and you.

Each by circumstance. A Stage, enviroment, so i reason we surf.

The repetative stability of the "sample allows us to speculate and ask questions.

Imagination allows us to ask questions of our 19th century peers.

Me Darwin sir; Naural selection a "calculation made by nature?


Paul..

romansh wrote:

pfrankinstein wrote:
Just because snowflake does not spore life does not mean it is not a process of evolution . .... Comet.

You really don't understand what this discussion is about, do you, Paul? Did you read the second comment by the chatbot in my last post?

It's all passing you by.

The process is not your fault.

Quite right


Do you be live that placing a phenominon into context of its own by its own measure count as a "organon.

I'm asking questions the so called "expert has not yet dreamed of.

So I define "Evolution more formally than the expert. A pencil sharpening exercise.

What is Evolution ?

Evolution is the "process of descent with modification by means of NS.

How many chapter types of selection explain my reality?

Paul.

romansh wrote:

romansh wrote:ChatGPT in action:
Is this an accurate description for Darwinian evolution: it requires a system that 1) replicates, 2) there are small variations in the replication process, 3) The environment favours only some of the replicates?

Yes, that is a generally accurate description of the basic process of Darwinian evolution.

First, there must be a system that can replicate, such as organisms or genes. Second, there must be variation in the replication process, which can arise through errors in DNA replication, mutations, or recombination. This variation creates differences between the replicates.

Third, the environment must provide selective pressure, such that only certain variations are favored. For example, if a particular trait confers a survival advantage, individuals with that trait are more likely to survive and pass on their genes, leading to an increase in the frequency of that trait in the population over time.

These three factors - replication with variation and selective pressure from the environment - are the basic ingredients of Darwinian evolution, which can lead to the gradual accumulation of changes in populations over generations.

The process I just descibed said nothing about the system being biological.

You're absolutely right. The process I described could apply to any system that replicates and has variation subject to selective pressure from the environment, not just biological systems. In fact, the principles of Darwinian evolution have been applied to other systems, such as computer algorithms and even cultural practices. The key idea is that any system that can replicate with variation subject to selective pressure can undergo a process of evolution by natural selection. Thank you for pointing out the need for clarification.

Is snowflake formation Darwinian evolution?

No, snowflake formation is not an example of Darwinian evolution. ...

Amazing ... a coherent discussion.

If NS is literally a " calculation made by nature"..

My chart showing the actual movement [b]progesssof "selection" a none starter. .

So who voted for that?

Did Priimal selection move to NS and them to the "mind;..... is it now that the mind, the individual becomes the selecting agent.?

My rational, pigeon holed the leading protagernised.

So I break with tradition. Psudoscience.

Yet mine makes perfect sense at a grass roots level, the laws of phyics before the laws of biology.

The chronological order In science Already observed.

I have not broken any laws. .. No big shakes nature was selecting before darwinian NS.

THATS NOT Evolution, Evolution is " this" where'd that come from I ask?

The stability had to be in place to allow NS. How did the stability emerge?

Was it by means of a type of selection?

Paul.

Are Charles Darwin's initial thoughts and rationale of any consiquence?

The initial projection confirmed by biology.

https://youtu.be/9YIBmZjONtA


Paul.












Paul.

[*]By triangulation my Primal selection.

NS, HS, artificial selection. Chronological emergence. Test. Absolutely not my imagination? You see?

SO.

Obseved . Three outed significant "types".

The only way to acknowledge and have insight is to "note the chronological emergence and test.

With the Three key factors , as shown and explained so as to be realated,

Then NS, hs, As..>>> three indicators. All asking the origin question, "Primal selection can be predicted. ...



Paul.








Three "types" .

Mr Darwin sir, did you discover "human selection first?

You do realise that human selection has application beyond the confines of biology.

Every artefact 'evolved. Intelligence. Science. A different domain, A chapter type.

Evolution on "seperate defined levels". Chapters.

Paul.

fluttermoth wrote:JFC, go and get drunk, or high, or read a book, FGS

Seriously though. Worthy of a thread on its own.

Contrary to popular belief .Did Charles Darwin discover "human selection ;and because he was a man of his time; inserted 'artificial selection' ?

The meme of "artificial selection and its understanding in Science today demolished.

By observaition Primal selection Natural selection human selection, Then intelligence ☆ Artificial selection.

You do not need to read any fancy book, with convoluted excuses, easy to understand that "artificial intelligence makes 'artificial selection.

If science was a game of say what you see I'd be winning.


Paul.

You see what I did?

If my initial statement " the big bang a single beginning denotes a single process" holds aa a firm foundation , a possible truth.

With your imagination you cast a line back >>> all the way back to the beniging of time.

How might that "single line be perceived and divided.

I'm a great believer in "context" = coherence.

A part of me searches for "diference" what is it that stands out. None greater than domain and type of material.

Paul.



The near to look see

THWOTH wrote:Meh. At this point saying the same thing over and over again in the hope of eliciting a different response is a redundant exercise in self-authentication. You really don't need to validate your philosophy with the agreement of others - and yet you try, try again, and again, and forlornly again. How's that working out for you Paul?

THWOTH

A different response " My chart outlines the actual observation " sir.

A direct counter argument none.

How about the big bang started umpteen processes, I'd still get marks for mine being the "most basic premise.

Paul.

How long after the "BB did the universe behave as one.?

Is it inappropriate from a Darwinian perspective to envisage " the Tree trunk and the branching form.?

Paul.