pfrankinstein wrote:

romansh wrote:

pfrankinstein wrote:
The universe continued to expand and cool. At 10 –35 seconds after the big bang, the electromagnetic and weak forces were equal in strength, gravity and the strong force were weaker. As time continued, the universe is expanded enough for quarks and anitquarks to bond, which means that protons and neutrons are forming.

Interesting ... but it is not evolution, at least not in the Darwinian sense.


edit
https://www.chem.uwec.edu/chem115_f01/b ... oject.html

Correct me if i am wrong sir. When you state "not in the Darwinian sense" what you actually mean is not in the " biology sense".

You're wrong as usual. It's not in the selection sense, which is, after all, what the Darwinian sense turns out to be. You have to explain how "cooling" selects. Cooling is just cooling, and is able to happen spontaneously. Does cooling water select ice? No, ice is the inevitable result of cooling, just as protons are the inevitable result of cooling. Selection in the Darwinian sense is the selection of something that was not inevitable. Your entire shtick is that humans are the inevitable result of evolution, but that's just your usual quasi-theological bullshit. Every species is contingent not only on mutation and competition, but on local conditions in the environment. These are not inevitable, but contingent conditions. Your entire shtick is that physical outcomes are selected, but this is bullshit. Your shtick is bullshit that you seek to represent as studied, but it is spontaneous, and dare I say, inevitable. Years and years, now, of the same idée fixe, the same shit.

It turns out that Darwinian is the biology sense, because other processes do not select. You continue to be stuck on the idea that you've discovered some new fact about the world, but you haven't. Your main strategy seems to be to ignore as many facts about the world as you can get away with. Turns out you can't get away with it. People use selection in other senses, of course, but most of them have nothing to do with evolution. Select something else from your parade of idiocy, Paul.

pfrankinstein wrote:
Correct me if i am wrong sir. When you state "not in the Darwinian sense" what you actually mean is not in the " biology sense"

If you bothered to understand what I have replied to you, I don't mean in the biological sense but it does include biology.

You even managed to quote one of my replies ...

pfrankinstein 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.

first off. Before replication the process of Evolution must have the means to store and pass on "knowledge.

The formation of solar systems clearly shows signs of " knowledge stored and passed on.

You argue that the process is defined by having the ability to procreate, replicate. Biology. A complex system only.

Exactly where did the "complex system you understand come from?

My base value of what defines the phenominon is different to yours.

....... Paul.

Cito di Pense wrote:

pfrankinstein wrote:Of prominence the laws of physics = Primal selection.

Ah, OK. The laws of physics select what they select. Easy. Department of Tautology Department. If you can't identify what is not selected by the laws of physics, then your "primal selection" as laws of physics is just pure bullshit. Try again. But do take a break. Take a few years, if you need.

I know this sir.
THis Universe is of a "type" .

No better phyasist than nature itself. The point we reverse engineer from.

That is given all the data nature gives you a result.

A naturalists perspective if you will. The repetative behavoir of the phenominon is to be celibrated. The question I ask myself is THE question of stability. Does the phenominon stay stable for long enough to be understood.

We could go subhorizen and physics , but then I do not have that type of brain.

Paul.


https://youtu.be/vx0pnqoenbQ

The result nature projects to us Everyday, Selected or no.?

Always Within certain peramiters or zone.

Variation in the frequency of expression always a consideration. My reality is within a zone.

So obtuse my reality deemed to be psudoscience.

Rat skep....


Paul.

The common start point. Ancestor theory mankind's artiacts.

If everything "evolves " then there will be common start points.

Ultimately human selection is responsible for mankind's artifacts but within the ultimate there are punctuated paragraphs in the easily noted form of common start points.

An exaple of this is the common start for the Evolution of electronics and the "just now Artificial intelligence?

Absolutly The spark of Electricity.

Paul.



Paul

pfrankinstein wrote:

Cito di Pense wrote:

pfrankinstein wrote:Of prominence the laws of physics = Primal selection.

Ah, OK. The laws of physics select what they select. Easy. Department of Tautology Department. If you can't identify what is not selected by the laws of physics, then your "primal selection" as laws of physics is just pure bullshit. Try again. But do take a break. Take a few years, if you need.

I know this sir.

Nonsense. You declare and assert stuff, and then you act as if it's independently verified.

pfrankinstein wrote:
THis Universe is of a "type" .

See what I mean?

pfrankinstein wrote:
No better phyasist than nature itself. The point we reverse engineer from.

And you really can't help it can you?

pfrankinstein wrote:
That is given all the data nature gives you a result.

And by what method does one amass this 'data' and process this 'result'. Clue: not by assertion, but by difficult and diligent work.

pfrankinstein wrote:
A naturalists perspective if you will. The repetative behavoir of the phenominon is to be celibrated. The question I ask myself is THE question of stability. Does the phenominon stay stable for long enough to be understood.

And the basis for asking this is question is your previous unsupported declarations and assertions. This is called 'confirmation bias' when people are being charitable, and 'making shit up' when they're not.

pfrankinstein wrote:
We could go subhorizen and physics , but then I do not have that type of brain.

Very quick to slight the cognitive capacities of a scientist there Paul, particularly when you don't understand them, but you're far less brave when it comes to actually engaging with ideas that challenge your unsupported stool water aren't you?

THWOTH wrote:
Nonsense. ...

With Paul here, we are dealing with a very confused semanticist.

THWOTH wrote:

pfrankinstein wrote:

Cito di Pense wrote:

pfrankinstein wrote:Of prominence the laws of physics = Primal selection.

Ah, OK. The laws of physics select what they select. Easy. Department of Tautology Department. If you can't identify what is not selected by the laws of physics, then your "primal selection" as laws of physics is just pure bullshit. Try again. But do take a break. Take a few years, if you need.

I know this sir.

Nonsense. You declare and assert stuff, and then you act as if it's independently verified.

pfrankinstein wrote:
THis Universe is of a "type" .

See what I mean?

pfrankinstein wrote:
No better phyasist than nature itself. The point we reverse engineer from.

And you really can't help it can you?

pfrankinstein wrote:
That is given all the data nature gives you a result.

And by what method does one amass this 'data' and process this 'result'. Clue: not by assertion, but by difficult and diligent work.

pfrankinstein wrote:
A naturalists perspective if you will. The repetative behavoir of the phenominon is to be celibrated. The question I ask myself is THE question of stability. Does the phenominon stay stable for long enough to be understood.

And the basis for asking this is question is your previous unsupported declarations and assertions. This is called 'confirmation bias' when people are being charitable, and 'making shit up' when they're not.

pfrankinstein wrote:
We could go subhorizen and physics , but then I do not have that type of brain.

Very quick to slight the cognitive capacities of a scientist there Paul, particularly when you don't understand them, but you're far less brave when it comes to actually engaging with ideas that challenge your unsupported stool water aren't you?

Flippant Thwoth reminisant of thrower. Off hand sounding smart but not addressing any specific point.

I'm here for me. The theory remains.

The common start point of the item. ; that The phenominon we call Evolution. At inception.

The origin question on the origin thought process,

Isn't that how the whole thing got started by asking the "where from" question.

I understand that his initial gut instinct and rationalisation of the phenominon went through phases of thinking.

The initial instinctive thought process the man went through has been proven to be correct.

Natural selection as a "calculation made by nature throws the cat amount amongst the writers.

We hung on Charles Darwin's every word and did not think to update...

Paul.

pfrankinstein wrote:. The theory remains.

And what does theory tell us about whether snowflakes replicate?

pfrankinstein wrote:
Flippant Thwoth reminisant of thrower. Off hand sounding smart but not addressing any specific point.

If you made a point it would be addressed, but your philosophy has no points, and absolutely no predictive or explanatory power. It is, quite literally, pointless.

I'm afraid this is down to your failure Paul, not just your failure to explain yourself cogently, but the basic failure of your philosophy to meet even the lowest requirement for it to be the 'theory' you repetitiously assert it to be. Your methods of analysis, such that they are, rest entirely upon your personal suppositions and, for want of a better term, poetry, and you appear reluctant to even attempt to challenge them yourself, let alone falsify them. Please do not kid yourself that your failure here is down to others lacking the cognitive resources to understand you.

It seem to me that what you chiefly wish to gain from this discussion is attention - an opportunity to bolster your self-image as a person with access to a self-declared, self-authorised, yet unacknowledged truth. But it is not your philosophy which is at the centre of this discussion Paul, it's just your desire to be noticed.

THWOTH wrote:

pfrankinstein wrote:
Flippant Thwoth reminisant of thrower. Off hand sounding smart but not addressing any specific point.

If you made a point it would be addressed, but your philosophy has no points, and absolutely no predictive or explanatory power. It is, quite literally, pointless.

I'm afraid this is down to your failure Paul, not just your failure to explain yourself cogently, but the basic failure of your philosophy to meet even the lowest requirement for it to be the 'theory' you repetitiously assert it to be. Your methods of analysis, such that they are, rest entirely upon your personal suppositions and, for want of a better term, poetry, and you appear reluctant to even attempt to challenge them yourself, let alone falsify them. Please do not kid yourself that your failure here is down to others lacking the cognitive resources to understand you.

It seem to me that what you chiefly wish to gain from this discussion is attention - an opportunity to bolster your self-image as a person with access to a self-declared, self-authorised, yet unacknowledged truth. But it is not your philosophy which is at the centre of this discussion Paul, it's just your desire to be noticed.

More thrower flavoured bilge from "froth or whatever you call yourself.

There will by no direct counter argument to my claims , especially the proposed "chart showing the movement of selection".

The charlatans who have written vast amounts of fiction about NS being a metaphor will not like the "chart because it can be observed by everyoneand shows them for who they really are. Thrower should be charged with fraud.So many under his spell.

No type of selection before NS what a croc.

Paul.

If you made a point it would be addressed, but your philosophy has no points, and absolutely no predictive or explanatory power. It is, quite literally, pointless. snip

Liar. I make the point. NS is a calculation made by nature and not a metephor.

Address the point. Make a direct counterargument. Go on then I'm waiting.

Your Full of it .

Paul.

Can we see this chart then?

pfrankinstein wrote:
Liar. I make the point. NS is a calculation made by nature and not a metephor.

Fucking crap, Paul. You merely assert that "NS is a calculation made by nature", but then, you're using "calculation" metaphorically. You didn't make a point. Not even a metaphorical one. The term "calculation" does not have even a metaphorical meaning unless you state the metaphorical inputs and outputs. You spout crap continually.

But it is not your philosophy which is at the centre of this discussion Paul, it's just your desire to be noticed. snip.

Almost as if hsis a brand new concept. In my understanding of emergence NS then HS then Artificial selection.

That is the observation. If human selection is applied as a key factor, then a chart of movement can be had.

So we ask how many chapter types of selection explain your reality.

Human selection is self evident. Your car you home.... By means of.

Is human selection an everyday " third of your reality.?

Paul.

pfrankinstein wrote:
Is human selection an everyday " third of your reality.?

It's just a one-third part of a pathetic three-line list you made up to feel creative, but no one here is buying it.

Selection inventions deal with the selection of individual elements, subsets, or sub-ranges, which have not been explicitly mentioned, within or overlapping with a known set or range.

https://www.epo.org/law-practice/legal- ... g_vi_8.htm

Have fun, Paul. Just use a search engine with search terms in combination with the word "selection". What do you think a search engine does when it selects links for you to follow? What kind of selection is it, Paul?

Cito di Pense wrote:

pfrankinstein wrote:
Is human selection an everyday " third of your reality.?

It's just a one-third part of a pathetic three-line list you made up to feel creative, but no one here is buying it.

Selection inventions deal with the selection of individual elements, subsets, or sub-ranges, which have not been explicitly mentioned, within or overlapping with a known set or range.

https://www.epo.org/law-practice/legal- ... g_vi_8.htm

Have fun, Paul. Just use a search engine with search terms in combination with the word "selection". What do you think a search engine does when it selects links for you to follow? What kind of selection is it, Paul?

Values sir. Your explanation of the data differes to mine. You hold a different set of values. Plain and simple.

Natural selection followed by Hunan selection it is the observation.

Paul.