THWOTH wrote::coffee:

Subtract "human selection" from your " reality" and tell me how it is not a key factor in your everyday life.

Human selection is a real thing the same way that NS is a real thing.

Paul.

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

Evolution is not evolution unless it holds a certain level of complexity. See where you fall down?

Paul.

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

Evolution is not evolution unless it holds a certain level of complexity. See where you fall down?

Paul.

romansh wrote:

pfrankinstein wrote:Evolution is not evolution unless it holds a certain level of complexity. See where you fall down?

I see where you fall down again. You imply simple processes are not evolution. OKaaaay? Does that not say evolution is not all one process because some things don't have a certain level of complexity?

Without predjadice to type of "enviroment" type of "material" or level of "complexity".

A consistent method...to be without any biased, after all nature dictates the nature of nature.

Man-made categories are all good and well, but as new data presents itself, it should be carefully considerd.

Rational skeptacism.

The solar system evolved by descent with modification by means of Primal Selection.

The same process through a lens under a different light, by descent with modification by means of Natural Selection... life.

SCIENCE. our understanding. By descent with modification by means of "human selection....

I hesitate to say "Intelligent selection." Psudoscience you understand.

Paul.







.....

THWOTH wrote::coffee:

I mean you can forgive a Victorian gentleman for mixing up "human selection" and "Artificial selection " but not a forward thinking, fingure on the pulse, updated intelligently.

They call it an "observation" when everybody can see it.

Clearly Charles Darwin discoverd "human selection.

Selective breeding of livestock and pets.By means of Human selection clearly , equally, so simple to understand Artificial selection is performed by Artificial intelligence.

Paul.

Who in their right mind would argue human selection is artificial selection.

Over to you thrower.

Paul.

https://youtu.be/aMZ4QL0orw0

fluttermoth wrote:

pfrankinstein wrote:A snooker player makes a 147.... Has not the slightest of physics. Not a jot. Doesn't seem right.

Paul.

I don't think it is right.

Sure, snooker players might not have a scholastic idea of physics, or be able to write out the equations, but they do understand the physics on a real world level, or they wouldn't be able to make a 147 in the first place.

What has this got to do with your hypothesis?

Real world level.

The opposite to "real world level".

Every common man "real world level.?

You mean everyone can envisage the "evolution" (see mechanism) of the protoplentary disc.

A process of primordial evolution the disc. That is "by means of descent with modification and by means of primal selection".

Thought it was just me.
Paul.

A three spoke wheel appose to the one spoke.

Three of a kind beat throwers ace hands down..

An artist with the primary colours; shades of light and dark can paint most of it....All?

If a phenominon has reached a certain level of complexity, did it always start out as being less complex.

That's not 'evolution' Paul. What is selected. ....

Shout freeze at the cosmos.
Walk around it. Understand that t looks the way it does because "nature" weighs and measures everything about the scenario and portrays a result. This type of cosmos portrays the result this way.

I'm of the opinion that physics works. The "results" of inorganic interaction in the inorganic Universe are "selected".

I call that type "primal selection".

........

Ah... So many questions for Mr Darwin.

Mr Darwin sir, it is widely accepted that the Bbang started the the Universe, can that single start point can be counted as a common ancestor of sorts?

A tree of primordial evolution and a bush better descript of the Tree of life?

Paul.











In

THWOTH wrote::coffee:

Undeniably the chronological emergence of phenominon.

NS.

HUMAN SELECTION

THEN. Artificial SELECTION.

Stand back look. ..hold it as a possiblel rational train. An updated retrospective. suppose everybody could see.

NSelection ...human selection, artificial selection. Three indicators. That order.

By virtue of three indicators showing movement " My primal selection is pradictable.

Paul.

I'm scribbling I'm sorry.

By tradition.

To smash the tradition and hopefully moreover ; wake it up.

This thread forum represents Science to me.

Tell your friends ; this crazy bloke reackons "natural, human, artificial selection "emerged in thatchronological order.

More than that.....

..........

Giraffe . Sticking your neck out to have a laugh.

Your having a giraffe.

Do we have long enough to understand everything?

Sir Martin Rees . As a species we are relatively young. "

The agility of mind. How fertile.. Adaptable. What is the tradition?

EVOLUTION = OVER TO YOU THROWER, the represented body encapsulated. An article. The origin of the article.

Your subject of expertise sirs encapsulated...

The explanation ..Runaway growth, the study of the phenominin went the way of life scienses. fit to burst.


Mmmmm.


Paul.



....

What is the tradition.

Why is the traditon The tradition.

If Charles Darwin had asked "the origin of the diffent planets in our solar system " , might he submit The mechanism of descent with modification by means of "A" type of selection.

Paul.

What is the traditon and why.

.Can that traditon be more finely tuned .

I tune my understanding with foundanational statements expressed as validated in sentances.

E.g.. What is evolution?

According to charles Darwin. .. need i ....A foundation.?

And then I reason. Priimal selection > human selection >ARTIFICIAL selection. ..The clear observation.

At inception the mechanicle thought.

Paul.

The knee-jerk answer to the question..

What is it?

It is thus based on tradition.. Your encapsulation of said article. A fault... fine tune,. By tradition.

Base srgument : your complex article as If from nowhere

. In searching for the origin of the complex article, should I be looking for a basic representation.

I Thank you Rat skep.

Paul.

Thanks for playing.

THWOTH wrote::coffee:

Can Darwin's initial instinct be of any value to modern science.

The initial instinct subseqenly proven by science. Ah.. ... of little relevence.... look how smart we are...

I beg to differ. From a different set of values . What is a value, ask Google.

What is the knee-jerk answer to the question .What is Evolution.

Can that knee jerk answer from the student be refined. Improved upon.

Paul.

The inability to accept From a different direction; a perspective from fferent values. Values because they are already established , and by being established.. We argue about the Values of this moment in time.

I'm not really at odds with popular science. I'm at odds with the way it understood.

Paul.