One bang one process.

Evolution.

Discussions on astrology, homeopathy and superstition etc.

Moderators: Calilasseia, DarthHelmet86, Onyx8

Re: One bang one process.

#981  Postby Spearthrower » Jun 01, 2012 4:02 pm

pfrankinstein wrote:
Spearthrower wrote:
pfrankinstein wrote:
hackenslash wrote:Refuted by the rest of the sentence, genius, in which I categorically stated that he was correct, thus it wasn't an opinion.


If it was more than just an opinion, and his/your opinion is factually based, then by all means present those facts.

Will you set about telling me what 'evolution' is, or will you tell me what 'biological evolution' is?

Be totally accurate in your choice of words, best science foot forward now hack; what is 'evolution'?

Paul. :popcorn:



Evolution: a gradual change in state, often from a simple form to a more complex one.


And the mechanism for your gradual change in state?

Paul.



Eh?

Care to specify what we're talking about first? Evolution isn't a force in the universe, it's the result of other forces. If we're talking about the evolution of a star, then gravity is the initial mechanism. If we're talking about the evolution of a foetus, it's biochemistry.

Like I said: just because it shares the same word, it doesn't infer it uses the same mechanism. That's where you are going wrong.
Last edited by Spearthrower on Jun 01, 2012 4:03 pm, edited 2 times in total.
I'm not an atheist; I just don't believe in gods :- that which I don't belong to isn't a group!
Religion: Mass Stockholm Syndrome

Learn Stuff. Stuff good. https://www.coursera.org/
User avatar
Spearthrower
 
Posts: 27428
Age: 44
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: One bang one process.

#982  Postby pfrankinstein » Jun 01, 2012 4:02 pm

Spearthrower wrote:
pfrankinstein wrote:
hackenslash wrote:
pfrankinstein wrote:



1, Everything descends down through time.


Bollocks. Everything develops down through time. Descent has a precise definition, that fucks your ignorant shit.

I need go no further. But then, I didn't have to go past my first response to demonstrate the utter fucknuttery in your 'theory'.

You still have fuck all.


Oh you sound just like thrower. Knowledge for life evolving could not be passed down through generations without following the arrow of time. Factual and precise as much as you would like to ignore.

Paul.


Paul - I am going to give you one warning and one warning alone.

If you start with this personalised shit again, and tweaking people's usernames to get a reaction, I will just report you.

If you wish to hold a discussion, you can do so without trying to get an emotional reaction.

Do I make myself clear?


You keep telling me what biological evolution is. You hold it up as the be all end all measure of what counts as evolution.
That is the fundamental flaw in your argument. You can not see it that is not my problem.
The tweaking of names Dawkins On Herbert Spencer was not demeaning in any way shape or form.
Report me all you like, ignore the points i raise and i will report you for being a troll.

Are we clear.

Paul.
pfrankinstein
THREAD STARTER
 
Name: paul
Posts: 456

Country: UK
Print view this post

Re: One bang one process.

#983  Postby pfrankinstein » Jun 01, 2012 4:06 pm

Spearthrower wrote:
pfrankinstein wrote:
Spearthrower wrote:
pfrankinstein wrote:

If it was more than just an opinion, and his/your opinion is factually based, then by all means present those facts.

Will you set about telling me what 'evolution' is, or will you tell me what 'biological evolution' is?

Be totally accurate in your choice of words, best science foot forward now hack; what is 'evolution'?

Paul. :popcorn:



Evolution: a gradual change in state, often from a simple form to a more complex one.


And the mechanism for your gradual change in state?

Paul.



Eh?

Care to specify what we're talking about first? Evolution isn't a force in the universe, it's the result of other forces. If we're talking about the evolution of a star, then gravity is the initial mechanism. If we're talking about the evolution of a foetus, it's biochemistry.

Like I said: just because it shares the same word, it doesn't infer it uses the same mechanism. That's where you are going wrong.


If one/you claims that evolution is a gradual change in state then it should have a mechanism.

Paul.
pfrankinstein
THREAD STARTER
 
Name: paul
Posts: 456

Country: UK
Print view this post

Re: One bang one process.

#984  Postby Spearthrower » Jun 01, 2012 4:06 pm

pfrankinstein wrote:
Spearthrower wrote:
pfrankinstein wrote:
hackenslash wrote:

Bollocks. Everything develops down through time. Descent has a precise definition, that fucks your ignorant shit.

I need go no further. But then, I didn't have to go past my first response to demonstrate the utter fucknuttery in your 'theory'.

You still have fuck all.


Oh you sound just like thrower. Knowledge for life evolving could not be passed down through generations without following the arrow of time. Factual and precise as much as you would like to ignore.

Paul.


Paul - I am going to give you one warning and one warning alone.

If you start with this personalised shit again, and tweaking people's usernames to get a reaction, I will just report you.

If you wish to hold a discussion, you can do so without trying to get an emotional reaction.

Do I make myself clear?


You keep telling me what biological evolution is. You hold it up as the be all end all measure of what counts as evolution.
That is the fundamental flaw in your argument. You can not see it that is not my problem.
The tweaking of names Dawkins On Herbert Spencer was not demeaning in any way shape or form.
Report me all you like, ignore the points i raise and i will report you for being a troll.

Are we clear.

Paul.



No Paul - what you keep doing is using a bait and switch.

Descent with modification only works with respect to biology. So when you keep referring to it, then you are, by definition, talking about biological evolution. When you try to apply this to a star's evolution, or the universe's - you are wrong, and I have expressly pointed this out to you in detail.

I haven't ignored a single point of yours - please acknowledge this.

And also please note that whether you mean it to be demeaning or not, the FUA states what is and isn't acceptable behaviour here - not you. So, kindly take note.
I'm not an atheist; I just don't believe in gods :- that which I don't belong to isn't a group!
Religion: Mass Stockholm Syndrome

Learn Stuff. Stuff good. https://www.coursera.org/
User avatar
Spearthrower
 
Posts: 27428
Age: 44
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Re: One bang one process.

#985  Postby Spearthrower » Jun 01, 2012 4:07 pm

pfrankinstein wrote:
Spearthrower wrote:
pfrankinstein wrote:
Spearthrower wrote:


Evolution: a gradual change in state, often from a simple form to a more complex one.


And the mechanism for your gradual change in state?

Paul.



Eh?

Care to specify what we're talking about first? Evolution isn't a force in the universe, it's the result of other forces. If we're talking about the evolution of a star, then gravity is the initial mechanism. If we're talking about the evolution of a foetus, it's biochemistry.

Like I said: just because it shares the same word, it doesn't infer it uses the same mechanism. That's where you are going wrong.


If one/you claims that evolution is a gradual change in state then it should have a mechanism.

Paul.



And I just provided precisely that with respect to two distinct types of evolution.

Did you read my post?

It already addresses your response quite clearly.
I'm not an atheist; I just don't believe in gods :- that which I don't belong to isn't a group!
Religion: Mass Stockholm Syndrome

Learn Stuff. Stuff good. https://www.coursera.org/
User avatar
Spearthrower
 
Posts: 27428
Age: 44
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Re: One bang one process.

#986  Postby pfrankinstein » Jun 01, 2012 4:25 pm

Spearthrower wrote:
pfrankinstein wrote:
Spearthrower wrote:
pfrankinstein wrote:
Science the gathering of knowledge, our understanding of the universe evolves by process of 'descent with modification and by means of human cognitive selection'. Knowledge 'evolves,' the mechanism is factually based and represents a new chapter of evolution.


Unfortunately, this is flat out wrong.

As a very instructive example - look at your propeller and jet engines. There's no 'descent with modification' there - the entire point of human knowledge and cognitive approach to problems is that one can scrap previous designs and build from scratch.


Now your talking bollocks. Totally scrap one design and start again from scratch. :lol:

Paul.



spearthrower wrote:Why are you laughing Paul?

Can you point to the parts of a jet engine that are just modified parts of a propeller engine?


Whilst the jet engine represented in its day as new kind of propulsion system, it uses technology that has been passed down from past generations, cable, nuts and bolts metal forging.



Paul.
pfrankinstein
THREAD STARTER
 
Name: paul
Posts: 456

Country: UK
Print view this post

Re: One bang one process.

#987  Postby ElDiablo » Jun 01, 2012 4:37 pm

Wow pfrankinstein.
Why not simply use the word change as an umbrella catchword to establish what ever point you are trying to make.
The more general the term, the grander the hypothesis you can develop. It seems to work well on those segments of the population that are attracted to pseudoscience.
God is silly putty.
User avatar
ElDiablo
 
Posts: 3124

Country: USA
United States (us)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: One bang one process.

#988  Postby Spearthrower » Jun 01, 2012 4:43 pm

pfrankinstein wrote:
spearthrower wrote:Why are you laughing Paul?

Can you point to the parts of a jet engine that are just modified parts of a propeller engine?


Whilst the jet engine represented in its day as new kind of propulsion system, it uses technology that has been passed down from past generations, cable, nuts and bolts metal forging.



Paul.



Oh absolutely - but those components aren't actually involved with the jet propulsion as opposed to the propeller propulsion. Otherwise, my cupboard is a descendant of the propeller engine as it also has nuts and bolts and employs metal forging.

To put it another way: by your argument, the propeller engine was latent in the first act of smelting ore. Clearly, that holds no water.
Last edited by Spearthrower on Jun 01, 2012 4:50 pm, edited 1 time in total.
I'm not an atheist; I just don't believe in gods :- that which I don't belong to isn't a group!
Religion: Mass Stockholm Syndrome

Learn Stuff. Stuff good. https://www.coursera.org/
User avatar
Spearthrower
 
Posts: 27428
Age: 44
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Re: One bang one process.

#989  Postby Spearthrower » Jun 01, 2012 4:46 pm

ElDiablo wrote:Wow pfrankinstein.
Why not simply use the word change as an umbrella catchword to establish what ever point you are trying to make.
The more general the term, the grander the hypothesis you can develop. It seems to work well on those segments of the population that are attracted to pseudoscience.


Yep - change over time. This is something that all uses of the word 'evolution' entail. However Paul doesn't seem to understand that if I start talking about genes while discussing evolution, we all know I am talking about biology. Likewise, when Paul uses the term 'descent with modification' he's taking a quality of biological evolution and misapplying it to other types of change over time where that process doesn't operate.

It's functionally equivalent to be using the metaphor of nucleosynthesis to discuss Biology - it just doesn't work.
I'm not an atheist; I just don't believe in gods :- that which I don't belong to isn't a group!
Religion: Mass Stockholm Syndrome

Learn Stuff. Stuff good. https://www.coursera.org/
User avatar
Spearthrower
 
Posts: 27428
Age: 44
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Re: One bang one process.

#990  Postby pfrankinstein » Jun 01, 2012 4:56 pm

Spearthrower wrote:No Paul - what you keep doing is using a bait and switch.

Descent with modification only works with respect to biology.


No it most certainly does not. Could descent down through generations work without following the arrow of time. No.

We inherit knowledge from past generations, that knowledge is sometimes modified, if a new explanation better explains the old idea then it is adopted and accepted into the mainframe of thinking. It is a fact that we pass on more than just our genes.

No genes no genetics, it is a clear example of evolution on another level.

Mark it. Descent is there, modification is there, a different form of selection, cognitive selection is there.

Paul.

spearthrower wrote:And also please note that whether you mean it to be demeaning or not, the FUA states what is and isn't acceptable behaviour here - not you. So, kindly take note.


You worry about your own conduct. You Take note.
pfrankinstein
THREAD STARTER
 
Name: paul
Posts: 456

Country: UK
Print view this post

Re: One bang one process.

#991  Postby Spearthrower » Jun 01, 2012 5:15 pm

pfrankinstein wrote:
Spearthrower wrote:No Paul - what you keep doing is using a bait and switch.

Descent with modification only works with respect to biology.


No it most certainly does not.


Yes it most certainly does.


pfrankinstein wrote: Could descent down through generations work without following the arrow of time. No.


No one has suggested that change over time cannot happen without time.

What has been suggested, quite clearly and comprehensively, is that the things you are pointing to are not 'descent', and that there's no selection mechanism.


pfrankinstein wrote:We inherit knowledge from past generations, that knowledge is sometimes modified, if a new explanation better explains the old idea then it is adopted and accepted into the mainframe of thinking. It is a fact that we pass on more than just our genes.


Absolutely - superficially, I can understand how you could make a poetic connection between this process and biological evolution, or stellar evolution, but the processes are different in each case.



pfrankinstein wrote:No genes no genetics, it is a clear example of evolution on another level.


Never have I said otherwise. However, it's not 'descent with modification' - there's no descent, and while knowledge is sometimes modified to meet new data, the analogy breaks down when you realise that the prior knowledge was just an incomplete grasp of the existing facts (as is the present knowledge) - what you're really talking about here is discovery. All the facts were in existence throughout all previous human generations, it's just that those generations did not know of it. The knowledge itself is the growth of awareness of these facts, not a process of new facts being generated in the universe and human knowledge evolving in step.

Again, compare this with the other types of evolution you are referring to and the poetic analogy breaks.


pfrankinstein wrote:Mark it. Descent is there, modification is there, a different form of selection, cognitive selection is there.


Descent is not there - you're talking about knowledge on the one hand, and human generations on the other. The knowledge itself is discovery of facts that were the same in prior generations but were just unknown.



pfrankinstein wrote:
spearthrower wrote:And also please note that whether you mean it to be demeaning or not, the FUA states what is and isn't acceptable behaviour here - not you. So, kindly take note.


You worry about your own conduct. You Take note.


Can you point out where I've received a warning for trolling you in any of my discussions with you? I can point to several you have accrued in this thread. The suggestion was a friendly nudge to not get yourself banned for repeatedly attacking people. If you wish to ignore this, I can't stop you.
Last edited by Spearthrower on Jun 01, 2012 5:31 pm, edited 1 time in total.
I'm not an atheist; I just don't believe in gods :- that which I don't belong to isn't a group!
Religion: Mass Stockholm Syndrome

Learn Stuff. Stuff good. https://www.coursera.org/
User avatar
Spearthrower
 
Posts: 27428
Age: 44
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Re: One bang one process.

#992  Postby pfrankinstein » Jun 01, 2012 5:30 pm

Spearthrower wrote:
ElDiablo wrote:Wow pfrankinstein.
Why not simply use the word change as an umbrella catchword to establish what ever point you are trying to make.
The more general the term, the grander the hypothesis you can develop. It seems to work well on those segments of the population that are attracted to pseudoscience.


Yep - change over time. This is something that all uses of the word 'evolution' entail. However Paul doesn't seem to understand that if I start talking about genes while discussing evolution, we all know I am talking about biology. Likewise, when Paul uses the term 'descent with modification' he's taking a quality of biological evolution and misapplying it to other types of change over time where that process doesn't operate.

It's functionally equivalent to be using the metaphor of nucleosynthesis to discuss Biology - it just doesn't work.


Since we know that cognitive selection emerged from natural selection, it then becomes abundantly clear that there is a factual science link in the the two types of evolution, science/knowledge evolving and biological evolution are both related and share a common mechanism. Taking the macroscopic mechanism of 'descent modification and selection' and applying it to the evolution of knowledge clearly works. Knowledge does not change, knowledge evolves, knowledge is built upon.

Paul.
pfrankinstein
THREAD STARTER
 
Name: paul
Posts: 456

Country: UK
Print view this post

Re: One bang one process.

#993  Postby pfrankinstein » Jun 01, 2012 5:33 pm

Spearthrower wrote:
pfrankinstein wrote:
Spearthrower wrote:No Paul - what you keep doing is using a bait and switch.

Descent with modification only works with respect to biology.


No it most certainly does not.


Yes it most certainly does.

Science basis for your position. Because thrower says so means nothing.


pfrankinstein wrote: Could descent down through generations work without following the arrow of time. No.


No one has suggested that change over time cannot happen without time.

What has been suggested, quite clearly and comprehensively, is that the things you are pointing to are not 'descent', and that there's no selection mechanism.

The laws of physics and chemistry play no part in the way the universe looks.


pfrankinstein wrote:We inherit knowledge from past generations, that knowledge is sometimes modified, if a new explanation better explains the old idea then it is adopted and accepted into the mainframe of thinking. It is a fact that we pass on more than just our genes.


Absolutely - superficially, I can understand how you could make a poetic connection between this process and biological evolution, or stellar evolution, but the processes are different in each case.

I'm not claiming that the evolution of knowledge is biological evolution. What i am saying is that they are related and work by the same macroscopic mechanism.



pfrankinstein wrote:No genes no genetics, it is a clear example of evolution on another level.


Never have I said otherwise. However, it's not 'descent with modification' - there's no descent, and while knowledge is sometimes modified to meet new data, the analogy breaks down when you realise that the prior knowledge was just an incomplete grasp of the existing facts (as is the present knowledge) - what you're really talking about here is discovery. All the facts were in existence throughout all previous human generations, it's just that those generations did not know of it. The knowledge itself is the growth of awareness of these facts, not a process of new facts being generated in the universe and human knowledge evolving in step.

Again, compare this with the other types of evolution you are referring to and the poetic analogy breaks.

Course there is descent, knowledge is inherited.


pfrankinstein wrote:Mark it. Descent is there, modification is there, a different form of selection, cognitive selection is there.


Descent is not there - you're talking about knowledge on the one hand, and human generations on the other. The knowledge itself is discovery of facts that were the same in prior generations but were just unknown.

Bollocks.

Eh? Every generation does not go and reinvent the wheel. The invention of the wheel is passed down through generations.



pfrankinstein wrote:
spearthrower wrote:And also please note that whether you mean it to be demeaning or not, the FUA states what is and isn't acceptable behaviour here - not you. So, kindly take note.


You worry about your own conduct. You Take note.


Can you point out where I've received a warning for trolling you in any of my discussions with you? I can point to several you have accrued in this thread. The suggestion was a friendly nudge to not get yourself banned for repeatedly attacking people. If you wish to ignore this, I can't stop you.


Keep you friendly nudges to yourself i don't need them.

Paul.
Last edited by pfrankinstein on Jun 01, 2012 5:45 pm, edited 1 time in total.
pfrankinstein
THREAD STARTER
 
Name: paul
Posts: 456

Country: UK
Print view this post

Re: One bang one process.

#994  Postby Spearthrower » Jun 01, 2012 5:33 pm

pfrankinstein wrote:
Since we know that cognitive selection emerged from natural selection, it then becomes abundantly clear that there is a factual science link in the the two types of evolution, science/knowledge evolving and biological evolution are both related and share a common mechanism. Taking the macroscopic mechanism of 'descent modification and selection' and applying it to the evolution of knowledge clearly works. Knowledge does not change, knowledge evolves, knowledge is built upon.

Paul.


A factual science link? Can you explain what that means?

Humans have minds, minds require brains, brains evolve. Is that what you're saying?

Knowledge does not change, knowledge evolves: this sentence is self-contradictory - evolution is change. As I already pointed out to you - the knowledge is an imperfect comprehension of the facts - the facts themselves haven't changed. When you want to address my posts, can you actually address the content?
I'm not an atheist; I just don't believe in gods :- that which I don't belong to isn't a group!
Religion: Mass Stockholm Syndrome

Learn Stuff. Stuff good. https://www.coursera.org/
User avatar
Spearthrower
 
Posts: 27428
Age: 44
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Re: One bang one process.

#995  Postby Spearthrower » Jun 01, 2012 5:38 pm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equivocation

Equivocation ("to call by the same name") is classified as both a formal and informal logical fallacy. It is the misleading use of a term with more than one meaning or sense (by glossing over which meaning is intended at a particular time). It generally occurs with polysemic words (words with multiple meanings).


The fallacy of equivocation is often used with words that have a strong emotional content and many meanings. These meanings often coincide within proper context, but the fallacious arguer does a semantic shift, slowly changing the context by treating, as equivalent, distinct meanings of the term.


On the one hand, you appear to be berating people for limiting themselves to biological evolution, and in the next post you will then reiterate 'descent with modification'. This notion does not apply to stellar evolution. Thus, your primary idea is really just equivocation - there's no significant relationship between these types of evolution over and above the fact that they all mean 'change over time'.
I'm not an atheist; I just don't believe in gods :- that which I don't belong to isn't a group!
Religion: Mass Stockholm Syndrome

Learn Stuff. Stuff good. https://www.coursera.org/
User avatar
Spearthrower
 
Posts: 27428
Age: 44
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: One bang one process.

#996  Postby pfrankinstein » Jun 01, 2012 5:55 pm

Spearthrower wrote:

A factual science link? Can you explain what that means?

Humans have minds, minds require brains, brains evolve. Is that what you're saying?


Cognitive selection, choosing, making selection with a brain emerged from natural selection.

Spearthrower wrote:Knowledge does not change, knowledge evolves: this sentence is self-contradictory - evolution is change. As I already pointed out to you - the knowledge is an imperfect comprehension of the facts - the facts themselves haven't changed. When you want to address my posts, can you actually address the content?


Yes one can insert that knowledge changes, that is if one is ignorant to the mechanism that brought about that change/advancement of knowledge.

Casually informally change why not. Formally with knowledge of the mechanism, one understands that science evolves.
Paul.
pfrankinstein
THREAD STARTER
 
Name: paul
Posts: 456

Country: UK
Print view this post

Re: One bang one process.

#997  Postby pfrankinstein » Jun 01, 2012 6:04 pm

Spearthrower wrote:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equivocation

Equivocation ("to call by the same name") is classified as both a formal and informal logical fallacy. It is the misleading use of a term with more than one meaning or sense (by glossing over which meaning is intended at a particular time). It generally occurs with polysemic words (words with multiple meanings).


The fallacy of equivocation is often used with words that have a strong emotional content and many meanings. These meanings often coincide within proper context, but the fallacious arguer does a semantic shift, slowly changing the context by treating, as equivalent, distinct meanings of the term.


On the one hand, you appear to be berating people for limiting themselves to biological evolution, and in the next post you will then reiterate 'descent with modification'. This notion does not apply to stellar evolution. Thus, your primary idea is really just equivocation - there's no significant relationship between these types of evolution over and above the fact that they all mean 'change over time'.


The stumbling block seems to be my use of the word 'descent'. If a biologist uses the word 'descent' it is taken to mean descent down through generations. It is an unspoken taken for granted fact that generations can only occur with the passage of/down through time. Knowledge the same, the universe the same down through time.

Paul.
Last edited by pfrankinstein on Jun 01, 2012 6:11 pm, edited 1 time in total.
pfrankinstein
THREAD STARTER
 
Name: paul
Posts: 456

Country: UK
Print view this post

Re: One bang one process.

#998  Postby ElDiablo » Jun 01, 2012 6:08 pm

pfrankinstein,
What is the real point you're trying to make? You know, the big idea that you are trying to establish?
God is silly putty.
User avatar
ElDiablo
 
Posts: 3124

Country: USA
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: One bang one process.

#999  Postby ElDiablo » Jun 01, 2012 6:25 pm

Spearthrower wrote:Yep - change over time. This is something that all uses of the word 'evolution' entail. However Paul doesn't seem to understand that if I start talking about genes while discussing evolution, we all know I am talking about biology. Likewise, when Paul uses the term 'descent with modification' he's taking a quality of biological evolution and misapplying it to other types of change over time where that process doesn't operate.

It's functionally equivalent to be using the metaphor of nucleosynthesis to discuss Biology - it just doesn't work.

It seems that he's really having a philosophical discussion but he hasn't realized it yet. I particularly like how he wants to redefine or twist established terms so that they fit his points.
God is silly putty.
User avatar
ElDiablo
 
Posts: 3124

Country: USA
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: One bang one process.

#1000  Postby pfrankinstein » Jun 01, 2012 8:18 pm

ElDiablo wrote:
Spearthrower wrote:Yep - change over time. This is something that all uses of the word 'evolution' entail. However Paul doesn't seem to understand that if I start talking about genes while discussing evolution, we all know I am talking about biology. Likewise, when Paul uses the term 'descent with modification' he's taking a quality of biological evolution and misapplying it to other types of change over time where that process doesn't operate.

It's functionally equivalent to be using the metaphor of nucleosynthesis to discuss Biology - it just doesn't work.

It seems that he's really having a philosophical discussion but he hasn't realized it yet. I particularly like how he wants to redefine or twist established terms so that they fit his points.


There is no scientific basis to suggests that 'biological evolution' is the only true type of evolution, only tradition.
You can argue traditional perception if you like, but those arguments can easily be rubbished by factual observation.

Science and mankinds artefacts evolve by 'descent [down through generations and time] modification and by means of cognitive selection. That is a science fact, an observation, nothing philosophical about the op. No equivocation of any word or term.

Paul.
pfrankinstein
THREAD STARTER
 
Name: paul
Posts: 456

Country: UK
Print view this post

PreviousNext

Return to Pseudoscience

Who is online

Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 1 guest