Mr.Samsa wrote:
For example, you suggest that the big bang can be understood in evolutionary terms, yet I'm unsure how the "change in allele frequencies in a population" applies to expansion of space and time.

What a pathetic notion, in looking for your earliest biological common ancestor under the microscope, would you expect to see a mini you ape lookalike staring back at you. lol. You make the silly mistake of holding up the Darwinian/biological process as the leading example of what "evolution" actually is. If, as i contend the big bang started a primordial process of evolution and the Darwinian process emerged from that, then would you expect that primordial process to parrot the biological process exactly?

The laws of physics samsa, the first type of selection before natural selection?

Bang > Primal selection Non-conscious . > Unconscious Subconscious Natural selection. > Do you understand cognition?

Paul. >>>

pfrankinstein wrote:

Mr.Samsa wrote:
For example, you suggest that the big bang can be understood in evolutionary terms, yet I'm unsure how the "change in allele frequencies in a population" applies to expansion of space and time.

What a pathetic notion, in looking for your earliest biological common ancestor under the microscope, would you expect to see a mini you ape lookalike staring back at you. lol. You make the silly mistake of holding up the Darwinian/biological process as the leading example of what "evolution" actually is. If, as i contend the big bang started a primordial process of evolution and the Darwinian process emerged from that, then would you expect that primordial process to parrot the biological process exactly?

The laws of physics samsa, the first type of selection before natural selection?

Bang > Primal selection Non-conscious . > Unconscious Subconscious Natural selection. > Do you understand cognition?

Paul. >>>

You are still making shit up; and unless you stop replying with nothing but arrogant, snide remarks, accompanied by more pseudo-scientific wibble, but start to provide some actual substance, that is, evidence and proper research, that won't change.

To claim that there are evolutionary processes at work ever since the big bang is easy, but can you actually substantiate your claim? I very much doubt it.

Darkchilde wrote:pfrankenstein is not a sockpuppet. He is familiar to most of you from RDF, where he was known as paullesq.

OMFG

Macroinvertebrate wrote:

Thommo wrote:

Macroinvertebrate wrote:Paul.

Are you called Paul too? This thread is really swimming in them at the moment.

Paul.

Yep.

Paul.

I'm Paul (and so's my wife)!

Paul wrote:

Macroinvertebrate wrote:

Thommo wrote:

Are you called Paul too? This thread is really swimming in them at the moment.

Paul.

Yep.

Paul.

I'm Paul (and so's my wife)!

If you replace the first 4 letters in my name with the letter p and the second to last letter with the letter u, I am most definitely Paul,too.


Paul.

Scar wrote:

Paul wrote:

Macroinvertebrate wrote:

Yep.

Paul.

I'm Paul (and so's my wife)!

If you replace the first 4 letters in my name with the letter p and the second to last letter with the letter u, I am most definitely Paul,too.


Paul.

That'd be Ppup, mate.

I'm appaulled at the turn this thread has taken.

Mazille wrote:

Scar wrote:

Paul wrote:



I'm Paul (and so's my wife)!

If you replace the first 4 letters in my name with the letter p and the second to last letter with the letter u, I am most definitely Paul,too.


Paul.

That'd be Ppup, mate.

What, no?

M I C H A E L

M I C H => P
E => U
P + A + U + L = Paul

Paul.

Scar wrote:

Mazille wrote:

Scar wrote:

If you replace the first 4 letters in my name with the letter p and the second to last letter with the letter u, I am most definitely Paul,too.


Paul.

That'd be Ppup, mate.

What, no?

M I C H A E L

M I C H => P
E => U
P + A + U + L = Paul

Paul.

Ooooh, your real name!

Mazille wrote:

Scar wrote:

Mazille wrote:

That'd be Ppup, mate.

What, no?

M I C H A E L

M I C H => P
E => U
P + A + U + L = Paul

Paul.

Ooooh, your real name!

Lol.

Paul.

Mazille wrote:
Ooooh, your real name!

Sounds metaphysical to me...

hackenslash wrote:I'm appaulled at the turn this thread has taken.

Yes - it started out so well reasoned, eloquent and evidence based, and then we all took turns turning it into crap.

hackenslash wrote:I'm appaulled at the turn this thread has taken.

paull the other one.

Scar wrote:

Paul wrote:

Macroinvertebrate wrote:

Yep.

Paul.

I'm Paul (and so's my wife)!

If you replace the first 4 letters in my name with the letter p and the second to last letter with the letter u, I am most definitely Paul,too.


Paul.

That's cool, because if you did that to my middle name, I'd be Paul Paul.

Paul

A terrible Paul has descended on this thread.


pawl

I heard wearing epaulettes was becoming fashionable again.


Paul.

If you guys keep this up, I think this thread will need paulbearers soon.

I'm Appalled!

If, as i contend the big bang started a "primordial process" of evolution and the "Darwinian process" emerged from that, then would you expect that "primordial process" to parrot the biological process exactly?
No.
For the 'Primordial process' to be seen as the "ancestor" of the 'Darwinian process' and count as a true type of 'evolution' it must exhibit the key mechanism of 'Modification Descent Selection'.
[Primal selection = the laws of physics]

Regress the process, regress the meaning.

The word 'Descent modification selection' have specific connotation/meaning in Darwinian evolution. If one intends to regress the Darwinian process back, should the meaning of those words also be regressed and hold a more basic connotation?

Paul.

As has been said a few times, you could certainly say that the universe and the formations of matter in it has evolved, and you can certainly say that some form of selection has been in place (it has to - some properties will work in this universe, or will work in certain situations in this universe, others won't, and those that won't... don't).

But calling the entire process 'evolution', and a form of Darwinian evolution with 'simpler' precursors, muddles the concepts and terminology used, and also leads to unwanted confusion that is already there in the minds of creationists, who have always thought that 'evolution' has been from the big bang and on.