One bang one process.

Spearthrower · **#2361** by **Spearthrower** » Apr 15, 2022 11:51 pm

I remember Edgar very well indeed!

I have the glorious distinction of having invited Postrado here! :doh:

http://www.rationalskepticism.org/creat ... gentDesign

Cito di Pense · **#2362** by **Cito di Pense** » Apr 16, 2022 5:23 am

pfrankinstein wrote:
Cito di Pense wrote:This is very troublesome, hack. Even when you're not selected, you're selected. Not to decide is to decide.

Your framework for selection Cito.

Shall we by pure good chance surf forward into our destiny?

Objectivity. Stand back a ways. Be impartial, look at the sample.

Not this one perhaps , but I can see on reason for another. Agnostic really.

Paul.

Show me "destiny", Paul, without just making shit up, the way every other religious nut does with whom I've ever interacted. Objectivity is just another word to you, Paul, and that you would make it the next word after you wrote destiny is just one more big piece of evidence I use to conclude that you have a screw loose somewhere, associating destiny with objectivity. That's how your clown show works, Paul. You're not agnostic if you traffic in destiny, because you're not agnostic regarding destiny.

Chance and necessity (as opposed to objectivity and destiny) have been provocatively talked about in some discussions of dynamical systems and complexity. Would you like to discuss chance and necessity, Paul? You might like to, but you are not up to the task. If you want to claim impartiality about a sample to which you belong, you're simply delusional, because to start with, you have to decide how the sample is comprised. You choose "one bang one process". Not to decide is to decide.

:clap:

kiore · **#2363** by **kiore** » Apr 16, 2022 4:33 pm

Spearthrower wrote:
Paul - are you high as a fucking kite?
<snip.>
We all know Paul. All of us here know, without any question at all, that you are ignorant as fuck.

!	MODNOTE Spearthrower, this post is unacceptable and is a personal attack/insult as are some of your previous ones addressed to this poster in this thread. You currently have one active warning from last month and so this is a second one. Please consider carefully before posting like this again.

pfrankinstein · **#2364** by **pfrankinstein** » Apr 16, 2022 8:13 pm

citoShow me "destiny", Paul, without just making shit up, the way every other religious nut does with whom I've ever interacted. Objectivity is just another word to you, Paul, and that you would make it the next word after you wrote destiny is just one more big piece of evidence I use to conclude that you have a screw loose somewhere, associating destiny with objectivity. That's how your clown show works, Paul. You're not agnostic if you traffic in destiny, because you're not agnostic regarding destiny.

Chance and necessity (as opposed to objectivity and destiny) have been provocatively talked about in some discussions of dynamical systems and complexity. Would you like to discuss chance and necessity, Paul? You might like to, but you are not up to the task. If you want to claim impartiality about a sample to which you belong, you're simply delusional, because to start with, you have to decide how the sample is comprised. You choose "one bang one process". Not to decide is to decide.
snip

No not delusional. A most basic toe explanation first ; Or are you unable to objectively evaluate?

The three big bangs started three processes all related and connected..... who knows?

in this place there are no stupid questions If human selection emerged from natural selection, why hasn't anyone proposed before me Primal selection?

Paul.

Cito di Pense · **#2365** by **Cito di Pense** » Apr 16, 2022 8:28 pm

pfrankinstein wrote:

No not delusional. A most basic toe explanation first ; Or are you unable to objectively evaluate?

The three big bangs started three processes all related and connected..... who knows?

in this place there are no stupid questions If human selection emerged from natural selection, why hasn't anyone proposed before me Primal selection?

Paul.

I already asked, Paul, but you're so busy frothing, you didn't notice: Name something that didn't get selected. If you can't, then your selection trip is vacuous.

why hasn't anyone proposed before me Primal selection?

I'll give you as many guesses as you need to figure this one out. Is human selection not natural? I mean, sure, Paul, go on the supernatural trip, if you want. Like I said, religious nuts. Are you not entertained?

:clap:

hackenslash · **#2366** by **hackenslash** » Apr 16, 2022 8:34 pm

pfrankinstein wrote:in this place there are no stupid questions If human selection emerged from natural selection, why hasn't anyone proposed before me Primal selection?

If buttered crumpets are the product of molecules and heat, why hasn't anyone before me proposed that the Oort Cloud is composed entirely of buttered crumpets?

Cito di Pense · **#2367** by **Cito di Pense** » Apr 16, 2022 8:37 pm

hackenslash wrote:
pfrankinstein wrote:in this place there are no stupid questions If human selection emerged from natural selection, why hasn't anyone proposed before me Primal selection?

If buttered crumpets are the product of molecules and heat, why hasn't anyone before me proposed that the Oort Cloud is composed entirely of buttered crumpets?

Wait! Are you saying that... something is composed of something else?

pfrankinstein · **#2368** by **pfrankinstein** » Apr 16, 2022 8:42 pm

kiore wrote:
Spearthrower wrote:
Paul - are you high as a fucking kite?
<snip.>
We all know Paul. All of us here know, without any question at all, that you are ignorant as fuck.

Are you ok thrower?

You got your dander up.

We are all victorian gentleman here.

Paul.

hackenslash · **#2369** by **hackenslash** » Apr 16, 2022 8:56 pm

Cito di Pense wrote:
hackenslash wrote:
pfrankinstein wrote:in this place there are no stupid questions If human selection emerged from natural selection, why hasn't anyone proposed before me Primal selection?

If buttered crumpets are the product of molecules and heat, why hasn't anyone before me proposed that the Oort Cloud is composed entirely of buttered crumpets?

Wait! Are you saying that... something is composed of something else?

Emergent from it, in fact.

WooooOOOOOooooo!

pfrankinstein · **#2370** by **pfrankinstein** » Apr 16, 2022 9:37 pm

hackenslash wrote:
Cito di Pense wrote:
hackenslash wrote:
pfrankinstein wrote:in this place there are no stupid questions If human selection emerged from natural selection, why hasn't anyone proposed before me Primal selection?

If buttered crumpets are the product of molecules and heat, why hasn't anyone before me proposed that the Oort Cloud is composed entirely of buttered crumpets?

Wait! Are you saying that... something is composed of something else?

Emergent from it, in fact.

WooooOOOOOooooo!

By launch pad triangulation: Primal selection.

Rational?

Paul

pfrankinstein · **#2371** by **pfrankinstein** » Apr 16, 2022 9:49 pm

Cito di Pense wrote:
hackenslash wrote:
pfrankinstein wrote:in this place there are no stupid questions If human selection emerged from natural selection, why hasn't anyone proposed before me Primal selection?

If buttered crumpets are the product of molecules and heat, why hasn't anyone before me proposed that the Oort Cloud is composed entirely of buttered crumpets?

Wait! Are you saying that... something is composed of something else?

I'm asking if the Darwinian process has a primitive relative or echo in the past.

If not that would be kind of amazing. Something unique, brand new.

Out of the blue.

Paul

Spearthrower · **#2372** by **Spearthrower** » Apr 16, 2022 9:49 pm

pfrankinstein wrote:
kiore wrote:
Spearthrower wrote:
Paul - are you high as a fucking kite?
<snip.>
We all know Paul. All of us here know, without any question at all, that you are ignorant as fuck.

Are you ok thrower?

You got your dander up.

We are all victorian gentleman here.

Paul.

I fear you may have misunderstood, Paul - fancy that, eh?

The rules of this forum say I am not allowed to make a personal insult against you - neither the rules nor the moderators imply that what I said was not true, just that I am not allowed to say it.

Spearthrower · **#2373** by **Spearthrower** » Apr 16, 2022 9:51 pm

pfrankinstein wrote:
in this place there are no stupid questions

Only stupid answers: see your posts.

pfrankinstein wrote: If human selection emerged from natural selection, why hasn't anyone proposed before me Primal selection?

You don't know what any of these words mean.

Spearthrower · **#2374** by **Spearthrower** » Apr 16, 2022 9:52 pm

pfrankinstein wrote:
I'm asking if the Darwinian process has a primitive relative or echo in the past.

No, for the numerous reasons already given to you, regardless of your ability or willingness to learn.

pfrankinstein wrote:If not that would be kind of amazing. Something unique, brand new.

Out of the blue.

Or inane, foolish, a load of deranged bollocks that one would need to be fucking ignorant to lend credence to.

pfrankinstein · **#2375** by **pfrankinstein** » Apr 16, 2022 10:33 pm

Spearthrower wrote:
pfrankinstein wrote:
I'm asking if the Darwinian process has a primitive relative or echo in the past.

No, for the numerous reasons already given to you, regardless of your ability or willingness to learn.

pfrankinstein wrote:If not that would be kind of amazing. Something unique, brand new.

Out of the blue.

Or inane, foolish, a load of deranged bollocks that one would need to be fucking ignorant to lend credence to.

You have resorted to name calling. Calm down. Your horns are showing.

Leading theories of the day described as deranged Bollocks.

We are victorian gentlemen discussing the mechanism.

Don't talk to me of ignorance sir. I propose it is YOU who has no clue.

Paul.

pfrankinstein · **#2376** by **pfrankinstein** » Apr 16, 2022 10:51 pm

The Origin = A question...Basic = what caused speciation; speciation being the effect.

Baby steps with thrower.

Cause evolution ; effect speciation.

So is it entirely clear what it is you understand?

Not what you thought right. Pause for the jet.

But then mine would be a most basic understanding based on evidence.

You don't know what you're about.

Paul.

Spearthrower · **#2377** by **Spearthrower** » Apr 16, 2022 11:01 pm

pfrankinstein wrote:
Spearthrower wrote:
pfrankinstein wrote:
I'm asking if the Darwinian process has a primitive relative or echo in the past.

No, for the numerous reasons already given to you, regardless of your ability or willingness to learn.

pfrankinstein wrote:If not that would be kind of amazing. Something unique, brand new.

Out of the blue.

Or inane, foolish, a load of deranged bollocks that one would need to be fucking ignorant to lend credence to.

You have resorted to name calling. Calm down. Your horns are showing.

Keep on Paul, and you'll soon find yourself receiving similar moderator attention for trolling.

pfrankinstein wrote:Leading theories of the day described as deranged Bollocks.

/point and laugh

Your vacuous wibble doesn't amount even to a theory, let alone a leading one, except in the confines of your head - but as we all know, the world isn't obligated to engage in a pretense just to make you feel special.

pfrankinstein wrote:We are victorian gentlemen discussing the mechanism.

No, I have been pretty clear about who you are.

pfrankinstein wrote:Don't talk to me of ignorance sir. I propose it is YOU who has no clue.

Paul.

Says the guy who can't muster more than a handful of words about his supposed 'leading theory' - it's pure clownery, Paul. Not one person here thinks you have a clue what you're yammering about.

Spearthrower · **#2378** by **Spearthrower** » Apr 16, 2022 11:03 pm

pfrankinstein wrote:The Origin = A question...Basic = what caused speciation; speciation being the effect.

Baby steps with thrower.

Cause evolution ; effect speciation.

So is it entirely clear what it is you understand?

Not what you thought right. Pause for the jet.

But then mine would be a most basic understanding based on evidence.

You don't know what you're about.

Paul.

Deranged wibble.

Got anything worth a wazz, Paul?

Spearthrower · **#2379** by **Spearthrower** » Apr 17, 2022 12:06 am

https://evolution-outreach.biomedcentra ... 009-0128-1

Natural selection is one of the central mechanisms of evolutionary change and is the process responsible for the evolution of adaptive features. Without a working knowledge of natural selection, it is impossible to understand how or why living things have come to exhibit their diversity and complexity. An understanding of natural selection also is becoming increasingly relevant in practical contexts, including medicine, agriculture, and resource management. Unfortunately, studies indicate that natural selection is generally very poorly understood, even among many individuals with postsecondary biological education. This paper provides an overview of the basic process of natural selection, discusses the extent and possible causes of misunderstandings of the process, and presents a review of the most common misconceptions that must be corrected before a functional understanding of natural selection and adaptive evolution can be achieved.

Read, learn, stop yapping bullshit at people who know more than you.

Natural selection is a non-random difference in reproductive output among replicating entities, often due indirectly to differences in survival in a particular environment, leading to an increase in the proportion of beneficial, heritable characteristics within a population from one generation to the next.

Non-random, because living organisms are competing for survival, those less competitive are eliminated and don't pass down characteristics which limited their success, while those whose genetic legacy lends survival benefit are represented statistically more frequently in successive generations. Rocks don't possess genes, Paul. None of the things you talk about possess these characteristics.

Reproductive output, because a selection process necessarily entails some benefit accrued - rocks don't accrue benefits, Paul - living organisms passing on their favoured genetic traits to future generations accrue a benefit.

Survival, which isn't just about not dying, but also about reproducing which means passing along genetic information to the next generation wherein the beneficial genetic heritage continues to confer a selective advantage. Rocks don't 'survive' or 'not survive' Paul, this would be an example of a category mistake - one of the many logical failures which both ensure your idea remains stupid, and also stops you from understanding why your idea is stupid.

An environment, because living things require a suite of environmental conditions to remain living, unlike rocks which aren't alive.

Leading to an increase in proportion of beneficial characteristics in future generations; you know, completely unlike rocks.

The only person in the universe who thinks your idea is good Paul is you, and this is because you manifestly don't have even a passing grasp of the most elementary components of the 'idea' you seek to propose.

Additional to this, it's clear that your thinking is plagued by foundational errors which even a high school education should have weeded out, but clearly failed to do so in this case.

Finally, the incoherent ranting that characterizes your diatribes, your paucity of mastery of even the most basic grammatical rules underscores how thoroughly confused you are, and how limited your ability to engage in any material at all really is.

It's tragic Paul. Your entire participation here is pure tragedy.

Cito di Pense · **#2380** by **Cito di Pense** » Apr 17, 2022 5:43 am

pfrankinstein wrote:
Cito di Pense wrote:
hackenslash wrote:
pfrankinstein wrote:in this place there are no stupid questions If human selection emerged from natural selection, why hasn't anyone proposed before me Primal selection?

If buttered crumpets are the product of molecules and heat, why hasn't anyone before me proposed that the Oort Cloud is composed entirely of buttered crumpets?

Wait! Are you saying that... something is composed of something else?

I'm asking if the Darwinian process has a primitive relative or echo in the past.

If you have to ask, you can't afford it. How are these relatives related, Paul? What's a "relationship", if you never put any work into developing it? You obviously imagine there is one, but you don't say what it is, because it exists only in your imagination.

One bang one process.

Re: One bang one process.

Re: One bang one process.

Re: One bang one process.

Re: One bang one process.

Re: One bang one process.

Re: One bang one process.

Re: One bang one process.

Re: One bang one process.

Re: One bang one process.

Re: One bang one process.

Re: One bang one process.

Re: One bang one process.

Re: One bang one process.

Re: One bang one process.

Re: One bang one process.

Re: One bang one process.

Re: One bang one process.

Re: One bang one process.

Re: One bang one process.

Re: One bang one process.

Who is online