THWOTH wrote:Aye.

An artist with a mix of the three primary colours, a minimal requirement,) and shades of light dark may paint the universe and most of everything..

The artist's visulation,; perception represents a 'part the way' explanation of his/her reality.

Science has no such method of the three primary colour and art, no link to science and the "primary colours" has been made.

A rational link sir. Art... science. Out of the question. But is it?

What would be your 'three primary colours in science, and so cross over can me made?

I have three primary colours and shades of light and dark, four in total. Red, blue, yellow and grey.

Rationally I can defend my appropriation of colour.

Red shift, blue planet and grey. That which stands out to a skim reader. Self explanatory really.

The idea to employ colour struck me when a protester asked me to explain my vision of *good human selection.

Imagine that sir. Proposing a new type of all encompassing selection and then adding colour.

Here in psuodoscience ...

pfrankinstein wrote:
Imagine that sir. Proposing a new type of all encompassing selection and then adding colour.

You're like that kid who digs some soil out of the garden and mixes it with water in a jar and puts the lid on. Several weeks later, it looks like some algae blossomed, and so he says, "Oooooh, look what I made." Memories of an episode from toilet training.

THWOTH wrote:Aye.

If the theory of evolution unfolded in the mind of the man how shall science proceed?


Paul.

Cito di Pense wrote:

pfrankinstein wrote:
Imagine that sir. Proposing a new type of all encompassing selection and then adding colour.

You're like that kid who digs some soil out of the garden and mixes it with water in a jar and puts the lid on. Several weeks later, it looks like some algae blossomed, and so he says, "Oooooh, look what I made." Memories of an episode from toilet training.

Is it fair to say that our understanding of the phenominon has experianced a period of runaway growth toward the triple helix?

Whittle the sprear. Naturalist to biologist. Evidently the phenominon is. Fit to burst.

Paul.

Cito di Pense wrote:

pfrankinstein wrote:
Imagine that sir. Proposing a new type of all encompassing selection and then adding colour.

You're like that kid who digs some soil out of the garden and mixes it with water in a jar and puts the lid on. Several weeks later, it looks like some algae blossomed, and so he says, "Oooooh, look what I made." Memories of an episode from toilet training.

I have no platform. Evolution = the triple helix.

I'd be redifineing Evolution to its specific base instinctive conjecture. Evolution = Process.

Redifine or reiterate the old truth. You choose.

Paul.

Mind the breach

pfrankinstein wrote:

THWOTH wrote:Aye.

An artist with a mix of the three primary colours, a minimal requirement,) and shades of light dark may paint the universe and most of everything..

The artist's visulation,; perception represents a 'part the way' explanation of his/her reality.

Science has no such method of the three primary colour and art, no link to science and the "primary colours" has been made.

A rational link sir. Art... science. Out of the question. But is it?

What would be your 'three primary colours in science, and so cross over can me made?

I have three primary colours and shades of light and dark, four in total. Red, blue, yellow and grey.

Rationally I can defend my appropriation of colour.

Red shift, blue planet and grey. That which stands out to a skim reader. Self explanatory really.

The idea to employ colour struck me when a protester asked me to explain my vision of *good human selection.

Imagine that sir. Proposing a new type of all encompassing selection and then adding colour.

Here in psuodoscience ...

Forever.

pfrankinstein wrote:

Cito di Pense wrote:

pfrankinstein wrote:
Imagine that sir. Proposing a new type of all encompassing selection and then adding colour.

You're like that kid who digs some soil out of the garden and mixes it with water in a jar and puts the lid on. Several weeks later, it looks like some algae blossomed, and so he says, "Oooooh, look what I made." Memories of an episode from toilet training.

Is it fair to say that our understanding of the phenominon has experianced a period of runaway growth toward the triple helix?

Whittle the sprear. Naturalist to biologist. Evidently the phenominon is. Fit to burst.

Paul.

We're back again to the kind of output that would indicate one's attempts at creating a char bot has some serious issues, and that perhaps one might be better served looking for an occupation in another field.

pfrankinstein wrote:

Cito di Pense wrote:

pfrankinstein wrote:
Imagine that sir. Proposing a new type of all encompassing selection and then adding colour.

You're like that kid who digs some soil out of the garden and mixes it with water in a jar and puts the lid on. Several weeks later, it looks like some algae blossomed, and so he says, "Oooooh, look what I made." Memories of an episode from toilet training.

I have no platform. Evolution = the triple helix.

Wha...?

Are you going to discuss triplex-forming oligonucleotides now?

I kinda doubt it.

My guess is that this, like all the other tosh you talk about, is nothing more than a label - a word you read and thought you'd sound smart if you used it, that would fool people into mistakenly believing that you know what you're talking about, but really you couldn't produce a single meaningful sentence about 'triple helix' if your life literally depended on it.

pfrankinstein wrote:I'd be redifineing Evolution to its specific base instinctive conjecture. Evolution = Process.

Otherwise known as waving your arms around as much as possible to pretend you're doing something while actually doing nothing at all.

pfrankinstein wrote:Redifine or reiterate the old truth. You choose.

Flush

And of course you have a platform, Paul.

http://www.rationalskepticism.org/pseudoscience/

Cito di Pense wrote:

pfrankinstein wrote:
Imagine that sir. Proposing a new type of all encompassing selection and then adding colour.

You're like that kid who digs some soil out of the garden and mixes it with water in a jar and puts the lid on. Several weeks later, it looks like some algae blossomed, and so he says, "Oooooh, look what I made." Memories of an episode from toilet training.

Do you believe that placing a phenomenon into context leads to coherence?

How about placing a phenomenon in its own context, by its own measure?

Insight? Organon? + insight?

When I have a mind too, with every fibre that is in me, I reach out; sometimes I feel it like electricity.

in my more thoughtful moments

Sometimes I wire a plug red, blue, and yellow to test for lightbulb moments;
other times I shake the tree to see if an apple will fall. 

Cherry-pick the best of the best from all the available data. Darwinian evolution is formidable, and the Big Bang Theory is the same.

If we debate the phenomenon known as "eureka moments" long enough, might somebody have one?

If the triple helix represents the individual letters that go to make words, sentences, paragraphs, and chapters, each understanding has a perspective.

One may contend that Charles Darwin's perspective was from the "sentence-paragraph" perspective. Observation.

Mine is to wrap up this "evolution" from the triple helix perspective with a red ribbon and give it as a gift.

Paul.

Spearthrower wrote:And of course you have a platform, Paul.

http://www.rationalskepticism.org/pseudoscience/

The second fact to know about "evolutionphenominon " is that Charles Darwin proposed NS literally,; That Is * a calculation made by nature.

1st evolution = process.

2nd NS = A calculation made by nature.

Paul.

Spearthrower wrote:And of course you have a platform, Paul.

http://www.rationalskepticism.org/pseudoscience/

I have no platform in your mind sir. You sir represent rationale, logic to me.

If I state the" phenominon " and its understanding has experianced runaway growth toward the triple helix, that thought is provoked you sir.

You be the measure of my "understanding" a defined articulate representetive of the majority.

What does the word Evolution mean to science, you ?

Paul.

BWE wrote:Mind the breach

I'm asking questions of subject not yet contemplated.

If the theory unfolded in the mind of the man, mechanicle that first take. Then fleshed out to explain speciation. Biology.

Charles Darwin * this happens and left uninterrupted the result = projected reality by means of NS.

The moment he realised "HS" as a relevent factor, the explanation for domesticated cattle pets. From there.

He had something to compare. Type NS, type US.

I would be deluded to propose a 'type' selection before NS (NS a calculation made by nature in biology ) to be proceeded by a primitive form phycics answers in both complex and simple all at the same time.. Primal selection also a calculation made by nature. Test.

We have the argument. NS came from nowhere, a disconnect from anything before or anything since.

Paul.

Mine is just a wheel within a wheel theory.

Charles Darwin's initial instinct and interpretation were at first mechanical in nature and expressed as such.

By the slang "evolution," the phenomenon "nature" has no identity.

Ambiguity in science.

It came from nowhere, and it certainly is not going anywhere.

oh the irony.

Paul.

pfrankinstein wrote:

THWOTH wrote:Aye.

If the theory of evolution unfolded in the mind of the man how shall science proceed?


Paul.

Incrementally.

Spearthrower wrote:And of course you have a platform, Paul.

http://ww.rationalskepticism.org/pseudoscience/

Are you predjadice to colour sir?

I only have to prove red blue and grey.

Already a given.

Paul.

pfrankinstein wrote:

Spearthrower wrote:And of course you have a platform, Paul.

http://www.rationalskepticism.org/pseudoscience/

The second fact to know about "evolutionphenominon " is that Charles Darwin proposed NS literally,; That Is * a calculation made by nature.

1st evolution = process.

2nd NS = A calculation made by nature.

Paul.

Otherwise known as 'not a fact'.

And as you're claiming it is literal, then it's also a lie because Darwin did not say that at all.

pfrankinstein wrote:

Spearthrower wrote:And of course you have a platform, Paul.

http://www.rationalskepticism.org/pseudoscience/

I have no platform in your mind sir. You sir represent rationale, logic to me.

If I state the" phenominon " and its understanding has experianced runaway growth toward the triple helix, that thought is provoked you sir.

You be the measure of my "understanding" a defined articulate representetive of the majority.

What does the word Evolution mean to science, you ?

Paul.

Crackpottery