Cito di Pense wrote:What does primal selection select? Everything. What does primal selection exclude? Nothing. Same with "God".

There never was a more useless pair of words slapped together than "primal selection", when one word will do.

Excuse me good sir. Where do I mention God.

By your reasoning "Thrower is God because he is good.?

Paul.

pfrankinstein wrote:

Cito di Pense wrote:What does primal selection select? Everything. What does primal selection exclude? Nothing. Same with "God".

There never was a more useless pair of words slapped together than "primal selection", when one word will do.

Excuse me good sir. Where do I mention God.

By your reasoning "Thrower is God because he is good.?

Paul.

You didn't mention God, but that's not the point Cito is making.

F.
See me after class.

pfrankinstein wrote:

Cito di Pense wrote:What does primal selection select? Everything. What does primal selection exclude? Nothing. Same with "God".

There never was a more useless pair of words slapped together than "primal selection", when one word will do.

Excuse me good sir. Where do I mention God.

Never mind that. What would one not observe in the present moment if one abandoned "primal selection"?

What's the matter, Paul? Can't abandon it? If you can't list one observable feature of our cosmos that would not be present without this "primal selection" of yours, then the idea is vacuous. But we knew that, already. You know it's vacuous. That's what "vacuous" means, Paul: comprised of nothing besides the two words you slapped together.

Would we not observe stars and galaxies, nucleosynthesis, organic chemistry, fluid dynamics, electromagnetism? The list goes on. If the list goes on too long, "primal selection" excludes nothing. It's vacuous. "Primal selection" is among the most persistently vacuous assertions this (sub)forum has ever hosted. Here in Pseudoscience, "primal selection" has some stiff competition in the vacuity department, but it seems to outdo most of them in its coruscating vacuity. You really will have to propose the existence of one deity or many in order to get so much vacuity per word. "Primal selection" is fully as vacuous as theology, Paul, and we have seen more than a few theists go out of their way to spew theology without mentioning God, so the fact that you don't mention God means fuck-all to me.

I'm pretty much convinced you are one of these meek and shrinking types fearful of the shadows of their own convictions. At best, you're so busily slapping words together because you're desperately trying to disguise theology by means of obfuscation.

THWOTH wrote:

pfrankinstein wrote:

Cito di Pense wrote:What does primal selection select? Everything. What does primal selection exclude? Nothing. Same with "God".

There never was a more useless pair of words slapped together than "primal selection", when one word will do.

Excuse me good sir. Where do I mention God.

By your reasoning "Thrower is God because he is good.?

Paul.

You didn't mention God, but that's not the point Cito is making.

F.
Se me after class.

With my Primal selection sir, I attempt envisage all of it.

Be cause of red shift, I envisage primal selection as being red.

https://youtu.be/nVhNCTH8pDs

https://youtu.be/hXTAn4ELEwM

So you see sir, I dance to music i dance with science philosophy and art.

You see my dilemma?

Paul.

https://youtu.be/-N4jf6rtyuw

I propose a most " basic premise. Unashamedly cherry picked my theory.

Is that a method?




https://youtu.be/q0hyYWKXF0Q

THWOTH wrote:

pfrankinstein wrote:

Cito di Pense wrote:

pfrankinstein wrote:Did primal selection stop when natural selection started.?

Paul.

"Primal selection" consists of two words you slapped together. "Primal selection" is something you take for granted. I don't. It is not granted you, so don't ask questions as if it is. The questions you ask using two words you slapped together amount to the same move as asking someone, "when did you stop beating your wife?" Wife-beating has to be established, but you have not established "primal selection" except as two words you slapped together. So far you are just slapping your sausage.

Nature has a way of expressing itself in the vast inorganic cosmos.

By the laws of phyisics. By means of Primal selection. Same thing. Remember I talk about all of it.!!?

.

https://youtu.be/q0hyYWKXF0Q

Paul.

THWOTH wrote:

pfrankinstein wrote:

Cito di Pense wrote:

pfrankinstein wrote:Did primal selection stop when natural selection started.?

Paul.

"Primal selection" consists of two words you slapped together. "Primal selection" is something you take for granted. I don't. It is not granted you, so don't ask questions as if it is. The questions you ask using two words you slapped together amount to the same move as asking someone, "when did you stop beating your wife?" Wife-beating has to be established, but you have not established "primal selection" except as two words you slapped together. So far you are just slapping your sausage.

Nature has a way of expressing itself in the vast inorganic cosmos.

By the laws of phyisics. By means of Primal selection. Same thing. Remember I talk about all of it.!!?

.

https://youtu.be/q0hyYWKXF0Q

Paul.

I'd be chewing the corners off the data to make them fit.

Or perhaps with a sharp implement do i clearly divide - Inorganic-- organic --- mind.

By means of Primal selection. By means of NS. By means of HS.

By observation So.

Paul.




Or

I'd be chewing the corners off the data to make the pieces fit

Or perhaps with a sharp implement do i clearly divide - Inorganic-- organic --- mind.

By means of Primal selection. By means of NS. By means of HS.

By observation So. ...llllll

If NS is metaphor, is

PS by numbers hard copy?

A quandary?

The most remarkable thing about the puddle waking up to measure?

Paul.




Or

THWOTH wrote:

pfrankinstein wrote:

Cito di Pense wrote:What does primal selection select? Everything. What does primal selection exclude? Nothing. Same with "God".

There never was a more useless pair of words slapped together than "primal selection", when one word will do.

Excuse me good sir. Where do I mention God.

By your reasoning "Thrower is God because he is good.?

Paul.

You didn't mention God, but that's not the point Cito is making.

F.
Se me after class.

V sir. I propose a "Chart outlining the progression of selection. Science.

More than that I divide. Environment material.

The most prominant examples of. Outer. Earth, . Mind. : Extremes both in terms of ...enviroment and material.

The Extreme of unrelateable phenominon. Rationalised.

In terms of " types of Material & Environment". .By total divisonal extremes a possible measure.

That Fox? By means of NS.? Mans best friend by means human selction?

F... :A* cheers: K 9. AI.

Paul.


That does not relate to this.

pfrankinstein wrote:I'd be chewing the corners off the data to make the pieces fit

With your toothless nonsense? What do you want to do? Gum your interlocutors to death?

Baby steps, Paul. Get yourself a box of teething biscuits. You chews the wrong path.

Cito di Pense wrote:

pfrankinstein wrote:

Cito di Pense wrote:What does primal selection select? Everything. What does primal selection exclude? Nothing. Same with "God".

There never was a more useless pair of words slapped together than "primal selection", when one word will do.

Excuse me good sir. Where do I mention God.

Never mind that. What would one not observe in the present moment if one abandoned "primal selection"?

What's the matter, Paul? Can't abandon it? If you can't list one observable feature of our cosmos that would not be present without this "primal selection" of yours, then the idea is vacuous. But we knew that, already. You know it's vacuous. That's what "vacuous" means, Paul: comprised of nothing besides the two words you slapped together.

Would we not observe stars and galaxies, nucleosynthesis, organic chemistry, fluid dynamics, electromagnetism? The list goes on. If the list goes on too long, "primal selection" excludes nothing. It's vacuous. "Primal selection" is among the most persistently vacuous assertions this (sub)forum has ever hosted. Here in Pseudoscience, "primal selection" has some stiff competition in the vacuity department, but it seems to outdo most of them in its coruscating vacuity. You really will have to propose the existence of one deity or many in order to get so much vacuity per word. "Primal selection" is fully as vacuous as theology, Paul, and we have seen more than a few theists go out of their way to spew theology without mentioning God, so the fact that you don't mention God means fuck-all to me.

I'm pretty much convinced you are one of these meek and shrinking types fearful of the shadows of their own convictions. At best, you're so busily slapping words together because you're desperately trying to disguise theology by means of obfuscation.

May i remind you sir, Charles Darwin slapped slapped two words together and look where that you us.


I might remind you that Charles Darwin also slapped two words together.

He did so purely to reason and rationalise his observation to himself.

To my mind In terms of artistic expression, Darwin lit the blue touch paper with his innovation "by means of natural selection."

The young man turned to biology and the life sciences. Runaway growth ensued, and clearly the subject today is mono-typed.

I no longer feel the need to assert "process." Biology proves "process." (Citation: Thrower.)

It seems to me that we study "that which is closest to hand." Load the beagle and set sail for the Galapagos, biology dna.

My vacuous mind

I'd be proposing an exploded view of evolution. Ker pow!   

The argument "change, unfolding, evolution" is rendered meaningless. or vacuous.  

Or is it the case that the words become "unified" when you ask the question, "By what mechanism"?




https://youtu.be/CkA4xcIAvuw

Paul

"Excuse me Mr Darwin, I have a theory of "process" ..

How might the great man respond?

Already A given in my mind.

Nothing to see here.

Charles Darwin proposed a "process to answer the question of speciation? True or false?

A biological understanding fit to burst.

Positively "art deco" BB theory. the gentleman was Victorian.

Mr Darwin the "bang" .....can it be treated as a type of metaphorical common ancestor sir?

What would that look like?

Paul.














Paul.

The BB ... reboot move the dial left of centre... A dial..l..A magic torch.
. Move the goal posts back and forward... the. What If?
Paul.

https://youtu.be/9YIBmZjONtA

Cito di Pense wrote:

pfrankinstein wrote:I'd be chewing the corners off the data to make the pieces fit

With your toothless nonsense? What do you want to do? Gum your interlocutors to death?

Baby steps, Paul. Get yourself a box of teething biscuits. You chews the wrong path.

Like you could tell the difference between what makes sense and what doesn't. I question your gummy peer review.

Do I streach for meanings and definitions beyong "your; their dictionay accepted norms?

Only very slightly.

Then slightly leads to complexity.

Argue; The Article is of no significance. Play it down.

The Article was already well understood whistle. We already got one.

If Science was a game of say what you see, would mine be so obtuse?... oh so psudosciencentific.

So I step on toes.with mine: A friction between fact and fiction.

To rely on most basic fact as a foundation. (Method?)

What resonates as a possible truth in a world of evolving definitions , echoes metaphors from a basic truth?

Paul.

Ah.... ye good old "simple days of hack slash and thrower".

Cito di Pense wrote:

pfrankinstein wrote:I'd be chewing the corners off the data to make the pieces fit

With your toothless nonsense? What do you want to do? Gum your interlocutors to death?

Baby steps, Paul. Get yourself a box of teething biscuits. You chews the wrong path.

Your peer review opinion is requested sir.

Science itself evolves by means of Human section.

Who is anybody to claim a way of thinking is outdated.

A question of throw away knowledge. Significance. Any.

Why is the Darwinian initial inclination throw away.

Out of small seemingly insignificant data . >> >

Paul.

This crazy bloke on the internet reakons " Evolution was a process before it was biology.

Paul.

romansh wrote:

pfrankinstein wrote:Excuse me good sir. Where do I mention God.

Excuse me, good Sir, where do you mention whether you think snowflakes replicate or not?

Your question is a welcomed thought provoking distraction.

How Do extra terrestrial respond to the primary coulors.

A simplafcation of factors?

Paul.

romansh wrote:

pfrankinstein wrote:Excuse me good sir. Where do I mention God.

Excuse me, good Sir, where do you mention whether you think snowflakes replicate or not?

You question is a welcomed distraction.

Your question is a welcome distraction, sir.

Another.

How to signal the extraterrestrials. 

How do we signal our intelligence to the extraterrestrials?

Morse code by primary colour. Brand new.

Love brain storming here.

Paul.