One bang one process.

Discussions on astrology, homeopathy and superstition etc.

Moderators: kiore, The_Metatron, Blip

User avatar
Spearthrower
Posts: 33888
Joined: Feb 25, 2010 6:11 pm
Country: Thailand
Location: กรุงเทพมหานคร

Re: One bang one process.

Post by Spearthrower »

pfrankinstein";p="1327050 wrote:
Spearthrower";p="1327033 wrote:
pfrankinstein";p="1326980 wrote:
Spearthrower";p="1326588 wrote:

Didn't you realise that idiotic trolling is always just going to be idiotic trolling?

Tell the nice folk here why you abandoned this thread and offloaded your jism into another thread. Is it because this one has a big moderator warning and you can claim the victim card in the other thread by pretending that dozens of substantive rebuttals to your poorly-conceived assertions haven't actually occurred?


Clearly you believe that i have little or no intelligence whatsoever, you would be advised to remember that the forum is made up of other members who can evaluate the concept for themselves,. You are a teacher, quite frankly your behaviour in the forum can be described as abysmal. You are the one who is guilty of trolling the thread, stonewalling feigning ignorance to the last every twist and turn, your tactics is so transparent it is blatantly obvious what you are up to.

The nice folk who you seem to believe have abandoned the thread have not, they have abandoned you , there was a time when they would jump on your band wagon laugh and joke and seek to destroy the idea. Not no more, you, the ring leader stands very much alone.

Paul.



Do you really think that I credit your evaluation of my performance with even a shred of validity?

Paul - you have acted like a twat since you joined RDF, and you continue to do so here, occasionally popping back to repeat yourself.

Why is it you've been banned from half the science fora on the internet? Is it because of me? Was I there creating a disturbance in your thread? Or was it that people saw you repeating yourself ad nauseum without even considering the responses, saw you being shitty to people instead of rebutting their critiques, and then banned you as a troll? Whose fault were all those incidences, Paul? Not yours, you apparently believe. Always other people, huh?

As for the remainder of your ruminations - they are as fantastical as the rest of your claims. People stopped responding to this thread because you are obstinately parroting your specious assertions and ignoring all rebuttals.


:lol: :lol: :lol: Your a disgrace.



Adn your spellin iz rong.
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
Scar
Posts: 3967
Joined: Oct 26, 2010 6:57 pm
Name: Michael
Country: Germany

Re: One bang one process.

Post by Scar »

pfrankinstein";p="1326980 wrote:
Spearthrower";p="1326588 wrote:
pfrankinstein";p="1326387 wrote:
Spearthrower";p="1326304 wrote:Bump so Paul can stop polluting other threads with his credulous verbiage.


Again you fail to counter or elaborate on any specific point i raise. Cloaked abuse.

How long will it be before you throw your teddy out of the pram again one wonders. :lol:

Paul.



Didn't you realise that idiotic trolling is always just going to be idiotic trolling?

Tell the nice folk here why you abandoned this thread and offloaded your jism into another thread. Is it because this one has a big moderator warning and you can claim the victim card in the other thread by pretending that dozens of substantive rebuttals to your poorly-conceived assertions haven't actually occurred?


Clearly you believe that i have little or no intelligence whatsoever, you would be advised to remember that the forum is made up of other members who can evaluate the concept for themselves,. You are a teacher, quite frankly your behaviour in the forum can be described as abysmal. You are the one who is guilty of trolling the thread, stonewalling feigning ignorance to the last every twist and turn, your tactics is so transparent it is blatantly obvious what you are up to.

The nice folk who you seem to believe have abandoned the thread have not, they have abandoned you , there was a time when they would jump on your band wagon laugh and joke and seek to destroy the idea. Not no more, you, the ring leader stands very much alone.

Paul.



Nope, everyone is still just making fun of your idiocy. Nothing's changed. Spear's far from alone. People just can't be arsed to engage with your trolling anymore.
Image
pfrankinstein
Posts: 1814
Joined: Mar 27, 2011 12:42 am
Name: paul
Country: UK

Re: One bang one process.

Post by pfrankinstein »

MacIver";p="1326458 wrote:Paul, as a newcomer to this thread perhaps you could elaborate on your ideas for me? I read your OP, and I have to be honest, I didn't understand a single thing.


As you may well understand many a theory/idea starts out with a "what if", also known as a 'supposition'. The art of supposing is to suspend/hold to one side traditionally held views and treat the 'what if' statement as being factual. My idea starts with such; a foundational statement that for the purposes of investigation should be held by the investigator as being factual. Not everybody has the ability to suppose, hence if you have read back through the thread you will see that there has been a great deal of friction.

So to the What if, the foundational statement, the suppose.

*The big bang is a single beginning that denotes a single process, that single process is Evolution.

The idea that Evolution began with the big bang flies in the face of traditionally held beliefs . This even though experience and knowledge of evolution has taught us that anything that has achieved a level of complexity starts out as a basic representation of itself.

Envisage if you will a single chain of cause and effect that begins with the big bang that ends with you being sat there in your chair. The question is is one chain responsible for you being here or is it that Darwinian evolution is brand new and there is no related fore-running primitive process that follows its theme of 'descent with modification by means of selection'.

My own idea is to dissect that single chain and place Darwinian evolution into context of its own evolution.

Hope this give you a little more background information on the subject.

Paul.
pfrankinstein
Posts: 1814
Joined: Mar 27, 2011 12:42 am
Name: paul
Country: UK

Re: One bang one process.

Post by pfrankinstein »

Spearthrower wrote:Adn your spellin iz rong.


All time low.

Lost the plot big style.

Paul.
pfrankinstein
Posts: 1814
Joined: Mar 27, 2011 12:42 am
Name: paul
Country: UK

Re: One bang one process.

Post by pfrankinstein »

Scar wrote:Nope, everyone is still just making fun of your idiocy. Nothing's changed. Spear's far from alone. People just can't be arsed to engage with your trolling anymore.


Where do they make fun, behind the bike sheds :lol: You people, fucking grow up.

Paul.
pfrankinstein
Posts: 1814
Joined: Mar 27, 2011 12:42 am
Name: paul
Country: UK

Re: One bang one process.

Post by pfrankinstein »

MacIver";p="1326458 wrote:Paul, as a newcomer to this thread perhaps you could elaborate on your ideas for me? I read your OP, and I have to be honest, I didn't understand a single thing.


You also need to understand that there has been a shift in the way the subject of evolution has been viewed over the past 150 years or so. Charles Darwin was a naturalist and had only a macroscopic view of the process, he viewed the process by making naked eye observations. Today Biologist use microscopes to study and explain same subject.

So a question presents itself, are there only two ways of viewing the same subject. If my way of viewing evolution is valid then there is a third way, because i dissect and divide the one process broadly in to chapters, i call that way of looking the chapterscopic perspective.

The idea is validated with the understanding that cognitive selecting, literally consciously choosing with a brain emerged from natural selection. The idea that NS emerged from a primitive type of selection equally valid.

Paul.
User avatar
Scar
Posts: 3967
Joined: Oct 26, 2010 6:57 pm
Name: Michael
Country: Germany

Re: One bang one process.

Post by Scar »

pfrankinstein";p="1327261 wrote:
MacIver";p="1326458 wrote:Paul, as a newcomer to this thread perhaps you could elaborate on your ideas for me? I read your OP, and I have to be honest, I didn't understand a single thing.


You also need to understand that there has been a shift in the way the subject of evolution has been viewed over the past 150 years or so. Charles Darwin was a naturalist and had only a macroscopic view of the process, he viewed the process by making naked eye observations. Today Biologist use microscopes to study and explain same subject.

So a question presents itself, are there only two ways of viewing the same subject. If my way of viewing evolution is valid then there is a third way, because i dissect and divide the one process broadly in to chapters, i call that way of looking the chapterscopic perspective.

The idea is validated with the understanding that cognitive selecting, literally consciously choosing with a brain emerged from natural selection. The idea that NS emerged from a primitive type of selection equally valid.

Paul.



:crazy:
:lol:
Image
pfrankinstein
Posts: 1814
Joined: Mar 27, 2011 12:42 am
Name: paul
Country: UK

Re: One bang one process.

Post by pfrankinstein »

Scar";p="1327265 wrote:
pfrankinstein";p="1327261 wrote:
MacIver";p="1326458 wrote:Paul, as a newcomer to this thread perhaps you could elaborate on your ideas for me? I read your OP, and I have to be honest, I didn't understand a single thing.


You also need to understand that there has been a shift in the way the subject of evolution has been viewed over the past 150 years or so. Charles Darwin was a naturalist and had only a macroscopic view of the process, he viewed the process by making naked eye observations. Today Biologist use microscopes to study and explain same subject.

So a question presents itself, are there only two ways of viewing the same subject. If my way of viewing evolution is valid then there is a third way, because i dissect and divide the one process broadly in to chapters, i call that way of looking the chapterscopic perspective.

The idea is validated with the understanding that cognitive selecting, literally consciously choosing with a brain emerged from natural selection. The idea that NS emerged from a primitive type of selection equally valid.

Paul.



:crazy:
:lol:


Simpleton Troll, have you seen any?

Paul.
pfrankinstein
Posts: 1814
Joined: Mar 27, 2011 12:42 am
Name: paul
Country: UK

Re: One bang one process.

Post by pfrankinstein »

trubble76";p="1327138 wrote:You're*


Go on spit it out.

Smile.

Paul.
User avatar
Scar
Posts: 3967
Joined: Oct 26, 2010 6:57 pm
Name: Michael
Country: Germany

Re: One bang one process.

Post by Scar »

pfrankinstein";p="1327271 wrote:
Scar";p="1327265 wrote:
pfrankinstein";p="1327261 wrote:
MacIver";p="1326458 wrote:Paul, as a newcomer to this thread perhaps you could elaborate on your ideas for me? I read your OP, and I have to be honest, I didn't understand a single thing.


You also need to understand that there has been a shift in the way the subject of evolution has been viewed over the past 150 years or so. Charles Darwin was a naturalist and had only a macroscopic view of the process, he viewed the process by making naked eye observations. Today Biologist use microscopes to study and explain same subject.

So a question presents itself, are there only two ways of viewing the same subject. If my way of viewing evolution is valid then there is a third way, because i dissect and divide the one process broadly in to chapters, i call that way of looking the chapterscopic perspective.

The idea is validated with the understanding that cognitive selecting, literally consciously choosing with a brain emerged from natural selection. The idea that NS emerged from a primitive type of selection equally valid.

Paul.



:crazy:
:lol:


Simpleton Troll, have you seen any?

Paul.


Sure did.

:lol: :lol:
Image
User avatar
Weaver
RS Donator
Posts: 20125
Joined: Feb 25, 2010 6:57 pm
Country: USA
Location: Western NY

Re: One bang one process.

Post by Weaver »


!
GENERAL MODNOTE
Thread locked pending review of multiple reports.
Image
Retired AiF

Cogito, Ergo Armatus Sum.
User avatar
Weaver
RS Donator
Posts: 20125
Joined: Feb 25, 2010 6:57 pm
Country: USA
Location: Western NY

Re: One bang one process.

Post by Weaver »


!
MODNOTE
@Pfrankinstein, several of the posts you made in this thread - this, this, and this - contain clear Personal Attacks, Insults, and / or posts which appear deliberately inflammatory or provocative, in violation of 1.2 C and E of the FUA.

You have received numerous previous warnings, specifically including some for the exact language you employ in some of these posts. Therefore, you are receiving another Warning.

Since this is your third active Warning, you will be suspended for one week. During this time, in addition to losing your posting privileges, you are also reminded that you must not make any sock-puppet accounts, as that could result in increased sanctions.

You have received too many warnings for very similar violations. It is far past time for you to stop, and to confine your posting style to that required under the FUA. I strongly suggest you immediately modify your posting style permanently, and that you immediately comply with the letter and spirit of the FUA.

Do not discuss this Modnote in the thread. As usual, members may PM a Moderator with questions or concerns, or start a Feedback thread if they feel it's necessary.
Image
Retired AiF

Cogito, Ergo Armatus Sum.
User avatar
Weaver
RS Donator
Posts: 20125
Joined: Feb 25, 2010 6:57 pm
Country: USA
Location: Western NY

Re: One bang one process.

Post by Weaver »


!
GENERAL MODNOTE
@Spearthrower, this post contains a Personal Attack / Insult in violation of section 1.2C of the FUA, in that you are attacking another member's person rather than his posted material.

Due to your relatively clean record, you will not receive a Warning for this post, but I would like to caution you that further instances of such posting style could result in formal Warnings, and the resultant increasing sanctions contained in the FUA. Modify your posting style to comply with the letter and spirit of the FUA to avoid sanctions.

Do not discuss this Modnote in the thread. As usual, members are invited to PM any Moderator with questions or concerns, or to start a Feedback thread if they feel it's necessary.
Image
Retired AiF

Cogito, Ergo Armatus Sum.
User avatar
Weaver
RS Donator
Posts: 20125
Joined: Feb 25, 2010 6:57 pm
Country: USA
Location: Western NY

Re: One bang one process.

Post by Weaver »


!
GENERAL MODNOTE
Thread unlocked.
Weaver
Image
Retired AiF

Cogito, Ergo Armatus Sum.
hackenslash
Posts: 22910
Joined: Feb 25, 2010 2:26 pm
Name: The Other Sweary One
Country: Republic of Mancunia
Location: That niggling voice telling you you might be wrong...
Contact:

Re: One bang one process.

Post by hackenslash »

Dawkins wrote:In the rest of this chapter I shall deal with various examples of bad poetic science drawn from my own field of evolutionary theory. The first, which not all would regard as bad science and which can be defended, is the vision of Herbert Spencer, Julian Huxley and others (including Teilhard de Chardin) of a general law of progressive evolution working at all levels in nature, not just the biological level. Modern biologists use the word evolution to mean a rather carefully defined process of systematic shifts in gene frequencies in populations, together with the resulting changes in what animals and plants actually look like as the generations go by. Herbert Spencer, who, to be fair, was the first to use the word evolution in a technical sense, wanted to regard biological evolution as only a special case. Evolution, for him, was a much more general process, with shared laws at all its levels. Other manifestations of the same general law of evolution were the development of the individual (the progression from fertilized egg through foetus to adult)- the development of the cosmos, the stars and the planets from simpler beginnings; and progressive changes, over historical time, in social phenomena such as the arts, technology and language.

There are good things and bad about the poetry of general evolutionism. On balance I think it fosters confusion more than illumination, but there is certainly some of both. The analogy between embryonic development and species evolution was artfully exploited by that irascible genius J. B. S. Haldane to make a debating point. When a sceptic of evolution doubted that anything so complicated as a human could have come from single-celled beginnings, Haldane promptly observed that the sceptic himself had done that very thing and the whole process took only nine
months. Haldane's rhetorical point is undiminished by the fact, which of course he knew perfectly well, that development is not the same thing as evolution. Development is change in the form of a single object, as clay deforms under a potter's hands. Evolution, as seen in fossils taken from successive strata, is more like a sequence of frames in a cinema film. One frame doesn't literally change into the next, but we experience an illusion of change if we project the frames in succession. With this distinction in place, we can quickly see that the cosmos does not evolve (it develops) but technology does evolve (early aeroplanes are not moulded into later ones but the history of aeroplanes, and of many other pieces of technology, falls well into the cinema frame analogy) . Clothes
fashions, too, evolve rather than develop. It is controversial whether the analogy between genetic evolution, on the one hand, and cultural or technical evolution, on the other, leads to illumination or the reverse, and I am not going to get into that argument now.


Unweaving The Rainbow

So, not only is this not an original argument, it's bad poetry.

[/thread]
User avatar
Spearthrower
Posts: 33888
Joined: Feb 25, 2010 6:11 pm
Country: Thailand
Location: กรุงเทพมหานคร

Re: One bang one process.

Post by Spearthrower »

When Paul returns, perhaps he can finally address my criticism of the lack of unit of inheritance that would be necessary for a selective process to operate on.

I fear the only response I will hear will be about my personal failings though.
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/
pfrankinstein
Posts: 1814
Joined: Mar 27, 2011 12:42 am
Name: paul
Country: UK

Re: One bang one process.

Post by pfrankinstein »

hackenslash";p="1327893 wrote:
Dawkins";p="1327893 wrote:In the rest of this chapter I shall deal with various examples of bad poetic science drawn from my own field of evolutionary theory. The first, which not all would regard as bad science and which can be defended, is the vision of Herbert Spencer, Julian Huxley and others (including Teilhard de Chardin) of a general law of progressive evolution working at all levels in nature, not just the biological level. Modern biologists use the word evolution to mean a rather carefully defined process of systematic shifts in gene frequencies in populations, together with the resulting changes in what animals and plants actually look like as the generations go by. Herbert Spencer, who, to be fair, was the first to use the word evolution in a technical sense, wanted to regard biological evolution as only a special case. Evolution, for him, was a much more general process, with shared laws at all its levels. Other manifestations of the same general law of evolution were the development of the individual (the progression from fertilized egg through foetus to adult)- the development of the cosmos, the stars and the planets from simpler beginnings; and progressive changes, over historical time, in social phenomena such as the arts, technology and language.

There are good things and bad about the poetry of general evolutionism. On balance I think it fosters confusion more than illumination, but there is certainly some of both. The analogy between embryonic development and species evolution was artfully exploited by that irascible genius J. B. S. Haldane to make a debating point. When a sceptic of evolution doubted that anything so complicated as a human could have come from single-celled beginnings, Haldane promptly observed that the sceptic himself had done that very thing and the whole process took only nine
months. Haldane's rhetorical point is undiminished by the fact, which of course he knew perfectly well, that development is not the same thing as evolution. Development is change in the form of a single object, as clay deforms under a potter's hands. Evolution, as seen in fossils taken from successive strata, is more like a sequence of frames in a cinema film. One frame doesn't literally change into the next, but we experience an illusion of change if we project the frames in succession. With this distinction in place, we can quickly see that the cosmos does not evolve (it develops) but technology does evolve (early aeroplanes are not moulded into later ones but the history of aeroplanes, and of many other pieces of technology, falls well into the cinema frame analogy) . Clothes
fashions, too, evolve rather than develop. It is controversial whether the analogy between genetic evolution, on the one hand, and cultural or technical evolution, on the other, leads to illumination or the reverse, and I am not going to get into that argument now.


Unweaving The Rainbow

So, not only is this not an original argument, it's bad poetry.

[/thread]


What do you think Hack, do you agree wholeheartedly with Richards opinion only based article?

I know for a fact that Richard himself believes that once a perception has fallen into the main popular frame of thinking it is impossible to change that perception.



Paul.

Mark Twain: 'History doesn't repeat itself, but it does rhyme.'
User avatar
LucidFlight
RS Donator
Posts: 10805
Joined: Feb 05, 2011 2:00 pm
Name: Kento
Country: UK/US/AU/SG
Contact:

Re: One bang one process.

Post by LucidFlight »

Paul, what is the unit of inheritance that your proposed selective process operates upon?
OFFICIAL MEMBER: QUANTUM CONSTRUCTOR CONSCIOUSNESS QUALIA KOALA COLLECTIVE.
pfrankinstein
Posts: 1814
Joined: Mar 27, 2011 12:42 am
Name: paul
Country: UK

Re: One bang one process.

Post by pfrankinstein »

LucidFlight wrote: Oh, and there's talk of some universal mechanisms that drives all of this, I think. I'm not too clear on that part. Paul, care to elaborate?


Darwinian/biological evolution has been encapsulated to mean/apply to the evolution of organic lifeforms. I take that encapsulated subject and apply/regress it back to the beginning of the universe and forward into the evolution of ideas. Back and forward, too and fro to gain an exploded view of evolution. Everything evolves by 'descent with modification by means of selection', be it by means of the laws of physics and chemistry in the first instance, natural selection the second, cognitive selection the third.

Universal mechanisms? Yes.


Paul.
hackenslash
Posts: 22910
Joined: Feb 25, 2010 2:26 pm
Name: The Other Sweary One
Country: Republic of Mancunia
Location: That niggling voice telling you you might be wrong...
Contact:

Re: One bang one process.

Post by hackenslash »

pfrankinstein wrote:What do you think Hack, do you agree wholeheartedly with Richards opinion only based article?


No, I just spent the last forty-some pages saying your hypothesis was bollocks because I agree with you. :roll:

BTW, it isn't just opinion, it's a matter of robust definition, which has been among the central points refuting your crass, ignorant bollocks from the moment you started extracting it from your anus and soiling the forum with it.

pfrankinstein wrote:I know for a fact that Richard himself believes that once a perception has fallen into the main popular frame of thinking it is impossible to change that perception.


Citation for this assertion? I suspect that it's bollocks, not least because Richard is a scientist and, as such, is perfectly aware that popular perception can be changed with recourse to evidence, otherwise we'd all still be labouring under the illusion that Newton was right, rather than having had our perception changed by the Relativistic paradigm. He might think that it's difficult, and he'd be right, but I'd love to see you demonstrate that he thinks it's impossible.

Care to try again?
Locked