One bang one process.

Discussions on astrology, homeopathy and superstition etc.

Moderators: kiore, The_Metatron, Blip

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

Re: One bang one process.

Post by pfrankinstein »

LucidFlight";p="1335701 wrote:Paul, what is the unit of inheritance that your proposed selective process operates upon?


Let me answer by using this analogy: Suppose you were arguing that the jet aeroplane was the only 'type' fit to be called an aeroplane, and along came me with the argument that a basic propeller driven aeroplane was also fit to be called an aeroplane. Then your question above morphs into Where is the jet propulsion system in my propeller driven example of the aeroplane.

Clearly because i differentiate between the 'Process of primordial evolution' and the 'evolution of lifeforms' the later being an advancement of the former, the propulsion system i propose would not be an exact replica of the advanced jet engine.

An enclosed inorganic scenario that clearly shows the inheritance of acquired characteristics is the way our solar system emerged.

It is only if you hold up the example of Darwinian evolution as the be all end all process fit to be called evolution that you can not see it. Suppose an eminent physicist 500 years ago was first, and made the claim that solar systems evolved by 'descent with modification and by means of the laws of chemistry and physics' and Darwin second, then ones traditional thinking would be very different.

Paul.
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 »

OK, so... uh, what's the unit of inheritance that your proposed selective process operates upon? Could you answer without using an analogy this time, please?
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 »

hackenslash wrote:BTW, it isn't just opinion, it's a matter of robust definition.



Dawkins wrote: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.


Modern biologist robustly define 'Darwinian/Biological evolution' nothing more nothing less.

If one is to be totally accurate then one must not drop words and resort to use of one word slang.

Robust definition indeed, c'mon Hack you can do better than that.

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 »

Was that supposed to be an objection?

And where is the support for your assertion concerning what Richard thinks?
pfrankinstein
Posts: 1814
Joined: Mar 27, 2011 12:42 am
Name: paul
Country: UK

Re: One bang one process.

Post by pfrankinstein »

hackenslash";p="1335745 wrote:Was that supposed to be an objection?

And where is the support for your assertion concerning what Richard thinks?


richarddawkins.net/discussions/497254-for-reasons-of-clarity

pfrankinstein";p="1335745 wrote:One can easily discern between human cognitive selection and selection made by mechanical or computer generated means. For reasons of clarity it is my belief that a clear distinction should be made.

So. Roll over 'artificial selection'.

Artificial selection. = Selection made by machine or computer.

Human cognitive selection = What it says on the tin.

Would you agree?
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: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.


pfrankinstein wrote:One can easily discern between human cognitive selection and selection made by mechanical or computer generated means. For reasons of clarity it is my belief that a clear distinction should be made.

So. Roll over 'artificial selection'.

Artificial selection. = Selection made by machine or computer.

Human cognitive selection = What it says on the tin.

Would you agree?


Dawkins wrote:I see what you mean, but I'm afraid it's too late. There comes a time when a usage is too well-established to disappear. I'm afraid your suggested reform of terminology is a non-starter.


Please tell us all how what Richard said in response to you (on a point of terminology) equates to him saying that 'once a perception has fallen into the main popular frame of thinking it is impossible to change that perception'. Do you think he would agree with your representation of his position?

Seems to be a failure of reading comprehension (or wilful dishonesty).
User avatar
Fenrir
Posts: 4129
Joined: Mar 25, 2011 10:12 am
Country: Australia

Re: One bang one process.

Post by Fenrir »

LucidFlight";p="1335701 wrote:Paul, what is the unit of inheritance that your proposed selective process operates upon?


pfrankinstein";p="1335732 wrote:Let me answer by using this analogy: Suppose you were arguing that the jet aeroplane was the only 'type' fit to be called an aeroplane, and along came me with the argument that a basic propeller driven aeroplane was also fit to be called an aeroplane. Then your question above morphs into Where is the jet propulsion system in my propeller driven example of the aeroplane.

Clearly because i differentiate between the 'Process of primordial evolution' and the 'evolution of lifeforms' the later being an advancement of the former, the propulsion system i propose would not be an exact replica of the advanced jet engine.

An enclosed inorganic scenario that clearly shows the inheritance of acquired characteristics is the way our solar system emerged.

It is only if you hold up the example of Darwinian evolution as the be all end all process fit to be called evolution that you can not see it. Suppose an eminent physicist 500 years ago was first, and made the claim that solar systems evolved by 'descent with modification and by means of the laws of chemistry and physics' and Darwin second, then ones traditional thinking would be very different.
Paul.


Lots of words here but no answer. Also a shit analogy. Jet and propeller are both means of propulsion. What is the means of propulsion in your hypothetical process?
Religion: it only fails when you test it.-Thunderf00t.
pfrankinstein
Posts: 1814
Joined: Mar 27, 2011 12:42 am
Name: paul
Country: UK

Re: One bang one process.

Post by pfrankinstein »

hackenslash wrote:
Dawkins wrote:I see what you mean, but I'm afraid it's too late. There comes a time when a usage is too well-established to disappear. I'm afraid your suggested reform of terminology is a non-starter.


Please tell us all how what Richard said in response to you (on a point of terminology) equates to him saying that 'once a perception has fallen into the main popular frame of thinking it is impossible to change that perception'. Do you think he would agree with your representation of his position?

Seems to be a failure of reading comprehension (or wilful dishonesty).


Using the single word 'evolution' and claiming that it specifically represents 'biological evolution' is a point of terminology is it not. Richard goes on to claim that there is a point whereby usage is too well-established to disappear.

So no dishonesty on my part, a failure to critique his mere opinion in the matter of what evolution actually is shows dishonesty on yours.

Paul.
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 »

Fenrir";p="1335827 wrote:Lots of words here but no answer. Also a shit analogy. Jet and propeller are both means of propulsion. What is the means of propulsion in your hypothetical process?

Hot air, maybe? :ask: :shifty: :)
Last edited by LucidFlight on Jun 01, 2012 11:30 am, edited 1 time in total.
OFFICIAL MEMBER: QUANTUM CONSTRUCTOR CONSCIOUSNESS QUALIA KOALA COLLECTIVE.
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:Using the single word 'evolution' and claiming that it specifically represents 'biological evolution' is a point of terminology is it not. Richard goes on to claim that there is a point whereby usage is too well-established to disappear.

So no dishonesty on my part, a failure to critique his mere opinion in the matter of what evolution actually is shows dishonesty on yours.


Cock. Firstly, your argument here is a red herring, and ultimately boils down to a false conflation of 'usage' and 'perception' The two statements are qualitatively different. Further, Dawkins draws the distinction you are calling for in the above-quoted piece, when he talks about 'how modern biologists use the word evolution', so your objection is moot. Finally, I didn't fail to critique his opinion in the matter of what evolution shows out of dishonesty, but out of the fact that it's correct.

I'd say 'nice try, but no cigar', but it wasn't even a nice try.

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

Re: One bang one process.

Post by pfrankinstein »

Dawkins wrote: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.


This sentence amuses me, the inclusion of the phrase 'on balance' makes it seem more sensible than it actually is.
Confusion yes, illumination yes, some of both, yes. Clearly a mixed signal, not the clear concise opposing opinion on the matter that some here would have it.

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

Re: One bang one process.

Post by pfrankinstein »

hackenslash";p="1335847 wrote:
pfrankinstein";p="1335847 wrote:Using the single word 'evolution' and claiming that it specifically represents 'biological evolution' is a point of terminology is it not. Richard goes on to claim that there is a point whereby usage is too well-established to disappear.

So no dishonesty on my part, a failure to critique his mere opinion in the matter of what evolution actually is shows dishonesty on yours.


Cock. Firstly, your argument here is a red herring, and ultimately boils down to a false conflation of 'usage' and 'perception' The two statements are qualitatively different. Further, Dawkins draws the distinction you are calling for in the above-quoted piece, when he talks about 'how modern biologists use the word evolution', so your objection is moot. Finally, I didn't fail to critique his opinion in the matter of what evolution shows out of dishonesty, but out of the fact that it's correct.

I'd say 'nice try, but no cigar', but it wasn't even a nice try.

Pall.


'Popular useage', 'popular perception'. Go on then explain the difference. 8-)

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 »

Really? You need the difference between perception and usage explained? :what:

No wonder you can't see what bollocks this thread represents.
User avatar
ElDiablo
Posts: 3128
Joined: Feb 25, 2010 9:52 pm
Country: USA

Re: One bang one process.

Post by ElDiablo »

:popcorn:
God is silly putty.
pfrankinstein
Posts: 1814
Joined: Mar 27, 2011 12:42 am
Name: paul
Country: UK

Re: One bang one process.

Post by pfrankinstein »

hackenslash wrote:Finally, I didn't fail to critique his opinion in the matter of what evolution shows out of dishonesty, but out of the fact that it's correct.


Careful now Hack, you referred to Dawkins as having an opinion, the basis for that opinion is not scientifically valid or proven. Factually, biologist define Darwinian/biological evolution no more no less than that.

Science the gathering of knowledge, our understanding of the universe evolves by process of 'descent with modification and by means of human cognitive selection'. Knowledge 'evolves,' the mechanism is factually based and represents a new chapter of evolution.

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";p="1335882 wrote:Careful now Hack, you referred to Dawkins as having an opinion,


Where did I do that?
pfrankinstein
Posts: 1814
Joined: Mar 27, 2011 12:42 am
Name: paul
Country: UK

Re: One bang one process.

Post by pfrankinstein »

hackenslash";p="1335870 wrote:Really? You need the difference between perception and usage explained? :what:

No wonder you can't see what bollocks this thread represents.


Biologists who see 'biological evolution' as the be all end all, use the single word 'evolution' to encapsulate what the subject is.

Popular perception. = biological evolution = evolution.

Popular usage = 'evolution' to those with the popular perception take it to mean 'biological evolution'.

Your turn.

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

Re: One bang one process.

Post by pfrankinstein »

hackenslash";p="1335884 wrote:
pfrankinstein";p="1335882 wrote:Careful now Hack, you referred to Dawkins as having an opinion,


Where did I do that?


Finally, I didn't fail to critique his opinion in the matter.........

Dawkins has an opinion, it is NOT factually based.

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 »

Refuted by the rest of the sentence, genius, in which I categorically stated that he was correct, thus it wasn't an opinion. Is this really the level of your reading comprehension? My use of the word opinion was, in fact, turning your own words on you, a rhetorical device that clearly flew straight over your head, once again demonstrating the lack of the necessary tools to engage in proper discourse on difficult topics.
User avatar
Fenrir
Posts: 4129
Joined: Mar 25, 2011 10:12 am
Country: Australia

Re: One bang one process.

Post by Fenrir »

But nicely demonstrating an ability to wiggle away from addressing questions.

LucidFlight";p="1335701 wrote:Paul, what is the unit of inheritance that your proposed selective process operates upon?
Religion: it only fails when you test it.-Thunderf00t.
Locked