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 »

hackenslash";p="1335909 wrote:Refuted by the rest of the sentence, genius, in which I categorically stated that he was correct, thus it wasn't an opinion.


If it was more than just an opinion, and his/your opinion is factually based, then by all means present those facts.

Will you set about telling me what 'evolution' is, or will you tell me what 'biological evolution' is?

Be totally accurate in your choice of words, best science foot forward now hack; what is 'evolution'?

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

Re: One bang one process.

Post by pfrankinstein »

LucidFlight";p="1335844 wrote:
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: :)


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

Re: One bang one process.

Post by pfrankinstein »

Dawkins wrote: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.


There is a factual scientific basis for Herbert Spencers opinion and mine.

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 »

Then detail the facts.
pfrankinstein
Posts: 1814
Joined: Mar 27, 2011 12:42 am
Name: paul
Country: UK

Re: One bang one process.

Post by pfrankinstein »

hackenslash";p="1335946 wrote:Then detail the facts.


DawkinsOnHerbertSpencer";p="1335946 wrote:Evolution, for him, was a much more general process, with shared laws at all its levels.


1, Everything descends down through time.
2, Everything descends down through and with the emergence of the Earth and organic life down through generations.
3, Everything descends down through time, generations, and with the emergence of intelligence potentially across species.

The outed movement of selection from the non-conscious [inorganic] to subconscious [organic], to consciousness [cognition].

Not difficult to grasp, no confusion.

One bang one process logically divided to give 'Three chapters of evolution' and three types of selection.

Paul.
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.


Illumination: The first selecting agent in the universe were the laws of physics and chemistry. Not at all confusing .

Paul.
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.


Illumination: To have evolution of any kind then there must be the means to store and pass on knowledge.

1,Inorganic material stores "knowledge" of every encounter in itself.

2, Complex Organic material stores knowledge in DNA.

3, Intellectual material, books and computers.

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="1335974 wrote:
hackenslash";p="1335946 wrote:Then detail the facts.


DawkinsOnHerbertSpencer";p="1335946 wrote:Evolution, for him, was a much more general process, with shared laws at all its levels.


1, Everything descends down through time.


Bollocks. Everything develops down through time. Descent has a precise definition, that fucks your ignorant shit.

I need go no further. But then, I didn't have to go past my first response to demonstrate the utter fucknuttery in your 'theory'.

You still have fuck all.
pfrankinstein
Posts: 1814
Joined: Mar 27, 2011 12:42 am
Name: paul
Country: UK

Re: One bang one process.

Post by pfrankinstein »

hackenslash";p="1336004 wrote:
pfrankinstein";p="1335974 wrote:
hackenslash";p="1335946 wrote:Then detail the facts.


DawkinsOnHerbertSpencer";p="1335946 wrote:Evolution, for him, was a much more general process, with shared laws at all its levels.


1, Everything descends down through time.


Bollocks. Everything develops down through time. Descent has a precise definition, that fucks your ignorant shit.

I need go no further. But then, I didn't have to go past my first response to demonstrate the utter fucknuttery in your 'theory'.

You still have fuck all.


OK Yes it developed Hack, you no doubt have a scientific basis for your opinion . :lol: . How does it develop, what is the mechanism for development.

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 »

No, I have a definitional basis.
pfrankinstein
Posts: 1814
Joined: Mar 27, 2011 12:42 am
Name: paul
Country: UK

Re: One bang one process.

Post by pfrankinstein »

hackenslash";p="1336004 wrote:
pfrankinstein";p="1335974 wrote:
hackenslash";p="1335946 wrote:Then detail the facts.


DawkinsOnHerbertSpencer";p="1335946 wrote:Evolution, for him, was a much more general process, with shared laws at all its levels.


1, Everything descends down through time.


Bollocks. Everything develops down through time. Descent has a precise definition, that fucks your ignorant shit.

I need go no further. But then, I didn't have to go past my first response to demonstrate the utter fucknuttery in your 'theory'.

You still have fuck all.


Oh you sound just like thrower. Knowledge for life evolving could not be passed down through generations without following the arrow of time. Factual and precise as much as you would like to ignore.

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="1336024 wrote:No, I have a definitional basis.


You got nothing at at all, else you would of produced it.

Paul.

:coffee:
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 »

Knowledge for life evolving could not be passed down through generations without following the arrow of time.


What is this supposed to mean? Are you suggesting that evolution (in any sense) requires knowledge?

Care to try again without the salad?

pfrankinstein wrote:You got nothing at at all, else you would of [sic] produced it.


I did, namely a definition, as presented by a biologist.
pfrankinstein
Posts: 1814
Joined: Mar 27, 2011 12:42 am
Name: paul
Country: UK

Re: One bang one process.

Post by pfrankinstein »

One can say that everything develops, everything changes, everything emerges, everything evolves.

The universal macroscopic mechanism applies to all.

Q, What is evolution.

A,Evolution is descent with modification by means of a type of selection.

Q, What is biological evolution.

A,Biological evolution is descent with modification by means of natural selection.

Paul.
Last edited by pfrankinstein on Jun 01, 2012 2:33 pm, edited 1 time in total.
pfrankinstein
Posts: 1814
Joined: Mar 27, 2011 12:42 am
Name: paul
Country: UK

Re: One bang one process.

Post by pfrankinstein »

hackenslash";p="1336038 wrote:
Knowledge for life evolving could not be passed down through generations without following the arrow of time.


What is this supposed to mean? Are you suggesting that evolution (in any sense) requires knowledge?

Care to try again without the salad?

pfrankinstein";p="1336038 wrote:You got nothing at at all, else you would of [sic] produced it.


I did, namely a definition, as presented by a biologist.


Biologists define biological evolution, have you learned nothing?

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 »

Yes, I've learned that you're really not interested in discussion, only in trolling. Have fun with that.
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="1335694 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.


Well, it can't be 'impossible' or we'd all still be stuck in hunter-gatherer belief systems with spirits residing in everything. Let's say 'difficult' instead.
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 »

Dawkins wrote: Development is change in the form of a single object, as clay deforms under a potter's hands.


Here Dawkins uses a small single scenario to bolster his opinion on what he perceives as development and change. If one stands back at looks at the whole process of the evolution of the simple unfired pottery right through to the advancement of fine bone china and beyond. One can clearly see the hallmark of evolution, knowledge of past experience is passed on through the generations until what was once a very simple vessel at the beginning gains in complexity, or not as cognition selects outcome.

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) .


The problem with Dawkins argument is that he is not clear about what he is arguing against. The distinction of what he perceives as change and what he perceives as evolution is a nonsense. Everything can be seen [if one desired] in time-lapse frames.

Paul.
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="1335702 wrote:
LucidFlight";p="1335702 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.


The problem, as I have laboured to explain, is that biological evolution has a clear mechanism. There is a unit of inheritance: DNA. Mutations in that DNA, and shifting frequency of alleles, are potentially selected for/against by the ever changing environment as they are passed down in new iterations and slightly different agglomerations. As such, we can see how the term 'evolution' has applicability here.

The problem with your idea is that there is no basal unit of inheritance between these disparate systems for which a single mechanism can account.


pfrankinstein";p="1335702 wrote: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.


As you can see here: you've invoked the principles of selection, but suggested nothing that can actually be selected. There is no unit to save or dispose of.

Considering that at the moment of the initiation of expansion, none of the building blocks that would eventually arise and go on to be used in things like planets or people were actually in existence, nor were they fore-ordained. None of it was determined - it could have gone any way. Had it gone another way, we wouldn't be here discussing it. Further, there's no logic here to suggest that these elementary stages were 'selected' for in order to produce atoms, or hydrogen, or heavier elements, or suns, or planets, or people and certainly no consciousness. There's no determined path forwards, only a path looking back. If we replayed it again from the beginning, it would all work out very differently.

That's why I continue pursuing this idea of a mechanism - i.e. a unit of inheritance and a selection force towards preserving particular states, because it makes no sense in terms of the facts.
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 »

Spearthrower";p="1336066 wrote:
pfrankinstein";p="1335694 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.


Well, it can't be 'impossible' or we'd all still be stuck in hunter-gatherer belief systems with spirits residing in everything. Let's say 'difficult' instead.


OK lets test.

Thoroughbred racehorses evolved by means of 'artificial selection' or by means of 'human cognitive selection'?

Paul. ;)
Locked