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 »

[quote="pfrankinstein";p="2792792"]
Everybody here understands that you are the leading authority on the subject of biological evolution.[/quote]

No they don't Paul.

Not only do they not, nor do you.

I've told you directly numerous times that this is just contrived bullshit on your part.

I certainly know a shit tonne more than you about it, but that doesn't make me an expert, an authority, or perceived that way by people here.


[quote="pfrankinstein";p="2792792"]If I look to the core understanding of the subject it is because you have driven me there, you are the man.[/quote]

Latest suite of lies incoming, I guess.


[quote="pfrankinstein";p="2792792"]Charles Darwin proposed a single proces...[/quote]

Bullshit artist.


[quote="pfrankinstein";p="2792792"] with a mechanism [/quote]

No, this was explained to you: Darwin hypothesized the mechanism, but knew nothing of the existence of genes, the unit of inheritance. This came later when Mendel's work was rediscovered. Considering the number of years you've been engaged in this pretense of superiority, it's rather telling that you STILL don't know this even after numerous people have explained it to you again and again.



[quote="pfrankinstein";p="2792792"]and common ancestor [/quote]

Common ancestor in biology has a meaning Paul. Physical forces are not 'common ancestors'.



[quote="pfrankinstein";p="2792792"]to explain speciation.... All you.[/quote]

If you lie about me any more, Paul - then I will ask the moderators to come and oblige you to curtail your lies. Try to keep your incessant lying to just one dollop of steaming bullshit per sentence, eh?

Secondly, as noted, this falsity is all being contrived in the service of attempting to have your flatulent bullshit evade scrutiny by pretending that your ideas are equivalent to Darwin's. This is false - Darwin actually engaged in hard work collecting data, he didn't just repeatedly rub himself about how great he was, or else he'd have been as forgettable as you.
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
Spearthrower
Posts: 33888
Joined: Feb 25, 2010 6:11 pm
Country: Thailand
Location: กรุงเทพมหานคร

Re: One bang one process.

Post by Spearthrower »

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gregor_Mendel
Mendel worked with seven characteristics of pea plants: plant height, pod shape and color, seed shape and color, and flower position and color. Taking seed color as an example, Mendel showed that when a true-breeding yellow pea and a true-breeding green pea were cross-bred their offspring always produced yellow seeds. However, in the next generation, the green peas reappeared at a ratio of 1 green to 3 yellow. To explain this phenomenon, Mendel coined the terms "recessive" and "dominant" in reference to certain traits. In the preceding example, the green trait, which seems to have vanished in the first filial generation, is recessive and the yellow is dominant. He published his work in 1866, demonstrating the actions of invisible "factors"—now called genes—in predictably determining the traits of an organism.
Even Mendel wasn't exactly sure of the unit of inheritance - invisible factors are not a good scientific basis on which to build claims. This is presumably why his work wasn't immediately recognized, but took the arisal of the Darwinian paradigm for its relevance to be understood.

The reason why his work came to be appreciated is because of the robust series of experiments he performed, and the detailed notes he kept, together with mathematical descriptions of the observed relationships - i.e. he had empirical evidence and a logical and well-supported explanation for that empirical evidence that could be independently corroborated - you know, all the stuff you don't have.

Even then, it wasn't until some 70 or 80 years later that the gene was first actually directly observed through advances in x-ray crystallography, but all the evidence necessitated such an observation (i.e. scientific prediction).

So no, Darwin wasn't aware of any of this. You've clearly not read On the Origin, as you've pretended to many times, or else you wouldn't keep repeating this mistake.

Is there any honesty or truth to any of your interactions here, Paul, or is it all just public masturbation?
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
Spearthrower
Posts: 33888
Joined: Feb 25, 2010 6:11 pm
Country: Thailand
Location: กรุงเทพมหานคร

Re: One bang one process.

Post by Spearthrower »

[quote="pfrankinstein";p="2792796"][quote="romansh";p="2792765"][quote="Spearthrower";p="2792755"]
I am confused as to what you mean by referring to me here?
Are you saying he's wasting his time like I waste my time? :scratch:[/quote]
No, not exactly.

I think you put in a tremendous amount of time and effort into engaging with Paul.
I also think you have received zero reward in terms of engagement from Paul.

I suspect based on the length of this thread it is an exercise in futility. Mea culpa too.[/quote]

On the fence romansh?

Natural selection = human selection = artificial selection. Amalgamated reference. Metaphor.

Or specific? Emergence.

Paul.[/quote]



you have received zero reward in terms of engagement from Paul.


Does that suggest to you that Romansh is 'on the fence', Paul?

To me, it looks like he's saying there is ZERO VALUE engaging with you - this would presumably be due to the repeated examples you provide in this thread of evasive stupidity, outright bullshit, and a fundamental unwillingness to engage in good faith.
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
BWE
Posts: 2863
Joined: Mar 11, 2010 11:37 pm

Re: One bang one process.

Post by BWE »

Paul, after careful consideration, I think I probably agree with what you are saying. However, it seems pedestrian and not very important to the larger question of improving our models so I will bow out of this thread
User avatar
THWOTH
RS Donator
Posts: 38788
Joined: Mar 03, 2010 8:03 pm
Country: Untied Kingdom
Location: Inside

Re: One bang one process.

Post by THWOTH »

pfrankinstein wrote:[quote="Spearthrower";p="2792775"][quote="Ephys";p="2792761"]I just popped in, read the first couple posts to find out what this thread was about, read the last few posts to see which direction it had gone off to, and....

and...

it looks like...

what?

To use Paul's kooky phraseology; it's still on first base.

It's because there's absolutely nothing under the hood, which is really saying something considering the existence even of the hood is highly questionable.[/quote]

Did charles darwin propose "one process" to explain speciation.

The big bang a single beginning denotes a "single process".

Expert of metaphor you thrower. HS = AS. :clap: The common ancestor, the Bbang treated as the 1st metaphorical common ancestor.

Darwins metathorical tree of life. Trunk branching form. Shall we. The Bb timeline.

Master of metaphor you sir. Shall we shake Darwin's tree to see if an Apple falls.

Paul[/quote]
  • A musing after pfrankinstein*

    did Charles Darwin propose one process
    to explain his big idea

    that big bang
    a single beginning
    denoting no single proint

    in time
    in space

    expect no metaphors

    you spear throwers
    applaud the common root

    the singularity
    ancestor to all ancestors

    Darwin's metaphorical tree of life
    trunk branching
    branches upon bow

    who shook this tree
    to see if apples fall

    was it Paul
---
* Reimagined for clarity.
"No-one is exempt from speaking nonsense – the only misfortune is to do it solemnly."
Michel de Montaigne, Essais, 1580
User avatar
Spearthrower
Posts: 33888
Joined: Feb 25, 2010 6:11 pm
Country: Thailand
Location: กรุงเทพมหานคร

Re: One bang one process.

Post by Spearthrower »

[quote="THWOTH";p="2792820"][quote="pfrankinstein";p="2792820"][quote="Spearthrower";p="2792775"][quote="Ephys";p="2792761"]I just popped in, read the first couple posts to find out what this thread was about, read the last few posts to see which direction it had gone off to, and....

and...

it looks like...

what?[/quote]


To use Paul's kooky phraseology; it's still on first base.

It's because there's absolutely nothing under the hood, which is really saying something considering the existence even of the hood is highly questionable.[/quote]

Did charles darwin propose "one process" to explain speciation.

The big bang a single beginning denotes a "single process".

Expert of metaphor you thrower. HS = AS. :clap: The common ancestor, the Bbang treated as the 1st metaphorical common ancestor.

Darwins metathorical tree of life. Trunk branching form. Shall we. The Bb timeline.

Master of metaphor you sir. Shall we shake Darwin's tree to see if an Apple falls.

Paul[/quote]
  • A musing after pfrankinstein*

    did Charles Darwin propose one process
    to explain his big idea

    that big bang
    a single beginning
    denoting no single proint

    in time
    in space

    expect no metaphors

    you spear throwers
    applaud the common root

    the singularity
    ancestor to all ancestors

    Darwin's metaphorical tree of life
    trunk branching
    branches upon bow

    who shook this tree
    to see if apples fall

    was it Paul
---
* Reimagined for clarity.[/quote]


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

Re: One bang one process.

Post by Spearthrower »

[quote="BWE";p="2792816"]Paul, after careful consideration, I think I probably agree with what you are saying. However, it seems pedestrian and not very important to the larger question of improving our models so I will bow out of this thread[/quote]

As presented: bananas
Steel-man: banal
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
Spearthrower
Posts: 33888
Joined: Feb 25, 2010 6:11 pm
Country: Thailand
Location: กรุงเทพมหานคร

Re: One bang one process.

Post by Spearthrower »

There once was a cheese covered stick
that had one peculiar trick
when brandished at mice
ley-lines would arise
and of course it was 'scientific'.
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
romansh
Posts: 3189
Joined: May 01, 2010 9:03 pm
Country: BC Can (in the woods)
Contact:

Re: One bang one process.

Post by romansh »

OK I'll play too.

There was a young man called Paul
Whose science we thinkers appall.
His natural selection,
no Earthly connection.
Yet he presents it with hefty of =.


I won't quit my day job.
"That's right!" shouted Vroomfondel, "we demand rigidly defined areas of doubt and uncertainty!"
User avatar
romansh
Posts: 3189
Joined: May 01, 2010 9:03 pm
Country: BC Can (in the woods)
Contact:

Re: One bang one process.

Post by romansh »

[quote="BWE";p="2792816"]Paul, after careful consideration, I think I probably agree with what you are saying. However, it seems pedestrian and not very important to the larger question of improving our models so I will bow out of this thread[/quote]

But before you go ... I might agree with you here.
But when Paul asks something like
Does HS = AS? is he arguing for or against the proposition. I certainly can't tell.
"That's right!" shouted Vroomfondel, "we demand rigidly defined areas of doubt and uncertainty!"
User avatar
BWE
Posts: 2863
Joined: Mar 11, 2010 11:37 pm

Re: One bang one process.

Post by BWE »

No idea. But evolution is a category within which biological evolution is a subset so whichever way it goes, seems like it still works. I mean, as far as useless ideas go, at least it isn't dangerous
User avatar
romansh
Posts: 3189
Joined: May 01, 2010 9:03 pm
Country: BC Can (in the woods)
Contact:

Re: One bang one process.

Post by romansh »

[quote="BWE";p="2792846"]No idea. But evolution is a category within which biological evolution is a subset so whichever way it goes, seems like it still works. I mean, as far as useless ideas go, at least it isn't dangerous[/quote]
I would say biological is the principal category within evolution. The question I am trying to get Paul to answer, things that don't replicate (snowflakes) do they evolve.

If so, Paul is using the word evolve in its most trivial sense and not in the sense that Darwin formulated evolution.

Paul for some reason seems reticent to answer the simple question ... do snowflakes replicate?
"That's right!" shouted Vroomfondel, "we demand rigidly defined areas of doubt and uncertainty!"
User avatar
BWE
Posts: 2863
Joined: Mar 11, 2010 11:37 pm

Re: One bang one process.

Post by BWE »

[quote="romansh";p="2792847"][quote="BWE";p="2792846"]No idea. But evolution is a category within which biological evolution is a subset so whichever way it goes, seems like it still works. I mean, as far as useless ideas go, at least it isn't dangerous[/quote]
I would say biological is the principal category within evolution. The question I am trying to get Paul to answer, things that don't replicate (snowflakes) do they evolve.

If so, Paul is using the word evolve in its most trivial sense and not in the sense that Darwin formulated evolution.

Paul for some reason seems reticent to answer the simple question ... do snowflakes replicate?[/quote]
meh, depending on scale and perspective, the question is kinda meaningless. Snowflakes emerge just like other patterns emerge in complex systems, just that they aren't autopoietic/dissipative structures. But that's also a fairly lensed idea. Gaia works as an entity in its own right and can reproduce. It's all about perspective which boundaries you choose to apply. From there, it's just a matter of figuring out what signals are accepted and processed within the boundary and which are excluded.

ETA: Not that biological evolution isn't a valid category, just that it is very hard to differentiate it from other emergent phenomena. Society, biome, species, etc. In most ways of looking at it, evolution is just complexity and a fitness landscape. Planets evolve, Solar systems, galaxies, etc.
User avatar
Spearthrower
Posts: 33888
Joined: Feb 25, 2010 6:11 pm
Country: Thailand
Location: กรุงเทพมหานคร

Re: One bang one process.

Post by Spearthrower »

[quote="BWE";p="2792848"]
ETA: Not that biological evolution isn't a valid category, just that it is very hard to differentiate it from other emergent phenomena. Society, biome, species, etc. In most ways of looking at it, evolution is just complexity and a fitness landscape. Planets evolve, Solar systems, galaxies, etc.[/quote]

I very much don't agree with this. Biological evolution is not like the others - it doesn't fit neatly into a category consisting of stellar and galactic evolution. It only works semantically because the term 'evolution' means change over time and in that way is applicable to all. But there is no fitness landscape for solar systems, galaxies etc., just as their intrinsic constitutional differentiation doesn't get inherited selectively into future iterations.

Metaphor can certainly be useful to generate creative mental associations and to convey complex information in a more familiar way, but stretched metaphors carry unrelated concepts where they have no actual coherent meaning.

Biological evolution has 3 necessary components, and if some other phenomenon lacks any of those three necessary ingredients, then it's not actually like biological evolution, even if it appears so.

My son's off school this week (APEC stops economic play! :roll: ) so I had him watch a breathlessly presented video on the golden ratio (evidence of the fearful and humbling reality of divine creation, no less) showing it found literally everywhere in everything and he was suitably awed. Then we watched a more skeptically inclined video that immediately dispelled the mystique by examining some of the claims with actual empirical measurement - the main take away is that the Golden Ration is 1.618 etc., not 1.74 or 1.59 - being 'close' has no significance whatsoever. If it is, it is... otherwise, it just ain't. Biological evolution just ain't like the others there aside from superficial semantics.
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
THWOTH
RS Donator
Posts: 38788
Joined: Mar 03, 2010 8:03 pm
Country: Untied Kingdom
Location: Inside

Re: One bang one process.

Post by THWOTH »

BWE wrote:Gaia works as an entity in its own right and can reproduce...
And Uranus and Pontus are her offspring.
"No-one is exempt from speaking nonsense – the only misfortune is to do it solemnly."
Michel de Montaigne, Essais, 1580
User avatar
BWE
Posts: 2863
Joined: Mar 11, 2010 11:37 pm

Re: One bang one process.

Post by BWE »

[quote="THWOTH";p="2792852"][quote="BWE";p="2792852"]Gaia works as an entity in its own right and can reproduce...[/quote]

And Uranus and Pontus are her offspring.[/quote]
Every time a tardigrade survives a while in the vacuum of space..
User avatar
BWE
Posts: 2863
Joined: Mar 11, 2010 11:37 pm

Re: One bang one process.

Post by BWE »

I should probably give a better response than that. Sure biological evolution is different, although a fitness landscape does shape a solar system and a planet. But the point of saying that it is all part of the same kind of process is that wherever the right kind of complexity emerges, there is a sweet spot in an energy gradient where complexity begins to produce adaptive behavior. If simple life is the beginning of autopoeisis, it certainly isn't the end point. At the point where biological evolution begins, ever more complex self regulating entities emerge at higher levels. So cells become organisms, organisms become communities, societies, markets, biospheres, and so on. Each level is definable by the information it processes, as well as the information it externalizes. That process of signals and boundaries works at levels below as well. Drawing the line at autopoeisis is like drawing a line at a certain number of sand grains defining a heap. The analogy would be when a pile becomes unstable and begins to have avalanches. It kind of makes sense in that there could be reasons to draw such a line, but it also makes a different analysis seem "other" when the whole system may be better understood for some purposes as the elements which produce criticality or as the interactions from which it emerges.
User avatar
romansh
Posts: 3189
Joined: May 01, 2010 9:03 pm
Country: BC Can (in the woods)
Contact:

Re: One bang one process.

Post by romansh »

[quote="BWE";p="2792848"]just that they [snowflakes] aren't autopoietic [/dissipative] structures. [/quote]

Being autopoietic is sort of essential for Darwinian evolution is it not?
"That's right!" shouted Vroomfondel, "we demand rigidly defined areas of doubt and uncertainty!"
User avatar
BWE
Posts: 2863
Joined: Mar 11, 2010 11:37 pm

Re: One bang one process.

Post by BWE »

Sure. Have you ever played with Conway's game of life?

Eta: https://playgameoflife.com/
pfrankinstein
Posts: 1814
Joined: Mar 27, 2011 12:42 am
Name: paul
Country: UK

Re: One bang one process.

Post by pfrankinstein »

thrower Common ancestor in biology has a meaning Paul. Physical forces are not 'common ancestors'. snip

I use the word "ancestor" as a metaphor.  

Charles Darwin proposed "the common ancestor" of species for biology.

Charles Darwin proposed a "tree of life." Note the single trunk and the branching form.

So yes, I propose the big bang. A single beginning denotes a single process.

I propose the BB as the first "common ancestor." Note the trunk and the branching form..

Paul.
Locked