Page 49 of 231

Re: One bang one process.

Posted: Jun 01, 2012 3:12 pm
by Spearthrower
pfrankinstein";p="1335732 wrote:
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.


The point is, and I think that people have made this clear: there is no mechanism for your proposal. There's no 'descent with modification' in terms of cosmic evolution - nothing is preserved because it is 'fitter' - there's no reproduction whatsoever. There is no descent, no modification in these terms, and no selection force to account for accumulating specific traits.

So your proposed physicist would have been challenged with precisely the same questions, and would either have presented something coherent and testable, or would have had his claims demolished as yours have been.

Re: One bang one process.

Posted: Jun 01, 2012 3:14 pm
by Spearthrower
pfrankinstein";p="1335744 wrote:
hackenslash";p="1335744 wrote:BTW, it isn't just opinion, it's a matter of robust definition.



Dawkins";p="1335744 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.



That is a robust definition because it shows a mechanism by which the units of inheritance are preserved.

Re: One bang one process.

Posted: Jun 01, 2012 3:15 pm
by Spearthrower
pfrankinstein";p="1335833 wrote:
hackenslash";p="1335833 wrote:
Dawkins";p="1335833 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.



But Paul, you are expressly borrowing elements of biological evolution in your claims: descent with modification - this IS biological evolution, it is NOT stellar evolution. This is not the process by which solar systems are formed - that would be 'gravity'. So you can't complain if people are taking your idea to be an extrapolation of biological evolution out onto the entire universe - that's precisely what you are doing, and there have been numerous posts explaining why this is erroneous.

Re: One bang one process.

Posted: Jun 01, 2012 3:17 pm
by Spearthrower
pfrankinstein";p="1335850 wrote:
Dawkins";p="1335850 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.



Who is 'some' and what does this have to do with the topic?

Re: One bang one process.

Posted: Jun 01, 2012 3:23 pm
by Spearthrower
pfrankinstein";p="1335862 wrote: 'Popular useage', 'popular perception'. Go on then explain the difference. 8-)


Popular usage: evolution is a scientific theory
Popular perception: theories are just guesses.

Re: One bang one process.

Posted: Jun 01, 2012 3:27 pm
by Spearthrower
pfrankinstein";p="1335882 wrote: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.


Unfortunately, this is flat out wrong.

As a very instructive example - look at your propeller and jet engines. There's no 'descent with modification' there - the entire point of human knowledge and cognitive approach to problems is that one can scrap previous designs and build from scratch. Biological evolution cannot do this - it has to work with the materials at hand in the contemporary population - it can't produce a trait that would be useful in a millenia, and likewise is produces traits that will ultimately be far from optimal many generations from the time in which it evolves.

The way knowledge evolves and the way biological populations evolve is not analogous.

Re: One bang one process.

Posted: Jun 01, 2012 3:40 pm
by pfrankinstein
Spearthrower wrote:
The way knowledge evolves and the way biological populations evolve is not analogous.


Just because you do not see it does not make it so.

What is the mechanism by which science evolves?

Paul.

Re: One bang one process.

Posted: Jun 01, 2012 3:40 pm
by Spearthrower
pfrankinstein";p="1335891 wrote:
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.


Biologists being the people trained and specialising in Biology are clearly talking about Biology when using the term 'biological evolution'.

I don't see what you're trying to say beyond that - nothing of any use anyway.


pfrankinstein";p="1335891 wrote:Popular perception. = biological evolution = evolution.

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

Your turn.

Paul.



We've done this before in the past Paul. In fact, we did this on the RD forum. Yes, of course there are other frames of reference where the term evolution is used. Everyone's well aware of the meaning of the term 'evolution' as a gradual development. I believe I listed something like 20 uses of the word 'evolution' last time you tried to claim that I couldn't see past the biological definition.

The point is that you are expressly taking concepts from biological evolution (i.e. descent with modification) outside of the frame in which they work - Biology - and projecting them onto the cosmos where they don't work as they no longer have the biological mechanisms which make them operate.

So yeah - we can talk about stellar evolution, but we're obliged to note that the term 'evolution' there is in reference to physics, not biology, and as such has no unit of inheritance as biological evolution does. The term stellar evolution, for example, denotes the change in state from molecular clouds to protostar to main sequence to loss of mass or nova - and all the internal state changes that occur during this process. There is, however, nothing analogous to biological evolution there - the words may be the same, but they aren't being used to indicate a similar process. No descent, no modification, no inheritance, no reproduction, no selection pressures etc.

Before you accuse others of misunderstanding this, or being limited, or whatever - you have to appreciate that it is your own claims that are causing the confusion because they're implying that there's a process akin to biological evolution.

And if that's not what you're claiming, then you're not really saying anything. Everyone's well aware that stars evolve.

Re: One bang one process.

Posted: Jun 01, 2012 3:43 pm
by pfrankinstein
Spearthrower";p="1336096 wrote:
pfrankinstein";p="1335882 wrote: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.


Unfortunately, this is flat out wrong.

As a very instructive example - look at your propeller and jet engines. There's no 'descent with modification' there - the entire point of human knowledge and cognitive approach to problems is that one can scrap previous designs and build from scratch.


Now your talking bollocks. Totally scrap one design and start again from scratch. :lol:

Paul.

Re: One bang one process.

Posted: Jun 01, 2012 3:44 pm
by Spearthrower
pfrankinstein";p="1335934 wrote:
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:



Evolution: a gradual change in state, often from a simple form to a more complex one.

Re: One bang one process.

Posted: Jun 01, 2012 3:46 pm
by pfrankinstein
Spearthrower";p="1336129 wrote:
pfrankinstein";p="1335934 wrote:
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:



Evolution: a gradual change in state, often from a simple form to a more complex one.


And the mechanism for your gradual change in state?

Paul.

Re: One bang one process.

Posted: Jun 01, 2012 3:46 pm
by Spearthrower
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.
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.



2) Planets don't have generations.
3) If you're using the term 'everything' then this makes no sense. How does sand evolve result in the emergence of intelligence across species? :what:

Your 'conclusion' is so thoroughly confused because you keep hopping between evolution and biological evolution. The latter has a mechanism for storing favoured units and them being inherited by future generations. 'Everything' does not have this property.

Re: One bang one process.

Posted: Jun 01, 2012 3:47 pm
by Spearthrower
pfrankinstein";p="1335983 wrote:
Dawkins";p="1335983 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.



Physics and Chemistry aren't selecting agents.

Re: One bang one process.

Posted: Jun 01, 2012 3:47 pm
by Spearthrower
pfrankinstein";p="1335991 wrote:
Dawkins";p="1335991 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.


This is wrong, and in fact, precisely where you keep going wrong. Please provide evidence for your claim.
[/quote]

Re: One bang one process.

Posted: Jun 01, 2012 3:49 pm
by Spearthrower
pfrankinstein";p="1336027 wrote:
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.


Paul - I am going to give you one warning and one warning alone.

If you start with this personalised shit again, and tweaking people's usernames to get a reaction, I will just report you.

If you wish to hold a discussion, you can do so without trying to get an emotional reaction.

Do I make myself clear?

Re: One bang one process.

Posted: Jun 01, 2012 3:50 pm
by Spearthrower
pfrankinstein";p="1336045 wrote: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.



Bait and switch. The first definition of evolution does not entail descent, or descent with modification. This is the fundamental erroneous platform on which the rest of the problems lie.

Re: One bang one process.

Posted: Jun 01, 2012 3:53 pm
by Spearthrower
pfrankinstein";p="1336047 wrote:
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.



Biological evolution = descent with modification.

Evolution = change in state.

The two are not the same, do not share the same processes, and only superficially appear to be similar in the sense of they're both about change. However, the former has a single mechanism by which it operates. That mechanism is not applicable to other forms of evolution as those things that are evolving are not reproducing, do not have units of inheritance, and aren't being selected for.

Re: One bang one process.

Posted: Jun 01, 2012 3:54 pm
by Spearthrower
pfrankinstein";p="1336078 wrote:
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. ;)



They evolved by biological evolution. The outdated concept of 'artificial selection' just means that the selection forces were human as opposed to 'not human'. The mechanism is precisely the same - inheritance of variation and differential reproduction.

Re: One bang one process.

Posted: Jun 01, 2012 3:55 pm
by Spearthrower
pfrankinstein";p="1336117 wrote:
Spearthrower";p="1336117 wrote:
The way knowledge evolves and the way biological populations evolve is not analogous.


Just because you do not see it does not make it so.


Factually, it is not so.


pfrankinstein";p="1336117 wrote:What is the mechanism by which science evolves?

Paul.


By communication.

Re: One bang one process.

Posted: Jun 01, 2012 4:00 pm
by Spearthrower
pfrankinstein";p="1336128 wrote:
Spearthrower";p="1336096 wrote:
pfrankinstein";p="1335882 wrote: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.


Unfortunately, this is flat out wrong.

As a very instructive example - look at your propeller and jet engines. There's no 'descent with modification' there - the entire point of human knowledge and cognitive approach to problems is that one can scrap previous designs and build from scratch.


Now your talking bollocks. Totally scrap one design and start again from scratch. :lol:

Paul.



Why are you laughing Paul?

Can you point to the parts of a jet engine that are just modified parts of a propeller engine?

This scrapping of designs happens all the time in human knowledge. We find new information that shows our previous notions were erroneous. We then scrap those erroneous notions as they're no longer useful to what we're attempting to achieve. One of a myriad of examples is the notion of the classical elements - that everything is comprised of varying degrees of water, fire, earth and air. There is no room in modern understanding for this. Our modern understanding is not a modified version of this. It's just scrapped as being wrong and useless. Biological evolution doesn't and cannot do this. Thus, as I said, the idea of the evolution of knowledge and biological evolution are not, and never will be, analogous.