Think bigger think better.

He copied and pasted it...France explained to the world (and vice versa).: Pardon my French No. He clearly does not have the communication skills necessary to adequately deliver his idea for a forum such as this one.Another crank that will eventually disappear.

Commnication skills, hark you.
You post you reply to a third party, i am here ask away.paul.

But from reading the thread I can see that you are either unable or unwilling to communicate your ideas in a way that they can be criticized effectively, so why would I even bother?You'd rather dance around in obscurity and feal like you're on to something *really big*.It turns out that your just another crank, though.

Hello Catholic scientist. Here is my reply to phage, he has not responded, feel free to read think about what is written and make a reply. Look i even left you a question mark.
I'm a crank, my, thank you.
Key word. Think.paul.

How, or why exactly, does a single beginning denote a single process? Could not a single beginning lead to multiple processes?You're "theory" really just lacks any evidence. I don't see any reason to speculate on how biological evolution could be a part of some bigger process other than your say-so.You seem to be looking with hind-sight and then recognizing a pattern and thus concluding that the direction is there. Its the same problem of seeing a puddle and concluding that the pothole was designed to fit around the water.Biological Evolution requires replication. The "potential for biological evolution" comes about because organisms don't replicate perfectly. Its not nearly as amazing as your incredulity alludes to.And you also mention "something from nothing". Well, there was never "nothing" and there has always been "something", so there's no real point in discussing that.Oh, and if you put down the straw your nose will stop running.

Can't get anything past you eh Sherlock. Have you read my full confession to onfire. ...........................................Get real.It is an overview of 'evolution' that I am trying to explain.The 'single chain of evolution' theory that starts with the big bang is divided in to three chapters. Even an idiot could understand it.paul.

Had you replied to his post rather than using the general reply then there would have been a link to the message and I would have seen it.But only idiots know how forums actually work.

Zackly... Lead to a multiple of processes... You mean that there was one process and all the others branched out from the single one. If you had a mind too you could collect together all the different types of interactions and processes and place them into categories by type. Inorganic organic mind. So your not asking the big questions then.Evidence, if the question is 'where did that complex process [item] come from, then by experience you look for something less complex.The process of primordial evolution is less complex than biological evolution. It makes perfect sense. The problem you speak off is not a problem. The ability, the potential to understand and manipulate nature is greater than nature. That is what good intelligent selection is all about.The single chain of evolution theory was constructed when i was an atheist, by its understanding i became agnostic. Those with religion have nothing to fear from the theory. Evolution gains direction.In all of this i never intended to put the big three together.The big bang, biological evolution and God. Biological evolution requires replication, the more primitive process does not.Amazing, have you ever showed a child a magic trick and then gone on to show him how the trick was done. If the trick was astounding enough then the magic is never lost. That's right, you cannot have 'natural selection' without primal selection. Smile.paul

Not strictly true. You might look for something more complex.paul.

So then its not a single process....Wtf were you typing about then? But you have no evidence that there is even such a thing as primordial evolution. Basically, you're just making it up. To you maybe. To everyone else, things make perfect sense without it. Sure it is, it is fallacious reasoning. The water conforms to the pothole! We all know that! Whoopty-do So what? You're not really even describing anything at all.Biological evolution is a very specific process. Your Primal Evolution is a vague musing.It seems to stem from post hoc ergo propter hoc combined with a little wishful thinking and the desire for profoundness. Non-sequitor.Besides that's an unsupported assertion. Support it please or I get to counter it with my own:"Yes you can."

Please see Message 43 and take it down a notch. Thanks.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

Shall i repeat it for you.If you had a mind too you could collect all the processes and place them into categories.Three chapters one book get it?paul.

That old chestnut...
You seem to be having trouble with 'innovation'.
Shame...It's new, your making it up, awwww piffle............................................You do realise that Darwinian 'natural selection' is constant don't you.If i am to explain then you are to understand it.Paul.

...........Come see the man who contradicts himself in the space of a few lines...........paul.

Please see Message 43 and take it down a notch. Thanks.--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-- Percy
EvC Forum Director
................................Thanks but there is really no need, i will give as good as i get.paul.