Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 78 (8960 total)
39 online now:
DrJones*, jar, JonF, PaulK, Theodoric, Thugpreacha (AdminPhat) (6 members, 33 visitors)
Newest Member: Mikee
Post Volume: Total: 869,911 Year: 1,659/23,288 Month: 1,659/1,851 Week: 299/484 Day: 75/42 Hour: 3/6


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Think bigger think better.
paullesq 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3830 days)
Posts: 43
Joined: 04-06-2009


Message 16 of 78 (505392)
04-11-2009 12:25 AM
Reply to: Message 8 by Stagamancer
04-09-2009 12:06 AM


Stagamancer

But evolution and natural selection are not the same thing. So when an astronomer is talking about the evolution of a star and a biologist is talking about the evolution of a species, they are both talking about change, but that mechanism is very, very different. This is why Darwin is not credited with coming up with the idea that animals may evolve; his own grandfather wrote about that.

It's also true that there is a kind of selection (if you can call it that, I'm stretching the definition for argument's sake) on biotic matter: Those things that are the most structurally sound will last the longest. But still, this is not selection like natural selection, because natural selection (as defined by Darwin) cannot act on something that does not replicate itself. So again, a star may evolve (change), and certain stars may last longer than others of have a different final state (black hole vs. white dwarf), but this start cannot directly create another star, and so once it burns out that's it, it's specific structure and composition is no more.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

We have many intuitions in our life and the point is that many of these intuitions are wrong. The question is, are we going to test those intuitions?
.......................................................................

You miss me by a mile. You have told yourself what a something is and become a specialist.
The subject is evolution. Modification descent by means of selection.
You only have 'natural selection' and count Darwanian/biological evolution as the only real type of evolution.
We pass on more than our genes, we pass on our knowledge our ideas and theories.
Science itself, our artefacts evolve by modification descent and human/intelligent selection.

Natural selection, intelligent selection.Two types of selection, two types of very real evolution.

Both related.

From the primordial soup, the common ancestor to the branching out of the many species.
To the first piston engine, the first petrol car and the branching out of the many different cars we see on our roads today.
Although the means of selection in both cases are very different, that is that they operate in very different spheres on different material, the branching structure of evolution is evident in both examples.
.................................................................

By triangulation.
Natural selection. Intelligent selection. Primal selection.

paul.

Edited by paullesq, : My home pc has given up the ghost. I struggle on a crap old lap top.
Excuse the way i quote.

Edited by paullesq, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Stagamancer, posted 04-09-2009 12:06 AM Stagamancer has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by Percy, posted 04-11-2009 8:19 AM paullesq has not yet responded
 Message 20 by Stagamancer, posted 04-13-2009 1:25 PM paullesq has responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 19330
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.9


Message 17 of 78 (505407)
04-11-2009 8:19 AM
Reply to: Message 16 by paullesq
04-11-2009 12:25 AM


Hi Paullesq,

If when typing a response you look to the left of the message box you'll see several links. One is for help with dBCodes, which is how you quote text in order to keep separate what you say from what you're quoting others as having said. Also, if you click on the "Peek" button that appears beneath each message it will bring up a window that displays the raw text used to create the message, including dBCodes and HTML.

paullesq writes:

From the primordial soup, the common ancestor to the branching out of the many species.

To the first piston engine, the first petrol car and the branching out of the many different cars we see on our roads today.

Although the means of selection in both cases are very different, that is that they operate in very different spheres on different material, the branching structure of evolution is evident in both examples.

At a superficial level this seems patently false. Innovations pass freely among the different car manufacturers, a rat's nest of interconnections rather than the branching structure of evolution.

But there is a smidgen of similarity, because genes are able to pass between species, though with nothing like the freedom that innovations pass between car manufacturers. While I wouldn't say that a gene being passed from an iguana to a human was impossible, it has to be ridiculously unlikely, but organisms pick up genes from other organisms all the time, usually from viruses. Viruses operate by substituting their own DNA for a cell's DNA, and when that process is incomplete a cell (usually a reproductive cell in species that do not reproduce through fission) can pick up a completely new region of DNA donated by the virus. We see the effects of this process distributed throughout DNA.

The common element between biological evolution and many other physical processes is selection. What they do not share is descent with modification, and that makes all the difference.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by paullesq, posted 04-11-2009 12:25 AM paullesq has not yet responded

  
paullesq 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3830 days)
Posts: 43
Joined: 04-06-2009


Message 18 of 78 (505536)
04-13-2009 8:50 AM
Reply to: Message 15 by Admin
04-10-2009 9:25 AM


Admin wrote:
I see it differently, that you're finding it difficult getting people to accept inarticulate propositions, but more importantly, here at EvC Forum we try to keep discussion focused strictly on the topic. Complaints about the difficulties involved in persuading people are not part of the topic of the discussion threads, by which I mean the threads in the science category and in the religion category.

.........................................

Where do i complain?
Inarticulate propositions sir, you skim read me, If you are interested and unsure of what i propose then please do ask.
It seems to me that you have focussed on the call to think deeper and not the theory.

The theory stands to reason by its own merit.

What separates this universe from a quantum universe?

Selection,selection selection. The three [4] types that i outline.
Primal selection, natural selection, human/intelligent selection.

.........................................

paul.

Edited by paullesq, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by Admin, posted 04-10-2009 9:25 AM Admin has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by Admin, posted 04-13-2009 9:54 AM paullesq has not yet responded

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12656
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 3.1


Message 19 of 78 (505546)
04-13-2009 9:54 AM
Reply to: Message 18 by paullesq
04-13-2009 8:50 AM


paullesq writes:

Where do i complain?
Inarticulate propositions sir, you skim read me,...

You complain over at the Report discussion problems here: No.2 thread I just referred you to, and that you already posted to a couple times last Friday. The same thread where in Message 89 I used the term "inarticulate propositions" that you just repeated here. You should have replied to that message, but don't bother now, I'll post a reply to it myself based upon your response here.


--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by paullesq, posted 04-13-2009 8:50 AM paullesq has not yet responded

  
Stagamancer
Member (Idle past 3305 days)
Posts: 174
From: Oregon
Joined: 12-28-2008


Message 20 of 78 (505553)
04-13-2009 1:25 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by paullesq
04-11-2009 12:25 AM


Natural selection, intelligent selection.Two types of selection, two types of very real evolution.

I never said this wasn't true. In fact, I never even mentioned cultural (or, as you put, intelligent) selection. And of course ideas (or memes, as Dawkins put it) can evolve in a very similar manner to genes. However, they are not identical. Memes, because they can be shaped and changed within one mind are more Lamarckian than Darwinian in their evolution. But this is neither here nor there. My point was that I disagree with the following statement you made in your opening post.

The single process has moved through three punctuated phases. Although the three phases can be viewed and studied independently of each other they do blend together.

I don't agree that the evolution of the universe and the evolution of life are caused by the same process because the inorganic entities such as stars are not replicating themselves. They are dying and new ones are forming, but they are not related to each other.

the branching structure of evolution is evident in both examples

While, again, I agree that natural and "intelligent" selection are very similar, I don't think this is true for what you call "primal" selection. All you've pointed out is a similar end result, which in no way proves a similar process or mechanism. Not to mention, you have yet to show how the "primal evolution" of the universe shows a branching structure similar to the evolution of organisms or ideas.


We have many intuitions in our life and the point is that many of these intuitions are wrong. The question is, are we going to test those intuitions?
-Dan Ariely

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by paullesq, posted 04-11-2009 12:25 AM paullesq has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by paullesq, posted 04-14-2009 3:08 PM Stagamancer has responded

  
paullesq 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3830 days)
Posts: 43
Joined: 04-06-2009


Message 21 of 78 (505604)
04-13-2009 10:27 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by onifre
04-09-2009 9:45 PM



All this is cool.

Don't mean to be rude, Paul, but what's your point?

Are you trying to talk about the emergence of consciousness, or something like that?

Sorry, but I'm not following.......

- Oni

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I make several points oni, the rise to consciousness is one.
I suppose the main point i make i that *when evolution is broadened out it gains direction.
With a fertile mind i have regressed evolution back to the big bang and projected the process forward into the minds of men, intelligent evolution... Back and forth to gain an exploded view. [sexy]
Direction, movement is all important, the movement for mankind at least is one from basic to complex.
The 'single beginning single process' idea was conceived when i was an atheist, my overview of the single process of evolution changed that, now i am agnostic.
.............................

paul.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by onifre, posted 04-09-2009 9:45 PM onifre has not yet responded

  
paullesq 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3830 days)
Posts: 43
Joined: 04-06-2009


Message 22 of 78 (505645)
04-14-2009 1:28 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by onifre
04-09-2009 9:45 PM


All this is cool.

Don't mean to be rude, Paul, but whats your point?

Are you trying to talk about the emergence of consciousness, or something like that?

Sorry, but I'm not following.......

- Oni
.................s..........................

Hello Oni,
Im making several points,the 'single begining single process' theory has a number of implacations, the rise to consciousness is one as you rightly point out. The main point i make is that *when broadened out
evolution gains direction. [for us, our kind it does].

paul.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by onifre, posted 04-09-2009 9:45 PM onifre has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by Larni, posted 04-16-2009 7:21 AM paullesq has responded
 Message 28 by RDK, posted 04-18-2009 3:04 AM paullesq has not yet responded

  
paullesq 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3830 days)
Posts: 43
Joined: 04-06-2009


Message 23 of 78 (505650)
04-14-2009 3:08 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by Stagamancer
04-13-2009 1:25 PM


I don't agree that the evolution of the universe and the evolution of life are caused by the same process because the inorganic entities such as stars are not replicating themselves. They are dying and new ones are forming, but they are not related to each other.

.......................................................................Hello Stagamancer

You are absolutely correct, but then im not stating that the universe and the evolution of life evolve by the same process that is why the name of the two processes are different. Try to think in terms of chapters, the process of primordial evolution is one chapter, the process of biological evolution is another. Both chapters share the same mechanical mode of operation, modification descent by means of selection.

If you was looking for the precursor process to the biological one, what would you expect it to look like.

What has experience taught you?

The process of Primordial evolution lacks the ability to reproduce and pass on dna, that is what marks it out to be more basic than complex biological evolution. The evolution of intelligence is more complex than both primordial evolution and biological evolution because it has the potential to understand both processes.

paul.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by Stagamancer, posted 04-13-2009 1:25 PM Stagamancer has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by Stagamancer, posted 04-14-2009 5:33 PM paullesq has not yet responded

  
paullesq 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3830 days)
Posts: 43
Joined: 04-06-2009


Message 24 of 78 (505651)
04-14-2009 3:31 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by paullesq
04-09-2009 7:19 AM


Primal selection. Red.
Natural selection.Blue.
Intelligent selection. Yellow.
.................................
Human selection.Black + white = Grey.
.................................
The avarage colour of the universe.[google it].
.................................
The colours can be seen blending together so as to paint a picture, or they can be viewed seperatly naked on the pallete.
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

The colours have been appropriated for good reason.

Do you know why?

paul.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by paullesq, posted 04-09-2009 7:19 AM paullesq has not yet responded

  
Stagamancer
Member (Idle past 3305 days)
Posts: 174
From: Oregon
Joined: 12-28-2008


Message 25 of 78 (505656)
04-14-2009 5:33 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by paullesq
04-14-2009 3:08 PM


im not stating that the universe and the evolution of life evolve by the same process that is why the name of the two processes are different.

Both chapters share the same mechanical mode of operation, modification descent by means of selection.

Do you not see how these two statements contradict each other. Unless, of course, process and mechanical mode of operation are not synonyms. And if they are not, can you please tell me in what way they are different?


We have many intuitions in our life and the point is that many of these intuitions are wrong. The question is, are we going to test those intuitions?
-Dan Ariely

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by paullesq, posted 04-14-2009 3:08 PM paullesq has not yet responded

  
Larni
Member
Posts: 3990
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 26 of 78 (505752)
04-16-2009 7:21 AM
Reply to: Message 22 by paullesq
04-14-2009 1:28 PM


paullesq writes:

The main point i make is that *when broadened out
evolution gains direction

I think you need to provided evidence that this is true. This will stop people concluding that you are simply having a mental wank.

By the way, using the db codes is easy.

(qs=Larni)Quotes are easy(/qs)

Becomes

Larni writes:

Quotes are easy

When you replace you replace () with the flat brackects on the right of the P key and to the left of the ENTER key.

Even your crapped out lappy can do it.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by paullesq, posted 04-14-2009 1:28 PM paullesq has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by paullesq, posted 04-18-2009 12:37 AM Larni has responded

  
paullesq 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3830 days)
Posts: 43
Joined: 04-06-2009


Message 27 of 78 (505827)
04-18-2009 12:37 AM
Reply to: Message 26 by Larni
04-16-2009 7:21 AM


paulleq writes.

The main point i make is that *when broadened out
evolution gains direction.

........................................

Larni writes.

I think you need to provided evidence that this is true. This will stop people concluding that you are simply having a mental wank.

By the way, using the db codes is easy.

............................................

Evidence, well that is easy. If evolution did t have direction when broadened out,cavemen would have understood it. Eh....?

You raise the question of mental masturbation...interesting. Why... I look for simulates within the three spheres of evolution, Explosive types of conception.

Inorganic. The big bang.

Organic. The orgasm.

Intelligence. The eureka moment.

paul.

Edited by paullesq, : No reason given.

Edited by paullesq, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by Larni, posted 04-16-2009 7:21 AM Larni has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by Larni, posted 04-18-2009 5:30 AM paullesq has responded

  
RDK
Junior Member (Idle past 3660 days)
Posts: 26
From: Ann Arbor, Michigan
Joined: 11-23-2008


Message 28 of 78 (505829)
04-18-2009 3:04 AM
Reply to: Message 22 by paullesq
04-14-2009 1:28 PM


Am I the only one having a hard time understanding exactly what Paul is talking about here?

Paul writes:

I make several points oni, the rise to consciousness is one.
I suppose the main point i make i that *when evolution is broadened out it gains direction.
With a fertile mind i have regressed evolution back to the big bang and projected the process forward into the minds of men, intelligent evolution... Back and forth to gain an exploded view. [sexy]
Direction, movement is all important, the movement for mankind at least is one from basic to complex.
The 'single beginning single process' idea was conceived when i was an atheist, my overview of the single process of evolution changed that, now i am agnostic.

Nobody is arguing with you about how everything changes. But the evolution of consciousness doesn't really require anything more than the evolution of biological organisms can supply.

What people tend to forget is that, beyond a reasonable doubt, there is no "spiritual" realm. The mind is not a "spiritual" entity, detached from our bodies and floating off in another dimension somewhere. It's just as physical as the rest of our bodies, and it depends upon physically deterministic processes.

That being said, the jump from a primitive controlling system (early forms of CNS in lower organisms perhaps) to what we consider "consciousness" in a higher organism isn't that big of a jump. It's just nature expanding on a good design to make it even better.

Edited by RDK, : No reason given.

Edited by RDK, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by paullesq, posted 04-14-2009 1:28 PM paullesq has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by Larni, posted 04-18-2009 5:22 AM RDK has not yet responded

  
Larni
Member
Posts: 3990
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 29 of 78 (505834)
04-18-2009 5:22 AM
Reply to: Message 28 by RDK
04-18-2009 3:04 AM


No, it's not just you.

Many people come to this site trumpeting paradigm shattering ideas and they often talk like Yoda.

The thing is when you ideas are very woolly it is incredibly difficult to communicate them to other people (just ask any social researcher trying to come up with a research question for the first time ever).

Paulesq will continue to thrash around for a bit (not making much sense, or bothering to use dB codes to help other people his text), not get the traction he/she wants and leave.

Happens all the time, here.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by RDK, posted 04-18-2009 3:04 AM RDK has not yet responded

  
Larni
Member
Posts: 3990
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 30 of 78 (505835)
04-18-2009 5:30 AM
Reply to: Message 27 by paullesq
04-18-2009 12:37 AM


Evidence, well that is easy. If evolution did t have direction when broadened out,cavemen would have understood it. Eh....?

You think that is evidence?

You hold the position of a moron.

Think harder about what evidence is for Christ sake.

You raise the question of mental masturbation...interesting. Why... I look for simulates within the three spheres of evolution, Explosive types of conception.

A mental wank is perfect example of what you are doing here; getting off on being obscure and mysterious.

Who is this Paulesq that comes to our humble forum with mind expanding ideas, shaking the foundations of modern thought? His/her clever use of words really makes me think!

Moreover,

Why can't he/she state his/her point and provide supporting evidence?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by paullesq, posted 04-18-2009 12:37 AM paullesq has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by paullesq, posted 04-19-2009 11:58 PM Larni has responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2020