DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
You started with the complaints.
Remember how you said we don't answer your questions? Well, you asked a bunch of questions about your treatment. It would have been rude not to answer.
What is the case against Evolution?
- Thread starter Seattle
- Start date
Remember how you said we don't answer your questions? Well, you asked a bunch of questions about your treatment. It would have been rude not to answer.
Write4U
Valued Senior Member
click!
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
It seems he's finally found the "fingers in my ears" button.
exchemist
Valued Senior Member
If you had any self-awareness, you might pause to reflect on why it is not just one person pointing out these tiresome characteristics of yours as a forum contributor.
I enjoy some of the links you post. However like several others here I am sick to death of the way you hijack every thread to turn it into yet another recitation of your tedious and all-formed ideas about mathematics and nature. These ideas seem to be founded on nothing more than the" weasel-words" procedure of deliberately muddling meanings that Dave has outlined so clearly for us. So your arguments, such as they are, are bogus and delude nobody but you.
You ask to be given a break. Ballocks, you have had plenty. It is you who should give us a break, from this religion of yours that you preach incessantly.
Long held beliefs don't change easily, especially as you get older!! You become more and more convinced they are on the right path.
I think this conflict is not leading anywhere. Its not good for anyone
exchemist
Valued Senior Member
Wise words. I've said all I need to say on this.
Like this Write4u
You said:
The reply:
Your weasely disingenuous conclusion:
Really??!
That is really an annoying habit of yours, it is one of the reason I typically skip reading anything you write.
You are posting to one of our Science sections. If you're going to make a claim like that, you need to support it with appropriate argument or evidence.
You have not explained how this is relevant.
Meaningless nonsense. This is inappropriate in our Science sections.
Moderator note: river has been excluded from posting to our Science subforums for a period of 2 years.
river has had two previous exclusions applied, but we have observed no change in his posting to the Science subforums. This ban is applied in accordance with our published policy on exclusion from the Science sections.
Members who are in doubt as to what is required when posting in the Science sections should review our site posting guidelines and the exclusion policy before posting.
river has had two previous exclusions applied, but we have observed no change in his posting to the Science subforums. This ban is applied in accordance with our published policy on exclusion from the Science sections.
Members who are in doubt as to what is required when posting in the Science sections should review our site posting guidelines and the exclusion policy before posting.
Write4U
Valued Senior Member
Thanks for the link! I feel somewhat vindicated by this news. I particularly like the self-organizing aspect at this level.
p.s. Origin, Do you believe the exponential function plays a role in the development of microtubular networks?
I found a secondary link which may be of interest; https://m.phys.org/news/2019-08-quantum-entanglement-chemical-reactions.html
And at last we arrive at origins and evolution of sentient intelligence.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tO-W8mvBa78
Do also check out the following presentation by Drew Berry re: internal functional bio-chemistry
It seems that most of my "speculative" posits that microtubules comprise the physical computer in living organisms are slowly being verified as looking in the right direction....
Last edited:
Write4U
Valued Senior Member
To all interested readers.
Identifying bits and pieces of physics do not add up to a comprehensive picture.
Only by establishing 'common denominators" of all things, can a fundamental structural quality of physical phemomena be established.
This was Davis Bohm's main objection to current science, it has become so fractured that all notions of a universal wholeness has become lost in the complexity.
My posits may seem simplistic and redundant, but in all my posts I have been actually wrong about something maybe twice or three times.
You can complain all you like about my singular focus on common fundamentals, but no one can say I am wrong.
And I would rather read something right over and over again that reading three pages of wrong once. Just to help "understanding" along.....
p.p.s. I find it curious that God and his wonderous miracles is never being accused of being redundant, in addition to being wrong, in the Religion forum,. I know it is politically correct.....
But why should I restrict my use of words like "potential" when discussing Science in a Science forum?
As to hijacking a tread with a positive identification of the forces and functions involved in "evolution", as long as the posit is NOT WRONG, I can find no reason to alter my posting habits.
IMO, the following link is a direct link to the very fundamentals of "growth' and "change" in the evolution of (almost) ALL biological species.
THIS IS IMPORTANT! (the biological computer which is instrumental in te creation of diversity) MICROTUBULE.
One thing you seem to overlook is that new readers (potential members) may not always read back on a discussion with many entrees and pickup at athe most recent posting.
If what I have to say is important, it bears repeating. But that is up to the new reader to judge.
You do realize that before the BB, there was Potential!
The single correct term to use before the known universe became manifest.
Potential---> Cause---> Effect---> Potential---> Cause---> etc.
This may seem simplistic but it is NOT WRONG. Inherent universal potential is the fundamental universal ability to spawn and evolve everything we can and cannot observe.
Microtubules may be the link to biological quantum processes. (ORCH-OR)
Identifying bits and pieces of physics do not add up to a comprehensive picture.
Only by establishing 'common denominators" of all things, can a fundamental structural quality of physical phemomena be established.
This was Davis Bohm's main objection to current science, it has become so fractured that all notions of a universal wholeness has become lost in the complexity.
My posits may seem simplistic and redundant, but in all my posts I have been actually wrong about something maybe twice or three times.
You can complain all you like about my singular focus on common fundamentals, but no one can say I am wrong.
And I would rather read something right over and over again that reading three pages of wrong once. Just to help "understanding" along.....
p.p.s. I find it curious that God and his wonderous miracles is never being accused of being redundant, in addition to being wrong, in the Religion forum,. I know it is politically correct.....
But why should I restrict my use of words like "potential" when discussing Science in a Science forum?
As to hijacking a tread with a positive identification of the forces and functions involved in "evolution", as long as the posit is NOT WRONG, I can find no reason to alter my posting habits.
IMO, the following link is a direct link to the very fundamentals of "growth' and "change" in the evolution of (almost) ALL biological species.
THIS IS IMPORTANT! (the biological computer which is instrumental in te creation of diversity) MICROTUBULE.
One thing you seem to overlook is that new readers (potential members) may not always read back on a discussion with many entrees and pickup at athe most recent posting.
If what I have to say is important, it bears repeating. But that is up to the new reader to judge.
You do realize that before the BB, there was Potential!
The single correct term to use before the known universe became manifest.
Potential---> Cause---> Effect---> Potential---> Cause---> etc.
This may seem simplistic but it is NOT WRONG. Inherent universal potential is the fundamental universal ability to spawn and evolve everything we can and cannot observe.
Microtubules may be the link to biological quantum processes. (ORCH-OR)
Last edited:
Write4U
Valued Senior Member
LOL no, it's all about origins and evolution of fundamental universal potentials. It's not complicated. They are all mathematical functions and processes. There is just a lot of it....About TIME????
I find it curious that a chemist would question the validity of proposing that universal physical evolutionary processes started with elementary chemistry.
Is that controversial?
Write4U
Valued Senior Member
God is not necessary for chemical interaction. Mathematical physical interactive functions, such as the exponential function determine increasingly complicated patterns....As long as god is not holding the test tube I would say no controversy.
This process is illustrated by the fractal function.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/mathematics/fractal-function
and this interesting hypothesis of the fractal function in evolution.
and
and
and much more.....
http://www.lifeprinciple.com/fractallaw.pdf
Last edited:
Downloaded a British Broadcasting Corporation 2 part series, each 1 hour
Something Pt 1 and Nothing Pt 2
Hope to watch soon
Write4U
Valued Senior Member
Looking forward to your impressions and link....Downloaded a British Broadcasting Corporation 2 part series, each 1 hour
Something Pt 1 and Nothing Pt 2
Hope to watch soon
Last edited:
Write4U
Valued Senior Member
I cannot completely agree with that perspective.
If all organisms were exactly the same, natural selection would not have any impact on the resulting "better adapted" organisms. There just would not be any variety to select from.
Variety is achieved by evolution (mutation) of genetic materials. Without variety no organism would be able to become better adapted than another of the same species.
That's why the Silvery Salamander is an evolutionary dead-end. All offspring are clones of the mother and if one single individual becomes infected by bacteria, and all identical "sisters" will succumb to the same bacteria.
This is why it is on the brink of extinction. The Silvery Salamander does not "evolve" but is subject to "natural selection" and will surely become extinct.
I read that natural selection is not a "selection for" survival, it is a "selecting out" of weaker or less adapted varieties of the same species, resulting in the better adapted individuals to thrive and procreate.
Hence the problem with viruses' evolved resistance by human selection of anti-bacterial agents to kill bacteria, killing the weakest, but leaving the strongest to procreate.
Current research is focused on interfering with bacterial "language" in order to prevent it from communicating and form "quorum sensing", without killing the organisms and selecting out weaker individuals. We're just confusing the bacterial "communication", yet restricting it's ability for virulent behavior.
It can also be used to promote beneficial bacterial participation by selectively "turning on" quorum sensing of the good guys.
Talking to bacteria......! ......
Last edited: