Darwin's Discovery: Design without a Designer

[Graybeard]

Greg, what's the purpose of you posting, if not a teleological goal of having your ideas read and comprehended by others...?

OK, Ok .... if the mountain won't come to Mahommet ....... lets just suppose, for the purposes of discussion that: Your right, I'm wrong

What's the bio-purpose of a heart...?__To pump blood to keep the organism alive__Teleological and scientific purpose__What objects are for__Uses__Pragmatic actions__All equal teleologies...

If this is your definition ... then cool, its correct ..... but my point is that the heart has no designer ... its purpose is to pump blood ..... it evolved thru a series of natural selections that was conditional upon the natural selections that the rest of the body was morphing into ... and it was being driven by its surrounding ecology .. which was being driven by the environment ... which in turn was taking its orders from the geo-universal state changes of the Universe .... which of course were simply random necessity of matter in motion.

Evolution and biology without teleological purpose, is like an idiot with no brain__It don't happen...!!!

Once again .... cool ... if this is how you see it ... I can accommodate this view.

Further, this is why teleology only applies to biological evolution, and not to geo-universal state changes__which are deterministic randomness and uncertainty into uniform formations of objects__without purpose, only necessity of matter in motion__Then we grow__The Teleological Fungi...

You make a distinction between biological evolution and geo-universal state changes (why, O why can't we just use the term evolution ... sigh)

Ok .... still agreeing with you ... So ..in your view ... what is the differentation between these two ..... and more importantly what caused the difference .... ??

If they are to be recognised as entirely separate and unrelated ... (rather than in my view of a morphing progression) then, in your view, how did Life come about ??

Just so that this question is clear: How did the first biological event occur .... as opposed to a just another hum-drum geo-universal state change ? What was the prime mover ?

As you can see Mahommet has come to the mountain and is willing to listen. Lets try to put all abrasiveness aside for a few posts at least.

cool bananas ... greg

[Lloyd Gillespie]

OK, Ok .... if the mountain won't come to Mahommet ....... lets just suppose, for the purposes of discussion that: Your right, I'm wrong

If this is your definition ... then cool, its correct ..... but my point is that the heart has no designer ... its purpose is to pump blood ..... it evolved thru a series of natural selections that was conditional upon the natural selections that the rest of the body was morphing into ... and it was being driven by its surrounding ecology .. which was being driven by the environment ... which in turn was taking its orders from the geo-universal state changes of the Universe .... which of course were simply random necessity of matter in motion.

I have no problem with what you state above, except 'natural selection', which imo, implies 'living decision', which we both know and admit does not exist at this stage of the game. When you use a word that belongs to living bio-creatures, and imply it pertains to the geo-universe, pre-bio__your are creating a linguistic error, imo. It simply conflates any meaning you're trying to relay, as it annuls the truth, you're trying to relay... Natureal selection refers to evolutionary biology, not cosmological state changes of Va, Vr and Vu... They don't select__they collide, group and form__Only biology selects. It takes living creatures to make selections for their private growth potentials. Geo ain't got no 'selection potential...' 'Selection Potential' draws the line in the sand, between geo-era and bio-era...

Once again .... cool ... if this is how you see it ... I can accommodate this view.

You make a distinction between biological evolution and geo-universal state changes (why, O why can't we just use the term evolution ... sigh)

It corrupts clear and distinct meanings__No clarity possible without clear distinctions...

Ok .... still agreeing with you ... So ..in your view ... what is the differentation between these two ..... and more importantly what caused the difference .... ??

If they are to be recognised as entirely separate and unrelated ... (rather than in my view of a morphing progression) then, in your view, how did Life come about ??

Geo-Chemico-Bio-Cells formed and divided__Life. Geo-spheres don't self-divide__they only group and form. They're only divided by outside collisional forces. Cells divide by internal forces__Big Diffs...

Just so that this question is clear: How did the first biological event occur .... as opposed to a just another hum-drum geo-universal state change ? What was the prime mover?

Internal state changes__at low temperature__as opposed to external/internal state changes, at high temperatures__only low temperatures allow life forming cell divisions__internally... Prime mover always goes back to first states, but cell divisions only belongs to second states' much higher complexities...

As you can see Mahommet has come to the mountain and is willing to listen. Lets try to put all abrasiveness aside for a few posts at least.

cool bananas ... greg

Greg, it's more a problem of categorical linguistics, than anything. We can only understand each other by respecting a Universal Categorical Linguistics__established by science over the many millennia, in its many fields of category lists__Otherwise we're just dealing with each other's useless egos...

[Graybeard]

I have no problem with what you state above, except 'natural selection', which imo, implies 'living decision', which we both know and admit does not exist at this stage of the game. When you use a word that belongs to living bio-creatures, and imply it pertains to the geo-universe, pre-bio__your are creating a linguistic error, imo.

Natural Selection does not mean it is limited to biological change ... I am using it to mean all conditional change and events .... So what term do you prefer ..... ??

It simply conflates any meaning you're trying to relay, as it annuls the truth, you're trying to relay... Natureal selection refers to evolutionary biology, not cosmological state changes of Va, Vr and Vu... They don't select__they collide, group and form__Only biology selects. It takes living creatures to make selections for their private growth potentials. Geo ain't got no 'selection potential...' 'Selection Potential' draws the line in the sand, between geo-era and bio-era...

Natural Selection is a process of going with the flow ...... it does not mean something, some entity makes a selection ?? So is the new word Selection potential ??

Geo-Chemico-Bio-Cells formed and divided__Life. Geo-spheres don't self-divide__they only group and form. They're only divided by outside collisional forces. Cells divide by internal forces__Big Diffs...

Cells divide by internal forces, if the cell is your elemental view ...... cells are made up of particles .... which divide by outside collisional forces ..... ?? No_diff !

Internal state changes__at low temperature__as opposed to external/internal state changes, at high temperatures__only low temperatures allow life forming cell divisions__internally... Prime mover always goes back to first states, but cell divisions only belongs to second states' much higher complexities...

You will need to explain this more. If this is trying to describe how the inanimate became animate .... then it is confusing and I don't get it. Of course it is obvious that the Universe had to 'cool' in order for the more complex entities to develop. But this just states a condition .... not why inanimate became animate.

Greg, it's more a problem of categorical linguistics, than anything. We can only understand each other by respecting a Universal Categorical Linguistics__established by science over the many millennia, in its many fields of category lists__Otherwise we're just dealing with each other's useless egos...

Your the one with the new definitions .... but OK ... just give me a table for the 'Universal Categorical Linguistics__established by science over the many millennia' for the following:

Biological Natural Selection
Cosmic natural Selection
Biological Evolution
Cosmic Evolution
Random Change
Necessity (conditional

and I will stick to it whenever we discuss

cool bananas ... greg

And Ta! for dropping some of the aggro ......

[PoPpAScience]

The real distinction in this discussion here, should be about the 'Degrees of Freedom' allowed in each "Act of IS for Freedom".

The first "Act", the "Act of Real", only had One degree of freedom available to it, and that was "Motion".

The second "Act", the "Act of Freedom"(Motion), had only the degrees of freedom allowed by 'Phase change'(Form).

The third "Act", the "Act of Evolution", has more degrees of freedom, because of the interactions of "Form" allowed by 'Planetary dynamics'.

The forth "Act", the "Act of Will". has an enormous amount of degrees of freedom, because of the 'Complex Forms of Evolution'.

It is not about 'Selection' as much as it is about the 'Degrees of Freedom' allowed by each 'Effect'. It is not about Choice, as much as it is about availability of Chance.

"Freedom" is the only "Purpose" there is, and it is subject to the 'Degrees of Freedom' allowed by the 'Effects' of previous 'Degrees of Freedom' coming to "Realization".

[labelwench]

It is not about 'Selection' as much as it is about the 'Degrees of Freedom' allowed by each 'Effect'. It is not about Choice, as much as it is about availability of Chance.

Originally posted by PoPpAScience

I understand this to mean that choice is merely a selection between available options, those options being exceedingly limited in the first 'Act', and becoming more diverse as motion and form evolve in complexity?

[Lloyd Gillespie]

[SIZE=3]Natural Selection does not mean it is limited to biological change ...

That's what you are implying. I do not accept such words applying to the cosmic state changes. As I've stated before__It conflates and confuses the geo and bio mechanics processes. Until such terminologies are developed, imo, they must remain distinct categories...

I am using it to mean all conditional change and events .... So what term do you prefer ..... ??

I have no term to mean both, as I prefer to deal with them completely separately, to avoid the confusion and conflation of each's individual mechanics, as does state changing cosmology and evolutionary biology... I don't believe they should be united until the inanimate to animate is solved...

Natural Selection is a process of going with the flow ...

Greg, that's just your personal choice, and not something I'd accept at all, as it has no scientific meaning, what-so-ever...

... it does not mean something, some entity makes a selection ??

Well, that's just how my mind interprets it, and I see no other meaning to that process__It's a straight biological process, not a cosmological process... It's a bad organization of words, imo, and I'll be glad when it's dead and gone... Evolution for biology, yet__but, natural selection has no scientific meaning to me... Told you I didn't like biology, and I hated reading Darwin__Far too convoluted...

So is the new word Selection potential ??

No, I just mentioned that, so you could understand me, maybe. I just don't think the word selection belongs anywhere, except to live bio-creatures selecting food, shelter and actions, etc... To me, selection belongs to life processes__that it... And, not to dead geo-em waves and particles...

Cells divide by internal forces, if the cell is your elemental view ...... cells are made up of particles .... which divide by outside collisional forces ..... ?? No_diff !

Big Diff__Protons don't divide, and can't be cloned by quantum law__yet, they show up in the new cell divisions__How...?__So Greg, where's these outside forces coming from if not the morphogenic field you months ago argued against...???

You will need to explain this more. If this is trying to describe how the inanimate became animate .... then it is confusing and I don't get it.

Greg, I certainly don't know how, but if everything QM eliminates as already impossible, there's only one possibility left__the morphogenic field, which is the same em field, only in a much slowed c state, within soft bio-soups(density slows c velocity). My theory puts forward the only fact left, imo, since QM allows no cloning of protons and electrons, then the slowed em-photon-field is tracing the existing cells' content into entirely newly created proton/electron, etc., cells upon division, and the spin states of such would explain the highly twisted RNA/DNA strands, of such enormous lengths... I've suggested this for years, as QM dis-allows all other possibilities, other than this existing morphogenic field, though it's so far, just my theory, outside of science...

Of course it is obvious that the Universe had to 'cool' in order for the more complex entities to develop. But this just states a condition .... not why inanimate became animate.

Just more explained above... Also, the cooled state is all that allows life formations, except for the higher temp extremophiles...

Your the one with the new definitions .... but OK ... just give me a table for the 'Universal Categorical Linguistics__established by science over the many millennia' for the following:

Biological Natural Selection[Usable, as it's been used for years, though I hate the term usage...]
Cosmic natural Selection[Not used by mainstream cosmologists__so not valid...]
Biological Evolution[Best definition for Evolution...]
Cosmic Evolution[Used by a few, but not preferred, as is too conflationary with Biological Evolution...]
Random Change[I suppose you can use this, but I don't know what it applies to...]
Necessity (conditional)[Nothing wrong with this, as it can be used in both geo and bio cases__as it offers clear distinctions__Best Differentiator...]

and I will stick to it whenever we discuss[Don't block yourself to the use of metaphors, as they can often be helpful...]

cool bananas ... greg

And Ta! for dropping some of the aggro ......

Just stick with the known longer historical categories' specifications' uses, and all would work... I hate all new-age word usages__They've slaughtered clear and distinct meanings... We need a return to the older and more sound language uses...

[PoPpAScience]

I understand this to mean that choice is merely a selection between available options, those options being exceedingly limited in the first 'Act', and becoming more diverse as motion and form evolve in complexity?

I will change two words (in bold), then answer Yes.

I understand this to mean that Selection is merely a Chance between available options, those options being exceedingly limited in the first 'Act', and becoming more diverse as motion and form evolve in complexity?

The 'Prime Mover'(Selection) though, is still "Freedom". "Freedom" from just "IS".

[Graybeard]

Lloyd ..... when I read your posts ... I find them difficult to interpret .... I don't say this is your fault, but as much mine ..... however, on re-read and re-read ..... could it just be possible we are using different terms but believing in the same process ??

Your above post I tink I am in agreement with ... only one part I feel we are counter on .... I feel you don't understand the 'fundamental' mechanism of operation in Natural Selection. No individual evolves, just replaced by a newer version (if the selection is beneficial)

At fundamental basis this resembles a 'stepped' or 'pixel' process as opposed to a flow.

But again this may just be in my reading of your post

cool bananas ...greg

[analog]

Hi lloyd and all,

Geo-Chemico-Bio-Cells formed and divided__Life. Geo-spheres don't self-divide__they only group and form. They're only divided by outside collisional forces. Cells divide by internal forces__Big Diffs...

Speaking from our similar paradigm views, which is the only way I can at this level, I see these geo and bio interactions similarly. Not to go to far into mechanics, but Dave once gave a description of how he viewed the atomic process, whereby we acknowledge such constituents as protons, electrons, nuetrinos, etc. which helped me at the time cause I didn't have much opinion on it of my own, but the main thing I took from that was the dynamics of structure vs. spatial medium density. These are two important dynamics in understaning the process of our world, Imho. It's a simple recognition that although structure arises and increases in complexity from the geo motions built upon more fundamental states it's the instability to maintain these structures due to the dynamics of its foundation having to be within and encompassed by the spatial medium (ie material aether) itself and its properties such as varying densities which allow for such a dynamic existence. Atomic structures are mechanism to process spatial matter into structured matter. They build to the point of instability whereby forms of division occur which revert a higher order structure back to its fundamental constituents with their greater environmental stability and the excess is given off in a new form of structure as described in his post below in relation to the decay of the proton. Whether this atomic model is correct or not isn't my argument, but it represent a necessary process which in some form or fashion does positively exist at that scale and resolution, Imho.

As structures become more complex they can clump together and form ever larger and more complex structures ie galaxies and stars which in turn increases the density and dynamics of the spatial medium which houses them whereby we find such things as increased gravitational forces around massive objects, which in turn raises the structural threshold to some degree of formation and division to a lower state further allowing for the increased complexity in the more fundamental atomic structures themselves as new elements are formed through the material processors we know as stars, whose geo-division is more dynamic in the form of a supernova. These heavier elements go on to form planets whose environment is an even more dynamic, dense and complex spatial medium, which can further structural complexity to the point of the required cell division crucial to life itself.

Internal state changes__at low temperature__as opposed to external/internal state changes, at high temperatures__only low temperatures allow life forming cell divisions__internally... Prime mover always goes back to first states, but cell divisions only belongs to second states' much higher complexities...

Though some of my explaination may be flawed, IMHO, it's all a similar process of structure vs. medium dynamics, which you hinted to above, whereby even the most complex structures can find not only their existence but also their motions based within the most fundamental of resolutions ie the material spatial aether and its dynamics with the entire system as a whole through all the varying layers of spatial and structural complexity. That's just my take if anyone was interested.

Hi Tim & graham;
Let’s see if I can give you more to ponder about. The shell is a good analogy but I would add that you view the shells like you would a soap bubble (SB). Like a SB, when the shells contact each other in constructive interference they form a region like the SB that has its own wave function and is also weaker than the shell as a whole. This allows the sharing of the outer or covalence electrons of the elements or molecules. Now if the shells contact such to produce destructive interference, the shell will expand and basically allow the covalence electrons to wander or escape. We need to remember that this fundamental substance will attempt to stick to itself whenever motion between objects reduce their relative motions. Two shells with their angular momentum in the same spatial orientation will form destructive interference whereas when the angular momentum is opposite, they form constructive interference.

We also need to consider the axes of these spinning shells; they too are weaker and are easily opened causing the shell to collapse into a toroidal band like object; we call these objects “magnetic fields”. These objects quickly return to the shell structure if not sustained by some other motion of an object like an electrical current or synchronized electron orbitals. Well there goes another one of the forces.

Now if we can realize that all these objects ungulate in some way and at some rate of vibration we can see why each shell fluctuates its physical dimensions proportionally to their wave functions. The shorter the wavelength (higher frequency) the smaller the spatial volume. Now imagine a collection of these shells or fields one inside the other like layers of an onion each at a different frequency of oscillation; this forms Tim’s hollow negative particles. What if some of the internal shells collapsed to a very short wave function such that it appeared as if it were solid; we might call that a positron; since now it would interact with normal electrons such to disrupt the wave functions to the point of complete annihilation (randomization of all uniform motions) of the structures. Let’s take this a step further and imagine that the internal shells interact with such violence that they form two independent structures inside what once was the hollow core of an electron; these units are spinning so fast that their uniform motion produces a mass value several thousand times the original structure; might we call that a proton? Now imagine that same unit converting the chaotic wave functions within the Aether until the outer shells, along with a few more layers formed by the Aether matter, collapses the outer shells; this eliminates the wave function interaction with the surrounding Aether and thus makes the structure electrically neutral; might we call this a neutron.

Why have we never detected the decay of a proton? Well, they don’t decay; they simple collect enough matter to form neutrons. Neutrons keep collapsing the Aether wave functions until they become unstable and revert back to an electron, proton, and gets rid of the excess substance as a neutrino. This whole process of collapsing the randomized wave functions of the Aether results in a basic flow of fundamental substance from the space environment of the universe into the particle structures of the universe; we call it gravity.

If you can keep track of all the conversions of one type of motion of matter to another, the whole system becomes quite simple. The details of these conversions are in the numbers and equations that describe mass and energy. Understand “Absolute Motion” and “Self-affinity” and the GUT picture is complete.

Now what do we do about “LIFE”?

I think I just answered the last part from my perspective anyways....lmao.

later,

Tim

[Lloyd Gillespie]

Lloyd ..... when I read your posts ... I find them difficult to interpret .... I don't say this is your fault, but as much mine ..... however, on re-read and re-read ..... could it just be possible we are using different terms but believing in the same process ??

Your above post I tink I am in agreement with ... only one part I feel we are counter on .... I feel you don't understand the 'fundamental' mechanism of operation in Natural Selection.

It's not the fact I don't understand it__I just don't accept the process description('natural selection') as logically valid__The processes are too conflated to pass my scientific scrutiny... To me it's just circular logic__a complete tautology__yes, it says something, but it says nothing, at the same time... Natural Selection Link...

No individual evolves, just replaced by a newer version (if the selection is beneficial)

Individuals' intellects evolve, i.e., grow in knowledge... The protons within species are never replaced, maybe other particles are, but we don't know which, yet__That's why memory's continuum holds for life...

At fundamental basis this resembles a 'stepped' or 'pixel' process as opposed to a flow.

Evolution applies to total species processes, of change over time. To me it's just evolution, as I've always had trouble with anything being 'selected'__it simply evolves to better, stronger and wiser states of organizations... To me 'selection' implies more than is necessary, or even true... If 'selection' be applied to living creatures choosing stronger mates, then it can apply, as the stronger have the choice to select mates__but the fundamental geo-bio-em-wave/particle processes are just mechanistic__the underpinning of all bio-evolution... These two processes, imo, must be discussed independently of each other, not to conflate the conversations with mechanical descriptions that belong to the two distinct organizational mechanics of bio-beings...

But again this may just be in my reading of your post

cool bananas ...greg

No, it just takes a lot of communication to separate the biology of being(unknown particle/wave functions), from the cosmology of being(known particle/wave functions)__the complexities are humongous... And, I don't think we can make sense of evolutionary biology, unless we do...