Grand theory of evolution.

This forum is for the discussion of the evidence for evolution. Anyone is welcome to post, however, scripture is not allowed. As the title says, Science Only please!

Moderator: Moderators

Grand theory of evolution.

Postby Paulesq » Mon Feb 15, 2010 11:13 am

This is an idea I have had for telling the story of our universe by using the key Darwinian terms of 'descent with modification by means of selection'.

The theory is built around this foundational statement:
*The big bang a single beginning denotes a single process.
In the same way that all species of life are believed to have evolved from one common ancestor, the foundational statement for the Grand theory uses the 'big bang' as the common ancestor of all processes.
The Grand theory of evolution is an exercise in placing Darwinian/biological evolution into context of its own evolution. With the acceptance of a new type of 'selection' and the recognition of another type that is related to 'natural selection' I believe that a grand theory of evolution can be constructed.

The way we view the subject of evolution has shifted, from the above ground perspective of naturalist Charles Darwin to the look see under the microscope of the biologist. This change in the field of view can be simply symbolised thus. >
In short, because the 'Grand theory' acknowledges three types of evolution that operate with three types of selection it can be symbolised simply thus. >>>

It does take a certain amount of lateral thinking to see 'evolution' on different levels and also to see that these processes are related.

Consider this:

We pass on more than our genes, we also pass on knowledge.
Science, the gathering of knowledge itself 'evolves' by modification descent and by means of human/intelligent selection.
Paulesq
 
Posts: 51
Joined: Fri Feb 12, 2010 9:52 pm
Location: Salford England

Re: Grand theory of evolution.

Postby Roger Stanyard » Tue Feb 16, 2010 11:37 am

Paulesq wrote:This is an idea I have had for telling the story of our universe by using the key Darwinian terms of 'descent with modification by means of selection'.

The theory is built around this foundational statement:
*The big bang a single beginning denotes a single process.
In the same way that all species of life are believed to have evolved from one common ancestor, the foundational statement for the Grand theory uses the 'big bang' as the common ancestor of all processes.
The Grand theory of evolution is an exercise in placing Darwinian/biological evolution into context of its own evolution. With the acceptance of a new type of 'selection' and the recognition of another type that is related to 'natural selection' I believe that a grand theory of evolution can be constructed.

The way we view the subject of evolution has shifted, from the above ground perspective of naturalist Charles Darwin to the look see under the microscope of the biologist. This change in the field of view can be simply symbolised thus. >
In short, because the 'Grand theory' acknowledges three types of evolution that operate with three types of selection it can be symbolised simply thus. >>>

It does take a certain amount of lateral thinking to see 'evolution' on different levels and also to see that these processes are related.

Consider this:

We pass on more than our genes, we also pass on knowledge.
Science, the gathering of knowledge itself 'evolves' by modification descent and by means of human/intelligent selection.


I would be very wary of this approach. The theory of evolution by natural slection stands whether or not the "theory" of the big does.

They are two seperate explanations of two seperate phenoena.




I
User avatar
Roger Stanyard
Forum Admin
 
Posts: 6162
Joined: Sat Oct 07, 2006 4:59 pm

Re: Grand theory of evolution.

Postby Paulesq » Tue Feb 16, 2010 2:11 pm

RodgerStanyard wrote:I would be very wary of this approach. The theory of evolution by natural selection stands whether or not the "theory" of the big does.


You are absolutely correct, Darwins theory of evolution is accepted as a given, indeed the 'Grand theory' uses the mans great work as a template. The big idea is sound because it is constructed around the key elements of Darwinian evolution only on different levels, if the idea should fail to be accepted then that will be down to my inability to get my idea out and clearly express myself in a way that everybody can understand. Take the foundational statement as an example.
*The big bang a single beginning denotes a single process.
Many have stated, English teachers mainly that the statement is written badly, to me it looks just fine.

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia wrote:In linguistic typology, subject-verb-object (SVO) is a sentence structure where the subject comes first, the verb second, and the object third. Languages may be classified according to the dominant sequence of these elements. It is the second most common order found in the world, after SOV, and together, they account for more than 75% of the world's languages.[1] It is also the most common order developed in Creole languages, suggesting that it may be somehow more initially 'obvious' to human psychology[2].


RodgerStanyard wrote:They are two separate explanations of two separate phenomena.


Has anybody ever given any thought to the evolution of 'selection' itself?

Where did Darwins 'natural selection' come from?

Did selection begin with the big bang?

If indeed the big bang a single beginning denotes a single process, then selection began with the big bang.

The movement of selection can be charted, it has moved from rock to life and on into the minds of men.

Unconscious, subconscious, conscious.

The evolution of life is one chapter, the evolution of Science and mankind's artifacts is another.

Although both phenomena differ greatly they represent different chapters of the same book and need to be recognised as such.
IMO One process, three chapters.
Paulesq
 
Posts: 51
Joined: Fri Feb 12, 2010 9:52 pm
Location: Salford England

Postby Paulesq » Wed Feb 17, 2010 3:07 pm

Lee Smolins 'Cosmological natural selection'.

Big Bang.

Massive gap.

Darwin Spencer 'natural selection'.

Human/intelligent conscious selection.

Artificial selection. Mechanical, computer generated selection.

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

Perhaps someone can show me where my thinking is flawed.
'Artificial selection' and 'human selection' are of lumped together by mainstream science, here I show them as separate types of selection.
Also there is a massive gap in what would otherwise show the linear evolution of selection.
Paulesq
 
Posts: 51
Joined: Fri Feb 12, 2010 9:52 pm
Location: Salford England

Postby Roger Stanyard » Wed Feb 17, 2010 7:39 pm

Paulesq wrote:Lee Smolins 'Cosmological natural selection'.

Big Bang.

Massive gap.

Darwin Spencer 'natural selection'.

Human/intelligent conscious selection.

Artificial selection. Mechanical, computer generated selection.

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

Perhaps someone can show me where my thinking is flawed.
'Artificial selection' and 'human selection' are of lumped together by mainstream science, here I show them as separate types of selection.
Also there is a massive gap in what would otherwise show the linear evolution of selection.


I can't understand a word that you are talking about. What is your PhD in?
User avatar
Roger Stanyard
Forum Admin
 
Posts: 6162
Joined: Sat Oct 07, 2006 4:59 pm

Postby Michael » Wed Feb 17, 2010 9:06 pm

Roger Stanyard wrote:
Paulesq wrote:Lee Smolins 'Cosmological natural selection'.

Big Bang.

Massive gap.

Darwin Spencer 'natural selection'.

Human/intelligent conscious selection.

Artificial selection. Mechanical, computer generated selection.

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

Perhaps someone can show me where my thinking is flawed.
'Artificial selection' and 'human selection' are of lumped together by mainstream science, here I show them as separate types of selection.
Also there is a massive gap in what would otherwise show the linear evolution of selection.


I can't understand a word that you are talking about. What is your PhD in?


I dont understand either
Michael
 
Posts: 2786
Joined: Mon Oct 09, 2006 1:30 pm
Location: Lancaster

Postby Paulesq » Wed Feb 17, 2010 9:45 pm

Roger Stanyard wrote:
I can't understand a word that you are talking about. What is your PhD in?


Your a biologist, tell me again how 'natural selection' appeared as if by magic out of the blue.

Before natural selection there was nothing that could conceivably be seen by you as a type of selection?

Two asteroids collide in space, the resulting debris field is directly related to that collision.
The spread of the debris field has been primitively selected by the presence of all prevailing forces measure by measure, everything factored in. Primitively selected.

Big bang. Primal selection - Natural selection - Human intelligent selection.

Wot's not to understand.
Darn, you made me invent a new label.
Paulesq
 
Posts: 51
Joined: Fri Feb 12, 2010 9:52 pm
Location: Salford England

Postby Roger Stanyard » Wed Feb 17, 2010 9:49 pm

Paulesq wrote:

Your a biologist, tell me again how 'natural selection' appeared as if by magic out of the blue.



No I am not. Neither are you.

The issue which you are addressing is abiogenesis, not natural selection. There's plenty of stuff readily available in your local public library or on Internet which details current thinking on abiogenesis.
User avatar
Roger Stanyard
Forum Admin
 
Posts: 6162
Joined: Sat Oct 07, 2006 4:59 pm

Postby Paulesq » Wed Feb 17, 2010 9:58 pm

Roger Stanyard wrote:
Paulesq wrote:

Your a biologist, tell me again how 'natural selection' appeared as if by magic out of the blue.



No I am not. Neither are you.

The issue which you are addressing is abiogenesis, not natural selection. There's plenty of stuff readily available in your local public library or on Internet which details current thinking on abiogenesis.


Are you saying that abiogenesis begin with the big bang?
Paulesq
 
Posts: 51
Joined: Fri Feb 12, 2010 9:52 pm
Location: Salford England

Postby Roger Stanyard » Wed Feb 17, 2010 10:05 pm

Paulesq wrote:

Are you saying that abiogenesis begin with the big bang?


Nope - and no one else is saying so, either.

Your obviously some kind of crackpot to conclude that.
User avatar
Roger Stanyard
Forum Admin
 
Posts: 6162
Joined: Sat Oct 07, 2006 4:59 pm

Postby Paulesq » Wed Feb 17, 2010 10:12 pm

Look.

By triangulation 'Primal selection' is a realty.

a, The evolution of life. 'Natural selection". The branching form is present.

B, The evolution of the motor car. Human selection. AGAIN the branching form is present.

Both examples of evolution on different levels.

C is a very real possibility.
Paulesq
 
Posts: 51
Joined: Fri Feb 12, 2010 9:52 pm
Location: Salford England

Postby Paulesq » Wed Feb 17, 2010 10:17 pm

Roger Stanyard wrote:
Paulesq wrote:

Are you saying that abiogenesis begin with the big bang?


Nope - and no one else is saying so, either.

Your obviously some kind of crackpot to conclude that.


So the prosess from the big bang to the foot of abiogenesis, whats that called?
Paulesq
 
Posts: 51
Joined: Fri Feb 12, 2010 9:52 pm
Location: Salford England

Postby Roger Stanyard » Thu Feb 18, 2010 1:41 am

Paulesq wrote:
Roger Stanyard wrote:
Paulesq wrote:

Are you saying that abiogenesis begin with the big bang?


Nope - and no one else is saying so, either.

Your obviously some kind of crackpot to conclude that.


So the prosess from the big bang to the foot of abiogenesis, whats that called?


Cosmology.
User avatar
Roger Stanyard
Forum Admin
 
Posts: 6162
Joined: Sat Oct 07, 2006 4:59 pm

Postby Roger Stanyard » Thu Feb 18, 2010 1:43 am

Paulesq wrote:Look.

By triangulation 'Primal selection' is a realty.

a, The evolution of life. 'Natural selection". The branching form is present.

B, The evolution of the motor car. Human selection. AGAIN the branching form is present.

Both examples of evolution on different levels.

C is a very real possibility.


Incoherent gibberish.
User avatar
Roger Stanyard
Forum Admin
 
Posts: 6162
Joined: Sat Oct 07, 2006 4:59 pm

Postby Paulesq » Thu Feb 18, 2010 11:11 am

Roger Stanyard wrote: Incoherent gibberish.


Come come Roger, lets examine the facts.

Fact, The word 'evolution' is Victorian slang for what Charles Darwin himself preferred to refer to as 'descent with modification by means of natural selection.

Fact, Science, mankind's artifacts also evolve by means of descent with modification and by means of human/intelligent selection.

Fact, Although both processes work on totally different materials in totally different domains it is perfectly reasonable to state that both life and science 'evolve' by process of a type of selection.

Fact. Natural Selection has advanced from the unconscious/subconscious state to consciously choosing.

With the understanding that 'evolution' can be observed as operating on two different levels A and B it is perfectly reasonable to assume that 'selection' began with the big bang and that Primal selection C is a reality.
Paulesq
 
Posts: 51
Joined: Fri Feb 12, 2010 9:52 pm
Location: Salford England

Next

Return to Science Only

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron