Do I have to drag this ng into the modern world by myself?

[Jonathan]

Evolution is a universal process.

So the only information which can show the
underlying process behind evolution is that which
is ...common to all types types of evolving
systems, whether living, physical or mind.

Or, whether life, the universe and everything else.

If the information is...unique to one of those realms
it does NOT describe the process of evolution.

The moment someone presents you with a fact or
equation unique to one of the realms they are lost.

They can't see the simplicity of nature.

A gene, a star or a neuron is not common to all
three realms. Notice nothing in the following
definitions limits the concept to any one of
the three realms, but apply equally to all.

An abstract definition of evolution allows us
to see countless examples of evolving systems
all around us and in everyday life.

An idea for instance, one doesn't even need to
stand up to see evolution take place, once
you understand the abstract form.




Complex adaptive system

A complex adaptive system is a "complex macroscopic collection"
of relatively "similar and partially connected micro-structures"
formed in order to adapt to the changing environment and increase
its survivability as a macro-structure.

They are complex in that they are dynamic networks of interactions,
and their relationships are not aggregations of the individual
static entities, i.e., the behavior of the ensemble is not predicted
by the behavior of the components. They are adaptive in that
the individual and collective behavior mutate and
self-organize corresponding to the change-initiating micro-event
or collection of events.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complex_adaptive_system


Complexity Theory

Gradually as scientists of all disciplines explored these
phenomena a new theory emerged - complexity theory, A theory
based on relationships, emergence, patterns and iterations.
A theory that maintains that the universe is full of systems,
weather systems, immune systems, social systems etc and that
these systems are complex and constantly adapting to their
environment. Hence complex adaptive systems.
http://www.trojanmice.com/articles/complexadaptivesystems.htm






s

[eridanus]

it is all a matter of convince others. In science we rarely can prove
anything but we can convince a few people that a question "looks convincing"
and thus some hast to say "it is true", or "it had been proved".

Do you think your arguments are convincing? It only show that you at least
look convinced. But not too sure. You need a crowd of followers to believe
those arguments. If you are alone, your sense of certitude falters.

Think about your arguments on the civil war of Syria. Do you think the
people involved in this war (the leaders) are doing this for democracy?
And foreign powers giving them arms and ammunition to kill each other, are
doing this for democracy? Have you heard a saying, "doc, cure yourself"?

On the other hand, all those arguments of complexity theory are unacceptable
because they are too abstract. They are sort of metaphysical. And
metaphysics is a delusion of intelligence.

If you pretend that nothing stays the same forever, you have probably
had made a point. The good times do not last forever, the oil and coal
would not last forever. A glacial ice would not last forever, or its
opposite, the period of nice heat would not last more than some thousand
years; with some short episodes of intense cold to kill a lot of people.
The sun would not last forever, not life in the earth. The gods are not
immortal, they are alive within the brains of people. Once the people
would cease to exist the gods would disappear as well. The gods are nothing
but figurations of our intelligence that are bound to be extinguished with
us.

These arguments "cannot be proved", but at least are easily comprehensible.
They are not metaphysics; they are common sense. Trivial sense,

eri

[Bob Casanova]

On Tue, 27 Sep 2016 20:59:44 -0400, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Jonathan
<writeI...@gmail.com>:

Your choice of Subject: shows your arrogance. Time for a
30-day time-out.
--

Bob C.

"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"

- Isaac Asimov

[jillery]

On Wed, 28 Sep 2016 11:55:14 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>
wrote:

>On Tue, 27 Sep 2016 20:59:44 -0400, the following appeared
>in talk.origins, posted by Jonathan
><writeI...@gmail.com>:
>
>Your choice of Subject: shows your arrogance. Time for a
>30-day time-out.

Can he get additional time for bad behavior?
--
This space is intentionally not blank.

[Bob Casanova]

On Thu, 29 Sep 2016 03:41:00 -0400, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>:

>On Wed, 28 Sep 2016 11:55:14 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>
>wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 27 Sep 2016 20:59:44 -0400, the following appeared
>>in talk.origins, posted by Jonathan
>><writeI...@gmail.com>:
>>
>>Your choice of Subject: shows your arrogance. Time for a
>>30-day time-out.
>
>
>Can he get additional time for bad behavior?

Possibly; I'll see after I let him out of durance vile
(durance for the vile?).