On Feb 27, 6:44 am, marc.tess...@wanadoo.fr wrote: > Everybody can understand how a selection will favour the lineages of > vesicles synthesizing such specific carbon-based molecules.
..The identification of small, membrane-bound vesicles has opened a new era in the understanding of cell signaling and the process of molecular communication between cells....
Where did Darwin with his concept and idea that he symbolically represented with the object *selection* discuss this concept in OoS in 1863?
Darwin and Patrick matthew where he lifted his ideas from could not solve a problem they didn't even know about, and the same goes for Aristotle, which is the actual person and ideas that was restated by the many hundreds of authors during the 19th century as shown by the Milton Wain collection of pre-Darwin authors.
The idea Darwin represented was Patrick Matthew's *natural means of competitive selection,perservation* as creatures struggled to dominate an ecological niche with the semantic construct - Natural Selection.
(A lengthy discussion about this took place under the talk.origins thread: Stanford's tautologies on natural selection,preservation - between Prof.Burkhard , Martinez and Pagano etc. Google Stanford + Tautologies for my wiki notes )
Darwin's, Matthew's ideas aren't falsifiable, because we would be told the same story if the other animal came to dominate, displacing the creature it competed against. It is an argument by inference, there were not actual observations, neither is it repeatable and thus not falsifiable.
Their theory is post-Factum or after the fact as identified by Prof. Peters in his journal paper: http://scratchpad.wikia.com/wiki/Tautology_in_evolution_and_ecology
All such creatures implemented abstract neural network control algorithms, where did these algorithms which have no physical location come from in the first place? Thus the narrative by Buffon,Lamarck and Erasmus, condensed by Matthew and contracted to a single term ns by Darwin could not solve a problem they couldn't define.
They assumed a contested premise in their conclusions, assuming that as these creatures competed against one another the winner acquired new attributes. From the YEC premise each creature isn't adapted to its condition of existence(environment) but only expresses it pre-existing *mathematical PID, Neural network* control algorithms.
When steel and aluminum is placed in furnace, steel isn't more "adapted" to fire than aluminum by not melting first: they only express their attributes and not adapting to anything.
We understand that a functional machine expressing PID algorithms involves the simultaneous expression of such algorithms. Derivation is the inverse of Integration, they can't be separated, in the same way any functionality as expressed by a functional machine(biological, mechanical, uav, robots etc.) will involve the simultaneous expression of multiple algorithm(which said machine merely represents) at the same time.
Such algorithms are what D'Arcy Wentworth Thompson would have described as constituting a *Composite Integrity* or undissolvable association between the logical abstractions of Derivation, Integration and Proportionality, like a key needs a lock.
Today we can define a PID algorithm and non-linearity of a transfer function and comprehend that every single biological machine has a higher abstract control algorithm layer superimposed on them and such algorithm has no physical location. Godel despised physics because he viewed matter as merely the expression of mathematical logic (as described by Berlinski).
Thus what do you mean by *Selection* as it relates to the control algorithms implemented by microvesicle? Berlinski stated that you can't have a single term function as some sort of universal mechanism.
Your usage of the object selection can only be understood as it reflects your premises:
1) Do you believe that math algorithms are physical or do they have no actual location.
2) Do you agree that all matter is only the representation of logical abstractions.
3) Do accept the Platonic binary opposites as established by the Lord Jesus in Genesis one and expounded upon by John D. Brey in his book Tautological Oxymorons.
If you don't *assume* these unfalsifiable premises, then everything you say would be a conclusion derived from a premise that differs from my premise and thus to me meaningless. If our *assumed* unfalsifiable premises differ, then our conclusions will differ and our perception of what constitutes meaningfulness.
Not being able to falsify a premise does not always mean such premise is irrational because in any logical description there will always be something we will never be able to prove.
A selection is a decision and is understood as the opposite of randomness. But if this dichotomy isn't accepted as premise then the sentences formulated are meaningless.