You've got some wrong examples. Evolution occurs in technology, art, sciences. But not in stars and clouds. There's not much meaningful selection, procreation, survivability etc.
@IBMua It is evolution MINUS reproduction that is under discussion. To complain about lack of procreation is just to just miss the whole point of the video.
I agree with everything you've said, but should it be not just selection, but Universal Darwinism? The physical world is more of a phenotype, with the 'gene' of a particular material complex being the replicator; a chemical formula for example. In this way, a star could be analogous to an organism or a cell. The question is what the the selection pressure for sub-genetic replicators - what kind of niche are they filling? Stability? Btw, you may be interested in: wiki/Quantum_Darwinism
@chitchcott Universal Darwinism is a fairly well established idea - also "Generalised Darwinism". Universal selection is part of it. Saying "Darwinism" tends ot bring up copying, though. Selection applies even *without* copying. It thus extends beyond biology, into the realm of maths and physics.
Great to hear from you Tim, some thought provoking ideas here. I can't help but wonder what the creationist response may be to this, but we can likely guess correctly.
You've got some wrong examples. Evolution occurs in technology, art, sciences. But not in stars and clouds. There's not much meaningful selection, procreation, survivability etc.
IBMua 1 month ago
@IBMua It is evolution MINUS reproduction that is under discussion. To complain about lack of procreation is just to just miss the whole point of the video.
tmtyler 1 month ago
Tim Tyler; I would very much like to get your viewpoint concerning the "EPR Parodox"
(or Einstein–Podolsky–Rosen paradox) Please make this one of your next new videos. Thank You.
ImTurningJapanese 11 months ago
Interesting parallels. It's quite easy to come up with examples of the principle in action, once the basic idea has been planted.
alltat 1 year ago
Well yeah Tim, that makes sense with your other video of the crystalline hypothesis of genesis.
PObserver 1 year ago
I agree with everything you've said, but should it be not just selection, but Universal Darwinism? The physical world is more of a phenotype, with the 'gene' of a particular material complex being the replicator; a chemical formula for example. In this way, a star could be analogous to an organism or a cell. The question is what the the selection pressure for sub-genetic replicators - what kind of niche are they filling? Stability? Btw, you may be interested in: wiki/Quantum_Darwinism
chitchcott 1 year ago
@chitchcott Universal Darwinism is a fairly well established idea - also "Generalised Darwinism". Universal selection is part of it. Saying "Darwinism" tends ot bring up copying, though. Selection applies even *without* copying. It thus extends beyond biology, into the realm of maths and physics.
tmtyler 6 months ago
Comment removed
chitchcott 1 year ago
Comment removed
chitchcott 1 year ago
Great to hear from you Tim, some thought provoking ideas here. I can't help but wonder what the creationist response may be to this, but we can likely guess correctly.
ianonline 1 year ago