studiot

You clearly understand the meaning and workings of probability, even though you don't actually (mathematically) require the Everett interpretation for what you said to be true. +1 I have linked this to another thread to help the OP understand better. Firstly I was not feeling very well the other night so I apoligise if you thought my posting over aggressive. The red vote was not mine so I have added a + vote to cancel it. However please read it properly as you have not responded to the points I made but points I did not say. In particular this one where I did not say that oxygen was eityher necessary or unneccessary. I said that going from no unbound oxygen to a biogenerated atmousphere of between 10% and 20 % was an enormous change, not to be dismissed lightly. Is what I said not true then ? You are the only one who mentioned thermodynamic equilibrium. I'm sorry, please offer me clarification. What is not according to wikipedia? I posted an excerpt from Wiki which directly contradicted the statement you made. You did not respond to my offering of the New Horizons data.

Do you really want to know or are you just arguing from incredulity born of ignorance of probability?

There it is again that hidden agenda - purpose. Interesting that you link either chance or random to any purpose.

Are you implying that less advanced organisms cannot modify their surroundings ? (Note I already asked you about the intentionally bit and you did not reply) As for 'intentional evolution' there are plenty of examples where two species have become beneficially adapted to the needs of each other, without any apparent intention. There is a very good example in one of the Wiki articles I linked to concerning ants and a certain thorn bush. Do you understand the meanings of random and chance and the difference between them ? If you say they are changes that means that they are changed from something ? You miss the entire point of natural selection since the process you describe cannot work unless the mutation (beneficial or otherwise) is capable of being tranmitted to later generations.

Maybe, but have they got everywhen ?

so claims a would be physicist who seems to know nothing about Chemistry. Further I was responding to your claim that the conditions under which life emerged are the same as the ones we now find on Earth. There was no oxygen when life emerged period. And Physics would be a real shadow without Mathematics. But don't be so disdainful of other sciences. This assumes what you set out to demonstrate. The hew horizons space probe has cast serious doubt on that with the astounding data gathered from Pluto Clearly you don't knpow what equilibrium means. Strange for a would be Physicist. Not according to Wkipedia.

Why, do you think we know all the Laws of Physics ? And what about other Laws belonging to other Sciences ? Which conditions are ? Agreed, but that does not mean it is the only one. But it decidedly didn't. Life on Earth emerged in an anoxic atmousphere or ocean. We have moved on a very long way since 1859. Equilibrium ?

I rather think these (mine and yours) are minor variations in the wider context of 'evolution' in the full. Wikipedia has several summary articles that cover some of the variations you raise, but not always in accordance with your explanations. I have highlighted a couple. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Introduction_to_evolution https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_evolutionary_thought https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution However you have entitled this thread 'evolving evolution', which implies change of some sort. So really it is worth starting right at the beginning. And the beginning is the use of the English word evolution to stand for a group of ideas. Interestingly the word evolution is borrowed from Science from its original English meaning and comes from the Latin 'evolutio'. This was Latin for the specific activity of unrolling a scroll, the origin of which is lost in antiquity since scrolls predated the Romans by at least a thousand years. But it is an interesting loan from the original English which applied it to unfurling sails several hundred years before its application in Science. OK so onwards towards its modern application. The first stage in the evolution of life involved single celled organisms. With a modern eye we can observe that each type of such organism had the same genes. Even today such simple organisms move away from danger - chemicals, radiation etc. Is that 'learning ?' are they cognitive ? or what? At some point these organisms developed or learned or what? the way to club together as multicellular organisms. Still simple, and still with all the same genes. Having done this the ability to specialise arrived so that they had a mechanism to switch off or on genes particular to their function as specialised cells. Later still a big development occurred as such multicellular groupings began to reproduce so there there were then (larger) multicellular organisms with different gene sets. This marked a huge change and the beginning of what most people mean when they talk about 'evolution'.

Over recent years there have been many 'Nature' or 'Natural World' documentaries on TV in England. Following the development of youg animals have been in vogue. Now it is interesting to note the fate of the more adventurous bear cubs and meerkat pups as they seem more likely to come to grief by wandering too far before they are ready. So you would need to show compaative studies where this cognitive flexibility helps and where it hinders before drawing the above conclusion. What are the percentages for and against ?

Taking this to mean that you are interested in improving the reception/response to your posts, here is my take on the subject. This is a discussion site. The controllers here want to hear what the poster has to say about a subject, rather than a report about what others have to say. particularly if those 'others' are not members of this forum. I have seen many a mod post to divers members about this. This means, amongst other things, that the original poster takes responsibility for supporting the veracity of whatever claim he or she makes on behalf of others. I think we are all agreed that the up to date interpretation of the term evolution is very different from the historic one of a century and a half ago. Not only that but the very word is used in different ways in different scientific disciplines. For instance Physicists talk about 'the evolution of the wave function accoring to the Schrodinger equation'. Modern biologists tend tend to restrict the subject to DNA related matters. This is a shame because I have yet to see acknowledgement for the huge input to the evolution of life in general from geologists and in more recent years from anthropologists. Remember Darwin was also a geologist. Many workers at that time covered more than one discipline. You have introduced the work of Kevin Lala into this thread and of Lovelock in another in a way that seemed to myself and others that you were presenting them as a done deal we should all be adopting. Evolution is a multifactorial process which is relevant to many disciplines and needs to be approached in a multidisciplinary fashion. That said different factors will affect different disciplines differently. One important point that we now acknowledge is that evolution is not a steady one way process. Instead it can proceed slowly and steadily in some circumstances, but is also subject to sudden and rapid changes and even reversals (extinction being the ultimate reversal). An example of this last is to be found in the last mayan cities of central america, whre unintentional cultural negative evolution might be said to have occurred.

Since you like drawing things here are the front and back covers of a delightful book which will tell you something about drawing in the 4th dimension. This is actually a very good question +1 Yes, setting aside experimental accuracy that we can achieve, there is some fuzzyness (called line broadening) in spectroscopy, where we measure the 'wavelength' of particles that is observed.

Which plan ? You have mentioned at least 2 1) Who do you mean by 'the West' ? Who exactly has the capability to carry out such retaliation ? 2) The division of Russia. What do you think the russian people would make of this, and would they cooperate, or dig in like they did against first the French then the Germans then the Chinese ?

The only people I can think of that believed (or invoked) determinism were victorian vicars, determined to prove 'God'. Some were amateur scientists, some were professional. As far as I know none are members here. I have an amateur interest in evolution, though I believe I have read widley enough to see that your conceptions on the subject are blinkered and at least a century out of date. Are you aware of thye work of Hennig, Norell, Novacek, Jablonski, Raup and benton to name but a few from the last 60 years. The modern theory of evolution has changed out of all recognition from the model you are putting forward here, as new data and experimental methods has become available.

The air to air system has much to recommend it. eg https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/166317010010 Twin duct wall systems can also be obtained, but as you note they are more expensive https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/335211016045

Lots of assertions. Not a single shred of supporting evidence. I find the idea of 'cultural evolution' intriguing. But Evolution of any sort is based upon a causative relationship acting in the appropriate direction. A correlative relationship is not sufficient evidence to assume this exists, the correct causation must be demonstrated separately.

My brother lives on the second floor of a block of flats in London and has a properly fitted two pipe system running the radiators and domestic hot water in his flat. The 200 mm air inlet and outlet pipes for the heat pump were diamond cored through the walls. I understand from the company that installed them that they have Lincolnshire Council have fitted a number of this type.

Here is a UK/European datasheet for a 3KVA single pipe model. This is the max you can get from plug in UK mains. Note the risk of explosion/fire and other caveats. https://www.appliancesdirect.co.uk/files/pdf/P12HPW 20240311.pdf +1 also to exchemist for finding that link to a sensible (US) evaluation. Interestingly we stayed in the YHA in Penzance in November this year and they had something like this in the room.

Only the one in my dolls house. 😀

Any system that condenses water out of the air will recover the latent heat of that water and if that water is emptied outside there will be some effect. You can also do this in a conventional freezer / freezer compartment by puting flexible plastic bowls of tapwater into it and throwing the ice outside when the water has frozen.

Which agrees with my point that they made the biggest ever change in Earth's history, but entirely without 'direction' and to their detriment. Quite the reverse of what you claimed in your words I quoted. Yet they lasted 250 million years. Do you think Man has any better chance of achieving that ? Again this runs contrary to your words that I quoted. Both answers were short and appear to be knee jerk rather than considered and you did not reply at all to my quote from Wallace letter to Darwin. Yes please , Luc a lot more detail.

1 "This unusual, supercharged evolvability gives us more control over our evolutionary future than we might think." 2 "From the origin of life, organisms channelled and directed their own evolution" 3 "The upshot of all this is that natural selection isn’t something that just happens to organisms: their activities and behaviours contribute to how it happens and whether it happens at all." 4 "From the origin of life, through continual interactive cycles of causation, organisms have channelled and directed their own evolution, and evolution has sculpted them in turn." 5 "and we control our own evolution to a much greater extent" 6 "And because niche construction tends to link adaptive traits together, it too influences both evolvability and the direction of evolution." Re-read the sections on 'Culture" and "Rethinking human evolution". Does it ? Let's take a look at evolution as far as we currently know it and see if these claims stack up or if we can point to any instances of this happening. Our knowledge of evolution is greatly influenced by our knowledge of geology. This was true even at the beginning of our knowledge of evolution. From the origin of life... a) The most enormous change, brought about by life on Earth, we now know was the total reconstruction of the composition of the atmousphere by early organisms (stromatolites) Since the remnents of these organisms still exist today in a few isolated places please explain how this is compatible with 'directed their own evolution' you mention in 2 b) Possibly the most detailed change we know about was the sudden demise of the life form that had dominance for 250 million years. How did the dinosaurs control their demise and how did the mamals that coexisted with thyem gain ascendance ?

Direction, that's the word that make me suspicious of a hidden agenda again.

This is why English has constructions where you need more than one word to exactly specify a meaning. To me is it ever visible has meaning A alone , to be used in response to a statemnent like Venus is not visible tonight (because of cloud cover) Someone might ask Is it ever visible ? If the speaker wanted to say the star is visible at all times she would never say the star is 'ever visible' in normal parlance. (unless she was using poetic licence as in 'the Star of Bethlehem was ever visible to the three wise men') She might just say the star is/was always visible. If she was as optimistic as Oztmandias she might say 'the star will be visible for ever'. When the statements are analysed the tense of the verb must match the rest of the statement, something Russians probably find more difficult as English has many tenses. Other phrases, this time from legal English, demonstrate my point about additional words The phrase Jointly and Severally to indicate the distribution of responsibility for something. Similarly we have 'Tenants in Common' v 'Joint Tenants' - a very important distinction.

My fault, I really should get a better spelling manager. It really should be external oscillation drive. As in the words from the article I linked to What they are saying is that it not not just the interaction between the piped fluid and the pipe that needs to be considered, but also some external ( to the fluid filled pipes ) drive physically moving the pipes as well.

What would 'conventional thinking' be ?