But let me break down your contention: you didn’t understand the first post because I used the word nomos and appealed to the fact that this is a layman’s forum apparently- if it is, I don’t give a shit; then you just told me to prove it. I’m not writing you up personally a fucking paper on it dawg, this was an off handed reply to MagsJ about something.
How do you figure there is no ‘half of language…?’ I’ve read Chomsky’s the way the world works and the manufacture of consent, stayed well away on his books about universal language and it springing fully formed from the brow of zeus. He never found concrete evidence of it as far as I remember. I’ve also read all sorts, just like you.
Evolution doesn’t work on the basis of “this language thing sounds cool, we need that. - poof - there you go humans” it works by something co-opting something that did something else originally after god knows however many interim steps. Which sometimes, as you mention, will lead to emergent cascades.
There is no spooky action at a distance across bacterial colonies world wide in response to a local stress as far as I know, unless you can point me in the direction of a paper that gives examples.
I admire your typing speed and tenacity btw. 
But to break it down for you, I think you fell in love with your picture, then gushed a whole bunch of cool-sounding nonsense over the first girl to post in your thread.
Hey, you called me stupid first lol.
Actually a lot of folks here still use empty philosophical neologisms and abstractions like that because they look cool… especially the greek ones. So you’re in good company.
So you just basically told me to prove it again and again stated you didn’t understand the original post. I didn’t mean to imply any action at a distance. And nomos doesn’t just sound cool, it refers to an older variation of evolutionary theory called nomogenetics, which sort of operates in reverse of the standard Darwinian view. So indeed my use of the word was targeted, not merely a capricious exercise in intellectual vanity. Although I would suggest learning some of those wordy-wordy Greeky-things, especially with your assumed name, Prometheus. You don’t need to actually learn the entire language, as I did. Merely enriching yourself with it is enough; though philology, it does grant you new perspectives on things. As Emerson said: every single word is a fossilized poem.
His evidence was what I said about our actual anatomy. Animal calls are analogue signals, whereas we produce a digital signal, meaning we break sound-waves down into discrete units that we call phonemes. While analogue animal calls can only communicate a limited amount of information, these phonemes can be recombined into an endless array of new sequences: they possess recursivity, and thus, the potential for unlimited expression. There is no way to get from one to the other by steps, there had to be a sudden transformation of the anatomical structure, as might occur by the introduction of new genetic materials into an organism; there had to also be a pre-existing symbolic capacity that did exactly as you indicated, and co-opted this new anatomy: the solitary, proto-language that our ancestors might have used to model the world internally, for themselves, now became shareable through language, with writing emerging some time after that. I believe that using chaos theory and fractalization, among other things, can explicate how actually novel genetic material- not mutations of pre-existing material- could be spontaneously created as secondary, emergent phenomenon through the interaction of multiple selection principles suddenly harmonizing across multiple levels of organization- even from the inorganic up, producing fully formed “snowflakes” or crystallizations, to use a metaphor. This is a thesis not an argument, for which I most certainly will not write a paper on for you in this thread; I intended only to throw it out as an idea with the thousand other ones in the image.
Do you really not understand the original post? There are… several selection principles… at work… in shaping the evolution of organic life on planet earth. And these various selection principles… operate at different levels of organization… from the inorganic… to the mammalian… upward. Okay? Now pay attention: at certain points in time… these principles harmonize… creating a multi-leveled synchronization between them… across a whole bunch of these levels of organization… which generates… a novel evolutionary structure. … metaphorically “crystallizing” a kind of snowflake as a fully formed object… because snowflakes. Like. There aren’t 3/4ths of a snowflake or half a snowflake, they form in precise geometric structures… Does it help when I speak really slowly?
But it’s nice you took applied biology, you’ve got your big boy pants on. And I didn’t directly insult you, much less call you stupid- although you appear to be; I called you an asshole and just said that your casual dismissal of something you apparently didn’t understand was unproductive, then flexed my superior learning all over your face.
…will reply a bit later on… a slow start to the day for me. 
Heeeey! I protest at being used as a pawn in your disagreement.
Tab said: “I think you fell in love with your picture” - sounds like Narcissism by proxy haha!
I don’t even know what that means, I fell in love with my picture. Anyway I left enough for Tab to respond to.
To be fair, fractal Darwinism not something which a regular glamboy would have any use for trying to understand.
Still it is somewhat weird that the ideological stupidity has become so fanatical in a figure like ab who, in the past, at least held some pretences of being able to appreciate the phenomenon of thought.
Its peculiar how anti-intellectual these dudes are, and how much they seem to consider it self-evident that to think, and to be literate, is a ridiculous stupidity.
On the subject of fractal Darwinism itself, it would seem to be quite logical that an explanation like this has to be conceived for the seemingly unbridgeable gaps in evolution, of which there are so many and which are all so profound that biologists have long given up trying to explain them, which is why evolution theory is still in the 1900s.
This aside from the fact that the theory fractal Darwinism actually seems to hold some water.
But… even the mere effort of thinking is… bad, son. Cant do that here. This is a layman site for hipsters.
I hope that Tab responds to the posts I left, for the problem I have is: I advanced a thesis and, instead of simply asking me to clarify what I did because he did not understand, he just refused it- petulantly, which is a shadow of pride; stunted pride, like that often borne in the souls of those scholars who could not attain innovation. Then after I did, I was tasked with writing him personally a full paper on it to “prove it”. It wasn’t an argument, it was an idea. Though I do have plenty of resources to mount that defense, as I implied by flexing my library on him. However, if I do so, it will be in its own thread.
“like that often borne in the souls of those scholars who could not attain innovation.”
Indeed that is what turns men who fancied themselves thinkers bitter after the age of, I guess, 45 or so, when they realize there is nothing in them.
Id be full of compassion for them if they hadn’t convinced themselves that their emptiness is a universal virtue.
By the way without a notion like fractal Darwinism, evolution theory is probably still in the 1800s.
Strict Determinism and Darwin do not combine. Darwin was a lot further ahead of his time than he has been given credit for.
It is a curious thing, that every branch of the sciences as well as the humanities have experienced several paradigm-shifts from the 1800’s up to now, save for evolutionary theory and applied biology. A few little things have been added- symbiotic arrangements, epigenetics and the like, but no paradigm shift. And even historically conceived, biology has tended to lag behind the other sciences. It took several thousand years just to realize the evolutionary tree and principle of natural selection. Yet the ancient Greeks (who computed, accurately, the distance of the sun with literally a stick) did possess a notion of the Hierarchy of Being, and that certain lifeforms “belonged” with other life-forms.
To reiterate: there are multiple selection-principles operating at different levels of physical and evolutionary organization, all the way up from the level of the inorganic and abiogenic, to the bacterial, to the mammalian, etc; sometimes, these selection-principles harmonize randomly, in a creative way, actually crossing the apparently unbridgeable distinction between unliving matter and organic life while generating a novel genetic structure- just as a fractal does through the interplay of stochastic processes or ‘chance’ and preset ‘laws’ or restrictions; this synchronization of multiple selection-principles across multiple levels of organization, I call the nomos. The nomos allows the process of evolution to cross incredible gaps and generate novel structures. (Like the magical crystal of our faculty of language which came together fully formed- like a snowflake. I use the word magical here, to insult Tab.) This is not an argument Tab, it is an idea; and I refuse to believe that, especially under the assumption of you having read my other posts, which I always hate to see buried after landing on a new page in a thread, you do not understand it. Now: to return to my image. I titled it Dank vs Lameo. This idea of fractal Darwinism or nomogenetics is cooler. It’s just cooler. It is more dank. And therefor it must be true. A mathematician knows what I am talking about- I mean a pure mathematician, not one of these applied mathematicians,- I despise them, they are lukewarm; afraid to fully throw their heart into their Platonic idealism and yet, too proud to condescend to physics. Pure mathematicians wouldn’t use the word cool or dank of course, they prefer beauty: for them, the beauty of a theory indicates its truthfulness.
Yes. Clearly value ontology is instrumental in taking this divide. Selection is wholly a question of valuing, and given that all beings are valuings, from electrons to lifeforms to galaxies, a fractal model is absolutely necessary to even engage this topic without being sure to do nothing but erring.
Nah see, you’'re mixing metaphysics and epistemology into biology and therefor creating a fuller, more integrated view of the world: there’s a word for that. It’s… what is it, oh yeah: a philosophy. And Tab doesn’t like that. Many do not like that.
Yes, mea culpa, I’m a sinner. I do these crazy things. I confess to have been doing it at an early age. I… enjoy it. Thinking. Is always gotten me in trouble with the glam boys.
It also precludes me from allowing a purely deterministic system to arise from a purely non-determined event; existence.
There’s the rub: repeat-ability. The entire scaffold of the natural sciences is couched upon a singular principle: that an experiment can be repeated, so as to confirm, empirically, the results it yields when conceived as an experiment in relation to a hypothesis. But the atomos, the big-bang event,- Existence, by the very nature of its definition and what it is, which Schelling calls a tautegory … cannot be repeated. That is what makes existence, existence. So we have a pretty big fucking problem there, at least the nominal ‘we’; the editorial ‘we’. For philosophy, for the philosopher, this poses no intellectual challenge at all.