You are addressing a fraudster - at your peril, as you saw. Here are my grounds for this characterization: the "gentleman" in question has claimed on this thread (I don't follow the other evolution thread or any of the discussions on theology) that he has an advanced degree in the sciences (either material sciences or chemistry) from a British university. Now even an undergraduate scientific degree at any accredited UK university would certainly require that he understand the precise meaning of the quoted paragraph - no matter whether the degree had been granted in mathematics, engineering, chemistry, or any related field. Parenthesis here to say context of quote was linked on previous pages, so there's no excuse other than shameless fraud.
Complete rubbish. You tell us what the gibberish meant.
Where did you vanish to when Imur took the trouble to find the post fm denied having made and you so innocently, without any knowledge of it, backed him up. fm has made no comment since about the matter and neither have you.
fm has been asked questions in post 4,423,217 that he has declined to even consider. He failed to answer the question about D.J. Aidley's omission of evolution theory, or even the word evolution, in his very technical biology textbook The Physiology of Excitable Cells despite his repeated claims that evolution theory is the basis of biology. (I don't recommend any of you try to read it btw--no 1 you won't understand a word of it and number 2 it will make you feel funny about your excitable cells).
He failed to answer the question on why Widow Wadman was not an exhibit at Dover and the chiclid and the flagellum were put in in her place when there are no chiclids or flaggies in the classrooms and a whole host of potential widows.
Then read the posts about him telling me that the environment is changing (big insight that) in response to my post that environmental changes and, today, human choices, are the driving forces of evolution and not biology, which is a given.
He expressed a desire to put religious people through re-training programmes. Then he denied having done so because he knew I wouldn't go looking for the proof. Twice I think. Then you supported him without any evidence beyong the denials which was very embarrassing for you as it turned out when Imur did take the trouble and found the objectionable post. After which you both scuttered off and his somewhere for a while.
He didn't answer the question about the "gynaeological problem" regarding Nature.
Then he said there are laws in evolution theory. When asked what they were he gave labels of laws.
And he has a long track record of not answering relevant questions such as does he want to see religion eradicated from US society.
I know who the fraudsters are on these two threads HS. You are one as well.
Now he's all cosy with Io and they have ceased calling each other really nasty names. Io provides him with Red Zone 1st downs you see.
You're out of your depth HS talking science with me and so are all the rest of you. You wouldn't know Science if it jumped out on you and especially not any biological science. And it's better that way.
If you know the "precise meaning of the quoted paragraph " I think you should explain. I'm sure I don't. Or ever will even if you do explain it. It was incomprehensible gibberish and I daresay whoever wrote it couldn't explain it either. Not under close questioning. It says nothing about the why and how of emergent properties. They are just poofed into existence. A bit of guessed "when" and a good idea of where from reports of the location of the emergence. No "whence" of course.