Mimicry and neodarwinism

If the future is beckoning one to a "clear idea" which alone logical rules apply as Kant suggested (page 25 below) then Gould is helpful because through his attempts to popularize evolution he (h)as falsely enabled ignorance to acend where thought it self returns EITHER in mind the concept + intuition or intuition itself.
This applies to a judgement of beauty if that was required.Gould was careful to suggest more often concepts than intuitions. The intuition will 'move up' to the future of Natural History before the concept itself becomes contingent (when empirically verified).So as to attempting to make an expanded theoretical SPACE for evolution IF GOULD'S concepts work, then the places can be more than simple infinite regressions to a mean unconditioned. There is ONE concept of his that seems suspect to me however. This seems to underpin his view towards a "preCambrian" world and I cannot be sure if it's possible lack of truth might not be causing some ignorance among otherwise well-meaning horizontally scientifically minded individuals.In my post on color in snakes and birds here on EVC I make ONLY a relative relationship morphologically of the notion of “proximal-distal” while Gould seems to systematically visualize when scaling into geological time a TRIPLE ANATOMY of ventral-dorsal, anterior-posterior, & proximal-distal PER CLUMPED “Morphospace.”. These serve where “aesthetic” judgments of form in the general sense are made by him. Insofar as “proximal-distal” junctions are tied to homological points Cartesiastically deformable (a la D’ Arcy Thompson etc) that remand a clean ecological foreground backed by a particular biogeographic tracing of contingent events my intuition seems to trump any unrecognized conceptual attempts by others that rather are ignorant or simply have used less knowledge from which to judge. Gould is probably the best standard of how much knowledge much be appreciated to not depreciate intutions of evolution even if it slows down. If one does not wish to use asthetic sensibilities than perhaps Gould's work outside his specific claims can be ignored but of all the recent evolutionists he seemes one of the best who tried to support the humanities as well. Compare Carl Sagan for instance.Dr. Gladyshev kindly sent me more information after you posted this and I have been able to visualize on vacation after the New Year (using Bernoulli's principle
http://home.earthlink.net/~mmc1919/venturi.html
) the actual error that Gould may be causing others to ignore by an invertebrate (molluscan) subjectivity ,preferring (for particular allometric data reasons) the notion of “proximal-distal” on par with other divisions of whole organisms. The divisions are not as subtle as those requested by taste and beauty if applied in the same logic of the form no matter the matter.The error itself may indeed become a realization of multiple chromatographic columns MATERIAL following a persistant force of Gladyshev’s law when kept with in an ecological range chemically rather than with Gould and some wide-ranging evc discussions out into cut ups of actual geography as hierarchies are graded. Taking steps up the stairs need to be smaller than the standard Gould sets conceptually for sensical intuition at least for that that I posses but the logic that Gould presents seems to provide the relationship where the relation currently is.Kant's earlier distinction of popularity and scholasticism are important where Gould wants to retain "core Darwinian logic" that for example Gladshev retained between the individual and the column(in another new article).I will specify more details of the visualization later in a thread on Gladyshev’s work.Here are my new year’s notes and Dr.G Gladyshev’s new material abstract: The objective nature of this object may show that though Gould’s logic is good his method may cause ignorance (unintended no doub, but probably documentable with some social historic account of EVC).

quote:

---

Introduction to Logic by IMKANT

---

Brad.To be honest I do not see your point still. Do you propose that there are some other forces behind evolution that escaped our attention? For instance "beauty" or forces innate to organisms that shaped them as to represent some physics laws? These notions were accepted many hunderds years ago when people saw in living organisms often symbols or warnings etc...Anyway such interconnections to have meaning suppose observer to exist. As far as I know Goulds conception of man is darwinistic one. He considered - as Davison claims - man to be drunkard who happens to possess some inteligentsia.As to the Kants conception of idea (photo you sended) it is interesting indeed. It reminds us that type of knowledge and experience (even of native language we use I dare say) can lead us to different conclusion in our judgment of reality.
Let say preoccupation with neodarwinistic examples of mimicry can lead his bearer to wrong conclusions as to meaning of eye spots on butterfly wings. It was Alan Fox who send a link to scientific article that deal with it - there was no observed effect on predators compared with species that have not such eye spots. While eye spots occurs througout animal kingdom and are not restricted to insect we should probably reconsider their meaning.We should also remember that preoccupations and much knowledges can somehow hindern us to accept new views. This was the situation of modern physiscs. As far as I know even Einstein did not accept many ideas of quantum physiscs even if they proved to be correct after many years later.

The point is HERE: Gould was trying to decide if the changes since the 50s, 60s or 70s (we are discussing from the 80s and beyond as far as I know) in thought about evolution does or does not require a DIFFERENT name than “Darwinism.” I name is not the same as the popularity of the idea itself. The changes into our current panorama seem to yield whether with core Darwinism or out that GLACIAL ASSOCIATIONS are not the newer relation of ecology to the changes no matter how the scale will continue to grade the rough vs smooth difference. This CAN be a matter of taste and creationists should not be hindered in creating divisions that while they should be intricate ought not be too subtle as to pervert the transitions from beauty through the sublime should that help in ordinating the form GIVEN the matter.I have divided the single line in my above post into two pictures of labeled entropy below: So that you might see WHERE (the point (in first thumbnail above) amongst the lines resides. Sorry (about the last post where) the second word “much” was to have been ”must’ but that still seems to translate back to me equivalently.I think the only problem with too much knowledge is that one can replace the semblance of truth with a failure to NOT worry about retractions. If you have a problem reading Gould’s presentation of formalism short of the Kaufmanns and Godwins of the world as too much Darwinian then only look to his conceptual nexus and theoretical placements as to rationality and THEN on to forms (whether with the one eye or the eyeless post 50s philosophy of biology etc) and NOW USE whatever “intuition comes to mind.” This may indeed contain synthetic past thoughts that some may call “a priori.” Gould uses this word when making general reference to larger issues “of life.” He only thought mankind would not make progress by having the kind of conversation we DO have on EvC. I know this has not happened. I have progressed and this is NOT due (solely) to me but to the distributed science and nature of the internet.The photo I sent you on Kant is part of his thought process that excludes anything but the logical in the thought. It is quite obvious to me that Bertrand Russel’s book “Principles of Mathematics” can be read as involuting the first few pages I did not send. The current knowledge in biology, including Gould’s does not explicitly attempt to reread form-making and translation in space given the distinction of history and rationality yet he HAS the concepts needed to bring the 80s and 90s into step with us globally today.Dawkins however failed to see the extension that Gould’s geological conjunctions necessitate for what MATH IS NOT available. That is where biophilosophy and the possibility of the predator as a synthetic apriori enters.Here is one way that frogs may be this. Don’t worry about being honest. I will explain it until we disagree or agree to agree.
I was assuming that it did not escape your attention. Perhaps I am wrong.Perhaps this information ; From

quote:

---

Panbiogeography-Tracking the History of Life

---

will be of some help. I have linked google's on-line scans here;
http://axiompanbiog.com/panbioglnks.aspxGladyshev also has a new Wiki page:
Georgi Gladyshev - WikipediaEdited by Brad McFall, : title correctionEdited by Brad McFall, : quali- and justi- fication added

I am not much more wiser from Gladyshev theory. Let say chromatographic columns are used to study composition of unknown chemicals. Distribution of them in column depend on their velocity in environment etc. so we obtain at the end some result as to their composition.I do not see connection of this with evolution. Such process can we see also in rainbow - light are separated into spectrum colors.Is it possible to explain it somehow more comprihensible? As far as I can deduce chromatographic columns only separate unknown chemicals into their parts - in evolution on the contrary new complicated entities arises during time. So process seem to me be reverse as in chr. columns.I suppose you do not have on your mind something like geological columns where organisms show equlibria with short transitional period without traces. Such similarity with chr. colums would induce an idea that geological columns did not arised via deposition of layers but via rearrangement of organisms that were present from the beginning by process similar of separation in chr. columns.It seems to me from your citation that there is no new theory of evolution that refute darwinism but refinement and tuning it with some thermodynamics and other constraints?

Yes, I can make the ideas more accessible and cognizable. I will and have already started up a couple a pages of details. Feel free to visualize the "column" as orthoganal to the leaf surface below rather than the overlap geologically if that is not an "abuse" of science.You will need to be open to read Kitcher’s notion of “novelty creationism” (page 17) in terms of future humanity dealing with its population increases and NOT as disjunctions from only the past or antiquity.

quote:

---

---

In my “live” science example and recognition of Gladsyshev’s law, I will show that unlike ID perhaps ,the division of the lines I indicated in the post above (after the initial line posted was) surfaces in the picture below: And can be “extended” if the electricity experiment were applied to this PlantL.obscurum (I found during holiday). I will explain all this in the sequel but this is just to indicate that this is “live” science not “dead” as Kitcher argues against ID post Dover ( as his concern is if the extension can be brought into the biology classroom) (That is a different question than explaining how “chromatographic columns” are better than analogues to the truth via particulate nature of different colors of light).The answer is yes, but how to keep the ignorance out is considerable. Four bodies of evolutionary syllogism are not perturbed in the least test.I am still working on your reply.
By the time I am done you should be in a position to identify if the ”red’ or the ”blue’,for example, goes up or simply “over” as per

quote:

---

---

The rough draft reply is on The Trainer's product page
http://aexion.org/product.aspx
in the file "MV.doc"Edited by Brad McFall, : progess reportEdited by Brad McFall, : link to preview

It will take time to go into depth of your MV document - I have only skimmed it just now. What seems to me of interest at first glance is this sentence about Gould: Just yesterday I read some pages from Ernest Cassirer and it seems that exactly same problem occured in analyzing of "evolution" of human languages. Linguists came to the conclusion in the end that without very descriptive analysis of extant languages there is no way to study their history.-----
I have also some idea that it might be possible that our knowledge is predetermined by our language and it is impossible to go far beyond that. For instance without introduction of arabic digits its hardly conceivable to define or invent Fourier sequels etc (using Romans digits). So it might be that indo-european languages and thinking based upon them are unable to resolve some mysteries of life. Some tribes in Amazonia do not know species "parrot" even if they have many words for many types of them.
But thats just some thougts with only obscure connection with main topic.

I can extend the example of Gould's description where motion was back to Gould's use of Lamarck , in the sense that I think Georgi Gladyshev intends his law to materialize (with "words" rather than pictures), and working on the notes I posted in MV.doc, it may be possible to reread that back to the general issue of language as you suspect but this is a bit beyond my target as this kind of thing just happens in the process of working up the content. I do "use" English to some extent. Gladyshev was ambivalent as to which, Darwin or Lamarck, is to be recessed towards. My internalization tends at least on the surface to neither but howfar the externals must retain some elliptic in those names historically is probably unavoidable to an extent..Given the recent post by Percy:
http://EvC Forum: Science Programs on Radio, TV and Internet -->EvC Forum: Science Programs on Radio, TV and Internet

quote:

---

The talk finishes with a segment he calls "Naming Rights" that is beyond belief

---

where the speaker spoke of Arabian *star names leads me to suspect you may be onto something with "arabic digits its hardly conceivable to define or invent Fourier sequels etc (using Romans digits)."
but I need to verify that this is different than where Kant referred to using a telescope to see stars vs the" white stripe" in the sky. Regardless it does enter where grammer may or may not be of use (utility).
========================
For the reader;here is another link to the page with "MV.doc" on it.
http://aexion.org/product.aspxI will upload changes there but will still post another response in this thread.
*****************************************************************
I will be imperative for me to relate this diagram of pure biogeometry to niche constructors notion of culturally derived "genophenotypes" when more than one Gladyshev monohierchy is monophyletic. This picture resolves to my satisfaction different uses of "adaptive landscapes" and makes "Wright's incomprehensibility" through use of either individual gene combinations or gene frequencies in a population into relations of the geometry to algebra but functional and approximating it to fourier series seems to be the thing then to doEdited by Brad McFall, : picture

I read your paper discussing the problem repeatedly but I must admitt
my English is not sufficient to comprehend it. So what I will express now is more intuition than grasping your point of view.First of all it seems to me that your concept is still referring to some unknown force which is material even if complicated and dynamicaly complex (sorry if I am wrong here). Yet that's something I am not looking for - as you can imagine I am still looking for spiritual essence or let say transcedentalism. I am a kind of creationist even though I accept evolution as the fact - Davison's views supported by ideas of former Russian religious philosophers like V.Solovjov and S.Bulgakov are my favourite.It means that in evolution plays Natural Selection no role and organisms are created according some plans that pre-existed. I would say that they pre-existed as pure platonic ideas and these ideas is their substantiality. Such ideas could not be reached by abstract reason - reason can only bring us somehow near to them. It was also my remark if math using arabic numbers do not mislead us in deeper underestanding of our world. Certainly modern math is unconcievable without arabic numbers. Yet extraordinary savants show us that even the best matematicians cannot keep pace with them. They do not use numbers in their computations as we comprehend them but see numbers as complicated "shapes" or "forms" which somehow pour together giving correct results.In this connection I see mimicry. It represents puzzle because different species use the same patterns (at least as we humans recognise them) and in this phenomenon is perhaps coded some deeper meaning that should be deciphered.

Thanks Alan Fox who have noticed me . I quote: Just a moment...And these conclusion contradicts to another scientific summaries of other scientific sources. See:The role of eyespots as anti-predator mechanisms, principally demonstrated in the Lepidoptera | Biological Reviews | Cambridge CoreThe role of eyespots as anti-predator mechanisms, principally demonstrated in the Lepidoptera - PubMedSo what's the reality? What's the latest darwinistic fairy-tale explanation of origin of butterflies wings "eyspots"?Uf, this "scientific" one is really worth of notice: Just a moment...Edited by MartinV, : No reason given.Edited by MartinV, : No reason given.

quote:

---

First of all it seems to me that your concept is still referring to some unknown force which is material even if complicated and dynamicaly complex (sorry if I am wrong here). Yet that's something I am not looking for - as you can imagine I am still looking for spiritual essence or let say transcedentalism. I am a kind of creationist even though I accept evolution as the fact - Davison's views supported by ideas of former Russian religious philosophers like V.Solovjov and S.Bulgakov are my favourite.

---

All of this is well and good but try to broaden your perspective a bit IN YOUR INTUTION. There are international aspects that we may be able to address because of your non-anglo philosophical background.I have no problem with the notion of forms "predictated" in some sense where say the "God" of Newton may raise the pitch in the conversation of and I have posted on Boscovich here on EvC before, but before you are going to convince "scientists" if you can sediment your transcendental or spiritual notion into a "PHSICAL LINE OF FORCE etc." you would be better than 1/2 way towards convincing others. To try to convince many of the science minds on EVC of a pure belief is like trying to dig a hole to China. It will never happen, not in the best of all possible peace we wish we had here, speaking for myself as a US citizen.If you are interested in pressing the issue of "arabic" numbers and the global society pre vs post 9-11 then OK but listen to this:I just finished listening to the panel discussion
EvC Forum: Darwin Day 2007
on "eugenics" as part of the Cornell and PRI Darwin Day Celebration.
Just a moment...
The "scientists" wanted to make it very clear that ethical, moral, and obviously by extension (and within the subtext of the words used) "transcendentalism" are over and a part different from the empirical mindset of the scientist. At least that is the ideal. It was admitted by Will Provine that some scientists have used their standing as a scientist to "shield" themselves from others while speaking on non-science things. This was not good, the panel agreed. And the best "the scientists" could say was there was no bright clear line between Darwinism as being “bad” for society as they discussed eugencis a very “bad” thing while the comparison was made to physicists and the atomic bomb (other scientists). This of course is useless as a means of dealing with effective PR for Darwin. But why was THIS the message?Well, in the course of discussing Eugenics (Will Spoke on the history of Eugenics in the US, a Palentotolgist spoke on Osborn’s “outdated” ideas of trends and nazi biology, a student spoke on how close Davenport came to making Cornell form a “eugenics department” out of the plant breeding dept, and a biologist spoke about HALDANE AND FISHER being eugencists and his recent genetic counciling advice he received on the probability of his to be born son to have cystic fibrousus) and yet I really understood what WAS NOT being said.In the question and answer session the question was posed, which was missed by Will at first, as to what kind of “eugencis” programs were there, if any, in other countries like Russia immediately after WWII. The panel had already tried to make it clear that the US eugenic program became “not science” immediately after the war. But because the language used to discuss the entire subject “hinged” on the canonical place of the “evolutionary synthesis” there was NO ANSWER to this question EXCEPT about what was occurring in Russia BEFORE 1924. No one ever spoke of Lysenko and the notion of internal drive or some physical force the likes I had tried to describe to you never even showed itself in the body motion of the gathering.So I can easily conclude that there may be room for a physical force the likes of which you do not need but if it exists would make the position you seem to affect much more likely to be classified as flying on the radar screen rather than being “below” it.I appreciate the attention you have given to me and it has helped me to focus on my own ideas so thnaks and good luck with your own efforts. Somewhere in the Critique of Pure Reason Kant refers to the "mental image" of artists and "savants?" but dismisses it as useful for a trascendental deduction. As for me I sometimes fear if this is ALL that Croizat's Panbiogeography has going for it. The reflection necessary to find out IS however broader than the mere "physical" force, if not simply probabilistic, itself and for this I DO NEED the correspondence with faithful believers who extend the discussion beyond and into the spiritual.If you have no need for an actual physical something then my posts in this thread are not going to be very useful to you and what I said should be read accordingly.Best, Brad.

Brad,might be that the famous philosopher Eric Voegelin expressed the differences between the Central Europe and USA thinging at best. American people have always possibility to express their opinions freely and if problems occurs than they can always have possibilities open to "go West". Such possibililities never exist in Central Europe - you never have place where to escape. Except to go in prison (Gulag) of course - you have always to accomodate to Habsburgs, German national socialists, fascists, communists... That's maybe why the tradidition in USA have never produced interesting comedy, irony, tragedy in literature yet... And that's maybe why in Central Europe the problem of mimicry (and evolution) was perceived in different way as in darwinistic Anglo-American tradition - see Goethe, Nietzsche, Heikertinger, Grasse, Schindewolf, Suchantke conception...See please this conception considering darwinistic "empty niche" at least: Page not found - www.fritzwagner.comPage not found - www.fritzwagner.comEdited by MartinV, : Eric Voegelin observationsEdited by MartinV, : No reason given.Edited by MartinV, : graammar

Martin;
I have responded to you here:
http://EvC Forum: All about Brad McFall II. -->EvC Forum: All about Brad McFall II.as I am not sure that I can maintain dicussing Mimicry and neodarwinism as you want. If you think that my response continues to be relevant to in this thread direct me back and I will post back here again. I do no think that the notion of the "niche" really is where the logic of the difference applies but it does enable one to format the shape of the difference itself, it seems to me.

New mimic has been discovered dating back to Eocene. Of course darwinists use everything they have on hand to explain it - even bats as mimic predators.In the case of the ongoing discussion about mammalian land-sea transition darwinists omit predators as crocs and sharks completely from their consideration. They need "empty niche" for Pakicetus to evolve into whale. Now they need strong selective pressure on the contrary (in the very same Eocene) in order to explain insect leaf mimicry. So in this case predators are wellcomed. Even bats.I would like add that it hasn't been proved yet that predators can be decieved by mimics. It's still only darwinistic story. See my previous post on aposematism.At least we see that darwinists need very elastic dialectic. Like marxists.

quote:

---

It must have been caused by vigorous selection pressure by visually
oriented predators. Common predators of adult phasmids are
insectivorous birds (21), but also spiders, mantids, lizards, and
bats (e.g., 20, 22-26) are documented.

---

and on the same place, uf: And we are again witnessing stasis, evolution that somehow frozen during Eocene too:

quote:

---

This fossil leaf insect bears considerable resemblance to extant individuals in size and cryptic morphology, indicating minimal change in 47 million years. This absence of evolutionary change is an outstanding example of morphological and, probably, behavioral stasis.

---

http://fossilinsects.net/...007_PNAS_FirstLeafInsect47My.pdf

I hit on abstract of article "The evolution of multicomponent mimicry."Page not found | BioInfoBank InstituteAccording authors I quote:

quote:

---

We find that the gradual evolution of mimicry becomes increasingly less likely as the number of signal components increases, unless predators generalize widely over all components.
.
.
.
However, we show that the contemporary two-step hypothesis (punctuated evolution followed by gradual refinement) can explain the evolution of Mllerian mimicry under all tested conditions. Thus, although the gradual evolution of mimicry is possible, the two-step hypothesis appears more generally applicable.

---

Having no access to the whole article I dare say that "punctuated evolution" is neodarwinistic new-speak for saltationism.

Is sure sounds like it from the bit quoted. If so it is a misuse of the term. However, saltationsism would not be the right term either since that means a large change in one generation.I suspect that what they mean to say that there is a single jump to a small amount of (but effective) mimicry and then refinement. That is neither punk eq or saltationsism.It is however a "jump" to have some mimicry appear where there was none. I just don't see why they use the punk eq term and don't see why you would use saltationism unless you misunderstand what the paper might be refering to or the meaning of saltationism itself.We can sort it out if someone has access to the whole paper.Ah, after refering to the whole abstract I see you left out an important bit that helps to guess what they mean. They refer to macromutations and micromutations. As best as I can tell the macromutation term refers to larger jumps but fall short of being saltationist.