Mimicry and neodarwinism

quote:

---

According Davison there is no doubt, that evolution is a fact, but neodarwinism is incapable to account for it.
I am much impressed by Davisons Evolutionary manifesto - one of the most concise critics of darwinism - which was in turn here very criticized.

---

It is one thing to critize "darwinism" and another to say what is supposed to remain AFTER the critic has a few beers or read G. de Beer.Gould for instance relies on "branching" topology during speciation without regard to a specfic form. He even, at last insists for tests of ancestral formations surviving-through-his specific criticism but this can not be discriminated (today)from the notion of kinds Biblically.Davison, because he rejected a direct influence of the environment on the beings being created through this kind of point set uped controversy, is not close to Eisner's 70s writing (I tried to find it on -ine but failed) that systematic use of poplation genetics (natural selection in the wild etc.) is not going to yield a lot of data to biology(potentially "missing" data (left out) in Gould's parlance).So both Gould and Eisner critcize "darwinism" but turn out doing different kinds of research.Eisner stuck to elucidating actual chemicals involved in entomology
(he cared very much for the biology of insects (personal observation)

quote:

---

I once found a larval insect with shit on its back and took it to Tom Eisner
Page not found | Department of Neurobiology and Behavior
who simply walked to his file cabinet and pulled out a reprint where he had published on it.

---

)
while Gould attempted to erect a metathematics in which futher growth of biological thought could correlate allometrically. Davison seemed to resist, for perfectly comprehensible creationist predilections I should add, attempts to extend the theoretical space on close observational terms of his critique in>to areas some of us on EvC thought it might reply through, though.And so it is hard to understand, for me at least, how to differentiate simple qualms about mimicry and general vs particular dissatisfaction with standard evolutionary theory of the 60s.

Multiple green layers isnt a problem for me. I have an idea for the shapes of leaves but it need not necessarily be a creationist pre-spective while it might always be one "eductively". It would be off topic here (tropical Africa only looked like multiple green layers not some hugely different looking biodiversity to me).

Yes, it did happen that I crossed in my thought the realization that "the shape" of mushrooms did not fit my ideas of form-making generally that is based on diploids. But given an idea I (also, "also" becuase 'my' idea on leaves is too speculative to have been generalized subjectively by me so far but I doubt there is reason to doubt that it cant, etc) have had on haploid ferns ( i think I have expressed this on EVC if you are interested to follow THAT up) that-then, then the form of mushrooms can be related to a divided (taxanomically subjective) notion of phenotype that has (had in this case) different coincidence geometries for *genetically* (haploid vs diploid differences) differnt cases. Catastrophe theory may show instructive organonically in that case. But yes that is more of a guess than the thoughts I have on leaves and woody structures generally. I have given Lichens as well extensive thoughts so I think if I tried the same for mushrooms nothing out of the ordinary standard evos thought would occurr. Your guess is mine.Edited by Brad McFall, : "proof" to "show" given recent evc comments on the word

Indeed I was thankful that Davison provided this link, because I had not read this (material/article) specifically before then. However, there was one passage that caught my attention, and somewhat negatively. I will explain.
Britska metafyzika zrcadlici se v evolucni teorii Roberta Brooma
*
Originally published in: Bulletin of the Czech Geological Survey, 75(1): 73-85. Praha 2000

quote:

---

(A) multitude of rather symbolic resemblances

---

would need to be “dissected” and physicalized.It has always been curious to me as to whether Croizat specifically intended to keep spiritual issues out of his work (this seems to be result of New Zeland scholarship, which on the whole has spent more time with it than me, (they used the term “transgression” when writing about organic motion across Africa),Gould speaks of talk with Grad Students during the 70s, the time I was most influenced by my Grandfather, about a notion of “petrification”, some other word, and the to be one, “pluification.” I will look up the footnote and edit it back in here.The claim in the article that Broom was a finalist by Simpson is probably enough to work out Broom’s ideas outside the hierarchical extensions of Gould. People here on EvC however only individually take on the hierarchical issue itself but rather we remain somewhat constricted to the simple difference of standard evolutionary theory vs fundamental creation biology (the parts of EvC that I know the most about).My Grandfather’s tradition in biology probably has something to do with Cope’s but I have not really tried to do some serious writing and digging on it. I just know that I retain a clear thought that growth and development are TWO different things.I can comment on the whole article in some other place if you like(the issues with “plato” probably have to be worked out in the difference of “transient” and “immanent” reality of Cantor interpretations, but I am not sure).

quote:

---

Structuralist Frankfurt school of constructional morphologists deny the existence of camouflage and mimicry by saying that "the predator probably cannot see it" (Edlinger, Gutmann and Weingarten 1991).

---

While I was at Cornell, in the 80s, I was collecting all of the ideas on how snakes got their spots and stripes (Kraig Adler probably has one of the best personal libraries of herpetology in the World ( he loved to collect color books despite the protestations of his wife) etc and I re-call a German article, which I really could not read much of, that had the BEST pictures of snake skin patterns compared, I had ever seen. It might have been work from this “Frankfurt school.” The issues of mimicry did become odd to me AFTER I found THREE explanations in the library, one based on what the predator might see (relative to the speed of motion of the snake), standard genetically thought through mimicry and some idea that it was all a matter of embyrogeny.I have not taken this work much further for a couple of reasons.One, JD Murray told me that they (Oxford Mathematical Biology Dept) would simply (in the face of the three alternatives) assume that like a zebra so goes the snake.
Two, L.Pierce Williams - who was deeply interested in Faraday and British Science in general was unable to notice the ocular contrasts I was presenting in an independent study on color notions between Goethe and Newton.
Three, Will Provine had not been kind enough to Sewell Wright’s study and use of the Color Volume when working on Ginea Pig coat colors.
Fourth, I was prevented from continuing my thesis by a FORCED leave of absence and I have never had the money to return after the time limitations ran out.It has been clear to me in the field that “some” of the bright colors of reptiles are probably NOT visible to predators and may serve during less violent interactions but I have never quantified the suspicision behaviorally somehow nor looked up other research on the topic.The passage that I identified was,

quote:

---

The seventeeth-century neoplatonists (see e.g., Gould 1999b) advocated for a meaningful construction of nature that reveals wisdom and harmonious order of creative forces resulting in a multitude of rather symbolic resemblances. As a surprising consequence they did not identify the fossil fish as a former organism but suggested instead that plastic forces within the rocks can generate the same ideal (archetypal) form as is created by organic forces from the fish's egg. The search is not over.

---

NOW, if Aggasiz were rehabilitated THROUGH Gould’s use of Hyatt’s name then even this could be a tame phrasing. Let’s assume the worst instead however, since I know that I have not done this and I do not know of any one else with the kind of interest to attempt the same or similar, namely that it must be taken LITERALLY that “petrifaction” can create FISH shapes (Aggasiz simply had “dreams” about this, not literalisms as I understand it). I would have to admit that this idea is “wrong.” I personally have thought through the issues that Gould now calls “plurifcation” in terms of “forms of death” (by different physical routes) but this reading would cause my own writing to be a modern extention of the so-called “neoplatonists” but making this association is precisely the error that Ernst Mayr and Richard Boyd made on trying to understand what I was saying in the 80s so I would need to re-autobiographicalize MYSELF for this to be a viable narrative trajectory even for me.I would need to see what the term “ Plastic” refers to more specifically.Regardles my sole reservations in the article do not displace the comments that predators may not see the camouflage or other striking colors. They may well be. I have thought so myself indeed. I have no proof however. There has to be one step before one can walk however.I have given the subject some more thought since then. Particularly I have thought that reptile head D'Arcy Thompsonian "Cartesian" Grids might be Cellular Automata and the patterns of colors based first on rule based determinations. But I have not carried this thought through the tough middle part which would then have implications for genetics of mimicry.

Click for full size imageGould apparently doesnt index every use of a word that IS in his index. I will need to look harder for the footnote I referenced above.Edited by Brad McFall, : update

Are you sure that one would want to go so far as to suggest that the fine structure of a fossil fish like this: is causable by the fairly large scale forces that separate the forms of igneous, metamorphic and sedimentary rocks no matter the likeness to biological shape?I do not doubt that there is unused information about mineral distributions relative to sorting out taxonomic relations and some that is colossally and inexcusably unused so perhaps you and I have a different idea of what is “outside” and what is “external.” I took it that whatever the determination was to have been that it would proceed via the notion of crystal formation force generalized by Kant here. It is unclear to me what you mean when comparing insect and fish contouring. If I use Kant here I could include slime compared to fish if I reflected on that.If there is no issue here the exchange is probably only about various inclinations from “misology.” That’s my guess.

quote:

---

The picture is from “The Book of Life” by gen. ed. Stephen Gould and the other thumbnails from Kant (the either “The Critique of Judgment” or “Introduction to Logic”)

---

There is no problem with the existence of "internal forces" only I am not sure that they apply, in the case of the particulars of fossil fish, to rocks forming apparent fish or insect "artifacts", as Agassiz is not against a "commanding spirit" in principle but wanted to bring fossil fish studies through the fact first. That done it seems possible to discuss what you call "unreal" and Agassiz attributed to Oken. But what it has to do with "mimicry", well, I am not as sure.

quote:

---

---

Edited by Brad McFall, : added internal info (Agassiz's)

quote:

---

I do not have book from D'Arcy Wentworth Thompson yet I know he compares for instance jellyfish and the forms of drops of liquid falling into viscous fluid and many more surprising resemblances of forms in living and inanimate world.
It is too far audacious to assume, that fossil fish was created by no-fossilization process, but where is the boundary of which shapes are intrinsic to inanimate and which to living world I do not know.

---

Yes it is an interesting question when one looks into the shapes of viruses but if one is sticking with the subjects Thompson informs this is not much of a problematic for me even though I have made it my own problem over the years. The simple idea I have had is that because there is no difference of the application of algebra and geometry to the phenetic conscriptives of biological form one need only spin one's thought around an axis that is concurrent with a backbone to enable a wedge to concieved between any lack of a boundary. If the axis is a problem then this would have been said problematic and not something I find very worthwhile.

quote:

---

Anyway even if fossil fish was not created by "internal forces" it does not mean, that these forces does not exist at all.

---

Your reply here seems to indicate that I am not the person you are writing to here. I have already said that one can relate the "unreal" IN YOUR TERMS to Agassiz's reference to Oken. I may be wrong here but this is what I would have done. Perhaps English is not your primary diction.It is good you saw that the article you and Davison linked confered the same sense of harmonious "wisdom" as found in Kant.Which 'copy page' has the reference to Earth as a living organism?I can write about the issue of ecosystem as a superorganism or not but again if all one is saying in this thread is "internal forces" force one to write that insects that look like leaves is a real connection then unless one tries to ply open the historical facts the contigency will never enounce more than this and this can be said for anything. It is like saying God can control the minds of scientists therefore whatever scientists pronouce is not their's but God's or whatever I see HAS to be what you do when I am restricting myself to 'science.'As to a metaphilosophy of what comes first selection or internal forces, this, I have not given much thought to. You see the issue is the "fact" of evolution (taxaonomy's)first. At least this how I read the history.

Thanks for the reply. Don’t worry about my comments above that I received as not directed to me. I had a suspicion you were speaking a plural "you" there. Thanks for confirming that.

quote:

---

Kants words you have sended sounded ( 80):

​

"He can suppose the bosom of mother earth, as she passed out of her chaotic state (like a great animal), to have given birth in the beginning to creatures of less purposive form, that these again gave birth to others which formed themselves with greater adaptation to their place of birth and their relations to each other; until this womb becoming torpid and ossified, limited its births to definite species not further modifiable, and the manifoldness remained as it was at the end of the operation of that fruitful formative power."

---

I have taken this passage, in the past and discussed on EvC, as refering to the habitat or niche or environmental parameters necessary to keep *relatively* more helpless young creatures and living things ,alive. The "female" body and more often than otherwise the feminine behavior causes the existence of these variables of differential early time offspring (development that is not necessarily growth) survival. Kant has another passage where he speaks of sex(es) explicitly and as in this last part of the Critique of Judgment he sustains that it is the habitat that must be attended to reflexively first, I do not see that this need mean that the physical Earth is "alive." This is the same kind of issue dealt with in discussions if ecosystem dynamics are complex enough to have organism-like properties or if they are simply sums of individual other organized (causally) parts. I do not think of the Earth as a unitary Giaist might etc. so I do have the opinion that what becomes "torpid and ossified" in Kant's sense really refers to what organisms rely on the "woman" for, or man it today’s society. Rather it is my own personal reading that the entire Critique is partially directed to Newton's ideas of the organism as like the central Earth fermenting and with a gentle heat. I do not read German so I would have to defer to you on that. It reads simply so to me and as such to how later Kant can say then, that no Newton of blade of grass will arise historically that no design has not already ordered.On the basis of Kant's saying in this passage above, I "predicted" that there should be creatures that might live within a torpid an ossified Earth and so I went looking for creatures that might be able to use the fossil concavities to facilitate embryogeny. Within two hours I had found mites that lay eggs in cavities of shell fossils. I did not follow up the initial retrodiction however as you have started to do going backward through Kant's Critique. It is wonderful that you seemed interesting in reading Kant this way. I have been waiting for some one so inclined to discuss with. I will respond with fuller use of the Kantian text next time.I indeed have tried to read for myself, the phrasing in the part 1 including section 58 as applying directly to mechanics in evolution, but I have disuaded myself that this can only be so read if one was to reread Newton's Principia on fluid motion differently than is currently done in physics (aka beyond “chaos” studies to say Gladyshev’s hierarchical thermodynamics etc). I do not find that the "transition" here can be directly related to biological change (unless issues such as direct imposition of force on form had been resolved (It has not. ( I will explain this if you need it to be clarified))).Largely I think any discontinuity can not be read back to both the sublime and beautiful because Kant wrote in “or”@62

quote:

---

All geometrical figures drawn on a principle display a manifold, oft admired, objective purposiveness; i.e. in reference to their usefulness for the solution of several problems by a single principle, or of the same problem in an infinite variety of ways. The purposiveness is here obviously objective and intellectual, not merely subjective and aesthetical. For it expresses the suitability of the figure for the production of many intended figures, and is cognised through Reason. But this purposiveness does not make the concept of the object itself possible, i.e. it is not regarded as possible merely with reference to this use.

​

In so simple a figure as the circle lies the key to the solution of a multitude of problems, each of which would demand various appliances; whereas the solution results of itself, as it were, as one of the infinite number of elegant properties of this figure. Are we, for example, asked to construct a triangle, being given the base and vertical angle? The problem is indeterminate, i.e. it can be solved in an infinite number of ways. But the circle embraces them altogether as the geometrical locus of the vertices of triangles satisfying the given conditions. Again, suppose that two lines are to cut one another so that the rectangle under the segments of the one should be equal to the rectangle under the segments of the other; the solution of the problem from this point of view presents much difficulty. But all chords intersecting inside a circle divide one another in this proportion. Other curved lines suggest other purposive solutions of which nothing was thought in the rule that furnished their construction. All conic sections in themselves and when compared with one another are fruitful in principles for the solution of a number of possible problems, however simple is the definition which determines their concept.” It is a true joy to see the zeal with which the old geometers investigated the properties of lines of this class, without allowing themselves to be led astray by the questions of narrow-minded persons, as to what use this knowledge would be. Thus they worked out the properties of the parabola without knowing the law of gravitation, which would have suggested to them its application to the trajectory of heavy bodies (for the motion of a heavy body can be seen to be parallel to the curve of a parabola). Again, they found out the properties of an ellipse without surmising that any of the heavenly bodies had weight, and without knowing the law of force at different distances from the point of attraction, which causes it to describe this curve in free motion. While they thus unconsciously worked for the science of the future, they delighted themselves with a purposiveness in the [essential] being of things which yet they were able to present completely a priori in its necessity. Plato, himself master of this science, hinted at such an original constitution of things in the discovery of which we can dispense with all experience, and at the power of the mind to produce from its supersensible principle the harmony of beings (where the properties of number come in, with which the mind plays in music). This [he touches upon] in the inspiration that raised him above the concepts of experience to Ideas, which seem to him to be explicable only through an intellectual affinity with the origin of all beings. No wonder that he banished from his school the man who was ignorant of geometry, since he thought he could derive from pure intuition, which has its home in the human spirit, that which Anaxagoras drew from empirical objects and their purposive combination. For in the very necessity of that which is purposive, and is constituted just as if it were designedly intended for our use,”but at the same time seems to belong originally to the being of things without any reference to our use”lies the ground of our great admiration of nature, and that not so much external as in our own Reason. It is surely excusable that this admiration should through misunderstanding gradually rise to the height of fanaticism.
Kant's Critique of Judgment text on-line

---

This enabled Kant to get around the geometrization of Newton's use of the Earth as center of force and yet keeping gravity “extending” between two galatic systems under the same influence. And thus unless one is DETERMINATIVE about his last section (such as showing that the mites use fossils to selective advantage where at “other” forces might also be exemplared) a phase diagram between solids and liquids IS NOT LIKE biological change of traits, despite my feeling that Gladyshev is correct to think about “multiple chromatographic columns” in this regard.
http://www.endeav.org/persons/gladysh.htm
You may feel I am being over dramatic or statistical here but this is precisely what Will Provine thinks, however he would never consider trying to read the forces in Kant that might not be selection as I implied here and you have distrusted (perhaps rightly as the thermodyanmics of educt-product differences are not currently a part of discussion in biology as far as I am aware). He also would not try to think that these "internal forces" might be different than "vital forces." Kant's use of the term translated as "vital" is however also quite interesting (in his “Conflict of the Faculties” with respect to the difference of growth and development I have tried to indicate.I will discuss the notion of "common parent" later .Yes, I guess Kant would be surprised that butterfly beauty was on account of not being eaten. Kant does refer to tulips etc and Derrida has referred to American Creationism with respect to Kant's ideas therethrough.

quote:

---

If I may ask you - do you think, that reading Kants legacy can - except to learn what the brillant thinking really is - somehow elucidate process of evolution or forces behind it?

---

Thanks to your earlier reply I sat down "with Kant" again today and I can confidently reply, that I do think indeed that reading Kant and his legacy can do more for the reader of "evolutionary theory" than simply to show one's "self' what "really" brillant thinking is.The reference to "sex"

quote:

---

and yet serves in the external relation of a means to a purpose, without the question necessarily arising, as to what end this being so organised must have existed for. This is the organisation of both sexes in their mutual relation for the propagation of their kind; since here we can always ask, as in the case of an individual, why must such a pair exist? The answer is: This pair first constitutes an organising whole, though not an organised whole in a single body.Kant's Critique of Judgment

---

involves Kant in a notion of a "pair" but this is in a thought process that involved phrases that have "on the other hand...Linnaeus..."(

quote:

---

We might also with the chevalier Linnaeus1 go the apparently opposite way and say(@ 82 Kant's Critique of Judgment

---

. This part of the Critique comes after where Mayr or Gould would have bowed out of the reading by sticking ONLY with the ORGANIZATION in the forms, referred as you did to KANT SECTION 58

quote:

---

Flowers, blossoms, even the shapes of entire plants; the elegance of animal formations of all kinds, unneeded for their proper use, but, as it were, selected for our taste;

---

If one WAS NOT a organacist as Mayr
Organicism - Wikipedia
then if one can say what 'compositionally' is being reflected on throughout the thought process of a "pair" (algebra rather than bimodal morphospace, through matricies for instance, might instantiate this) then there is indeed determinative content in Kant for THE STRUCTURE OF EVOLUTIONARY THEORY. I know this to be a reading as simple as reading any sentence in this post or thread. This would also have denotation for what KANT rather than LINNAEUS(more narrowly) would mean or be read to mean by "common parent."My understanding of Kant is not from being taught by learned people but simply by reading it on my own. There is nothing extraordinary about my comments on him.

quote:

---

Flowers, blossoms, even the shapes of entire plants; the elegance of animal formations of all kinds, unneeded for their proper use, but, as it were, selected for our taste; especially the charming variety so satisfying to the eye and the harmonious arrangement of colours (in the pheasant, in shell-fish, in insects, even in the commonest flowers), which, as it only concerns the surface and not the figure of these creations (though perhaps requisite in regard of their
internal purposes), seems to be entirely designed for external inspection; these things give great weight to that mode of explanation which assumes actual purposes of nature for our
aesthetical Judgement.

---

The "external" perspective is retained by the reader who reads through the entire critique but during the section on taste and its continuation into the teleological section there results a difference in thought that Mayr and Gould would reject as valid biologically. Mayr in particular would never grant the end finalist point of view even if he would allow some discussion of "purpose" in 'vernacular biological discourse.'This edgy viewscape at the end however IS NOT what is found if one reads from page one to the end by the time one has got to section 58 or thereabouts ,which is why Kant said "unneeded" and how it ends up with him saying "selected for." Mayr and Gould sticking with NATURAL SELECTION can still, nonthereadingless, wend a way BETWEEN Kant's "surface" and "figure" (via biomodal feedbacks etc) BUT IF ONE INSISTS ON THE VISION PRESETED reflexively before THE LAST PART OF THE BOOK, then "artifical selection" as used by Darwin and defended by Gould and Mayr with organization(divided by)composition rather than composition dividing organization, IS A PART OF THE "asthetic." Will Provine at Cornell had long course on if "hypotheses" in science were asthetic or not.No one else I know of has suggested it, but I can find no mental reservation, psychology, or reason itself, to argue against pursuing an extended evolutionary theory, perhaps getting quantitative with Gladsyhev's so far then qualitative presentation, by Kantian artifical selections, a la Darwin, into the common parent of the same surface but with different figures. It seems only a prejudice TOWARDS chaos, non-linearity, and nonequilibrium, and synergetics, is stopping this advance and I find that reading Kant in the context of the entire Creation/Evolution issue to be by far far beyond the current aspect and horizon to reality taught in schools.Gladyshev's work actually puts restaints on the notion of contraint used by Gould. It implies that the organization theme emergent with current Harvardian biology is not consonant with the surpurb Yale Man that Gibss' work is phenomenologically when not macrothermodyanmically. I make this observation by comparison with the avergae Cornell grad student. It is taking me a lot longer than I thought to develop the physical notions implied by the temporal circuits in macrothermodyanmics but there is no doubt in my mind that insofar as Georgi's work is correct, not only does it sound sense, within Kant's work as a whole, it provides alternatives that outside the limits of anything I was taught at an IVY LEAGUE school. The common parent pair will have different monohierarchical representations that cut out a subset of compositional differences per grade when not clade-wise and thus specify quantitative "wholes" without need of invoking organacism even though the "whole" would be more (via the continuum thermodyanamically restrained)than a sum of atoms (this is due to the nature of the differential equations of macrothermodynamics).Now given that this was not possible at Cornell when I was there in the 80s and communism still was and your local regions discussion of "saltus" or "revolution" undoubtely was extant for you and that I still find it "impossible" today, it seems that reading Kant this way may find place in the same social plexus a matrix of the thought would retain. I do not know. It is just a guess on my part having been romatically involved with someone from Gadansk so perhaps I have mistransfered the emotion relevant to beauty etc. This would be resolved if the "organization" which might be disjunct or discontinuous were divided per natural selections between otherwise possibly artifically selected differences of external and internal purposiveness. This is where the ORGANIZATION of macrothermodynamics FROM hierarchical thermodynamics would come from and Harvard would be wrong to discount the Yale tradition that Cornell can NEVER acclaim etc. This however must not be confused with some "hyperpysic" of vital forces without explication of the artifical selections lest physics and biology need never longer be taught as two subjects in schools. The sun will set before this happens. Regardless, the conscription of feedback from within cybernetics need not necessarily apply to the post-fact statistical test results. THAT would change biology in ways that creationists can "live" with in my opinion. But I speak not for creationism in general but only for the time I have myslef inducted or abducted with it in mind.

quote:

---

Are we sure, that forces that had once driven evolution are still valid and can be observed?

---

Unless we say how the Newtonian notion or Einsteinian notion or force within a chemical bond is not merely "approximately" forming creatures, but manifestly and potentially deterministically is I think it is hard to say that the "forces" if that is what they really are that are assumed to have formed forms once are not not forming forms now. In other words unless one has an overarching philosophy of physcial events as opposed to distinctions of ultimate and proximate causation, which goes for elite phrasing in most current discussions, the notion that there is some "force" that changes overtime can only, it seems to me denote, changes due to the 2nd law of thermodynamics WITHIN a given plexus of 1st law materiality. I do not see how the reasoning must first proceed from the spirit to some "loss" as the physics of it all would work fine. The reason this directum is not more prevelant seems only to be due to arguements about distinctive natures of biological formality on levels of confidence in data and hence "statistical" truth per fact instead. You and I seem not to need the current accoutrement of biological praxis.Whether the Earth will ever try again etc does depend somewhat on if you are really trying to agree with Davison or my sligthly different version for instance. Davison insisted that evolution stopped. I can see from Gladsyhev's work how it might "slow down" and hence the forces"" would be sligtly differnt now than in a past, but the commonality I may have with your readings to the divide, whether termed "Saltus" etc of your own liking, required, at least for me that some alterations due to positions of the environment not the being that is ascendent say in Kant. This does not mean that reading Kant is not relevant.Just what the limits of evolutionary theory of its current pedagogy are in this view is hard for me to say. Other readers on EVC understand or know or await futher efforts on my part. I have just signed up a new domain name aexion.org to pursue these developments off EVC line.
THETRAINEREdited by Brad McFall, : Brad's new url

I can suggest "where" this actual topic went.Did it not "trace" one of my lines below, that for Davison or perhaps MartinV were organic beings of some sort themselves?
I rejected the notion of the ascendent being of Davison in this thread but instead read Gould "history" (MartinV's past and present) WITHOUT nationAl boundaries of historical (aka Gould)seperation of "formalism and functionalism" (there is one page missing that I will edit back in, sorry) I try to move in the direction of the trichotomies as represented by MY, not Gould's "traingles" but even remaining with a "dichtomous" state of mind (and thus excluding the triangles I drew for current national boundaries, actually) Gould's notion of historicized dimensions in biology caused this thread to derail pending futher posts as he refused to accept that Agassiz's FOUR (from Cuvier of , radiata, mollusca, articulata, vertebrata )can be "functionally" conceived except within each clade's shape. But if the phenotype can still be Cartesiastically divided in four within each shape of the given division of animal life in Agassiz's dichtomy geographically per physical force of animals AND plants, as he writes in his , "Classification", and ALSO within each less polyvocal clade group (less in Agassiz's time, recall) then what Gould calls a "formalism" is simply the failure to use 1-D symmetry to divide "orthogonally" in the flesh any fanable variation extent or extant. I can find no evidence anytime I read Gould, that he cognized this possiblity. This is why I have suggested a different divide for MartinV's use of the term "saltus" that can also be read within Gould's corpus. This seems to be the reason Gould tries to think that Paley vs. Aggasiz can have some issue with respect to disorganized forms(post nuclear rays irradiating genetic material etc)but he suggets creationism where I, personally, would still remand strictly biological information. He did not accept or recognize the difference of external and internal purposiveness that Aggassiz seems to have planned his Essay on out of Kant from Linnaeus to. That seemed clear to me. Instead he destructs toward a different "taxonomy" of hierarchy and includes "spandrels." I do not see how biogeography as hypothetically tooled with differences of raster and vector GPS informed objects can get Gould's spandrel OUT of the computer instantiation of the datum he attempts with a triangle to historicize for Darwin. Gould was proud he used a typewriter perhaps the next Gould will come with all the tools we have on EvC but I have not read of such a person.

quote:

---

The pages, except the first, was from SJ GOULD "The Structure of Evolutionary Theory" Harvard Univ Press

---

To be honest with you, I feel that Davison's tragic case is part of the same symptom that causes you to find me writing on EVC, only we are a generation apart. I think that elitism in the US sold out biology to extripate its ugly Eugenic sentiments. Davison had the fortune to survive what Gould insists was a "hardening" by remaining a teaching biologist. I was not able to become one for the same "reasons." I can not intuit this as to Broom.There can be no formalist objection to thinking about the soft parts of bones in a sense say, that D'Arcy Thompson imagined and your ideas of force seem to be of some extent plus they seem to be extant in Edleman's topobiology. There is not a problem with the concept of them.The hard part is figuring out the experimental physics of these biophysically theoretical forces even should you not find that one could remand them back to "unanimate" types. I was cutting the conversation back perhaps too quickly in part to forestall a simple creationist reading that Davison say, was want to encourge on EvC. I was going to try to slowly discuss all this with Davison but he did not want to talk specifically with me on it.Yes there would be "animate" "forces" ( I know that I, myself, was impressed with Sober's presentation of "evolution as theory of forces" tangentially in this regard) and I think that Gladshev's work if put in some kind of "sync" with Gould's attempts at hierarhicalization would suggest what ""Channel"" this is beyond simple analogy. I was not trying to exclude a relation between ontogenesis and phylogenesis strictly but rather I tend to think that area effects can not be seperated as ontogeny and phylogeny were before cladistics. Davison seems to be able to think that way. I do not know how. That is why I needed to talk with him without being forced to follow the twists and turns of EVC virtual time.

I have not given insects and especially those mimeing the forms of leaves much thought even though I indicated I had had a thought about leaves. Let us even ASSUME that the form IS PERFECTLY the same for the insect and the leaf. There is still probably a difference between Davison's view and my own.In reading Wright's Volume Two "The Theory of Gene Frequencies"
to purchase
review
contrary to Provine and Gould (this would require some explaining if necessary) readings' of the same, I noticed that Wright DENOTES the word "form" with respect to DIFFERENCES from work done by CROW who was Davison's advisor or professor or mentor.I think that Davison's refusal to examine the environment OUTSIDE this "form" as connoted by Wright, mind you, indicates that Wright had a larger notion of indiviudality in biology than Davison as to how Provine and Gould MIS-read Wright and Fisher just turned his back on him(granting the underdog evolutionist the brighest advantage). I am trying to sustain *this* form but to do so in the full context of mimicry is not somehthing simple as it required "leaving" the word ('form')myopically to involve issues of chromosome placement of genes FROM WRIGHT (note that Davison refused to discuss this on EVC) when not issues of nonequilibrium in general.Thus I suspect that THE WORD 'form' is not likely to be in its most plurivocal sense as it was being used by Davision and as he used it on EVC, EVEN THOUGH he explains towards a creationist stance quickly of a "being." I think he has hamstrung his own future chain link fence, there-where he insists on the organism rather than the analysis of the population CROW had made the form form for Wright.

Well, that is an interesting question.When I was a teenager and I was sitting in a pew trying to figure out if I believed what I heard in front of me or not from the pulpit I came to doubt a good deal of what my "ears" received but I could not doubt a kind of "tingling" feeling (in my spine area) even while hearing things that I had a hard time 'believeing.'I defined this as "spirit" for myself. Later in reading about the difference of special and general revelation I came to think that no matter what the internal emotion was that I was feeling at those past times, that despite my attempt to physiologize such a thing that would not be such that this spirit could still exist given my best attempt at being intellectually sceptical.I have not been able to extend my thoughts on evolution into a realm of "spirit", but this is not because I or someone else may doubt that it can be so brought, but only because I am curious about some history of chemistry that I think obfuscates the potential reality of the experience I paragraphed above. If transcendental numbers ever recieve a fully sequestered sediment in applied science then I think the conceptual space will be ripe for such a realism. I do not find, at least here for me, that this has occurred.My own thinking about this really depends less in general but more on the particulars of the relation between panbiogeographic patterns and Gladyshev's law. For a while I had thought that the temporal relations would have to be related specifically to what Gladyshev promoted as "macrokinetics" but recently I am coming to the opinion that time delays, momentum and inertia effects(defined by niche constuctors), can reinscribe the applications of macrothermodynamics such that the deep physiology I have referenced in this post may obtain a proper expression. I am still working on that.A visual presentation of the claim can be found
http://axiompanbiog.com/panbioglnks.aspx
with the more general affects being prosecuted at
http://www.aexion.orgUnfortunately Dr. Gladyshev's site seems to be under some renovation and the old links are not currently on-line. If "spirit" can be brought in here it would be whereat I refer to "cell death."Edited by Brad McFall, : forgot words "niche construction"

I am beginning to see why you consider it "central".Here is the quote translated by two on-line services:

quote:

---

Which concerns the famous fight um's lives, then it seems to me meanwhile more stated than proven. It occurs, but as exception; Gesammt aspect life is not Nothlage, which which sumptuousness, even the absurd verschwendung, - one fights where, one fights to hunger situation, rather the Reichthum, for power... One is not to confound Malthus with nature. - set however, it giebt this fight - and in the That, he comes forwards -, then it runs out unfortunately in reverse as the school Darwin's wishes, when perhaps one might wish with it: indeed to Ungunsten of the strong ones, which privileged, the lucky exceptions. The kinds do not grow in the perfection: the weak ones become again and again over the strong ones gentleman, - which makes, them are the large number, them are also more intelligent... Darwin forgot the spirit (- that is English!), the weak ones have more spirit... One must have spirit noethig, in order to get spirit, - one loses him, if one does not have him any longer noethig. Who has the strength, entschlaegt itself the spirit (- "let drive there! one thinks today in Germany - the realm must remain for us nevertheless "...). I understand the caution, the patience, the ruse, the adjustment, the large self-control and everything that mimicry by spirit, as one see, is (to the latter a large Theil of the so-called virtue belongs).

---

http://babelfish.altavista.com/tr&

quote:

---

What concerns the berhmten fight for the life, he seems to me meanwhile more maintained than proved. He seems, but as an exception; the Gesammt aspect of the life is not the Nothlage, the hunger position, rather the Reichthum, which ppigkeit, even the absurd waste, - where gekmpft one becomes, kmpft around power... One should not mistake Malthus for the nature. - Sedately, however, it giebt this fight - and in the That, he seems-, thus he, unfortunately, vice versa from as school Darwin '

​

school Darwin's wnscht, when one maybe with her wnschen drfte: nmlich in unfavours of the strong, the privileged, the glcklichen exceptions. The types do not grow in the perfection: the weak become ber the strong man over and over again, - this does, they are the big number, they are also klger... Darwin has forgotten the mind (-this is English!), the weak have more mind... One must have mind nthig to get mind, - one loses him, if one him nic

---

Free Translation OnlineThe "Malthus" reference seems crucial. Gould for instance appears to me to not USE Wright's distinction from Fisher's "malthusian parameter" (in deme vs. race per population structure) but he still wishes to will the power of Nietzsche for his own version of historical contingency. Perhaps there was no choice. I will have to look a little deeper into it. Your quote gives me a new angle to investigate the TIMING of Gould's use of Nietzsche. The obvious claim is that Gould misapropriated the "weaker" of Nietzsche that are strong in spirit for an economic difference but this is hard for me to supply the coupon for, for "quirky functional shift" just now, if that was the case in this country at least.I take it you would assert or claim that "mimicry by spirit" indicates that core Darwinians may be explaining mimicry where a "persistant" force otherwise would sustain. Gould denies this so he seems to realize the difference in the paragraph you supplied. It may be that he abducted the conclusion in the same way that Darwin seems to have taken the final cause (wrongly in my view) out of Kant's textualization of embryo to habitat(in the Critique of Judgment) (this is sort of where RAZD seems to be, to me, with Bates on THE APPEARENCE of "a medieval" question (at a buttefly spot)) where it was a thing-in-itself distributed(this I know Gould also denied in life)not the appearence itself, instead.

Yes, indeed this is helpful for me at least.Gould gives up the goat or goal on page 262 (SETH) where he wrote,

quote:

---

Subjects and Series | Harvard University Press

---

We have a thread on Smith and this "image" here on EvC
EvC Forum: Thank You Adam Smith.The criticism of Malthus via Darwin&Wallace (so as to distinguish what Fridriech Nietzsches meant by nature and what Darwin's school would be going in reverse THROUGH etc (where one might interpret the LARGER NUMBERS (NOT in humans even if in other creatures)) was expressed by David Stove page 75 with

quote:

---

http://www.wndbookservice.com/products/BookPage.asp?prod_...

---

What we need to do is to read the "persistent" force that might be better attributed to Fridriechs' (if you and I are correct about the interpretations of his passages so far) and to do this one would have to expand on Gould's notion of "bookkeeping" with gene selectionism in such a way that room is made for Williams' Sep-a-rations"" but not Dawkins'(Gould discussion copied below). That is where the "force" would be(to me). I do suspect that such a force may exist but I am really only am a lonely a voice on this as much say as the flying snake has red spots in it's "wings."I would suspect that there are FRACTAL hierarchies that ATOMS not genes account. But to do this re-write for evolutionary theory is to overturn an incredibly large amount of current superfluidity necessarily. I am not up to the task by myself as of yet even though I will it weakly.To get the proper quantity one would need to relate the Mendelian use of fluctuating numbers FROM the size of a deme. I do not know if this has been done in the literature (larely it seemed to me becaue of the difference of sympatry and allopatry notions) but based on Provine's attempts to deny drift at Harvard earlier this year I doubt that such has been writ up.In order to convince evolutionists however, would require that the human "instinct" is reduced to these atom groups and not the sociobiological genes that may be FUTHER inferable in the dead meme of some vehicle Dawkins continues on about. We seem to have this sequence reversed at the end points rather than the proper series within, I hazard to say. This assumes that I am correct and Gould mistaken that hierarchies are NOT allometric but fractal in some significant regard and frequency. That is my own guess however.

quote:

---

see Gould reference linked above

---