My Questions about Evolution

Because Boscovich found TWO return directions from infinity while I personally do not believe in "poltergeist". I am looking at Whitehouse's one polaron - one operon hypothesis and may have other things to ask about why you think the "species" is not problematic but meanwhile I am attempting to respond to Percy and Ipetrich on analogy to DNA computers. It is cleat to me a discontinuty could easily be found if one rejects the relationship between protein descuriptors and natural language that may accompany ANY thought of heridity and encodings but then I speak of my own understanding of the variation which Saymsu has questioned. Matchette in an OUTLINE OF METAPHYSICS express a relation between "the Referent- Referend relationship and Minor Polarites" so if the polarized mutants fall wholly with the phenemenology of this philosophy AND some rejection of information and biology by means of to be known knowable energy transmission there may be means to show, perhaps with the notion of dense in itself (vs that which is not) in point sets to get distinct kinds if not species even in a continuum (gradualisms). Of course Gould would have none of this. Given that Matchette found a tension "along the line" between two relative states by Major Polarity approaching the absolute as the MINOR POLARITY I will need to encapsulate the notion of Fisher's relatin of cousins biometry, selection in opposite direction, the"geometry" of DNARNAPROTEINS with an INSIDE AND OUTSIDE and the chemical rxns that can take this material in different physical directions chemically AS THE SAME LINE before you need sufficiently agree with me MY assertion is that the difference is due to the two infinites (not being believed by secular scientists) are only ONE potential and a lot of verbiage (see Towards an Understanding of the Mechanism of Heredity by HLK Whitehouse 1965 Edward Arnold London.). If evos continue to cite the Bible as excess wordings it will eventually dawn on the atheist as well that the Bible because of its consistently the same message will not proliferate to any economic rate of increase which the current relation of biology and technology continues to remand. A third alternative Matchetee mentioned was "Newtonian particles" but by subscribing to this more limited reading of science I got flaged, committed and expelled from Cornell in part for being "religious" to someone who was not even though I knew I was not (being such (at the time)). Actually when I first cam across this information I was rather struck by the large number of names and not kinds as it was not problematic for me to recognize a toad is different from a frog and woodhouse toad from the american while the grey treefrog was of two differently breeding populations but it was a problem for me to understand why tag out one of the exemplars of any of these populations with a plethora of naming titles KING PHILLP CAME OVER FROM G, S ....Also there is quite a difference in the use of varities in plants that would not find the same subjectivity but as you suggested in animals. Many people thought about species as nautral before they tried to coordinate the information on chromosomes to hereditary transmission. I would say you are being confused in the second instance by the attempts to understand informtaion (which can come non-biologically as well) in terms of heritibility. That is a difficult thought. I know others here may differ from me on this last, but heritibily aready supposes some kind of population thinking which has also been a relatively new pedgogically useful tool. The book I mentioned diffentites between kinds that are chromosomal and those that are chromonemal. My guess is that that is all this/the information amounts to anyway with friction occuring in chromonemal kinds due to the circular nature of the replication topology that gives only "waves" (Bateson vibration) to form-making in that restricted translation in space while the chromosomal forms have been able by torision reducing adaptations to friction integration extablished disjunt material configs that arose differences genus by genus. But hey- what Do I know- I got the boot from the revoutionary evolutionists. Still I need to do a little more digging into the facts before my polarity is that duality but we'll see if I ever go back and post under the evolution of the eye. Tht is not a Y.[This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 11-01-2003]

Would you rather a long long long post like the many I stareted and tired of following up because no one probably even READ them? The reason that Boscovich is not followed would first have to have explained why Maxwell is not followed, if this is photon of light, what Einstein's clock has to do with it, if you have the form not confused in this time, should a codon not be a codeable language..then to issues of questioned information transfer in creationist literature by Lammerts etc rejection of you or I being a cyberntetic insect for economics or redution of/in topobiology, how many cells in the population sequestered, why not use the creationist argument from similarity instead of one infinity POTENTIAL and many lexos per any grammetology, deconstruction of panbiogoegraphy.something else I forgot when trying to type this as fast as I could think it up... I would never post one iota beyond what I already have if I did not use short hand. Theo- you said something about all being digital if I recall rereading one of yours but look I did not say WHAT information was wrong.I acutally DID say how the kinds we normally think of in life that ARE seperated may be causally seperable on acount of the difference in the kinematics of DNA replication. This is a fact if true. The internet makes a great place to document ideas like the older patent invetors used to use paper for. That I have a philosophy to back up what I say should not be the barrier to your understanding unless you let is substitute for the simple learning that we all must do. And indeed you are correct that the issue of sexuality is within this line - but I am not up to working that up any further than the text I referred to tonight.

Nosy there IS NOTHING hard about it.The thread head asks in the context of gradualism how differences can be objectively determined.Dynamics IS NOT kinematics. That is a fact is it not?I said that the species of bacteria and other small kinds may indeed be "blurred" in the sense that the LOGIC in the original question that was brought up in this thread but that those that realy have sustained the brunt of knowledge in biological change the marsupials, birds, some frogs, a worm, the tunicate etc BECAUSE THEY HAVE THE SAME process but a different pattern (hence seperatness) than the chromonemals. I did not say what defined the kinemtics differently that permits this interpreation which is what is needed epistemelogically and hence "if true" but this does not change the ontology in fact in the factual analysis of the logic in the question that I did answer in a way. There is nothing hard about it. We merely need to do the work to find out if ironically the rigor implied also holds up for any other comers to the consensus. The most interesting thing is that I have come to my understanding NOT by doing expensive expts but simply by reading and understanding whay I read. This work for reading the Bible as well. I think that Fisher may be wrong about the additivity when it came to USING a frequency histogrqm but becuase I had not written up the alternative nor done a simple linguistic check I framed my answer to avoid that which may NOT be true in the SAME fact. What was hard was that I used the issue of replication in both a spatially restricted and constricted sense but I refused in the writing of this post to write the same naturalism in any sense that destricts beyond the idea of relations of RNA, DNA, and proteins which could be not followed if one chooses instead to respond to the poster in a historical sense than the postmodern one I avoided in lexos but not grammer having to do with some idea of the same analogically for which I merely * THOUGHT* of one cell for any number of populations as to the level I was to have spoken any level of selection from. But look it is not me that is hard . It is just hard to contain all of the biology in one's mind at the time that every word is being written. This is not God's problem when writing the BOOK by inspired man but only in our reading of it. But again the soma is not your flesh to say nothing of a teleollgy that is probably missing instead IN THE SAME BIOLOGY. Again, again, it is not me..I have spent years with this stuff. What I write is not hard. It is mild.In the text I cited, back in the 60s instead of thinking in "information science" terms they simply thought of DNA with proteins in the groove. I merely pointed out that our better detailed knoweldge of the realtion of proteins via RNAs ACROCSS what was crucial for DeVries in an even earlier time permits the seperation of species taxonomically if not neontologically EVEN IF ONE DISBELIEVES IN BARAMINOLOGY. You missed the EvC target I am sorry to report. good luck and god bless. Best Brad.

If translation and transcription of Bacteria occurs in a circle then there on replication there will be some twist or torque that makes up some volume that may be some part of the nature and or nuture of whatever it is that microbiologists name as in these smaller kinds.Overtime, with mutation, recombination and irreversible error the space of this twisting (projected to one graph) can be functional for a particular kind by bending of the protein periphery only so far. This remands the chromnemal kingdom as a whole once the dynamics is concluded.What I suggested was the cause of this is the same for the chromosomals only what is unitary and gradual IN THE SAME GRADUALISM becomes discontinous and seperate morphologically but continuity in space and time is sustained by the same replication process only the "circle" that shadows said projective space morphometeticlly in the chromosomals which is the functional limit of any changes that could account for any differnce of chromonemal kinds is maintained by different numbers of chromosomes per kind associated with different patterns of recombination.What was lexically missing was the need to rigoursly asses if the facts of recombination and replication hold up for this ontologically confident prejudgement of a unifed means to see all taxonomically differences as informationally the same. I suspect that only Bariminology will be not divided against itself enough to reenvelop this. But that is "off thread topic". Regardless of the missing fact the topology remains consistent and this was all I needed to deal with the notion of mutation that historically intervened from the time in biological history that I am putting into question.If you need further clarification let me know. I am happy to help. Best Brad.[This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 11-01-2003]

Ned, I know you and others have the wrong impression or vision of who I am. You seemed to have made such with respect to Mike the Wiz last night. After extensive postings with Randy I know he does not see me for who I am either but there is more water on Earth than in my body so I could have a harder go with him than you so lets try to make your wish my command even on this rest-to-the day today. You wrote:

quote:

---

Re: I hope this helps
------------------------------------------------------------------------

​

Brad writes:
If translation and transcription of Bacteria occurs in a circle then there on replication there will be some twist or torque that makes up some volume that may be some part of the nature and or nuture of whatever it is that microbiologists name as in these smaller kinds.
Ok let's just stick to that sentence. Could you explain it? Just it! Don't add. Just cut it up and explain what it means. I'm about 87% sure it is pure junk. Sorry about that.

​

------------------------------------------------------------------------
This message is a reply to:
Message 11 by Brad McFall, posted 11-01-2003 10:39 PM
------------------------------------------------------------------------

---

to which I emboldend the objectional content. You DID NOT respect my sociological observation that you missed the devil's dart that moves in transit. Oh, well as I left open the third posibility of a pure Newtonian "particle" I still have logos on my side so I will try to make this clearer as this IS a very important point I am making that *may* with simulation and modeling help to answer Randy as well as explain why Syamsu's harping the Ezekial beast on reproduction only IS important if only for contextual orientation. Percy may have the wrong image of my cartographic sense as well but he is sufficently judice as to the timing of his posting that I have not established even a quark of difference with em as of yet. I know that may exist as well. So, I will try not to go onto any of these branches for a limb and make my point about nonPoltergeist Infinity once more this time in rather declaritve langauge that so focused (on replication and recombination) may misrepresent already historically present knowledge and if so let me know. If any branch of e/c grow this way without the "v" for "y" as if the X--->Y! that was also deleted in transit somehow. Ok- does every one have their seat belts buckled?? Here we go...You will find that by sticking only the bacterial part of my post you will not be able to understand the flow of my contribution to biology but I will not bring this back up until the end of this post so that after this little snippet in my encoding is exhastively reviewed again by me here you will be prepared to follow what logic is actually involved as one attempts to scale the way I do to the field of the large (whether life originated here on Earth or someplaceelse on Beetlejuice natrually...).So the logic aside the clarification starts with Newton's bucket experiment. My understanding is that only Mach really dealt with this issue but if someone with a better handle on the history of physics wishes to chime in here please do so. For me this expt (which I will describe next and then in context of replication and recombination in bacteria and any other chrommenals) was very very very important expemplar that put Kant on notice EXCEPT that I had found that Kant made his way out of even Mach's LATER reanalysis of the absolute issue by asking ANY reader to explain to him why space must necessarily BE 3-D. Bertrand Russell thought that non-Eucledian geometry provided at least a philsophical way around Kant's question and so he developed the history of logic to support a nonneed to respond to Kant. Einstein however DID! This solution is not yet open to the theoretical biologist, the reason being more economic than lack of practical protocols' standards. Einstein got his results because of his premise or ground of experience which he expressed with "I shall not go into detail concerning those properties of the space of reference which lead to our conceiving points as elements of space, and space as a continuum. Nor shall I attempt to analyse further the properties of space which justify the conception of continuous series of points, or lines. If these concepts are assumed, together with their relation to the solid bodies of experience, then it is easy to say what we mean by three-dimensionality of space; to each point three numbers x1, x2, x3 (co-ordinates), may be associated, in such a way that this association is uniquely reciprocal, and that x1, x2, and x3 vary continusouly when the point describes a continuous series of points (a line)."The Meaning of Relativity" A. Einstein p3-4.Now, you would or could be wondering how all of this and Newton's bucket experiment has to do with my notion of the "VolumE", "that may be some part of the nature and or nurture of whatever it is". The bucket experiment was simply a bucket held up by a rope with water in it. I guess the rope was attached to a handle that would have been attached to two points on the rim(looked at from the side
----rope-------

​

the biologist can not use Einstein's assumption because Wolfram has asserted that natural selection was "over sold" nonetheless we are all still talking about "the same" 'solid' (body). At the end of this post and after I dissucs the relevant logic of the relation of the chromosmals to the kinds of chromonemals as you asked I will indicate how the space of refence (Randy's question) with proper exploratory data analysis may permit one to address Russel's views on transifinte addition in terms of the points and lines not incommensurable to Mendel's ratio but at that Point I would have entered another branch or rather simply defauted instead to how I opened with a disclaimer to the discussion of Percy and Ipetrich which this would remand especially as to how I see any difference of 3:1 and 1:2:1 but that is what you asked me not to get into yet here. This will open up a hardly mild dissucssion of a consensual experience to Einstein with the SOLID being the whole Earth itself experientailly hard by a trajectory in virtual reality that moves the navigator of the interface in ANY orinetation around a representation of the water in the southern part of the globe but first you have to understand the exahaustive chromonemal to chromosomal MATH (not supernaturalism) that I have and continue to propound. Dont jump boat just yet. If you do you only proove the material and not me is more than you are ready to learn just now. "Twist or torque" comes from the unfinished analysis of this relation of the relative to the absolute but still since the process occurs in a circle it only means that the place of activity is more inside or outside the circle and so would bear on some effect physiologically that objectively does or would influnce microbiologists in trying to find differences to name bacteria differently and actually acomplishes the "blurring" or difficulty in delimiting species OF BACTERIA (chromonemals) as you rightly suggested a little farther back in this series of posts but the question really was not about bacteria but what we in popular language take as different species (lions, tigers and bears etc). I had used the "older" viewpoint of the relation of protein and DNA that Whitehouse writes his polaron hypothesis from as if protein and DNA may FIRST (whether by transmission or physiological genetics) be thought of as one complex and I projected this to one graph paper no matter the shadows created. This enabled me to invoke ONLY the shape or figure in Newtons Bucket (expt) but if one includes the chromsomals then the friction issue could have been avoided but you did not allow me that. So there- If I missed anything- I wil go back over it. Now for what was really being asked- how to apply the logic to life...

​

This, what follows, IS NOT what is added"" I did that below in parentheses. Your demand on WHAT I can write about actually causes you to be able to judge against me and that is the same sense of a psychiatrist that wnats to make money so finds someone's words that can be used against them. It is not fair and if you hadnt started an inappropriate rumor with a newcomer here I would have simply avoided you as I did Randy for a long time till I figured out what the subtantial issue was that seperated our positions. Darlington pur forward the notion of terminalisation where the chiasmata which number 2-5 move to the ends of the chromosome as metaphase is approached. In 1993 I stained 30 self-fertilized (by me) bovine eggs at metaphase and found ONLY 1 out of the 30 to have a perfect periferal symmetry with other chromosomes in the center. There still is a very poor percentage of clone reimplantatioin succeess so the problem I was hired THEN to solve is still in the same state I left it then. It is also known that a metaphase "rosette" is metaphasically formed in species such that even the position of which chromosome on which place on the circle perimeter is retained which is something the simple staining I did could not determine methodically.

​

NOW in answer to this thread I suggest that whatever that volume was, (you have to read to this point to understand me comprehensively) it contains the same circle MATHeMATICALLY in chromsomals and chromonemals and I did not invoke a designer though I could have used myself in this case. This means that I can be falsified. It does not mean that mean spirt or allegations substitute. Since the centromeres establish the place the bucket expt applies it is only now about the actual details of the relation of recombination to replication as metaphase is entered except that chromosomals have INTERNALIZED what ever pattern may have alreday or is established in the chromonemlas. This involves adding a topological condition onto the LOGIC I used. I will suggest how this can be done below. Only NOW those kinds that we traditionally associate as sperate species have the same circle but have it split into two places (the rosette perimenter and the chromosomes most internal) which provides a taxogenic rational for species differences noticed by the young student of biology. We can not say how this done physically until we either assume what Einstein said 3-D space or we develop nanotechnically a differnt framework based on bioinformatics for instance. For this DOES involve how the points form a continuum and this is why I have tried to interest you all with deductive panbiogeogrphy to little avail. We need all of this science and there is barely a hint of the likely looming and dooming c/e incubus.

​

I may have overdetermined the actual dynamics by focusing in on Darlington but I hope his work matches mine. With this figure of shape associated with the lack of solidity when one takes one mind off Croizat's "earth" in the process of processing his life and earth evolve together (which can be done as there is an all water route in the Southern Hemisphere) one can hope that cosmology and evolutionary theory will come together before more rumors ruing more people's lives.

​

(what is added:

​

The only thing I do not know is if I will need to do more recipricol crosses before I model the simulation completely ( or if the statistics that will be derivable from a VRML platform so construced will be enough for the biologist to engage the best of the physicist while differentiating Matchettes major and minor polarities per primary and secondary properties) but this explains how even in the light of information technology the switch from looking for smaller organisms to building up large macromolecular complexes as Darlingotn supposed confused biologists to the tune of patagonia NOT being the topography of terminalisation kinematics IN THE DYNAMICS I discussed with NosyNed.- Ned please learn to blow your nose when you sneeze with the handkerchief over it not after it. I know I may have gone to far too fast for a 17 year old but for you to hint to the younger generation that I do not know what I am talking about is to continue to perpetuate the myth of mental illness and that is Szasz's idea not mine. Please DO keep rumors to a minimum. Percy has not over stepped this line.)

​

[This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 11-02-2003]

attached to two points on the rim(looked at from the side
----rope-------

​

Water was put in what I represented diagramatically as the "=" sign. The bucket was held "up" with respect to the center of the earth and it was spun. Many of us know if one does this the water starts to encroach on the rim where the handle is. If one stops the bucket from rotating the water continues to have the $shape$ of a depression, it is concave. Friction of course causes the water to loose this form in time but the mere existence of this periemeter was enough for Newton to assert the existence of absolute force. Now thinking ONLY about the figure that this experiment produces when a bacteria ecounters a limit to exponential population increase and is STOPED from doing its thing some amount prior shape WILL BE RETAINED in the protein expression postion of amino acids that I indicated would at a limit (absolute force) bend and change only so far (no matter the mutations, and irreversibly errors that may during the time that friction takes effect occur). The hard part is to visualize what this "friction" is by continuing the analogy but you had made me forgoe bringing in the chromosmals (perphaps out of prejudice that thinks that chromsomals evolved from chromnemals while I still left space for Bariminology) and one may NOT need to imagine this linguistically if ALL OF LIFE is thought together. I can stick with the "friction" if you like and that is already buried in my other posts that you admit are unreadable by you. The point is that as the replication and any recombination occurs in a circle there will be some equal and oppposite force that interacting with absolute force (my prior one or two infinities) of the form such as influence the morphology and hence base of taxonomic subjectivity. This thought alone dispels your assertion libelous assertion but I was responding to the newer poster's question about species differences not species similarites from which I suggested the need to follow my logic here but first let me make sure I have handled as many things as I can think of in YOUR cuts that you want me to address.

​

For some reasong cgi will not take this but you can see it in edit mode in the post above. I wrote "handlebucket and some symbols but this would not work.

Ned, if you want to continue to make me into a Christmas Fruit cake please do do it as Admin gave you TWO places either as in the Visitor's Welcome or the Coffe House and to my younger collegue Navajoeverclear, I am not in a position to doubt your age, so I hope that Darwinsterrier's post above has cleared up the flap Ned got into the chaff which I am sorry to say may have prevented me from being in a good mood when I posted. If some one tics me on, I generally do not take the time and care I would do otherwise. I will quote a little bit of Darwinster's without arguing that post except to explain and make plain the very important contribution I made that is apparently once again being white washed, but unfortuantedly this time I really got the correct idea and not a mere ism that instead had caused me to be introduced as cousin IT etc to newcomers here earlier on. Oh, Well...Darwinster said,

quote:

---

Darwinsterrier
Member
Posts: 55
From: Winchester, Hampshire, England
Registered: Apr 2002Message 22 of 24 11-03-2003 05:57 AM

​

------------------------------------------------------------------------

​

quote:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
If evolution is gradual, why are there any distinct species?
---------------------------------------------------------------------

---

Nav, that IS the question that I thought you asked, is it not? Any way that iS the question I answered.Darinster helped with

quote:

---

Because each genetic lineage needs to fit its environment, its niche, in order to survive. There are plenty of niches which blur into one another, eg clines -- altitude up a mountainside, for instance.
But there are also plenty where a 'neighbouring' niche requires something distinct from its inhabitants. Therefore the distinctiveness becomes reinforced; sex between the two types -- hybridisation -- produces something not best adapted to either niche. So the intermediates are less successful, and further adaptation to each niche gets, in effect, encouraged.
But as has already been pointed out, there is heaps of indistinctive species. Is a hooded crow a different species from a carrion crow? Is a herring gull a separate species from a lesser black-backed gull? The crow species are separate in northern England vs Scotland, yet there is a zone of hybridisation between them. The gulls are separate, non-interbreeding species in northern Europe, yet form a continuous interbreeding ring around the north of the globe. Follow one type of gull round the top of the world in either direction, and the gull you start with gradually looks more and more like the other one, till you get back where you started and you have two species.

---

The gull example is EXCELLENT. I found this out not in the textbooks where indeed it can be found, but in its stead indeed being first instead confused about how to tell the different gulls apart I resorted to individual maps and so I started looking at geographic variation only to find indeed this ring by piecing together what looked to me as/like similar forms. You can do the same, as Darwinsterrier suggested! What seemed to have ticked NosyNed off is perhaps a little stressed communicated informtaion in the book I cited (Whitehouse, Towards an Understanding of the Mechanism of Heredity p which appeared to say on page 135 "It appears that successive exchanges of arms between between non-homologous chromosomes have taken place during the course of their evolution, until all or nearely all the chromosomes have become involved. The plants are maintained heterozygous for these interchanges of chromosome segements by adaptations which prevent the survival, or in some instances even the formation , of thehomozygotes. However, these adapatations occasionally break down, and this leads to the formation of small numbers of individuals homozygous, or at least partially so, for the chromosomal interchates present in the parent. Owing to the presence of recessive genes which tehreby become manifest, these homozygotes differ in appearence from the original plant, and moreover breed true for these characters. Thus it became evident that the 'mutations' in Oenothera described by De Vries were really the revealing of hereditary variation already present in the parent rather than changes to the genes themselves. However, De Vries's idea of abrupt changes, even if unacceptable as a general hypothesis for the evolution of new species, was required to account for the origin of the character differences which showed Mendelian inheritance. It was natural therefore that the term should have been transferred from the species to the gene."And so apparently rather than understanding that this has occurred in the history of biology I am called names and told that I, BSM, need to be/get straighted out and be comprehendable but the error is all the other professional way. So really it makes it short of acutally already knowing all this stuff less than aprrehendable NO MATTER COMPREHEN(end)sIBLE the statisical signifance in the data FACTUALLY is, will be or could be. Ned, my Canadian friend, lining all the fruit in the layered cake does not make the gull ring's biogeographic spot. How big this spot is I dicuss elsewhere with Randy. The only other thing I can think of that casued Ned to mis-undertand the LOGIC is perhaps some requirement that the recombination largerly occur in the daughter chromosomes. I dont know and this is not necessarily part of the answer to your thread head N.From Darwinsterrier's post

quote:

---

quote:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
but i don't see one species changing into another.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

​

Please define species! You can see them do just that in ring species, like the Larus gulls mentioned, and in Ensatina salamanders. Hence the need for you to define what it is you don’t see!

---

And indeed THIS is what I was defining by showing how the reality of an absolute force through the circle of chomonemal maped loci actually CAUSES one to NOT SEE something. The reasonig that (information content of the difference between chromosomals and chromonemals( which gets quite involved to present, as any reader of this thread will know)) something we can not see could exist AND NOT BE SUPERNATRUAL (I said mathematical""( this was Ned's error here)) is because it is entirely possible no matter the niche, that some "species" may be 'deceiveing' other species"". For all I know we may have the wrong idea by failing to see with our best tools so far, the parasites' genome we consider 'em "bad" for toxicity instances etc, but who really knows what? the "parasite" species(') are?However, the switch of gene and speices need not necessarily be in the science of the next 100years if the specific causal scheme I tried to propound and clarify Is true. The development of my idea results from a nonpolarizing interaction of discussing creation and evolution. I can indeed try to make this model more explict and school worthy, but for now, the failure to follow it is more about how we speak of encodings and how we lack language to discuss this "shadow" (I will for now designate it as..) which is related to more than that part of your question I was answering again (gains). But again I do not need to be more easily read you (NN) need to read more before reading me perhaps. Nava, Darwinsterrier's presentation is fairly clear and really not much disagreeable even to a such a fruit cake of BRAD MCFALL as me. It is hard to understand why Ned went out of his way TO CONTINUE to misrepresent me (with hangeres on) as it may simply be that he had confused position interference with deceptive ecological range change evolution. There is a thread posting about "being swamped" (THIS IS SUCH AN INSTANCE). I, am sorry N, that you are witness to all this but THIS is, the current state of C/E talk back.From Darwinsterrier,

quote:

---

quote:Navajoeverclear

​

------------------------------------------------------------------------
For there to become a new species, there must be a different number of chromosomes,

---

And this question will depend on what "numbers" one uses in one's statistics. For me I believe on the theory I have framed this metaphysically with is largely a Semantic issue but until you grasp the visualization I am using the "number" may be essential instead. What is essential will be the "gene account" or rather the relation of the gene to the speieces via Mendel's symbology but on this I, indeed will be doing a little more theoretical work relative to the said isolation or sequestration.If you perfer Darwister's ANSWER better than mine, OK, but when you post to a public board you have to be prepared that you may need to ask a follow up. Ned thought he did, but in the follow up process he actually split the logic I used to answer you, Navajoe, so I was put in a bit of bind to be ever clear that still spills over into Darwinsterrier's version, but if you follow this post, of Darwinster you will not be off the straight and narrow as I am happy to chalk this time down to a few Christmas ornaments or Murtchison's geology.I have spent more than a ususal amount of time so I hope any punctuation stuff still needing more types will be ignered. Best Brad.
Here is another quote from Whitehouse which is necessary for the begining student to "sink their teeth" into. Let me not comment. "The classical concept of the gene, which grew up as soon as the chromosome theory was accepted, was to liken the chromosome to a string of beads, each bead representing a different gene. This idea incorporated all the salient features about genes, namely, that they behaved in inheritance as discrete particles which appeared not to influence one another, that they were linearly arranged in ths chromosome, and that crossing-over between homologous chromosomes at meiosis apparently occurred between them."p151My idea introduces a new source of variation that if true is already existing in collected data. We may need to develop another one of my ideas (negentropy sinks on cell death) to extract it but conceptually.