Update on the OYSI.Archive

--Hey all, thought I would let everyone know how the OYSI is doing. But for those of you who don't even know what the OYSI.Archive is: I began this 'organization' by the start of December 2002. The look for the OYSI [Organization for Young Scientists Inquiry] has evolved, naturally selected by yours truely, of course. The site can be found here:http://www.oysi.promisoft.netIn the About Us section I lay out the reason for my founding this group.

quote:

---

The Organization for Young scientists Inquiry [OYSI] is an organization where youth from all backgrounds can come and present their thoughts regarding origins and evolutionary development by uniformitarian [mainstream] and/or catastrophic means.

​

We are an entirely neutral institute set up to further the intellect of the determined vernal scientist by engaging in real world scientific initiatives. Here begins an early endeavor in obtaining an understanding of the objective world, its properties, mechanics, origin, and evolutionary development.

​

View the OYSI FAQ for more about how we operate.

---

--We currently have a mere two members including myself so were not so developed in that. Both of which would be considered YEC's.
--While we are still very small and have few members. There are currently quite a few articles published in the Archive:Geoscience:
C. Grose - A Brief History of Unstable Decay
C. Grose - Ocean Floor Bathymetry & Mathematical Predictability
C. Grose - Inconsistencies in the Hydroplate Theory - Stratification
C. Nelson - Radiometric Dating MethodsPaleontology:
C. Grose - The Nature and Significance of Fossil Intermediary FormsBiology, Biochemistry, Genomics
C. Nelson - Irrelevancy of the Miller-Urey Experiment to Chemical Evolution
C. Nelson - Chemical Evolution: An Introduction & Update
C. Nelson - The Population Bottleneck: Research Proposals
C. Nelson - Preliminary Research Conclusions: Chemical EvolutionCosmology, Astrophysics
C. Grose - Distribution of Angular Momentum in the Solar Nebula
C. Grose - Circumstellar Discs and Planets around Other Stars
C. Grose - Implications for the Solar Rotation AxisGeneral Science
C. Grose - Acceptance in the Scientific Community--For an outlook on myself, I plan on writing 3 papers in the future on Solar Cosmogony, and others in Geochemistry, Geodynamics, Paleopedology, Sedimentology, Cladogenesis, and astrogeology/cosmochemistry. Of these would include an update for further research of mine on Ocean Floor Bathymetry and Plate cooling, as well as an application of my methodology for distinguishing transitionals from non-transitionals in my article Preliminary Concerns - The Nature and Significance of Fossil Intermediary Forms--As for Nelson, he plans on writing on the subjects of Population Genetics, Biochemistry, and Bioinformatics. Including an update on his research regarding Population Bottlenecks and Chemical Evolution as it relates to abiogenesis[I believe].--Well thats the update!--[edit] - Links in this post corrected.Cheers,
-Chris Grose, TC[This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 03-01-2003]

From:
Preliminary Concerns - The Nature and Significance of Fossil Intermediary Forms

quote:

---

A focus for the hypothesis

​

It is often asked by opposing viewpoints what a transitional or intermediary form would look like. How do we distinguish a transitional from a non-transitional? The question is flawed, however, resultant from the equivocality of the initial argument which, put simply, is that there is a lack in transitionals (and that there should be more intermediary forms exhibited throughout the transition) . It is a tedious observation to see that even the proponents of the argument seem to have so little understanding in it themselves to know that this is not a sufficient methodology to allocate for potential falsification. Forming an adequate foundation with testable predictions requires that we lay out a method for distinguishing a transitional from a non-transitional (or as argued in this paper, distinguishing a significant transition from a quandary transition)

​

In the framework of the Theory of Evolution, it can be inferred that there can be no such differentiation from a non-transitional to transitional because every population takes part in a relatively continuous transition. Though one can, with an accurate depiction of a populations morphology in their phylogenetic development, put emphasis on the characteristics of the speciative transition such as rate and quantify this with the amount of morphological change which occurred in the allocated geologic time period. {What?} Whether there exist transitional forms in the fossil record has become the trunk of the tree from which few other questions may branch forth. But this is not necessarily what should be the focus of the argument. It is the transition[or lack of one], as opposed to the transitional which allows us to delve further in these queries not provided by the latter. {What?} It is possible to induce a rather incessant argumentum if one is arguing if there exist significant transitionals. If a transitional is provided, it will be further argued that there is required a transitional between the provided transitional and the ancestral phylogeny in question. The argument rarely has further implications, until now.

---

I bolded a few phrases, and injected a few italicized comments.I may well be operating in the cynical mode, but my general impression is that you're using too many big words to try to say something here.I'll plead to being an ignorant impersonation of a geologist, and will see if a biologist can translate the above for me.Moose

--Thanks for the comments on my article moose, I think that my tendency to want to use the 'bigger' words is probably resultant from my tendency to browse Dictionary.com | Meanings and Definitions of Words at Dictionary.com and thesaurus. I like to attempt to be specific in my terminology when I describe things. Of course I sometimes go overboard, and this especially was getting me into trouble not too long ago with my posts here at evcforum. Concerning the inconsistancies you bolded in my article, a few of them are warranting correction[at least two that I see].--Also, what exactly is it you find difficult to interpret where you've inserted {What?}?--Thanks for the comments, much appreciated! ------------------
The OYSI.Archive
------------------

quote:

---

Though one can, with an accurate depiction of a populations morphology in their phylogenetic development, put emphasis on the characteristics of the speciative transition such as rate and quantify this with the amount of morphological change which occurred in the allocated geologic time period. {What?}

---

If you enough information you can work out how a critter looked and how that look changed over a period of time.This is fun!!!! Like code breaking!!! Keep 'em coming. ------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

quote:

---

If you enough information you can work out how a critter looked and how that look changed over a period of time.

​

This is fun!!!! Like code breaking!!! Keep 'em coming.

---

-- -------------------
The OYSI.Archive

John - see if you can translate:
http://EvC Forum: Salty Discussion Post-mortem -->EvC Forum: Salty Discussion Post-mortemMoose

Hi TC,I have a few hopefully helpful comments.Browsing http://www.dictionary.com seems to be increasing the words you use, but not the number of distinct meanings, nuances and connotations in your head. You want to increase your vocabulary in order to improve your written communication skills, but words used inappropriately can instead produce obfuscation. By the way, the best way to improve your vocabulary is by wide, diverse and voluminous reading. That's the same method used by those who add new words to the dictionary. Speaking personally, I learned about science by reading and studying science (7 years at university didn't hurt, either), but the foundation of my writing was formed from reading books and magazines, lots of them, the greater the better. Read the classics, and read upscale magazines like The Atlantic and The New Yorker.Getting more specific, while we all do this a lot these days, it isn't always a good idea to verb your nouns, for instance, "bolded in my article".You sometimes use the wrong form of a word. For instance, in Message 80 of the Salty Discussion Post-mortem thread you use resolve instead of resolution and inquisition instead of inquiry.Sometimes a word appears misused because you've decided that its definition is close to some word you're already familiar with, so you use it as if it were a synonym when it is not. For example, I think you used stature in place of a word like goal or ideal, and oppositions in place of a word like setbacks or reversals.It might help you to know that the most brilliant communicators I've ever had the privilege of knowing were foreigners with very small english vocobularies. It was the profundity of their thinking that was key, not their vocabulary.--Percy

ahem...--Salty, ( << Hey, look, I didn't have to translate that part! ) you do not seem to be willing to engage in productive debate on this or on any other board. Not only that, but very little of importance has come from your efforts. That is, you aren't really triggering much debate. You instead, stubbornly insist on your conclusions and work to confuse the issues. The efforts of the moderators of this forum have thus far not checked these tendencies.-- I suggest you pick a topic, make an argument, and seriously debate it.-- The same goes for the rest of you punks. I believe this forum is a venue for sincere debate and that the members here are above average for an online forum. Lets keep it that way.------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com[This message has been edited by John, 03-30-2003]

"Browsing http://www.dictionary.com seems to be increasing the words you use, but not the number of distinct meanings, nuances and connotations in your head. You want to increase your vocabulary in order to improve your written communication skills, but words used inappropriately can instead produce obfuscation."
--True true, I admit, good ol' dictionary.com gets quite a few hits from me. That isn't my only source for my increasing (but unfortunately, often inducing confusion) vocabulary. Too bad I don't know of a similar archive for putting together correct syntax."By the way, the best way to improve your vocabulary is by wide, diverse and voluminous reading. That's the same method used by those who add new words to the dictionary. Speaking personally, I learned about science by reading and studying science (7 years at university didn't hurt, either), but the foundation of my writing was formed from reading books and magazines, lots of them, the greater the better. Read the classics, and read upscale magazines like The Atlantic and The New Yorker."
--That's good to know. I've been trying to get as much reading as I can recently. My somewhat recent subscription to Science has really pressured the expansion of my linguistics too, some of the reason I visit dictionary.com is because I need to understand those words which are quite prolific in the upscale literature. All from my geophysical research to my readings of Gould et al. (I think I've come to a new[or at least higher] appreciation of his comprehensive skills as a writer and a scientist). I think I have a good vocabulary, but its lack of accuracy shows in my inexperience of attempting to apply it."You sometimes use the wrong form of a word. For instance, in Message 80 of the Salty Discussion Post-mortem thread you use resolve instead of resolution and inquisition instead of inquiry."
--Resolve wasn't accurate and came from the back of my mind. Thought it sounded better, turned out incorrect though I guess. Arent Inquisition and Inquiry synonymous?"Sometimes a word appears misused because you've decided that its definition is close to some word you're already familiar with, so you use it as if it were a synonym when it is not. For example, I think you used stature in place of a word like goal or ideal, and oppositions in place of a word like setbacks or reversals."
--Hm.. I used stature because it was a reference to a quality or caliber. And oppositions because it is a reference to one who opposes, or resists. Thought they sounded right *shrug*."It might help you to know that the most brilliant communicators I've ever had the privilege of knowing were foreigners with very small english vocobularies. It was the profundity of their thinking that was key, not their vocabulary."
--True, true. I once heard that genius is the ability to reduce the complex to the simple while maintaining accuracy and veracity. I think that applies to my desires for my vocabulary. I will definitely try to keep this in mind when expressing myself.--It sucks though, as long as I've been on this board there have been plenty of times where I have put a bit of emotion in my posts they've been thrashed by my misunderstandings in syntax and word usage. Bear with me Oh well, live and learn. The latter doesn't come without correction.[also] - My person apologies go out to salty, it does seem at second look that I was a bit harsh when addressing the content of your posts and your participation here at evcforum. Excuse my dissonance (I hope that isn't incorrect usage!)-------------------

Strictly speaking, sure. The one best synonym for both would probably be "investigation". But inquisition has a completely different connotation, and hence a completely different area of appropriate use. Inquiry is a neutral investigation and carries with it no implication of bias, while inquisition carries with it the connotations from the Spanish Inquisition. The most common definitions of the word are probably "any harsh or arbitrary suppression or punishment of dissidents or noncomformists" and "any severe or intensive questioning".So while both words mean roughly the same thing, people will pick up completely different interpretations of these two sentences:

• There will be an inquiry into the crime.
  ​
• There will be an inquisition into the crime.

The former sentence brings to mind images of detectives asking questions of witnesses, while the latter usually makes people think of witchhunts. The connotation of a word is as important as its definition, which is why reading is a better way of picking up the meanings of words than a dictionary. Well, let's substitute and see how well quality works: Not bad! Works much better than stature, which isn't a synonym in this context. They're only close to being synonyms if you say something like, "He's a person of stature" or "He's a person of quality", and even then it's not that close, not unless you're using the archaic forms. And caliber works even less well than stature. You would normally say, "we will again and again be opposed", not "we will again and again receive oppositions". While not exactly untrue, I don't think this is what you were trying to convey because there was already a lot of dissonance in the Salty discussion. The meaning I think you intended to convey but did not was, "Excuse for me for giving such a strong admonishment to Salty," and this could probably be neatly summed up as, "Excuse me for overdoing it."You and I might be going in opposite directions. I work at expressing myself as simply as I can.--Percy