My Questions about Evolution

How interested in this are you really?If you want to take time digging into this one this you will find is that your prediction from evolutionary theory is correct. Species are not all that distinct. There is a constant problem of drawing ines and deciding when there is a species separation and not. There are several different definitions of species as well. All of varying usefullness.Not all species lines are blurred some are and some are more distinct. If a population has been separated in some way from others close to it then it may have had a chance to become a very clearly distinct species but this isn't always the case.

And Brad as long as there are things like this in your writing I will continue to read very little of it. It is just too hard.

Brad i read this much:
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.I don't understand a bit of it. This is why I don't read your posts. It is just too hard for me. I'm not smart enough or don't have enough vocabularly is possible. It is also possible that you are going to have to write in simpler sentences.

edited to kill duplicate[This message has been edited by NosyNed, 11-02-2003]

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.

You are making the assumption that there is knowledge buried under all those words. In general, it is my experience that those who are most complex in what they say understand the least about what they are talking about.Brad's writing is too peculiar for me to guess much about what is behind it. However, my quick judgment is more than 20% of it is meaningless. As for the rest, I can't tell at all.

Since there is no "logic" in the guess work, Mike, perhaps you would like to translate that last post of Brad's. It is a shame but no matter how smart or knowledable that Brad might be it counts for naught if he can't communicate. Separatly from the parts that might have some powerful insights that I just don't understand there clearly are parts which are just gibberish. If he would at least remove those it might make the other parts more manageable.Sorry, Brad, I really would like to see you able to get things sorted out a bit. You work hard on all those posts and if they could be made comprehensible then there might be a real contribution to some of the debates.