Understanding through Discussion

Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 63 (9072 total)
65 online now:
dwise1 (1 member, 64 visitors)
Newest Member: FossilDiscovery
Post Volume: Total: 893,122 Year: 4,234/6,534 Month: 448/900 Week: 154/150 Day: 0/8 Hour: 0/0

Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Author Topic:   Evolutionary Synthesis
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 4265 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001

Message 1 of 2 (11269)
06-10-2002 3:25 PM

(percy- Feel free to move this as I could not find where "modern" synthesis was to post under and hook into.)

In THE GROWTH OF BIOLOGICAL THOUGHT E. Mayr on page 566-7 gets out two "major" conclusions:
(1) "that evolution is gradual, being explicatory in terms of small genetic changes and recombination and interms of the ordering of this genetic variation by natural selection; and
(2) that by introducing the population concept, by considering species as reproductively isolated aggregates of populations, and by analyzing the effect of ecological factors..."

I do not recognize one of the commas and Mayr dates me fairly out of the picture if all this came in 36 to 47 becasue what I say here I only refer to 68 and what my Grandfater taught me since say 71 but published in genetics BEFORE this time. In the late 60s Wright on the work in DNA digested reversed the traditional and historical way to read biology that Croizat publishing from 48-84 mainatins. So one can still read biology the way I was taught to discriminate biologists even if one prefers to try to interpret biology in the way of Wright.

Then Wright no longer recognized the "magic" between physiology and genetics and divide the soma dissmenatble into 4 by three divisions (1) local gene action, (2) everything back of the cell line in question, (3) any correlation to other cells IN THE BODY and hormones etc diffused, (4) external influences. BUT BECAUSE SCIENCE C O ULD work with 2+3 he concluded that this loss of magic that Mayr explains for 36-47 left e or E^2 to a sequence of external variables (again this is the opposite way to reading the historical literature but updated to the modern biology of post-DNA).

It is not allways for this analysis of Wright a simple matter to embrace the word "population" of Mayr. The difficulty that Mayr had in accusing Wright of being a bean bag was that molecular biologists often would do 1+4 without even remembering (nomatterhowmuch lip -- service they gave and give) this inversion nor showing others how they pass often quickly beyond the middle of Wright's view. My grandfather pointed this out to me as well. Both of these two men (Wright and Stan studied under Zeleny at one place or time). Will Provine who tried to read this was searching for something in the data, the math of which, he was admonished by Wright for without utilizing the full plurivocal possibilites of the read inversion even though Will did not use perversions in his version. Wright could still be correct and Mayr's "population" not even founded let alone sympatric.

Because the likes of Provine searched in data what the words already did the backlash of the revival in the 60s creationism has been just as long if not a simple rasing of the eye-brow meanwhile I was cut off from getting any more data to contribute. It may be that behvior can be before ANY genetic revolution. One must ask for 2+3 interms of a mechanism that is often not supplied to shift the wording out 1-4 in an illcit way that is committed to a psychology that the behvior caused (if) neophenogeneis does not in fact do. It is possible. It is also possible that GOD did it.

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by Tranquility Base, posted 06-13-2002 2:25 AM Brad McFall has taken no action

Tranquility Base
Inactive Member

Message 2 of 2 (11459)
06-13-2002 2:25 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Brad McFall
06-10-2002 3:25 PM

I love your posts Brad but have you ever explained why your grammar appears to be so . . . non-standard?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Brad McFall, posted 06-10-2002 3:25 PM Brad McFall has taken no action

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:

Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.1
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2022