All about Brad McFall.

only this:
The last sentence in this thread made a claim about A'sp79 "Do physicists know of a law of the material world which presents any such analogy to these phenomena, that it could be considered as accounting for them" but it may be wrong as the implication that the word 'temperature' would have to be univocal with A'sp65 "And why should a futher increase of the average temperature..."Nonetheless the SPACE of this thread definitely attempted to reply to Agassiz'sp41"Physiciss know indeed these physical agents more accurately than the naturalists who ascribe to them the origin of organized beings, let us ak them whether the nature of these agents is not specific, whether their mode of action is not specific? The will answer, that they are. Let us further inquire of them what evidence there is in the present state of our knowledge, that at any time these physical agents have produced any thing they no longer produce and what probabilty ther is that they may ever have produced any organized being? If I am not mistaken, the masters of that department of science will one and all, answer, none whatever.But the character of the connections between organized beings and the physical conditions under which they live is usch as to display thought; these connections are therefore to be considered as established, determined, and regulated by a thinking being. They must have been fixed for each species at its beginning while the fact of their permanecy through successive generations is further evidence that with their nautral relations to the surrounding world were also determined the relations of individuals to one another, their tgeneric as well as their family relations and every higher grade of affinity showing therefore, notj only thought, in reference to the physical conditions of existence, but such comprehensive thoughts as would embrace simultaneously every characteristic of each species."and did so by DENYING GSCarter's"That organisms can be so classified does not necessarioly imply evolution. Neither Aritstolte nor Linnaeus had any conception of evolution. Linnaeus indeed, in agreement with the religious thought of his time, regarded each species as a special creation. But it is certainly true that the fact that organisms can be so classifed fits in very well with the idea of evolution when that ideas comes to be considered. If speces are seperately created, there is no reason why they should be created in large groups of fundamentally similar structure. If evolution has occurred, similarity of structure necessarily..."
references forthcoming...

That was a very good post. Now, all you have to do is translate it into common English for me to translate into Vietnamese for my mind to understand.

---

The Laminator
For goodness's sake, please vote Democrat this November!

First of all, I’d like to apologize for my tardy response, I’ve been a bit busy as of late. You may feel that you are done talking with what you’ve written, but the problem is that no one is able to understand what it is you have written. What is the point in writing such lengthy posts if no one will understand them? The problem is that no one can disagree with you because your posts make no sense for the most part. How are people supposed to disagree with you if they do not understand what it is that you are arguing? No, Brad, this didn’t help at all. At all. I mean, you still haven’t answered the question I originally posed back in post #79. I will no longer repeat it, as I am almost positively sure that you will not answer it. Oh well, I tried. After this point, it descends into an incoherent mess.Edited to remove unnecessary comma.This message has been edited by Snikwad, 08-16-2004 04:37 AM

---

"Chance is a minor ingredient in the Darwinian recipe, but the most important ingredient is cumulative selection which is quintessentially nonrandom."
--Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker

What does that even mean? I have no clue. On the other hand, thanks for the link, Brad, I'll look into Gladyshev.

---

"Chance is a minor ingredient in the Darwinian recipe, but the most important ingredient is cumulative selection which is quintessentially nonrandom."
--Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker

Carter had tried to say that BECAUSE seperate creation creates seperately there was *no* reason at all that the different categories of organisms could have SIMILAR STRUCTURE in any sense. I have been able to show in this thread or at least this is what I had hoped to have gotton across, that the equilibrium approach of Gladyshev + my own ideas on Faraday provides an outline (in theory at most (as I dont have the experimental data as of yet)) a ^structure^ that by the thought in the thread reasons where Carter asserted there was none.There were a lot of things said in this thread which go beyond this denial of mine but this at least is something a Creationist CAN take heart in even if the experimental data might show in the details that this strucuture can not FUNCTION as I proposed. I fully suspect that Georgi might have had a different function in mind as I am still trying to figure out all the consequences of his paper titled "On the reasons of some principal delusions in the modern biophysics" published in Russian in 2004. That is why I set up the next sentence to go within the biophysics of Lerner's "coadaptation" but that is just what I am going to do with the information in this thread. I idicated that those who want to pursue the cellular automata materialism can feel free and I will be willing to discuss this in terms of Monod's idea of a Maxwell demon or possibly even the "pseudoDemons" of some physicists but like Rexella of JVI Presents, it is not good nor write to be wrong to become right.This morning I "crossed" paths with Will Provine on the CU Campus. He could not even stop to say the customary "What's Up" nor did he use my name. Other Cornell Professors are not this mean. Amy McCune the fish paleontologist and Richard Boyd the philosopher both extend the customary greeting. Will will not! This is how I KNOW that Will FAILED to extend Wright's notion of the EQUILIBRIUM which is what Georgi works on. It appears out of correct British accents Will was willing to "cash" Lerner's chicken combs in for a slant against Wright from Fisher's outside chance of being correct. More later on this. For now, have a great day all. Will said that Wright does not even begin to work - well this thread did make a place on GOOGLE so I assume the words still work just as well as my trip to Jersey tommarroww to see the 4-H Herpetology Club exhibit exhibiting now for over 35 years after I put up a color poster in local Flemington Pet Shop herps hopefully of all strips. I doubt there will be anacondas there however. That is all I ever had to say to Will but now I know that the elite is not the light of the Orthodox. The distance has been closed but the elite think the "e"volution is IN. The jury is still out of this equilibrated LIFE.

I wil try to answer your previous post VERY DIRECTLY, this one will however depend on how people respond to the emprical sentence I was able to generate.The problem seems to be sans the larger social one I indicated to you earlier, that there might be a difference in the cooperative effects of multiple allelemorphs on the body and multiple genes in the same body as to the PHYSICAL macrokinetic WITHIN A COMMON macrothermodynamics. This might mean that the data will indicate that one must dispense with the difference of phenotype and geneotype but we cant know that until AFTER an equilibrium changes and a new "peak" is numerically "ascended". Regardless, I do not have any Creationist misgivings with POSTULATING a merely material thermostat NO MATTER WHAT NATURE IN FACT REVEALS. I do not think my religion would be compromised with this approach as I for myself do think that this dispenses with any difference of Crick vs Monod but to explain all this over again will obviously take another thread just as long.So "i dont punt" means that the orbit of the group theory discussion in sexual selection at least is not out of the solar system. That is a factual assertion as to the relation of nonadaptivecomponenets IN Lerner's coadpative genetics per equilibria. But it did not determine if behvior say with cell death or niche destruction ecologically was the cause IN EFFECT at affect. Leaving out the last two words makes all the difference.So a way to work on this problem would be to make selections for mutations in magnetic bacteria and treat magnetic field reversal JUST like velocity reversal as to time invariance. Now if the future served that past then this will be over you head. I am sorry. I do understand this. I will however not do this kind of writing in referenece to your prior post. I will try to take apart any and every question I can think of you might have had. Thanks again for responding.

I will take this in small constrictions.You asked,

quote:

---

Then may I ask why it is not attributed to your grandfather?

---

WHY WHAT?"is not attribtuted to my Grandfather?Monod's Death?
Allostery?
Dislike of Molecular Biologists WITHIN a department of biology?
Prohibitions of the logic of inhibitions?Which or none??

I thank you immensely. That's a strange question. Monod's death? No one is accusing your grandfather of being the cause of Monod's death. What I was asking is why is Monod's idea not attributed to your grandfather, as previously you claimed you could abstract that idea from your grandfather's work? It was as if you were accusing Monod of stealing your grandfather's idea. But now you're saying that you're not even sure that Monod even read your grandfather's work.

---

"Chance is a minor ingredient in the Darwinian recipe, but the most important ingredient is cumulative selection which is quintessentially nonrandom."
--Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker

What G. Gladyshev has been able to conceive is a linguistic extenstion of Newton's,"and others tell us that Bodies are glued together by rest, that is, by occult Quality, or rather by nothing; and others, that they stick together by conspiring Motions, that is, by relative rest amonst themselves. I had rather infer from their Cohesion, that their Particles attract one antother by some forece, which in immediate Contact is exceeding strong, at small distances persforms the chymical Operations above-mention'd, and reaches not far from the Particles with any sensible Effect."^1 made possible by modern atomismThus Newton's "office of a medium" ^2became

GG'sTHERMOSTAT

.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1)-Opticksp388-9BookThreePart1
(2)-Opticksp386BookThree Part1byI. Newton
As Gravity makes the Sea flow round the denser and weighter Parts of the Globe of the Earth, so the Attraction may make the watry Acid flow round the denser and compacter Particles of Salt. For otherwise the Acid would not do the Office of a Medium between the Earth and common Water, for making Salts dissolvable in the Water; nor would..." The formula where the specific value of the Gibbs function of the formation of supramolecular strucutres of the organism tends to a minimum is denotatively in between Newton's above "between". One should note in terms of Newton's lingo about "biology" that Russell might have meant in this context of physiology({what we mean by between}) at least where Newton was thinking
p380BookThree Part1in his Opticks
"Now the above-mention'd Motions are so great and violent as to shew that in Fermentations the Particles of Bodies which almost rest, are put into new Motions by a very potent Principle, which acts upon them only when they approach one another, and causes them to meet and clash with great violence, and grow hot with the motion, and dash one another into pieces, and vanish into Air, and Vapour, and Flame."Now Salthe thought that hierarchy evolutiuon was among..
p231Evolving Hierarchical Systems"Quoting Eco (1976) "The type only dictates those essential properties that its occurrance must display in order to be judged a good replica, irrespective of any other characteristic that they may posses. Thus, tokens of the same type can posses individual characteristics, provided that they respect the pertinent ones fixed by the type." Note, then, actual genes in organisms are tokens, that is, they are individuals (Sober and Lewontin, 1982). A{of Mendel (A/a etc)}, on the other hand, is some kind of class. Types have the "potentialityfor unanimous action or feeling" (Singer 1983); thus members of the class of all white things might actually better survive radiation from a fireball than would members of the class of all-black things."
but Boscovich had already indicated Part III Applications of the Theory to Physics 359 . "First, therefore, I will deal with Impenetrability, Extension, Figurability, Volume, Mass, Density, Inertia, Mobility, Continuity of Motions, the Equality of Action & Reaction, Divisibility, & Componibility (for which I substitute infinite divisibility), the Immutability of the primary elements of matter, gravity, & Cohesion; all these are general properties. Then I will consider the Variety of Nature, & special properties of bodies; such, for instance, as the manifold variety of particles&masses, Solids & Fluids, Elastic, & Soft bodies; the principles of chemical operations, such as Solution, Precipitation, Adhesion & Coalescence, Fermentation, & emission of Vapours, Fire & the emission of Light; also about the principal properties of Light, Smell, Taste, Sound, Electricity & Magnetism, I wll say a few words towards the end. Finally, coming back to more general matter, I will explain my idea of the nature of alterations, corruptions & transformations. Now in most of these I shall derive the whole matter from my Theory alone & reduce it to those common principles, upon which depends the special treatment for each; in certain cases I shall only indicate the method, which seems to me to be the most fit for a further investigation of the matter."so one would like to know for sure if Russell
p280-1Principles of Mathematics"Let us examine in detail the definition of 12 by Dedekind's method. It is a singular fact that, although a rational number lies between any two single rational numbers, two classes of rational numbers may be defined so that no rational number lies between them, though all of one class are higher than all of the other. It is evident that one at least of these classes must consist of an infinte number of terms. For if not, we could pick out the two of oppositie kinds which were nearest together ,and insert a new number between them. This one would be between the two classes contrary to hypothesis."
applies within Gladyshev's G~_im=(1/V)!0V(dG~im/dm)(x,y,z,)dxdydz-->min, where V is the volume of the system; m - the mass of the selected micro-volumes; x,y,z are coordinates.Only if "rest" was confused with motion by conspiration could it be possible to conflate Stan's death and Monod's. Cohn had said that Monod did not want a Priest at his bedside-- Stan had one. This is the short version- the long one where I open up an answer to you issue as to {if} I had had any insight _ i think that is clear by now_ goes to any organism not the whole population as above and if you want a demonstration onto4pages@8poinType just say so! I assume you might perfer to stick with Georgi than me? why not just pick out one of the options I, BSM, gave IN THIS THREAD rather than see me demonstrate prohibition by the states? Talk to me-I am not "hUng".The response to organge thang comes after this larger posting.

Bill Birkelands posts always make me feel stupid, and so do Brad's--but in a VERY different way... I don't know whether to kill myself because of my evidently futile quest for knowledge in hindsight, or to keep wondering if there are padded walls in Brad's bedroom.

True, It is nice to hear from you again.No- there is not a wall here. I just got the course material for this Semester and I see I have done it all before, except the last twwwo weeks in December. I am still tweaking the thought process in my next contribution ,in this thread head, but the question that will be answered (I will put my two cents up on...) on the way into this adaptive landscape is##if functionality is prohibited by the states that Georgi simply used two letters to represent (folded and unfolded). This will finally indicate the US BIOLOGY has had something to contribute to what Gould mistakenly thought were "national" differences. And if my answer wends its proper way it might be possible to univocally link Kant's word translated into "power" with the same term used in Physics. If all this works then we will be able to show materially and not just conceptually, what is in the power of the people, that is not prohibited by the states of the US. I hope we will not have to go to Court over it but have it all plyed in in Patent Apps/Opps. We will see. Will Provine would not. I will have to be correct about the relation of WFStanley's and Monod's use of the word "inhibition" however and this is far from fully being finally finished even in my next contribution.

Hi Brad. This is a reply to your post here as I didn't want to continue off topic in that thread.Just to make myself a little clearer (how ironic, huh?), I wasn't meaning so much for you to slow down specifically in your reply to me, I just meant to slow down a little in general. Incidentally, overall, I did find your last reply more comprehensible than usual. Thank you. I think this is part of the problem, and it does correlate with what I tend to witness in your posts. When reading your words, I sometimes get the sense that you have about a million thoughts in your head that are all trying to come out at once. This is why I suggested that you may need to slow down a little, even perhaps to the point of singling out one issue and focusing your thoughts on that. Yes, this is perfectly understandable. I realize that you have limited time to put your thoughts in writing and this makes it difficult. That's why I think you may need to break it down a bit. It would be far more beneficial for you to get even one single point across coherently than to cram every thought you can into your hour of internet time, and have everyone pass it by because they can't understand it. Just to explain myself a little, I hope I haven't given you the impression that I "blame" you, or that I'm upset with you, or anything else of the kind. It's just that I feel a little bad for you. I hope that doesn't sound patronizing or anything; all I mean is that the effort you go to often seems to be somewhat wasted. You obviously have a lot to say but I think that, more often than not, all that ends up happening, as a result, is that your posts are largely ignored.Admittedly, I'm guilty of this myself. I didn't start posting here until fairly recently but I've been reading EvC for a long time (just at a guess, I would say at least two and a half years). Despite this, I'm afraid I gave up reading your posts long ago, for no other reason than I simply couldn't understand them, and I fear that perhaps others do the same. No, not at all. We all make typos, that's quite alright. Speaking only for myself, I can tell you that your spelling is not the problem. As I said before, I think it is more the way everything tends to get crammed together. I think that if you tried to conceptually "thin out" your posts a little, that would help.Also, I see that happy_atheist made a suggestion in this post. I agree; paragraphs are our friend.Failing all of this, you might try not actually posting your replies immediately. Instead, use your online time just to read the forum and take in everything you wish to reply to (and perhaps even print it out for reference, if you're able), and then compose your replies in your offline hours when you can take your time and aren't pressured to think on-the-fly. You can then post them at your leisure.This may put you slightly behind the rest of the posts but it will be well worth it if you can get your points across to others in a way they can understand. Also, you needn't do this for all replies. Perhaps you could try replying to just the "light" topics while you're here and saving the "heavier" ones for later when you can give them the necessary thought.These are all mere suggestions, of course. I'm just throwing ideas out there in the event that any of them may be helpful. I'm not so much concerned that you're clear for other people's sake, but for your own. It seems a shame that your points often fail to get across because of people's inability to comprehend your posts. And I'm not saying it's all your fault either but I do think you need to work on it a little.Anyway, I didn't mean to go on so much about this. I hope that nothing I've said here came across as offensive. That was never my intention.For example, my comment about "feeling bad for you" wasn't meant to be condescending in any way. It's just that I have fallen into the unfortunate habit of scrolling to the next post whenever I see your name and I get the distinct feeling that I'm not the only one who does this. I apologize. I shouldn't do it, and it's nothing personal; I just have so much trouble understanding what you say.In any case, I hope you didn't mind me proposing a few ideas. Perhaps some of them will be helpful to you.

Great News- Thanks- all of it is on the up and up. Snikwad had tried to "clip" my wings here where he claimed that a simple yes or no was called for. Unfortunately it was not. Thanks for your reply. I have not taken anything you nor Snikwad for this matter (have said) in a bad way at all.I will make one point from the above in this thread. I was finally able to pointly ask 0ook! a question as directly as possible. Snikwad may have felt he/she had done the same with me. It is often hard to tell on a first pass on the internet. Oook looked but refused to answer. NOW, I WAS ABLE TO REPHRASE the question luckly but often a poster will not be able to (to answer) once a question is asked as directly as possible. The reason that BOTH Oook!&Snikwad might have the same difficulty with me is that it IS POSSIBLE, on a certain PHILOSOPHY (but not necessarily mathematics) of Calculus to approach a data point equally (or not from two directions).IF THAT IS THE CASE, if the question is about such a point in point on point, it may be impossible IN THE PRESENT STATE OF PHILOSOPHIZING to say either way. That could have been OOOKs case and MINE, as well in response to Snikwad. I finally broke down and asked Snikwad to simply *choose* one a multiple list of lines and he STILL CHOOSE NOT to. That leaves me with only an idea that we LEARN differently, but tells me NOTHING about the content underdiscussion, which all three of us (with O0(00K! now as well) circling like hawks, for a mouse that only exists in our minds even if it sits next to the computer screen).My simple point from before was

quote:

---

Hence my own extension of this thought via heat shock proteins might be called for. Monod seems to have had this thought becuase he was trying to draw out THE LIMIT of use of allostery. But if the supramolecular strech nanowise can occur to any Remianin localization differntly from two different directions there is not a need to find the linear representation of equilibria as consequentially NECESSARILY as to the full effect of selection FOR allostery.

---

where I had distanced the relevance of Monod's total view on natural selection WITHIN AN ORGANISM.I can write a whole post on this point itself. I had assumed one would know something that Monod had thought but what I really needed to stress, it now appears, is, the delimitation in any science kinetics (not the particular one on which my own view would hang itself from) of TIME as a parameter which Monod's research team had used. Cohn had said so much in the opening essay of the OPERON book I can cite ad nauseum. It is so hard to predict"" ahead of time just what your reader knows or could know or is willing to find out.Again thanks for your reply. Feel free to ask me any question about relative motion, the uNIverse, or Maxwell sphere etc., or quote something of your own, which you would like me to respond to in this thread. I will be able to tie something of it back to prior discussions interthread head alia.It is easier for me to respond to posts in this thread because I DO NOT HAVE TO THINK OF ANY EVC LINKS but only those that I myself have participated in.

quote:

---

True, It is nice to hear from you again.

---

--Thanks. Nice to be confused again Also, yup, I survived charley. I was wind surfing at the time, it was sweet lolThis message has been edited by TrueCreation, 08-27-2004 08:56 PM

Great!!There is no need to be confused. We all had differnt learning styles. This following is a bit of reminder of some of the context the content of this thread produced.RECAPitulation
"We have now completed the discussion of the concept-bearing or inductive process in learning and apperception, and find that they both tend to the unifying of knowledge and to the awakening of interest. It remains to be seen how the will may be brought into activity and placed in command of the resources of the mind."p205TheElements of General Method Based on the Principles of Herbart (1901 Bloomington Ill. Public-School, Publishing Company)Georgi has been able to induce Newton's notion of chemical activity UNDER CONSPIRING MOTIONS to a classical extension of Gibbs's work in particular so that the question of this will may be only in your mind. For Newton and the General Scholium this may not be the case with respect to the TECHNOLOGICAL application of any difference gravity vs e-m might design. That is man-made and might even only be a part of artificial selection. Regardless, the question of the will whether in Herbert's or Kant's teaching remains. You simply choose which style of teacher/online environment you learn best under.
content
"Having now admtted the percepts of other people, we can greatly enlarge the group constituting one "physical object." Within the solipsistic world, we found means of collecting groups of percepts and calling the group one physical object; but we can now enrich our group enormously. The number of people sitting near each other can all draw what they see, and can compare the resulting pictures; there will be similarities and differences. A number of stenographers listening to a lecture can all take notes of it, and compare results. A number of people can be brought successively into a room full of hidden roses, and asked "What do you smell?" In this way it appears that the world of each person is partly private and partly common. In the part which is common, there is found between the percepts of different people. It is the absense of indentity which makes us reject the naive realism of common sense; it is the similarity which makes us accept the theory of a common origind for similar simultaneous perceptions."p207"The Analysis of Matter" Bertrand Russell.As we learn how to better pick out this biological concept from the quasi-closed formalism of Gladyshev, we will possibly be able to further specify INtopic Lerner's p78 paragraph , "Generally speaking it is the superiority of the heterozygotes which appears to be of greatest importance in the conservation of genetic variability of populations. Heterozygous advantage is usually referrred to as being due to super- or overdominance. Real overdominance found at single loci is often distinguished from pseudo-overdominance where the superiority of the heterozygotes is based on chromosome segments or blocks. In some species inversions are known to protect such segements from disintegration^2 . Experimentally it is virtually impossible to establish whether a given isntance of apparently real overdominance is due to action a stingle locus or at two or more contiguous loci possibly contaning pseudoalleles. It is likewise difficult to ascertain whether pseduooverdominance of a chromosoem segment is based on the heterozygote advantage of one or more specific loci within it or on interaction between them. Under the simplest assumtpions of random mating and constant genotypic selective value, theorreitical considerations examined by Kimura (1956b) suggest that epistasis alone cannot maintain alternative alleles in a population."Lerner "The Genetic Basis of Selection."
subject
"In 1961 Simpson described two relationships among things that seem to be particularly fundamental to biology. These he termed "association by contiguity" and "association by similarity." Although he went on to discuss only the latter in his book on systematics, the implication was that we must eventually try to forge an overall science of order, presumably including both discriminations. Relationships of contiguity he exemplified by "the relationship between a plant and the soil in which it grows, between a rabbit and fox that pursues it, among trees in a forest, or among all the descendents of a population." This characterization clearly refers to entities in what Eldredge and Salthe (1985) call the ecological hierarchy. This was the realm Valentine (1973) referred to as "ecospace," which he noted was not a place but a web of interactions hierarchically reflected in terms 'umwelt' for organisms, 'niche' for populations or species and 'adaptive zone' for lineages." "Evolving Hierarchical Systems" p192 Stanley N. Salthe
context
"Kant, with may other psychologists, gives greater prominence to the original powers of the mind, to the innate ideas, by means of which it recieves and works over the crude materials furnished by the senses. The difference between Kant and Herbart is interpreting the process of apperception is an index of a radical difference in their pedagogical standpoints. With Kant, apperception is the assimilation of the raw materials of knowledge through the categories of thought (quality, quantity, relation, modality, etc.) Kant's categories of thought are original properties of the mind; the reveive the crude materials of sense-perception and give them form and meaning. With Herbart, the ideas gained though experience are the apperceiving power in interpreting new things. Practically, the difference between Kant and Herbert is important. For Kant gives controlling influence to innate ideas in the process of acquisition. Our capacity for learning depends not so much upon the results of experience and thought stored in the mind, as upon original powers, unaided and unsuppported by experience. With Herbart, on the contrary, great stress is laid upon the acquired fund of empirical knowledge as a means of increasing one's stores, of more rapidly receiveing and assimilating new ideas."p217TheElements of General Method Based on the Principles of Herbart (1901 Bloomington Ill. Public-School, Publishing Company)