Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
7 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Supporting Assertions - A Primer
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 1 of 16 (101290)
04-20-2004 4:40 PM


Since it seems pretty obvious that not everybody knows what it means to support assertions with evidence, I thought we could describe the process by which assertions are made and what constitutes support for an assertion.
Assertions are when you make claims that something exists or is a certain way. I'll go step by step through supporting (or not supporting) a simple claim with various levels of evidence appropriate for the discussions we have here.
There's the claim: Death Valley is the lowest elevation in North America.
Now, normally that's a statement so non-contentious that we allow it to pass without comment. But it is felt that posters should be at least ready to substantiate all claims if asked to do so, so let's try and support it.
1) Death valley is the lowest elevation in North America because it's lower than all other elevations in North America.
Obviously this isn't support for the claim, it's just restating the claim in another way. Trying to support a claim with itself is circular reasoning.
2) Death valley is the lowest elevation in North America because it's been measured to be the lowest.
Better, but measured by who? You? Measured when? Measured how? Which locations were measured? "Measured to be lowest" is still a claim that needs to be itself supported. Making more unsupported claims doesn't support anything.
3) Death valley is the lowest because the CIA World Factbook says so.
Still better, but something can still be just a claim even if it's somebody else making it. Why does the CIA conclude that Death Valley is the lowest? They don't say, and let's keep in mind that the CIA is not infallible, as I hear some Iraqis discovered recently.
4) Death valley is the lowest elevation according to maps from the US Geologic Survey. The maps list their date of compliation and presumably you could contact the USGS personel if you wanted to know specifically when the surveys were performed on-site.
That's support for the claim. The evidence is trustable, verifiable, peer-reviewed, and accessable.
Man, it took me a long time to try to find some of that, which goes to show another reason we don't demand evidence except for the most contentious claims - the more widely something is known, the less anybody bothers to make references to it.
Maybe that'll give people some idea about the burden of proof at this forum. You don't have to go as far as I did - the CIA Factbook cite would probably have been sufficient - but you at least have to get a reasonable, relevant cite for your contentious assertions, or be prepared to admit you can't support them.
I've tried to keep it simple so I'm sure there's much to debate on the subject. I welcome any thoughts, especially from folks a little more used to supplying evidence than I usually am.

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by coffee_addict, posted 04-20-2004 4:56 PM crashfrog has not replied
 Message 4 by Brad McFall, posted 04-21-2004 4:27 PM crashfrog has not replied
 Message 14 by Itachi Uchiha, posted 04-26-2004 6:43 PM crashfrog has not replied

  
Adminnemooseus
Administrator
Posts: 3974
Joined: 09-26-2002


Message 2 of 16 (101294)
04-20-2004 4:45 PM


Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

  
coffee_addict
Member (Idle past 477 days)
Posts: 3645
From: Indianapolis, IN
Joined: 03-29-2004


Message 3 of 16 (101297)
04-20-2004 4:56 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by crashfrog
04-20-2004 4:40 PM


I agree completely. Some people on these forums need to learn how to provide support for their claims.
Here is part of a message that I posted regarding the Miller experiment.
Lam writes:
Thank you for the correction. The original miller experiment only produced 6 or 7 amino acids, but later experiments have produced all 20 amino acids necessary for life. (Campbell, Reece, Simon, Essential Biology, 300)
I wrote that after someone told me to check my sources.
There, I listed the 3 authors, the name, and the page number of the book. It's a college text book for basic biology.
Regarding using internet sources, I generally stay away from the .com's, .net's, .org's, and .us's. I only use .gov's and .edu's. Even in .edu's, I'm always careful not to use student website unless it seems credible enough.
Call me old fashion, but I like the Giles method (Buffy the series) more. I like books. I would like to be able to smell my sources. I would like to be able to hold up my sources and say "here it is!"
But anyway, people, please be prepared to provide evidence and sources whenever you make an assertion or claims.

The Laminator

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by crashfrog, posted 04-20-2004 4:40 PM crashfrog has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by Brad McFall, posted 04-23-2004 1:50 PM coffee_addict has replied

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5032 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 4 of 16 (101602)
04-21-2004 4:27 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by crashfrog
04-20-2004 4:40 PM


asserting the latter creationism
If mooseus admins mynew proposal for opening a specific thread to enable a comparison of GP Gladyshev's thermo and my own ideas we will be able to see quite clearly how assertions can be sustained, maintained, and possibly retained.
In the article I was asked to post,Gladyshev asserts conditions that Creationism would have to follow should it be true to physical reality. I think that GP may be on the good foot but it would be nice to see others come to this conclusion other than me.
Perhaps we could maintain criticism in this frog-foot thread while working on the details of the suppostions in a thread such as opening either Glayshev's paper could provide or my own as it would or should.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by crashfrog, posted 04-20-2004 4:40 PM crashfrog has not replied

  
AdminAsgara
Administrator (Idle past 2302 days)
Posts: 2073
From: The Universe
Joined: 10-11-2003


Message 5 of 16 (101971)
04-22-2004 8:11 PM


just a bump
bump

AdminAsgara
Queen of the Universe

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5032 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 6 of 16 (102194)
04-23-2004 1:50 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by coffee_addict
04-20-2004 4:56 PM


instead try this on hump day
we can use the assertion-
"no one questions the fact in micro evolution" (or OF"" if one prefers)
vs
"what is not the question between micro and macro evolution"
Did I give enough backing for my assertion contra the former in the REDWOLF PUNK EQ thread? or will we be unable even to find ONE assertion to disscuss becuase of pesky prepositions etc??
[This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 04-23-2004]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by coffee_addict, posted 04-20-2004 4:56 PM coffee_addict has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by coffee_addict, posted 04-23-2004 2:24 PM Brad McFall has replied

  
coffee_addict
Member (Idle past 477 days)
Posts: 3645
From: Indianapolis, IN
Joined: 03-29-2004


Message 7 of 16 (102201)
04-23-2004 2:24 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by Brad McFall
04-23-2004 1:50 PM


Re: instead try this on hump day
Lam writes:
...please be prepared to provide evidence and sources whenever you make an assertion or claims.

The Laminator

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Brad McFall, posted 04-23-2004 1:50 PM Brad McFall has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by Brad McFall, posted 04-26-2004 4:55 PM coffee_addict has replied

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5032 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 8 of 16 (102860)
04-26-2004 4:55 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by coffee_addict
04-23-2004 2:24 PM


I was trying to avoid putting all this out. Lam called the hand
as you stressed "prepared" I guess you are either criticizing me outright, which you have been doing all along and have not need to hear directly from me or else you recognized that I said I would not be arguing my own work but rather by way of Macrothermodynamics.
If it was the former then I include at the end a abbreviated clipping of the essentials from which if you take the time to ask reconstructive questions about I am sure you can eventually posses all the posting abilities or capabilities that I currently do. I abbreviate this beacuse the state is still moosecat's where big words in longer text do not make bigger words understandable sufficiently for all. I do hope you take this to heart.
Now if you simply want to criticize me you must realize that Gladyshevs'
quote:
Track: Thermodynamics of Ontogenesis and Phylogenesis
The theory is presented in work: G.P.Gladyshev,
"Thermodynamic Theory of the Evolution of Living Beings".
The work has been published by
NOVA Sci. Publ., Inc., NY, USA, 1997 - ISBN 1-56072-457-9
http://www.nexusworld.com/nova/catpage5.html/
E-mail: academy@endeav.org
Professor Georgi P.Gladyshev
N.N. Semenov Institute of Chemical Physics,
Kosygina 4, Moscow, 117977, Russia
Summary
This work is devoted to the physical theory of the biological evolution. The theory is based on macrothermodynamics, i.e., the hierarchic thermodynamics of complex systems. The results of the studies presented in the book allow one to state that the peculiarities of the evolution of living beings, as well as the peculiarities of the chemical evolution, can be explained without the concepts of the dynamical self-organization and the dissipative structures. According to the second law, the tendency of the evolution of biological systems on chemical and supramolecular levels can be determined by studying the effect of thermodynamical self-organization (self-assembly). The criterion for estimating the evolutionary development of supramolecular structures of biosystems (biotissues) is given by the variation of the specific Gibbs function of their formation. During the processes of ontogenesis, phylogenesis, and biological evolution in general, the specific supramolecular component of the Gibbs function of a biosystem, that is quasi-closed thermodynamically and kinetically, tends to a relative minimum. The value of this minimum is a characteric of the given biosystem surrounded by the given environment. The non-stationary theoretical model presented in the monograph explains the reasons causing the variations in the chemical composition and structure of living beings in the course of ontogenesis, phylogenesis, and the evolution in general. It also allows to find out the rules determining the variations in the composition and structure of a biosystem during its adaptation to the external conditions. At present, it seems that the most essential applications of the theory relate to the study of the living creatures behaviour
is superficially similar to what I have said but is not all necessarily the same in the same sufficiency. If you listened to CHUCK COLSON today on Christian Radio you could have heard him extol the merits of IC(irreducible complexity) but if you read Gladyshev intelligently you/one CAN understand the need for the equilibrium approach from which GP started. (I can justify this if you so wish, it is simply an observation of what elite scientists were DOING in the 70s and early 80s). ICR was doing debates very well at this time as well. It is far from clear (which is why I would need to see the comphrensive understanding of differences between GP and BSM) that "complexity" and "equilibrium" are not univocal IN GLADYSHEV'S SENSE (deprecating creationism) or conversely that the dynamic output of the compartments is not ONLY possible in BARAMINOLOGY. I will in the future permit my own admittance to bilaterian applications (which would go all the way to making Gould's sound of "dox" and "hox" BE EQUIVALENT but unless you aske particular questions about ALL of the backing to my assertion you can be uncertain as the rest of them as to criticism in general.
Here is a little of me:
Contents
One nonadaptive consequents without cell death
Two possible match to cell death
Three cell death kinematics adaptively
Four Baramin
Five Perverted
ONE Timed Patterns of Neophenogensis without necessarily a sufficieny of cell death.
If biochemists are misapplying synthetic chemistry etherially because of nonadaptive affects due to different ionic titration equilibriums potentially entropic less conserved forces actually on some individual's death then Fourier analysis may have singularly unknown molecular biological object provided the magnitude of the exogenous stimuli is within the Mahler-Hamilton solution of vitalism/mechanism p9-10"Interaction of exogenous and endogenous factors is a major topic of this book. The position we shall try to establish is that both internal and external factors are involved in any behavior pattern. No animal is a passive respondent to environmental commands. Rather, there is a process of interaction between the organism and its environment in which both have an active role. By the same token, it can be seen that completely endogenous control is equally illusive, for even when actions being without any external trigger, the behavior is still affected by the other ongoing external conditions. Nevertheless, there are some behavior patterns, such as circadian rythms, in which endogenous control is extensive. In others, such as escape behavior and the simple patterns of skin scratching in a frog or a dog, the external environment is dominant. Many types of behavior, including feeding and reproductive patterns, fall somewhere between these extremes. The controversy between mechanists and vitalists is thus resolved. Both were right, depending to some extent on the type of behavior with which they were working..."
Gottleibp173"Induction of Behavorial Change in Individual Development as Prelude to Evolution: The Supragenetic Developemental Basis of Evolutionary Change The extreme malleability or plasticity of cells early in their development is mirrored to a certain, if lesser, degree in the psychological, behavioral, and neural functioning of the developing organism. The early developmental adaptability of organisms has significance for our understanding of evolution that is different from the "genes-for-traits" view that is a fundamental assumption of the popultion-genetic underpinning of the modern synthesis (Chapters 10 and 11). It is the purpose of the present chapter to make a case for the extragenetic or, better, supragenetic developemental basis of evolutionary change though the genesis of novel behavioral phenotypes. To make things as clear as possible, I will contrast this developmental approach to evolution with the population-genetic model of the modern synthesis. I should say at the outset that the present theory can be integrated with the population-genetic model, with the exception of the radically different role ascribed to genes in the two viewpoints."
This is becuase the combined behaviorist's solution accepts the Gavlani-Volta dispute (p125 "Galvani speaks here of "deducing", but the term, in keeping with seventeenth-century Newtonian usage, corresponds more accurately to an induction, specifically, an analogical induction. Galvani's argument bassically ran as follows: if the "essential characteristics" of the nervous fluid determined from the experiments are identical to those regarded by the physicists as sufficient to define an electical fluid, then- by analogy- we are entitled to conclude that the muscular fluid is the electrical fluid itself, or at least the hypothesis is "proper and reasonble." Thus Galvani reverted to his old stratgey of using the findings of physics to support physiology. for shelter by amending his theory. ")but did not disntiguish in the possible ONLY exogenous behavior differences due to the physicst's Bohr and Einstein post Newton reasoning faculty.
Instead subsequently only the method of genetic engineering was sought as the source of ALL endogeneous triggers. This continues in the current economics of drug discovery. The nonadatptive endogneousness (whethjer homeostatic or not) might permit purely kinematic effects to dynamically alter ALSO already ongoing behavior OR even contribute to purely externally locatable behavior stimuli chains ensuing that were not recognized as part of the solution. Neophenogensis provides a concept that permits the understaning of this potentially large class of unrecognized categories of behavior as the orgnism would only be able to construct an infinitely smaller environemental subset than actually would thus be findable should it exist.
Gottleibp176"The neophenogenetic pathway for evolutionary change is thus sees as (1) an alteration of development leading to a significant change in behavior, followed by (2) a change in morphology, and eventually, possibly (3) a change in genetic composition of the population. Consistent with their view of the strictly genetic determination of the phenotype, adherents of the modern synthesis would consider that evolution occurred only if and when step (3) was achieved. From the present point of veiw, enduring tansgenerational changes in behavior and morphology (i.e., phenotypic evolution) have occured by step (2), without the necessity of adding to, subtracting from, or otherwise changing the original genetic compotision of the population."
Mandelbaump124"Unlike the COMMENTARIUS, the TRATTATO is constructed systematically. It is not an account of experiments in chronological order- as in the COMMENTARIUS- but a presentation of experiments arranged in a logical order to confirm a theoretical concept. So, I use different EFFECTS of 1-D symmetry categories.
This also explains why the notion of THE CELL does not apply to plants. Ammendation aka via WOlfram's claims may be forth coming.
Partial tittrations without adaptations could BE neophenogenic behaviors (Gottleib p175 "coined the term behavioral neophenotype to refer to momentous behavioral changes or deviations from normality that could be brought into existence by altering the usual conditions of an animals' early development or experiecne." and p140 "How different is Mayr's view, stated elsewhere in the same book, "that DNA of the genotype does not itself enter into the developmental pathway but simply serves as a set of instructions"(Mayr, 1982, p824) from Sewall Wright's physiological view of DNA( see Figure 10-5, Chapter 10) and the view advocated here." )or previously experimented on under the word,"contractions".
TWO Logical combinations propositionally
Extension of a largelyNew Zelander panbiogeographic movement motivates a technic praxis that applies space-duality to 3.2Coxeter and Coxeter3.3 obtaining the HOMOLOGOUS theory of polarities in a BUNDLE(analogous inter alia), of involutatory correspondences between lines and planes though ONE fixed point (cardinally and ordinally associated per baselines). Coxeterp62"Such a polarity may be elliptic or hyperbolic, and in the latter case its self-congugate lines and planes are the GENERATORS and TANGENT PLANES of QUADRIC CONE. Every proptery of cones; eg. the space-dual of Brianchon's Theorem 3.36 is the following: If l,m'n,l',m,n' are any six generators of a cone, the three lines (m'n, mn'), (n'l,nl'),(l'm.lm')." THESE ARE FINDABLE CELLULARLY in a Lebsque collection"".
The applicable statements were Coxeterp52 "3.2. Polarities in the plane. A POLARITY is a correlation of period two, i.e. a correlation which is its own inverse, so that..." and Coxterp55 "3.3. Conics. With reference to a given polarity, a non-self-conjugate line (or point) is said to be elliptic or hyperbolic accoding to the nature of the involution of the conjugate points on it (or lines thought it). Thus if the polarity is elliptic, ALL olines and points are elliptiec; but if it is hyperbolic...following Von Staudt we define the CONIC as the calss of self-congugate points and lines in a hyperbolic polarity. The points are said to lie ON th econic, and the lines are called TANGENTS. The pole of a tnagent is its point of contact....." THESE MAY BE MADE WITH A ONE WAY VELOCITY MINIMALLY BUT IS UNLIKELY TO FIND TECHONOLOGY THIS REFINED TODAY to include any track, node, mass, baseline etc tangentially.
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
The ways that collection localities are conceived are plural and at least three means can be distingushed. Eminently this triplicate is:
I) as point part of an incidence geometry or track graph
II) as a coordinate in a geography(bio-geo correlation(s))
III) as data supporting (a new) taxonomic name.
By Axiom #1- two points P and Q exist and are not equal ( the two collinear points through P are seperated by some space S* determined in the topology of l,m and n (this) which is a vicarient formation with line -S*(dimension) because any parallel lines through S* can not have a node between them- all lines that go through S* are either plane boundaries and possibly collinear or are all parallel so the two distinct points incident with S* by Axiom#2 when not the end points (those two collinear points in from P in Model Panbiogeography) one point is a topological derivative or higher derivative possiblity and thus regardless being "the other point derivable fromt he topology of the ancestral pin points with parameter specific data point of the original collection locality" this parameter however is the more narrow S*(no matter the dimension) thus we have two points that meet in the plane lUmUn and the topology is two-dimensional in the sense of MODELPANBIOGEOGRAPHY. l,m and n can be generalized tracks when not something else.
Chromosome quantity per kind is thus conditioned or caused by a collineation among projectivities, elliptic figurations, and a self-dimilar fractal set dimension. This may or may not be subject to special relativity. as the work can write orthogonally, isolation with distances among any old l,m,ns categorically, ecosystem engineering per closed habitats enumerated by the collection and biomass prodictivity as the pin points' regional energy source that might not show up the same way as mass equivalent as compared with instrumental readings dependent no matter the revolution on the speed of light. A better understand of the relation of rotations to chromosome quality makes this writing and the deductions considerably easier.
Before this work is made extraterrestrial its content is preliminarily in aquatic resource conservation (learning what aquatic resources to conserve outside of diversity though wetland extension ecoystem engineering by using panbiogeography to highlight landscapes previously unnoticed, intervening in preexisting land dispute cases of rules in wetland perception and searching again on protected wetalands (costal(wave powered) vs stream fed etc) back of the space S*. Regardless, new shapes/textures will result if properly approached.
Coxeterp34 2.54- "THERE ARE JUST TWO CLASSES OF DOUBLY ORIENTED LINES, SUCH THAT ANY TWO DOUHBLY ORIENTED LINES ARE SIMILARLY ORIENTED IF AN DONLY IF THEY BELONG TO THE SAME CLASS. Intuitively, this is the distinction between right-handed and left-handed SCREW. The general result is that a projective space is oreintable or non-orientable according as it snumber of dimensions is odd or even."
Coxeterp23 " 2.2. Models. When we say that a system of axioms is consistent,we mean that no two theorems, logically deduced from them, can be contradictory (like the statements "All right anlges are equal" and "Some lines are self-perpendicular"). Clearly, there is not direct test for consistency, since we cannot follow up the infinite number of possible chains of deduction to see whether any two of them lead to a contradiction. For an indirect test we use a MODEL, which is a set of objects satisfying the same axioms as the undefined entites of the original system. Any contradiction implied by the original system would be represented by a contradiction in the model, and this cannot occur so long as the objects unquestionably exist. These objects may be (defined or undefined) entites in another abstract system whose consistency is taken for granted, or they may be physical objects wholse reality is accepted for resasons outside the domain of mathematics."
"Original System"
Incidence Axiom#1. For every point P and for every point Q not equal to P there exists a unique line l that passes through P and Q (A collection locality is considered not equal to another when it is not part of the same main massing, practically what are considered the most local level places of endemism asserted (therefore) In a maing massing there is not unique line that connects two localities outside the main massing- through- its main massing.)
Incidence Axiom#2. For every line there exists at least two distinct points incident with l, one point or which may be int he mathmatical neighboorhood of a main massing if present, one point being the original colleciton locality (,) and the other point derivable from the topology of the ancestral higher order taxon pin points with the parameter the specific data point of original collection locality.
Incidence Axiom#3. There exists three distinct points with the property that no line is incident with all three of them. One of these points is A NODE, the phylogenetic and biogegoraphic nodes (Three points connected never form a geodesic).
Coxeterp19"Similarly, elliptic geometry with congruence left out is REAL PROJECTIVE geometry. This was developed (QUA Euclidean geometry augmented with points at infinity) long before ellipitc geometry itslef, and is still widely studied for its own interest. It excels affine geometry in the symmetry of its propositions of incidence, which occur in pairs in accordance with the "priniciple of duality." Moreover, it INCLUDES all other geometries that have been mentioned. For, by suitably defining perpendicularity we can restore the metrical properties of elliptic geometry, and by modifying the defintion we can derive instead hyperbolic geometry, Again, be specializing a plane (in the three-dimensional case) or a line (in the two-dimensional), we can derive affine geometry, and thence either Euclidean or Minkowskian. In the following "genealogy," each geometry (save the first) is derived from its parent by some kind of specialization" Projective
@@@@
descendent
Elliptic(sibling)Hyperbolic(sibling)Affine
################################descendentEuclidean, Minkowskian.
In the above remarks, we shall set aside all metrical considerations until Chapter v, and survey the foundations of real projective geometry, using the axioms of Pieri, Vailati,and Dedekind."
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
Axiomatic panbiogeography is a formation within geometry that has special biological notions of duality with for instance Woodger's word "Bauplan". Here are sample defintions of terms and a piece of deduction.
---------------------------------------
point-collection locality
colliear-
plane-
By Incidence Axiom#2 there exists 2 points from the original point not to fix the rules of translation in space and form-making in this time yet The orignal collection locality for practical continuation as the MARGINATA origination is unknown to this author at the present time is New Hampshire we seek the paramter of this locality be it % disalignment or some other set of characters including Henderson's character evolution
$$$$$$$$$$$$
To founded a simple distributional outlined by Croizat p1032 to the fundamental process of translation in space and form-making over the wide front of the Mississippi not the more local factors that segregated/interdigitated HETERDON NACIUS in the Illinois East of the Mississippi (one on each side of the Applachians (not Missippi) because nature can not be whimsical(by chance) in the enbd. (IF ONE OF THE INCIDENCE AXIOM#s EXISTED POINTS IN CHOSEN AS THE LOCOMOTORY ORIGIN OF marginata AT THE MSSISSIPPI RIVER AND THE)
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
If one forms two genearlized tracks, one track by Incidence Axiom #2 has a point and choosing this point and some xollinear line concurrently and the other track formed by the formation of the main massing to the south provided no node be found then these two genearlized tracks are not parallel. NOW BY 2.1 THE TWO TRACKS HAVE A UNIQUE POINT IN COMMON(cladisitc rule proposals into P of diverous model panbiogeography...2.1 If l and m are any two distinct genearlized tracks that are not parallel, then l and m have a unique point in common. if this point is a node then there is a derivative at the node. if this poin t is not a node then the continuousnes in the area is a plane boundary cutting colinear points (how comets need not be part of systematic constitution(KANT) or Newton on elastic and electric spirit and/or tensor representations of stress and momentum flows etc)Prop2.2 For every indiviudal track or geogrphic variation there is at least one node outside the are in the vicinity of whic Catastrohe THeory (Thom 1975) may be applied Prop2.3 For every collection there is at least one individual track or geographic vairation not passing thorugh its area(the principle of terminal taxon via a twoway velocity computational device haptically accessible able to make a translation in an abstract space between any projection within and an orderype of ornamental Eucledianisms).
--------------------------------------------------
The insistnece on statistical correlation rather than collineation has left current Croizat criticism duplict as to panbiogeography as method (not a pattern vs process) no matter the individual series of space, time and form. Seperation of descent with mechanisms is false compared with the objective nature of the duality principally applied by panbiogeographic subjectivity.
THREE Before deep holomolgy
It is possible that informed biochemists might have a somewhat different organization than that educed above os some attempt will be made to coordiante the formations thru suppostions of Faraday's unused thermal contact among the two kinds of identifiable 1-D symmetries in the genetic coded morphims' morphic space.
If the cardinality of both approaches are equivalent then the 1-D description (descriptive geometry with dynamic programming) of biological levels of organization suffices any 3-D level of selection possibly abducted prior to the pure math complete application. The assumption for information integration will be >> and ++ form two right angles potentially connectable by thermal contact. If such contiguity exists then there will be a transfer of electorns in two places no matter the energetic equivalnent of concurrent radiation transfers acutally or only in potential no matter the absolute inertial framework (ie whether to the pre1900 eather or post1900 same term.) Duplict intuition is not accessed in this constuction so far as knowledge of the Operon and the defintion of harmonic congugate suffice to establish a materiality cobbleable into a topobiological cell. If this match fails then it simply means that the Hamiltonians do not express the greater than dual governonr Gibbs suggested perverts populations no matter the physical impenetribility of roations correlated by the colineations to revolutions (for any one rotation and one revolution). The four real number that compose a Quaternion are perlimiarily assigned to cell, protein, RNA, DNA with the option of droping the quaternions if some other symbology is found more in set with the intergers that might net a rational subtraction from some reals (as if the irrationals and imaginaries dont work).
Gould wrote, "punctuated equlibrium does not merely assert the existence of a phenomenon, but ventures a stronger claim for a dominant role as a macroevolutionary pattern in geological time. But how can this vernacular notion of "dominant" be translated into a quantitative prediction for testing? At this point in the argument, we encounter the difficult (and pervasive) methodological issue of assesing the relative frequency in science of natural history....unusal cases...such a restriction..."case study"....objective reading."p773 and quotefossil study wont find it
"As with any good hypothesis, punctuated equilibrium will live or die by concrete and quantifiable evidence."p774
Creationism and baraminology in particular can still be read subjetively as a means to objectively dismiss too high relative frequency claims incidentally. Whether this is an accidnental social institution affect or a real natural effect remains to be "deprogrammed" becuase if the seperation of nonspiritual squence residue teaching where capitlaization "orbits" already WERE but there is no reason to TURN a spiritual truth no matter how perverse (911) in to the series for instance of Watson claim of Gates' money for disease alleomroph data FUNCTIONS. Lewontin has already questioned this. LIabity should not be about the strtucture of the data either but if we can live in peace then this might me an acceptable acccounting on EArth.
Gould noted, p771"ordinarily, we would find such a complete morphological transition on a single bedding plane, but be unable to perform any fine scale analysis in the absense of methods for dating individual shells. That is, we would be unable to discover whether the unusual morphological range represented a temporal transition or a standing population with enhanced variation. But Goodfreind and I could date the individual shells by amio acid racemization for all specimens, keyed to radiocarbon dates for amsaller set of marker shells." In this context one ought not forget that Veblen wrote in 1898, ~100yrs earlier, "In the natural sciences the work of the taxonomist was and continues to be of great value, but the scientists grew restless under the regime of symmetry and system-making. They took to asking why, and so shifted their inquires from the sturcture of the coral reefs to the structure of the habits of life of the polyp that lieves in and by them. In the science of plants, systematic botany to-day falls on the biological value of any give feature of structure, function, or tissue rhaterh on its taxomic bearing..."Quaterly Journal of Economics.
Gould exposed his grasp on the English language when he wrotep782,"As discussed in Chapter 8 (see pp.648-652), punctuated equilibrium wins this orle by refuting Fisher's otherwise decisive argument for the impotence (despite undeniable existnece) of species selection. So long as most new speices arise by branching (speciation) rather than transformation (anagenesis), species can be individuated by their uniquely personal duration, bounded by birth in branching
..."The totalizer's affordance may be kinematically defined WITHIN the stability of any given baramin homogenously so that it might already be available informationally as to the number per organic birth is larger or smaller than any specific birth delimited addtionally by the landscape that such births occur in. It might be that revolutions to the right or left can NOT in any coherent way be divided by bioloigcal heiracrhies. The different contibution of conservation of energy or quntification should however have been observed in this data space no matter. That's what I think. I could be wrong. At any rate baraminology by showing the issue in terms of centre and axis of harmonic homology LINES developed can figure this in should the taxonomist be employed signficantly. Current drug discovery is not in this enterpise at present.
If baraminologists continue to gain say neobiology by measurements FROM THE SOCALLED FOSSIL RECORD then continental evolutionists and particularly those in France will move back to the attraction of a balance sheet and genetic finanaical statement where attraction matches repulsion no matter the spirtual fact back of the data bank (for instance if the results are tested from the Jordan-Israel Library of life for instance.) The change in the owner's equity might even reach Einsteinian proportions but let me not get ahead of Von Nuemann's claim in a different Bauplan differntly. Mayrs exclaimation on Wose may survive where Gould's reliance on allopatry fails for Bohr's water drop is not Bridgman's dumbell light. The plainimeter may be all that is needed to show that creationism is cellualarlyup to date and hence MUST be taught provided these changes in the science occurr. Provine and other of his teaching must be removed from teaching neontology and given their "historical" jobs back only for if Veblen could have said, at the turn of the century
I can say at twist of this millenium that cell death may be a distubing cause to all but the subdiploid populations that interact no matter the level of selection of the replicator as if such exist but in the vain philosophy of the newer philosphers of biology. We have had two generations of evolutionists(actually more but I simply this for the big babys in academic chairs) as well as the partental duration so that it is high time for the child and studentt to be permitted to speak for themselves. Despite sound advances after the electric light and before the computer, digitization has all but silenced (perhaps for good though) verbal circulations of nonnegative inclination. May those serial sequencers weded to a Chomsky heirarchy disabuse themselves of the priveldge assets can not depreciate in the right of water to flow. And it rained for 40 fortnites.
Transformational anagenesis and anagenetic transformations are not necessarily the same things even if they might condition the same potential. If the majority of Gouldianbranches (the stair step of geological Gouldozoic time in the search for the intenal alien in all of us) are parallel polybaramins then the logical relation of mono and holo baramins might even find that polyplody out ranks any difference of sympatric and allopatric speciation in Dawkins insistence that the cambrian was NOT a differnt kind of event in time. But that is me making my best guess not figureing out what the data may acutally display. It nice to hear ones own view from time to time but it science is not like art so neither should creationism be despite the larger grammetological latitude that might be deconstructed"".
So as an end, to cease and desist to talk "across" generations with the current technology, I have begun to view the alleomorph series IN TERMS of quarternions as ordinals where ordertypes relate SETS of quarternions and heritible group rotations. I dont yet know if this will all add up but I am tired of waiting form someone else to start counting. I will. The behavior of bioinformatics thus could become foucsed NOT on multiple alignments in protein familes but rather the recessive affect on the sequence due to intrarotation but nOT intra quarternion correlation outside the genic selectionist priveldge. Futher more the four real numbers could be rederived under changes in techonology should the replication of Mayr's genetic revolution be bagged with any beans eaten by the researchers as they suggest means that fossils can even go beyond Gould's use of Chemistry while adjudicating Wolfram's insistence of over pricing for a faliure to set debits equal to credits in the small or assests = liabilites + equity for any FALIURE to appreciate known deme influence.
Decent and mechanism ARE NOT seperable and Provine (and Darwin for that matter)would be historically wrong to assert (and did against Johnons) otherwise. Gould was out of his league to uncategorically attempt to do to show that bioloigcal heirarchies are allometric ONLY (says Gould) and not fractal(self similar). TIME durations get better concepts this way. It may be that secular rejection of Faraday's Christianity is all that was at issue an and as such should not really alter any nonspitual sequence of causality and showed that while this was nOT a chruch vs State issue it was still too hedonistically declined that morality was wrongly was indiffernt in my own time to the older ether or transformed atom. 1923 is not 1973.
So discontinuity systematics may be the first taxonomic discipline to properly circumscribe the sufficiency and naming as one steps down from a Lineaon to a DeVriesian Jordonian becuase in truth there as well as be this grammetical lexicology with multiple "species" per starting as well as no such thing as "survival of the fittest" but only cell collectivities grouped by left and right translations of differnt kinds but there may indeed be more than one way to spread time thru space( more than one morphometric tangent reference form objective tangent per D'Arcy Thompson metric of any volumentric vs surface force figured centripetally in that mutations may have multipolar relations to the thermal currents and not the presumed so far only bipolar) These leads if not to a more univocal use of the word "poly baramin". The notion of Enstein's clock in abox gets worked out textually here and the possibility that absolute polar relations of harmonic congugate geometry expresses any Galton regression of a literal means for gravity from Brownian motion sense would exist in the DNA thru RNA to protein would exist due to its actual size no matter the level of selection thought in.
There may be no such thing as "survival of the fittest". Is it not possible that there is only one way(did I say ONE?) to spread TIME over space biologically? We generally accept that Darwin did not understand FORM in so far as he missed the idea of Mendel proportionately. Croizat has fairly voluminously pointed out in life that Darwin did not understand SPACE but did he also not understand time?
The idea that there is only one way to spread time over space biologically IS NOT reductionistic as the first criticisms of this idea are likely to capitulate for it is spread over the space form-making occurs in (both translation in space AND formed cell populations). I can rather not accept before trying out this idea Gould's nonpopable stacking orders which implicate as to epistemic frequencies required accounting of incidences no matter the coincidence but the Dawkins alterntive WILL reduce to the metric available should only ONE way to spread time be found particularly as nanotech technically proceeds. If such is the case Gould's slight against the time in anageness will evaporate with a more instruemental apporach to any potential two way velocities tha+ I represent so far here. The symbol or sign for this time would not be Fourier's nor Einstein's suffiently for it will still be unresolved how far mankind can get the nervous system into different levels of organizations frequently per incidence geometries but it might be that there is a linguistic conflict between the concept of tensors and adaptation. I just have not thought Bridgman's words "dynamics and electrodynamics" far enough yet but logically if Darwin was off with regard to space, time AND form I think it high time to stop bringing his name first and foremost to the biologist's school of lower learning.
I have never had the idea that time may be different for form-making over biological change time and yet in the face of Kelvin Darwin thought this explicitly. Gould's citing Goethe as a test case for his own structure unfortunately continues this kind of past time. There is nothing I can see so far logically (but I have not applied the Russel Cantor difference in the Poincare vs Einstein individual population as of yet) that Gould is theoretically on the functional path of good future operations with a claim for PE as to frequency but I begin to narrate the science one step earlier with the notion of incidental contanct. If the particular as well as the one wayof spreading time across the space and translation in space occurs inter alia then...and the idea of different 'ages' could go by this way side (Mesozoic, Cenozoic, Gouldazoic) because time no matter the origin would be SPREAD the same way for all 1st law of thermo. It would be quite an error to establish that Darwin and Gould got the cycle wrong because they relied on time changes rather than a wrong probablism of covariance between a cow and cat but let me not question without results. Provine admitted that every one, not only Wright, wanted to know how much the hand vs head contributed to overall size and perhaps by eliminating Darwin's connectivity of past generations adaptively (with newer technology) we can turn Wright's balance into a fulcrum not only twisting but actually transforming the interpretation of equations asscociated with the names of Poincare and Lornez when I should have been talking about Faraday so far instead. It may even be that this newer concept of time, a creationist idea of existence with the appearence of age, not only will build newer techonology than that which approved of its own existence but that the logical consults of Bridgman will have achieved an instrumental and pracitical truth denied explictly by the evolutionists individual concept of surivial of the fittest. It might be found that biology was more in cohoots with the corportate genotype economically than could be rationally supported as to the numerical insults as well as the grammetical.
The idea of idea I have in mind is that the details of mole bio accumulate information not merely about density relations but about information (not programs) of the stochiometric eventuality of coincidences (1-D) thermal currents ionically match to time of heat transfer by Brownian motion during the survial (without cell death) of DNA,RNA,Protein chemistry. There would be NO survival of the fittest individual under sexual reproduction but merely cellular existence with the apperence of age (perhaps meaning adaptation"" but I can not say that yet) namely state of NOT undergoing programmed cell death by incidence without coincidence!!
The notion of group selection needs some modification particularly with respect to sexual selection for instance in salamanders under neophenogenic behavior by dissipative accounts for instance that would be completely calcuated from the temperature changes due to the rotation and revolution of the Earth for any baraminthought or Jodanon achieved this way would have first been concived as a two way velocity cone calculation and that is less likely than simply a dissection of the tissue with "isothermals". The entire history of sociolobiology and relation of group selection to geneic selection would need to be rewritten on the basis of being a subset of non-eucledian geometry but it is far from clear how noncommutativity is to be ordinated even given nonmathematical information the heirarchy would suggest. IT WOULD NOT BE A THING however but a potential and whether this has any relation to Maxwell's electrotonics would need to be elimiated before completing the addtion of supplemental space and time information to population genetics. OOP may be of some assistance here as well as the Library of Life.
FIVE
Supposition of perversions coded Pascal behind translations revolved right or left. Jordanons and the formation of a monobaramin by different dyad, triad,quuaad, etc governors in the holobaramin perverting the polybaramin node enumeration of stress vs baseline mass contribution ot inertia (not no matter the code) without any descent with modification (no seperation of descent and mechanism but some measure or vaccum between descent continuity and kinematics layers (see Galelio etc).
If so then progressive development exists in addition in addition to statistical stochometrics of neophenogenic behaviors or the conserved ecological same as of this time. Provine was defrauding at best and illegally stating at worst when asserting both there is no dissent in any seperation of descent and modfication mechanically. He also said evolutionary theorizing implies no purposive forces but it really only indicates categorical statistical seperation among stableizing central, stableizing extreme, directional, and disruptive without interactivity purposive or otherwise all endogenouss thermally for instance the idea in neophenogenesis of ecologically started morph changes vs possible all behavioral cases. Time for natural and artificial selection could theoretically assort coincidentally within aforesaid distributions but be statistically different. This may be a very small probablity but to deny it in place of also similarly significant possibility that God created everything ex nihilio is unconciable especially when he prevented a such a one behaviorially as me from not "flunking out." A little more attention from him was all that was required but he had the axe and me only the neck.
[This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 04-26-2004]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by coffee_addict, posted 04-23-2004 2:24 PM coffee_addict has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by coffee_addict, posted 04-26-2004 5:03 PM Brad McFall has replied

  
coffee_addict
Member (Idle past 477 days)
Posts: 3645
From: Indianapolis, IN
Joined: 03-29-2004


Message 9 of 16 (102863)
04-26-2004 5:03 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by Brad McFall
04-26-2004 4:55 PM


Re: I was trying to avoid putting all this out. Lam called the hand
It would help if you could summarize generally what the heck you are arguing for in a few sentences.
We are approaching the end of our semester, so my brain isn't working as well as before.
Come to think of it, what are we arguing about? Someone please tell me what the f*** is going on!

The Laminator

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Brad McFall, posted 04-26-2004 4:55 PM Brad McFall has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by Brad McFall, posted 04-26-2004 5:05 PM coffee_addict has replied

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5032 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 10 of 16 (102865)
04-26-2004 5:05 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by coffee_addict
04-26-2004 5:03 PM


Re: I was trying to avoid putting all this out. Lam called the hand
THAT IS what I am arguing. It's really in as few sentences possible. Somethings and times in life are not complex we just need learn how to see this complex, what is complex as simple.
In one sentence,(ask anyone here)
I have been consitently "arguing" that there is NO POLARITY of creationism and evolution. The sentences and minimal comparison I gave is not this strong leaving epistemic correlation to substitute for lack of a bipolar c/e I asserted before now and right write now.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by coffee_addict, posted 04-26-2004 5:03 PM coffee_addict has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by coffee_addict, posted 04-26-2004 5:09 PM Brad McFall has replied

  
coffee_addict
Member (Idle past 477 days)
Posts: 3645
From: Indianapolis, IN
Joined: 03-29-2004


Message 11 of 16 (102867)
04-26-2004 5:09 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by Brad McFall
04-26-2004 5:05 PM


Re: I was trying to avoid putting all this out. Lam called the hand
Ok, I seriously do not remember when I started arguing with you on this. If I have stated something in the past that indicated this, I'll take it back.
This is a little above my head.

The Laminator

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by Brad McFall, posted 04-26-2004 5:05 PM Brad McFall has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by Brad McFall, posted 04-26-2004 5:12 PM coffee_addict has replied

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5032 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 12 of 16 (102869)
04-26-2004 5:12 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by coffee_addict
04-26-2004 5:09 PM


Re: I was trying to avoid putting all this out. Lam called the hand
Ok, all's square in c&e!
-------
we now bring you back to what air is our own.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by coffee_addict, posted 04-26-2004 5:09 PM coffee_addict has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by coffee_addict, posted 04-26-2004 5:18 PM Brad McFall has replied

  
coffee_addict
Member (Idle past 477 days)
Posts: 3645
From: Indianapolis, IN
Joined: 03-29-2004


Message 13 of 16 (102872)
04-26-2004 5:18 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by Brad McFall
04-26-2004 5:12 PM


Re: I was trying to avoid putting all this out. Lam called the hand
You know, one of these days my head will explode while trying to decipher your hidden messages.

The Laminator

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by Brad McFall, posted 04-26-2004 5:12 PM Brad McFall has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by Brad McFall, posted 05-03-2004 1:02 PM coffee_addict has not replied

  
Itachi Uchiha
Member (Idle past 5615 days)
Posts: 272
From: mayaguez, Puerto RIco
Joined: 06-21-2003


Message 14 of 16 (102892)
04-26-2004 6:43 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by crashfrog
04-20-2004 4:40 PM


Good One
crashfrog writes:
They don't say, and let's keep in mind that the CIA is not infallible, as I hear some Iraqis discovered recently.
great example

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by crashfrog, posted 04-20-2004 4:40 PM crashfrog has not replied

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5032 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 15 of 16 (104938)
05-03-2004 1:02 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by coffee_addict
04-26-2004 5:18 PM


Re: I was trying to avoid putting all this out. Lam called the hand
Guess what Lam,
there was NOTHING hidden!!
It was simply Will Provine calling "orthogonal"(negatively) what was a "kind" in Wright's ideas while I THINK this is the 'grade' in Hukley which instead of being hidden by Will's atheism or agnosticism came out with giving me a "grade" at cornell I did not deserve not because I had a better intution of the grade than will but becuase I allowed God's will to be this omnipotent BUT struggled to express my own ideas of space and time. Will just thought the whole thig was too abstract and HENCE too expensive(sic!) to figure out. Wright admonished him but this did not mean he would have given me the other ear. In fact he did not.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by coffee_addict, posted 04-26-2004 5:18 PM coffee_addict has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024