Bible and "kind"

Are you saying that Wright's use of this word, "kind", in a paper on the statistical consequences of Mendelism is only "historical" and NOT scientific??? Wright even seperate the word out between commas. Come on what more do you need? Me on thorzine???

yeah, I realized that "after" I reread your post. The only thing I would say is that it does no good to give the word "history" or "historical" for the real issue aka the minor use of Wright on this is that it seems to be LARGER than Punc Eq but smaller than ALL Life while depending on how vertebrate lineages are diagrammed. Gould manages an end turn or pop up ball becuause of arthopod wings and hoxology which is why I am exicted to apply Gladyshev to "doxology" sound of Gould as this will NOT be dull in the issue of small peak shifts that at best non-creationists think can ONLY be understood by numerical techniques while I hold out a possiblity of resolution in the LOGICAL use of different baramin descriptions. It is possible for evolutionary theory to catch up to discontinuity systematics if for instance the track width of Croizat were used for ANY nonequilibrium affect in the effect of gene frequency changes but I could not even get a degree making camera lucida PICTURES of snakes so unless things have changed with this new extention on MANN LIBRARY (where I am at now) (and it doesnt appear as if any thing has changed) then it will not be possible to get the equilibrium approach of Gladyshev, Wright, Me and a balance of polybaramins across. Some day perhaps we will know if what I did not have a problem with in elementary and secondary school gets cleared up in the elite and PNAS populace but for now it seems against the history whomevers it is. Best, Brad. GOOD DAY-

Crash,
I was quite dumbfounded when I went to the literature yesterday after tying to think thru Gladyshev's law relative to biological change and it was supprising indeed that we/people can answer your question and have the kind apply to cats or primates. The issue seems to have been that Provine INSISTED on PHENOTYPIC incomprehensibility of Wright's various landscapes BECAUSE they (Provine, Gould, others) NEVER applied the "balance" to what S*H*IFTS from physiologically to ecologically IN the difference of grade and clade. As far as I know this is undefined as to spiders but can easily be reconstructable panbiogeographically with cats and primates. Further the reason seems to be that this had not been accomplished biogeographically ONLY becuase then the elite would have to admit on any "fission" the possiblity of panmictic logical seperation. Further becuase of the literature of group theory the elite seem to try only to BALANCE the population not the materiality that shifted INTO whatever the population would have been. Working on understanding the applicability of Gladyshev's PRINCIPLE in terms of any hierarchical law that might have levels removed or interposed genetically led me to uderstand this very simple error that it must have been Gould's mission instead of this kind to compare and contrast Paley and Aggasiz. I really dont see the need to assert any hardening if Wright's SHIFTHIING BALANCE is cognized within Gladyshev's equibrateable LAW on time. It is quite suprising that this has not appeared in the literature and likely is traced back to the issues surrounding Schamlhausen where instead of going immediately to higher levels (say primate rather than cat) one should consider behavior univocally (aka Tinbergen on Cornell behavior research and the lab of O). It was all too easy once I saw this because Gould NEVER answers Provine's reliance on Wright's invocation of orthogonality which can keep all your kinds in the spider kind by fiat but actually data would be better. Gladyshev has recommened that anyone insterested in this kind of conversation seriously study some textbooks in physical chemsitry because by doing so one might be able to use ones natural history sense to resource the SHIFT phsysioloigcally via a Gladyshev principle TO the ecological or behavior FROM the population IN THE SAME EQUILIBRIUM that might even be subject to classical thermodynamic constraints on the data.In particular (in addition to more info on entropy which I will add) Georgi suggested:

quote:

---

I consider it will be very useful if you recommend to anybody, who would
like to have a part in our discussion, to have a look at any good textbook
of physical chemistry.

​

In this case, there would not be any mistakes and misunderstanding. We will
understand each other very well! For example, there is the excellent
textbook in the USA: Alberty R.A. Physical Chemistry; 7th Ed.; Wiley: New
York, etc, 1987. 934 p. May be there is the next edition?

​

There are many terms in this book, which we use in chemistry, biochemistry,
biophysical chemistry, and physics, and so on. Some new terms one can find
in my website: http://www.endeav.org/evolut/age/sntut/sntut.htm (in:
http://www.endeav.org/evolut )

---

[This message has been edited Brad McFall, 05-04-2004]

Jar,
WIZ had "when". I had only some mammal division with the idea that primtes were "smater" than cats. It is possible my ideas on behvior could be DISPROVED (say within Wright's curve WITHIN Gladyshev's law etc) but to answer "in kind" and not for mere discussion's sake ONE WOULD HAVE TO HAVE a means to quantify any relation of TIME of Gould(geologically) and Gladychev(physcio-chemically) for any of the ECOLOGY that was under the condition of shift either from downward causation (Gould) or upward (Gladyshev). This is not to say that macrothermo does not have downward causality but I only seperate that for dicdactic purposes only. The is a YEC of a world differenc between my brother's teenage fasination with primates and mind with herps where Greg was looking into the work on teaching primates to communicate with humans while he went on to to Information Technology BELIEVING that Chomsky (natural language) was correct but that I realize(d) instead for any series the Chomsky heirarchies probably DO NOT APPLY CORRECTLY to the Galdyshev Law for all vertebrates and certainly for that subset of translation in space and form-making that I think the LAW will in prinicple be shown evident (hoxology) hopefully in my life time.There is a real issue here but it is difficult to draw beyond my CLAIM of grade/clade confusions where David Z Albert (TIME AND CHANCE) wrote (Quantum Mechanics p 133 "(footnote4)The empirical thermodynamical consequences of the classical and the quantum-mechanical versions of statistical mechanics are (or course) going to differ - but those differences...""And the thing I want to think through in this last chapter is whether or not there might be more to the story than that. The thing I want to think through in this last chapter is whether or not the transition to quantum theories might somehow (while we're at it) accomodate a much more radical and more interesting sort of transformation of the strucutre of statistical mechanics"that was"above-mentioned quantum mecahical correlate."p133It might or might not be MORE than this as to the confusion I have certainly biologically been able to write in the "TRANSLATION" or SHIFT that occurs in graphs of both grades and clades by data divisions of any combined phenotype and geneotype. I see no acutal reason (there are plenty of discussions for discussing (only) ones)to disagree with GPGLADYSHEV that some such new notion of statisical mechanics is needed here biologically and Georgi was right to suggest that perhaps I was being overinfluenced by reasoning such as David's I have started to USE to show that the KIND that is the connotation of the shifting could indeed be replaced by some understanding perhaps of the time that might be relaxed in the process but I am needing to study more of the formalisms as it is only needed a twist between grade and clade not an acutal defintion of the real processes and systems at issue. It is clear that Gould's OTHER use of time than this IS NOT NECESSARY from Wright's perspective but if Wrights BALANCE is substantiallly a part of G's RULE of the relation of thermos then Gould's ideas on time could be even possibly DISPROVEN within the machination of G's ideas BECAUSE Of Gould's failure to embrace actual physical imposition in biological form. This need data though but I think I have phrased that juggernaut correctly. It may be that Gould would have wanted to just use his concepts if we had direct evidence of the substractions from a GPG heirarchy. In another time I have thought that this would involve addtions in vertebrates and substractions in invertebrates (crudly) but that was a thought I only had once. That kind is highly less reliable. I have suggested in addtion to the interpretation of Wright a slightly different "principle" than Gladyshev in the small but I HAVE NO IDEA if it works(is true). That is something I need to figure out for my self before discussing it.

Or is the first question rather the "unitelliable" one?A body, any body, enters "into it" becuase they(it) is/are INTELLIGABLE. You have one and I have a nose. That is part of My "body". While Will Provine could have been mentoring me he instead was writing up his "masterful"(Gould) biogography of Sewall Wright but rather than come to me exicted about the body of Wright's work he, Provine, was coming to the conclusion that what Wright was thinking was "unintelligable", namely how the body fits into it. It is unclear to me if Gould has still retained any continuity of said body or nose or eye or Rei etc so let me today answer only for the body of Will. What Will said was "unitelligable" WAS a body. Specifically the individual genotype mapped onto a set of gene frequencies presenting a population. While it may be so for ANY BODY (including aliens) should they exist, that "it does not even start to work" in general I SEE NO REASON FOR ANYONE (anybody) to conclude that their are not restrictive conditions in which this "mapping" IS possible and I have my OWN body of ideas on it. Instead, take the physical chemistry that G.Gladyshev details macrothermodynamically and I bet my body on it, if you/one work(s) out the math it may be possible to find a body (independently of any I might or may propose) of connectivity of data about 'bodies' (as you called it) that maps onto the Wright SURFACE. Sure this is likely to be a one to many map of from a many onto one continuum but that IS INTELLIGABLE and so is your body and mine execept that we dont have video conferencing for instance here on EVC. The avatars are enough for me. This missing CONCEPT seems to be the Cantor Ordertype but the physical chemistry will speak for itself"" and makes finding the relation of phenotype to geneotype restrictions a bit more combersone but not unintelligable.WE must first KNOW if Gould meant that Fisher's impotence applied to spirt or soul(birth of individual vs birth of species) as you sounded it out but I would stick with the data of physical chemistry before trying to build into the Gladyshev social heirarchy. And if I am correct and Gould mistaken to discount Hausdorff dimension then there may even be a deducible body of genotypes that are a percent of some total genomic measure where the mapping may predict values to be ascertained with populations in nature (social,animal, vegtable etc etc etc).
Only once issues of eco-justice are dealt with provided THAT happens should the issue of soul vs spirit more properly appear. All in good time. Brad.

Yes but it will be relevant once I get the whole heirarchy laid out and down. Huxley for fishs' sake had to diagram the salamnders all the way over on the right in order to maintain a symmetrical ideality of a clade BETWEEN birds and mammals for ANY notion of TIME that is commonsensically irreversible. The notion of transitional as I wish to see it applied invovles the issue of EXPLANING total genomic size as well as any macro morph subjectivity involved so if salamanders IS the question here especally as soon as one stops looking at Hukley's geometry and merely notices what grades Huxley puts "?" marks in. The is figure is reproduced in GOTTLIEB's Neophenogensis book where he also discusses behvaior relative to genome size. THE POINT GRADE WISE was, that the apodians CAN NOT BE SO placed ON EITHER SIDE OF THE SALAMANDERS as trastitionals in this threads sense if the total DNA of birds and fish be not subject to question relative to mammals and all of this results without looking at the amount of DNA in other "kinds" (such as spiders).Of course 'saying' this as I have and showing how the DNA can be explained formally is another thing but the stubling block IS THE CURRENT BIOLOGICAL ESTABLISHMENT (whether being criticized by creationists or not) that sees and teaches it "unitelligable" to curve up to this surface and permits society to label its best student ill if they have something else to say ABOUT THE GRADES or reptiles vs amphibians. It is not the same thing to talk only about fish!!!!!!!! The fact that the clade was demonostrated there between the warm bloods and the nonuse of macrothermodynamics should light up a few photons in anyones' heart but if one is not sensitive or thought wrongly in the cold-blooded diversity as Lewontin did (he might not any more. I dontknow) should not mean that creationist are railed gainst in disucsing for discussing sake when it is the message not the messenger that IS THIS problem in entropy like thermodynamics. We need smart people like exist here on EvC to work it out as the schools certainly are not.

In order to understand what i am saying about salamanders all one has to do is a little resarch on the cacelian scale. It will be VERY instuctive to work it up macrothermodynamically for its morphology seems even possibly susecptible to issues in physics of symmetry breaking so it is quite kinematically possible that patterns of supramoleuclar aggreation clump out SYSTEMATICALLY differnt forms in branches that might be geometrically determined to be WITHIN a line down the middle of Huxley's clade(statically) which divides all amphibians but one would need to resolve the US-French disaggrement on the relative worth phenetically of the annuli to morphspace biogeographically perhaps first. None the less even my ideas of Wolfram's "simple programs" (which I personally dislike but do not let my feelings get in the way of evalutaion in science)work with this particular body of soma.So quite simply if the 1-D order of DNA sequences which maxs out in total base pair measures splits this symmetry in scale formation differntly on right from left sides as to relation of branchiing to aggregation we have both the sows ear and the silk purse but it is allways and everyways unwise to assert a silver bullet. The point is the work is intelligebale to the graduate level of understanding. I have passed my undergraduate stage without the degree but I dont care anymore.

And so right you were,
for I was for a time past thinking a lot about the Colbert's (I think ideas ) on Permian Turtle lineages which I have since long buried in my reading list for issues of catastrophism (as the turtle as a bit of SEEMING radial symmetry phenomenoligcall to deal with(Plastron vs Carapace in hinge vs nonhinge VS Kinosternidae vs SOFTSHELLS etc etc etc). This I know see as mere GEOMETRICAL association of grades and clades but not necessarily sufficent to reach the physical level necessary to trump Provine reading of Wright.You see your second question shows you already KNOW how to think about clades. But I have NEVER been able to simply replace what I think might occur by aggregation with what may or may not occur by some branching process. The issue of cell death raises all kinds of problems for me in this light if one is thinking of differentiation as a branching process when it can also be thought somewhat aggregationally. I did think a lot about the Permian herps and the issue of the way the bone is perpendicular up off the back but the since hoxology this simple kind of homology vs analogy analysis fails to hold up but you might be able to apply that as you suggested. I think rather the issue of the fish digits' number is first however. But I, BSM, gave A LOT of thought to behavior in turtles relative to the existence of water-air transitions and the kinetic theory of gases so i would not count the tuts out once more than total length be the operative genetic context for the content of any aggreagation process. You notion seems off to me but I could be wrong as it seems to INVERT the relation of clade to grade that Huxley proposed. I am not saying it is impossible to think only that one would have found out other things about crabs for instance in Croizat method of the same which would come along for the thought. I am tryin to reach beyond a simple English difference of grade and clade which should(issues of age and area where amphibians vs reptiles seem particularly clearly relevant before extending to warm bloods vs gill slits)be approahable biogeographically and to which work I would have preferred come my way but alas that last communciation with New Zealanders has not and instead I can not but take to heart what G Gladyshev said to me as it seems very very very obvious how possibly proovable wrong Provine has been. I have only suspected it before but now I am on the scent of his "unintelligable" and that really is only what he said about me not salamander or the electric fish i rather tried to talk to him and others about the necessity of trying to do selective breeding with.

SO my point was (with Loudmouth in attendance and contributing...) that there is NOT A "break-down" only a fusion we confuse between branching and aggregation. Supramoleuclar aggregates in time hierarchies may be one mediator. The level I used to provent( proactive-invention) is MUCH higher and involves CURRENT DEBATE about the very definition of "an amphibian".

LM,
I am looking at this from G. Gladyshev:

quote:

---

Dear Brad,

​

This is my quote (from my site and my book) indeed! (Post: 332, berberry).

​

"During the last decades, an opinion has widely spread that there is . Besides, it is claimed that
this contradiction
living systems by the methods of equilibrium thermodynamics>. The author of
the present work states: if living systems are described in the framework of
hierarchic equilibrium thermodynamics, this contradiction does not exist.
" .

​

I would like to point out this quote is connected with the statement of I.
Prigogine. The statement one can find in the caver (and in a text) of his
well-known monograph.

​

I said about the contradictions between classical thermodynamics (as this
believe some scientists) and "biological order and laws of physics -
particularly the second law of thermodynamics". Now, the law of temporal
hierarchies has been discovered and we can use the approaches of the
thermodynamics of quasi-closed systems. Before my works, it was no
possibility to apply the equilibrium thermodynamics (quasi-equilibrium
thermodynamics, thermodynamics of quasi-closed systems) to investigate the
open living systems.

​

The situation with the thermodynamics is an analog of situation with the
entropy! There are different "types of thermodynamics". Scientists know
about this! I say, as a rule, about classical (equilibrium or
quasi-equilibrium thermodynamics).

​

Deer Brad,

​

I consider (I said about this before) it will be very useful if you
recommend to anybody, who would like to have a part in our discussion, to
have a look at any good textbook of physical chemistry.

---

Before I looked at Huxley's diagram I found an OLD (late 20 or early 40s?) penciled sketch of a LINE with "worm" at one end and a split at the other with "birds" on ONE SIDE and "mammals" on the other and THE LINE being labeled AS ONE Amphibians-Reptiles in my Gradfathers personal possesion. I suspect it was his and he wrote it for teaching purposes at college. Huxley DID NOT draw this same figure but has THE SAME LINE!!. Hukley "pushed" the salamanders to the end of his drafting table to get them on the paper where he showed how clade is realted to anagenesis. Gould in his own way took the question MARKS OVERLAID ON THIS PAPER and made the whole punc eq out of NEW CLOTHE!!But now there were NO salamdeers and NO line connecting reptiles and amphibians. If an apodian looks like a line and DNA lengths dont work in the explanation something is very wrong with the picture being presented. The only justification is somethin really as extreme as Wofram's but I dont believe that. I could be wrong. It's hard to imagine that as then IT WOULD HAVE TO BE TRUE AS WELL THAT I AM INSANE. I am not. Sister species can tell us a lot but I, personally, want to see what they have to do with geography first because by refusing to view whatever the real correlations are with the grades (to any clade) one can think of any relation of soma one wishes. I do this in baraminology becuase of the DISCONTINUITYES implied (but whose to say these really exist?). Just think what Huxley's diagram would have looked like if he did not make all grades for each category of vertebrate he CHOOSE to diagram (he did not diagram cacealians!) to be CONES OF INCREASING DIVERSITY. And that is the point the sister groups will assist in determing the flux of relative grades but Gould went after the terminal end to end stacking issue instead of the internal one that might be discontinuous but continuous in a Gladyshev hierarchy. Why then does Mayr NOT embrace PE completely and how come Wright can eaisly be read to indicate that this diagram (as I interpret it) is ONLY ABOUT ECOLOGY not species selection??The salamander IS truely transitional in the sense of this thread. It is a body with no position. I was suprised to read you indicate your intent on trying to "shunt" what you personally percieve as creationist threads by way on linkage. I never do or did that. But I can only explain so much with the words "clade" and "grade". Croizat for instance was much concerned that Hennig "took" (it) from him.The solution seems to be however not with all this possible talk to talk for sake of the society and world but very simply to SHOW THAT AN INDIVIDUAL GENOTYPE in its own line (properly a Wrightian distribution curve) is ONTO a surface ordinated if not ordertyped by genefrequencies. Writing the program to accomplish this is a whole other practiaclly dynamic thing. I dont mean to sound harsh but I am getting cranky in my age and tired of going over the same ground all the time. I have not been able to determine if Gould COOPTED Provine's scholarhsip for his own purposes or if he could be documentably shown to be in this dark on the dark.I have NO conception morphologiaclly of physical change in the sense that Permian (is a different physical time) except in the sense of aline. The beasts all just appear as differntly shaped to me. I would get exhausted if I tried to explain some of the minor thought paths I have gone down when trying to reconstrcut the chages of a tadpole into a frog and dont forget what Newton said about it relative to light and heat!The reason you might disagree is that you are probably trying to figure a "branch" where I assert by right of extant amphibian bodies only aggregations can exist. It is clear where on Huxley's diagram the branck split is. (between mammals and birds) which is where it was in my Grandfathers but Huxley obviously gave more thought to the penmanship than Stan. It is true in Gould's sense Huxley would grant by DEFINTION (of grade) license to compose a sister group from between any grade but Huxley ONLY SHOWED the expanding cone of grades and my WHOLE THINKING HERPETOLGOICALLY is about whether or not a particular grade is larger or smaller than that immiedately adjancent. I had the perfect subject in the work snake which is ONE GENUS, TWO SPEICES, THREE SUBSPECIES split by Mississipi, and Appalachians and I was TRYING to figure out the grades on STATE BY STATE basis in the US when I was hospitalized becuase the faculty refused to continue to think this evolutionarily. I am sorry if you can see the line in all of this but it is here and you dont need to read between the lines.In truth, BIBLICAL KINDS may not be "to do the oppiosite" I have some indication that baramins and a particular view of ice age distributions in Croizat may be biogeographically homologous but that is a subjective feeling of a panbiogeographer and not the objective evidence of the DNA sequence I will be using "to make the same" case instead. If you think that Gould's detailed reasoining on pythons and lizards is correct just wait till I take that muscle OFF the rib. I havent gotten started on snake evolution in a long while and if you keep it up I might have to put a few colubrids in their zenodontinae place.Again, Loudmouth I very much would not like it if you did not post to me but this issue of grade and clade is OVER now that I have understood Galdyshev's ideas better. The only question is how much of the orthodox biology has to go and if as we do do sometimes here hear about how much further it might even go if some of the more heterodox creaionist ideas are also correct. The persisent heterodoxoy is not only a secular thing.But we REALLY CAN reach the idea that there is NO contradiction in GPG's words as I said when I was marhsalling metaphysics that there is no real C/E Polarity. I will rest on the empirical data of the apodian scale if you insist so draw out my unique nose like turbule that cross the mouth uniquely in the line creatures of no leg and well see if the tripod stands.and yes yes, I can discuss it "in the fossil record" but the physcial data I would have to limit myself to would be Gould's refusal to see D'Arcy Thompson's seque (via surface to volume issues) from shoulder bone to transforms PHYSICALLY. I have just barely begun to try out my thought on bone deformation and physics.This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 05-06-2004 06:05 PM

I have SAID
GOSH YOU GUYS HAVE TO STOP IGNORING IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!KIND- is related to the notions of clade and grade via rotations and revolutions. THAT IS WHAT THEY ARE INDEPENDENTLY OF ANY PARTICULAR BARAMINOLOGT'S ASSERTION OF THE DISCONTINUTY!!!!!!!!!

Search the word "perversion" please. This was my USE OF GIBBS BEFORE I had communicated with Georgi Gladyshev.

"kinds" can be retrodicted evidentially from any grade symmetry in a type by equilibrium priciples provided the class variation recieves a biogeographic measure. We dont know how to do this yet yet this does not mean that the use of this word IN SCIENCE is "belief". If what you said is true than I assert a clade via uniform time appearence even when deceptive is also only something something believed.This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 06-02-2004 06:57 PM