Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Behe's Irreducible Complexity Is Refuted
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5032 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 192 of 223 (102877)
04-26-2004 5:36 PM
Reply to: Message 185 by Cold Foreign Object
04-24-2004 5:07 PM


This is really quite a strech but I will enter it just for flaging if necessary in the future.
IF MACR0THERMODYNAICS only works for bilaterians (no jelly fish or coral reef polyps in a whole population etc)(and we have (thus) notion thus of BAUPLAN seperable from clade)it may only be polybarmins that ONLY(becuase of thermal contact undrstood to paradigmatic new norm(if)) currently classify scaling to the kingdom level, the changes underwending then, it may be possible to DEDUCE chemical correlations across what we currently study only in terms of adaptations to light which would be simply equilibria comprehended in Paley's natural theology as to Plank folded within be reduced to a creationist legacy currently undsupported both by right of creatonism and lack of influence of macrothermodynamics. The ICR position that ID tacks or adds GOD ON would then be ripe for the plucking.We are not revolving like this yet though.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 185 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 04-24-2004 5:07 PM Cold Foreign Object has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 196 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 04-26-2004 8:07 PM Brad McFall has replied

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


Message 198 of 223 (103186)
04-27-2004 8:37 PM
Reply to: Message 196 by Cold Foreign Object
04-26-2004 8:07 PM


snail mail from Russia is here
I was away as you know and couldnt pick it up.
I will be reading OUT GP's"Discussing the formation of the supramolecular structures in the living nature some authors often speak about increasing orderliness of the system by evolution in the living nautre due to the accumulation (production) of the "low-entropy product". Meanwhile it was established long ago that...Thus the entropy of the system increases as well. The latter fact testifies to the increasing amount of "high-entropy product" but in no way of the "low-entropy product""and"The apologists...However, if to speak about the classical entropy (S) all above mentioned arguments must be rejected as deprived of the physical sense."
to effect of "It follow from the above that the thermodynamic theory leaves no room for creationism, unless, of course, it is only the creation of living beings that is associated with this notion(this sometimes happens)."
I will make more of Gladyshev's work available without my own clinamatic(metic) comments on the metric.
[This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 04-27-2004]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 196 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 04-26-2004 8:07 PM Cold Foreign Object has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 202 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 04-28-2004 12:23 AM Brad McFall has not replied

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


Message 204 of 223 (103342)
04-28-2004 9:35 AM
Reply to: Message 203 by PaulK
04-28-2004 4:34 AM


to prop Behe or be discrepent?
As soon as possible I will be attempting to present a prediction/calculation (bearing on said probablisms) of "low entropy product" USING Quarternions setting up a low-high equlibrium (process vs system for any probalism (either way)) that summed masks the RELATIVE LOWENTROPY(I will define in the system) (hence "fact" refered to in my post immediately above) which I will at first make out a constraint on heritbility due to contribution cellularly of sub diploid (genetic context) to total DNA content which will retrodict an intersection of development and environment (due to relation of rotations and revolutions or pure inertia etc) such that different individual hierarchies can have larger low-entopy product PROCESS per indistinguishable high-entropy SYSTEMS. A specific notion of TIME will be used but this does not mean that just becuase Behe is not against gradualism in some sense (this would be one of them) that the objection about the multiple universe probabilites is still not in order.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 203 by PaulK, posted 04-28-2004 4:34 AM PaulK has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 205 by Loudmouth, posted 04-28-2004 2:41 PM Brad McFall has replied

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


Message 207 of 223 (105357)
05-04-2004 7:51 PM
Reply to: Message 205 by Loudmouth
04-28-2004 2:41 PM


Re: to prop Behe or be discrepent?
I will have to catch up with you next time. Time passed and I was not ready to post to you substatively. The issue of imaginaries pends on for me on Einstein's use of Minkowski but i had wanted to express the retordiction in sharper language before responding I am not ready but I am sure you will remember to ask me about it again at another time. I'll take my laughs as JP took his after some others did too.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 205 by Loudmouth, posted 04-28-2004 2:41 PM Loudmouth has not replied

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


Message 210 of 223 (110199)
05-24-2004 5:48 PM
Reply to: Message 209 by arachnophilia
05-24-2004 1:26 AM


so it would seem
Sure there may be a true "delusion" that is at work. I still have not been able to verify or quantify that nor is it sufficiently clear that I will be able to. What I did FIND was that Hamilton in the search for a relation of geometry and algebra did not loose the materialist message of a denial on going beyond a couple synthesized in PURE TIME for he asserted that PURE KIND is found in PURE SYMBOLISM only. The imaginaries were not funny after all laughing I have done between posts for I can not be certain that the Copernicazation of macrokinetics is not part of Boscovich's particularity philosophy. At any rate I can not understand why the author of Boltzman's Atom did not find the repulsion first and not the soaking up of water in a sponge/washclothe for I am not sure if the multiplication of two imaginaries say iandj are not 0 or -jxi. I may have been wrong about negative entropy but then there would have to be a real psychiatiric delusion here but my ability to name it is against that a priori. It appears that the refusal to understand IC is as much a rejection of the faculty of reason as it might be the manifestation acutally in experiments of biquaternions.
I know this may not sound sound but to my mind I do understand it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 209 by arachnophilia, posted 05-24-2004 1:26 AM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 211 by arachnophilia, posted 05-25-2004 12:51 AM Brad McFall has replied

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


Message 212 of 223 (110694)
05-26-2004 1:43 PM
Reply to: Message 211 by arachnophilia
05-25-2004 12:51 AM


Re: so it would seam, enter in you own line
Well, there may be a DELUSION. It would apply equally to creationists and evolutionists but it might/would not be the same thing as I have said about the c/e illusion. The Illusions result from simply not thinking hard enough about the the philosohical surround. A deulsions should it be for instance inciting the current state of war and terror especially in technological changes to biology and compuers from mathematical manipulations in physics etc etc would exist however ONLY if one attempts to relate any life to any universe. This CAN happen in science but more often recurrs in religion.
It is probably possible to discuss the philosophy of science itself on this basis. Instead I simply post to EvC in the hopes that I never get asked this deep a question for I can not use language to reassure myself once I have finished writing a response that there will not be just another reply of the same type.
This delusion if it exists is a part of the social level of discourse but might even become nonexistant if found. Let me try to sketch one such future trajectory. One of the possible issues with a delusion so typed might be what in English Georgi Gladyhev means by the word. Now it is hard for me to say what he means as unlike particle physics which might refer to a bubble chamber photograph Georgi P. Gladyshev means by the use of this word as the article he sent me with the word in its title is in Russian. It may have mostly or only? a cross cultural and not a sociological reference. This I do not know. What I DO know (about the word itself) is that I was involuntarily confined in Florida (the home of swinging CHADS) where a doctor asserted, IN COURT, on tape,...that in my case "there may be delusions there" referencing erroneously MY mental state when I was discussing if trees might be conduits of electro-magnetic radiation. (By the way it was quite conforting to find Georgi seperate out e-m affectations"" from the bulk of his writing) My recent postings trying to assimilate Maxwell's electrotonics (not Newton's fits of transmission and reflexion) into any empirics of Gladyshev's principle by a natural law makes this "discussion" look "case closed" delusional (Doctor's word) indeed but IT WAS NOT. The point however is that the good or bad doctor OBSERVED IT AS DOCUMENTALBLY delusion(al).
After this obervation was made Cornell University Administration (eventually at least in my case) made it a policy or simply mispoke continually that I had to "clear up the psychological issue" before I returned to school. There is clearly a psychological one here if a doctor with powers to INVOLUNTARILY lock up and confine a person (He was arguing for the permission to use electro-schock (probably because I had mentioned the science of...) and state placement in TWO WEEKS in a state I had only visited for a few Christmasses after I left for College at Cornell from New Jersey (Changing a day trip into NYC into a two week permenant "vacation" in Florida)) but there might not be a sociological one. Stupid laws and stupid lawyers are just that, idiots!
So being the "good boy" that I was I smiled at the state's lawyer like I had learned to do when serving cheeseburgers to overzealous likely rich Cornell Freshman gave the doctor a pleasnet demeanor and returned to Cornell expecting that nothing could have changed there as Florida clearly was not UpState NY. Well Cornell insisted that at least this psychology not exist before I return so knowing that I was correct, I eventually found another person whom had had as horrible ( a more horrible ) experience with doctors than I had while on "vaction" in New Orleans from doing paid research at Cornell. I subsequently had two children with this trained psychiatrist from Poland who can talk to a sophiticate's content on Copernicus but Cornell reniged. In other words they were lying to me and I did not need to figure out what was wrong with the psychology I only needed to get ANOTHER DOCTOR (and continue a possible myth and sociological fraud) to say that the first doctor was wrong and that I had gotton better. This however is not easy to do but not something I was interetested in as it corrupts and taits relationships in the process. I did however go around to some other doctors to see how easy it was to get DIFFERENT diagnoses to show how psychologically dubious the economics of involutary confinement might indeed be and itself creating said delusions in the pattern.
Any way let me get to the substance of this post. (and you see all of this is only about the first sentence in the post you asked "what?" about).
I would like to know if the "delusion" in Gladyshev's sense is merely psychological (as above and not- this women may be now feeding"" my son misinformation that I am crazy becuase of "file" she insisted I generate, Cornell's insistence however was ILLEGAL!!) or perhaps somewhat more invasive and systemic to use some biological metaphors and is Sociological instead. Dont forget I said by implicaiton that cross cultural does not necessarily imply any of the psychological missteps I mentioned. I certainly found a whole nother world in Africa in 86 but I did not get culture "shock".
GG' s citing of delusion-
models without sense-
Mach into phillsoophy with relation of inertia to any thing newton-solar system as centermaxwell small measyure of magnetic inertia-not avalibale till the 60s
GladyshevThe burrnig log figure to work now from.From Hot sun to cold earth delusion- eat cold food.
Sociolgoical delusion result of not eating correct foods????????
Any way that could be all in my mind but all of that kind of thing has to go thru minds before a proper distribution of what is religohjs and what is scientific can be reliably discussed. AD WHite of Corenell attempt gerry manders around this but never gets here.
I dont know I am just asking? Getting back a "what" doesnt help me much but only enables me to rephrase my question. I have done this soo many times here on EvC I can not rephrase any initial question any better than I already have.
Georgi made an absolutely percept reception when he stated, applied math of biolgy nonsense
I was very unsure what to major in as an undergraduate but after seeing Serbolline artilces I knew it would be MORE theoretcial biology than experimental biology but on reading THEORETICAL BIOLOGY I was dissapoinetd on how little effort was being made by those partgicipationg in relating both. Simon Levin the best person at Cornell at the time didnt even see that there was an issue here. I can not say that there is a "psychological delusion" but there IS a failing (same thing that Enrst Mayr asked of, if any what, did "bean bag" gentics contribute to natural history. What is unbelievable was that one could PAY to get the degree to do this work and find that State's unwritten prohibition of the power of the people was active against the will of any human! It is hard to realize that as much as one wants to critisize other countries in the very small area that gets discussed as Chruch and State US has some very represseive actualities. I DID NOT experience these things growing up as any tension was CLEARLY JUST a matter of internal family dynamics having NOTHING to do with WORK and SCHOOL. Things have changed were the war is more a terror and problems are mostly disfuntioning. Generations change but so far it is not clear to me that ALL of this is due to a choice of creationism and science just because there is some sense that mental illness is but a group myth metric but I have left that potential carrer (of showing how Aristotle's notion of distributive justice is not even in the current US justice system) for the more interesting relation of Gladyshev to Newton rather than Gladyshev to Maxwell but I have not been able to read all the science back to the before the US states formation. Technology is defintely making this step more difficult as much as I am attempting to uncover a new ecnomic sector regardlless of wrong protocols actually in operation. Fourier wrote in the Theory of Heat, "We should recognize again the same results and all the chief elements of general analysis in the vibrations of elastic media, in the properties of lines or of curved surfaces, in the movements of the stars, and those of light or of fluids. Thus the functions obtained by succesive differentiations, which are employed in the development of infinite series and in the solution of numerical equations, correspond also to physical properties. The first of these functions or the fluxion properly so called, expresses in geometry the inclination of the tangent of a curved line, and in dynamics the velocity of a moving body when the motion varies; in the theory of heat it measures the quantity of heat which flows at each point of a body across a given surface. Mathematical analysis has therefore necessary relations with sensible phenomena; its object is not created by human intelligence; it is a pre-existent element of the universal order, and not in any way contingent or
fortuitous; it is imprinted throughout all nature."(reprinted in Great Books of the Western World Vol45 p183)
Macrothermo seeks the bodies of this order not the infinite order of the bodies. ID and IC is thus a step to this (eVC)last sentence but is not NECESSARILY a superfludity of sufficency as Fourier noted says BSM.
I am seeing less and less reason to doubt the MATHEMATICAL MEANS to recover any Gladyshev insight by reordertyping the equilibria interms of transfinites. Why dont the elite simply take the Gladyshev law at face fact vaule and see to Cantor's assertion,(in Duben p293 Georg Cantor His Mathematics and Philosophy) "The key to this new organic approach was to be found, Cantor believed, in his transfinite numbers, "The elements of the set M in question are to be thought or as seperate; in the intellectual copy of M^_, which I call its ordertype, the units are nevertheless joined into an organism. In a certain sense these ordertypes(Dauben had "order"_"types" and the same in the singular) may be regarded as a composite of matter and form; the conceptually distinct units contained therein comprise the matter, while the order of these elements corresponds to their form.^75" Cantor frequently chose a simple example to demonstrate just how powerful a unifying concept of order types could be. The most diverse things could be could be rendered mathematically comparable with great exactness. For the sake of illustration he liked to compare a painting with a symphonic score.^76"
I seperated the "type" here becuase of the issue of color of artists vs others.
I would like to have a better understanding of what "corresponds" meant in the German.
Andrew Pickering in "Concepts and the Mangle of Practice Constructing Quaternions" finds an obtrusive attempt at revisionism to find that Hamilton had moved over to symbolism but I agree with Andrew that this is NOT, the case. It seems that in the move from a 3 place to a 4 place quaternion system the bridgehead to the creationist KIND exists. Now there have been many advances in math since then so that it is necessary that this is the correct phenomenoligcally layered relation but from a couple WIHTOUT any plane to some metric IT IS! A couple is inadequate to do much science (However let us not miss Mendel here) but with the imaginaries the "area" may be zero or the inverted commutativity. Since Gladyshev was willing to remove levels of organization from a temporal hierarchy I am not sure that it matters which for the verification via his principle (it may) but regardless there is no reason that the symbols used to express what is clearly discussed via Croiazat's method need substitute for DATA! I can not make this any simpler. I will have to go to the grave like this. People just need to get into the library and off the computer and do some reading!!Physical chauvanism and information technology money are not the same things.
There is very little difference between this of mine and GG's " penrose probablism") certainly not enough to keep the student from getting the higher education degree just to teach rich kids becoming doctors and lawyers!!!!!!!! Yes there may be a total contingency as Gould suggested but society can not 0ut BOTH -IN JAIL or IN A MENTAL HOSPITAL-(Criminal and Civil)the learner,to which both apply. Society must choose one or ther other and can not have the cake and eat it (Gladyshev's choice of creationism or science) too. BOTH happened to me and I was the kid who gave other kids something to do (look under rocks for snakes) other than drugs. So far the rich kids prescribed DRUGS are wining the partenal discipline battle. Is it more than a psychological delusion?? I hope not.
SHOULD HIGHER EDUCATION HEED THIS MAXIM IT IS POSSIBLE THAT NOT ONLY WAS THERE NO CONTRADICTION BETWEEN LIFE AND THE 2nD LAW but Figenbaum might have wrongly subjectively sided with Goethe over NEwton (see Glieck's account) for ONLY seeing the $ in Ithaca that were not then in NYC!!!!!!!!! They are still not here but I get phone calls in the effect. The physical properties need not be psychological nor sociological. They may be. May the gentlemen who dont know too much answer!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 211 by arachnophilia, posted 05-25-2004 12:51 AM arachnophilia has not replied

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


Message 214 of 223 (113316)
06-07-2004 12:53 PM
Reply to: Message 213 by arachnophilia
06-07-2004 7:46 AM


Re: anyways, back to the original topic.
The issue STILL remains with the TRANSITION from the beautiful to the sublime in that organisms NO MATTER HOW they create or construct their environments unlike man only trace and DO NOT INVENT where there is a humanly percieved difference in the desgin by math or dynamics. Even the latest best bet book in biology "Constructing Niches either ripped off my use of "ecosystem engineering" @ the Biosphere Data Project where my posting priveldges seemed to have been shut down or else is all the same refusal that I can cite and quote out of the mistake on Lamark in GS CARTER's "a hundered years of evolution." Ignoring me would be a mistake. and as for Behe's "orginal" unless we can get out of thinking that Lewontin, Hull and May can speak for Odling-Snee, Laland,and Feldman we are still up the same creek but with the paddle without the cause or effect. You simply need work with the words "trace" and "invent" and you or I or Behe can easily see that Glaydsyhev, Behe, me, you? are not acceptable only because the "logic" permits distortions of form for the proper torsion. I need not get mad.
see now http://dream.sims.berkeley.edu/biosphere/phorum31/list.php
This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 06-07-2004 11:54 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 213 by arachnophilia, posted 06-07-2004 7:46 AM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 215 by arachnophilia, posted 06-07-2004 12:58 PM Brad McFall has replied

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


Message 216 of 223 (113321)
06-07-2004 1:09 PM
Reply to: Message 215 by arachnophilia
06-07-2004 12:58 PM


Re: anyways, back to the original topic.
OK then I understand. Sorry for inflating the tone.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 215 by arachnophilia, posted 06-07-2004 12:58 PM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 217 by arachnophilia, posted 06-07-2004 1:27 PM Brad McFall has replied

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


Message 218 of 223 (113327)
06-07-2004 1:41 PM
Reply to: Message 217 by arachnophilia
06-07-2004 1:27 PM


Re: anyways, back to the original topic.
In Niche Construction The Negleted Process in Evolution any one who reads English reads on page THREE, "Niche construction may (1) in part, control the flow of energy and matter through ecosystems (ecosystem engineering)..."
As Simon Levin TOLD ME, (The editor of this book in a series)(and he told me to visit GE HUTCHINSON before death), I gathered that the niche DID originate with Hutch's insects perhaps while he was around some limnologists BUT THIS ARTICULATED was already cognized by Agassiz and KNOWN by CARTER many years later as well for the segmented surround. I had no problem accepting that this might be the same thing as man's tricyle bike wheel sizes UNTIL I tried to understand Stebbins' plants and it appeared clearly to me that Nelson's ontogentic criterion of clade construction from the 70s that Patterson criticized in Mabee's American Sunfish who coauthored a an article with Humphries who was in part responsible for having me dissed from COrnell because I could think Carters' deme in work snakes SubSPECIES for any adult character WAS THE SAME ABSENCE that Agassiz castigated Darwinists FOR INFERRING such that infering ANY ECOSYSTEM ENGINEERING (by desgin or in the trace) failed but to have been subtracted in the evolutionary pedagogy AS THERE IS NO CONTROL unless this is first INVENTED. Niche construction can only trace the reality. I will not support the idea that Sunfish INVENT the source of their OXYGEN as this was simply a JAR in a lab.
Now if you dont want to know how I KNOW then you must explain the jacket Cover to this book that thinks NO MATTER WHAT THE DYNAMICS IS that this will change the way evolutionary theory is worked. IT WILL ONLY DO SO BY THE SAME SOCIOLOGICAL FUNDING that is against Creationism AND THE EQUILIBRIUM evaluation of Gladyshev to say NOTHING of my own ideas.
THERE NEED NOT BEEEEEE feedback here but materalists are STUCK with the concept as long as any cross level interactions must use individuals (whehter philosopically divided intor replicators and constructors etc etc etc).
Wisdom and knowledge are not the same. I know as much as the next guy or gal.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 217 by arachnophilia, posted 06-07-2004 1:27 PM arachnophilia has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 219 by jar, posted 06-07-2004 1:45 PM Brad McFall has not replied

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


Message 223 of 223 (113595)
06-08-2004 12:20 PM
Reply to: Message 220 by arachnophilia
06-07-2004 1:46 PM


Re: allways, back to the original topic.
If you are still confused I will discuss under the thread with my name as you have made it from the the thread head to my own head room space place which is not in line with the topic. So to conclude I will note that unlike Kant (AT THAT TIME) I think that perhaps "Hylozoism" might be presentable but the book I cited VIOLATES for Gladyshev's equilibrium approach or any of mine Kant's distinction of NEXUS EFFECTIVUS&NEXUS FINALIS in Nature. Kant had said of Nature between these such (on intertia etc), "There must, then, be a circle in the explanation if we wish to derive the purposiveness of nature in organized beings from the life of matter, and yet only know this life in organized beings can can form no concept of its possiblity witout experience of this kind."(The Critique of Judgement).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 220 by arachnophilia, posted 06-07-2004 1:46 PM arachnophilia 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