evolution calculations

not that I know of. I have not had my noodle around all of it since the 80s so there might be some better articles in SSAR or Copeia or Herpetologica or Herpetological Reviews etc but I doubt it. Sure it is possible with population genetics but there are a lot of nonadaptive traits in reps that even the best in evo are not developeing Wright's ideas where isolation by distance is probably occurring more than in birds etc. I wanted to try to cobble up such an enumeration and I was going to work with the Rxn Diffusion equations of JD Murray to get some idea about pattern changes acorss this scale but they simply were using constants from Zebra's so no one was trying to figure out how numbers might DEPEND in the transition on contingency. So it goes that it is not done becuase there is not as far as I know any way to generalize the effective population number on this across the board. I do think that it MIGHT be posssible to constrain the notion of environment in these lineages but when I asked Richard Lewotin specifically about sea snakes as this figure would even be more restricted and he seemed the most sophisticated in use of coupled differential equations between the environment and organism he could not have me think of the tail which I needed to think BEFORE I had tried to number the norms of rxn in some way.

"The conventional view of evolution is that, though the action of natural selection, organisms have come to exhibit those characteristics that best enable them to survive and reproduce in their environments. The fact that, in standard evolutionary theory, it is alwyas changes in organisms rather than changes in environments that are held responsible for generating teh organism-environment "mathching" relationship is made explict by the terms used to describe the process of evolutionary change itself, "adaptation." Organisms are assumed to adapt to their environments, but environments are not assumed to "adapt" to their organisms. The same term, however, is used to describe the every changing products of natural selection, the "adaptations' that organisms exhibit. This double usage of "adaptation" provided the clearest possible indication that the process of adaption, whereby organisms respond to their environments, is usually regarded as the only process thought to be capable of generating complementarity between organisms and environment in evolution.One consequence is that, hitherto, the most commone evolutionary approaches to the study of humans have been "adaptationist" in nature, in the sense that they have placed sole emphasis on the process of selectionand on purported adaptations that underlie human behavior (Laland and Brown 2002). Sociobiologists and evolutionary psychologists provide explanations for the characteristics of human behavior, human relationships, and human instiutions in terms of natural seleciton's furnishing our ancestors with functional solutions to problems posed by ancestral environments. Hence, any match that is observed between the characters or features that humans posses and the factors in the environments that thier ancestors experienced is assumed to ahve come about by either chance of exclusively through natural selection^1. Yet, in chpater 2, we saw that niche construction provides a second evolutionary route to the dyanmic match between organism and environment."in Niche Construction, The Neglected Process in Evolution byOdling-Smee,Laland and Feldman.

But the difference of a biotic and an abiotic presentation still errs for the theorist even in the possesion of actual graphed data making it clear to me at least why there is no maths yet on the reptile mammal class jump that Dakwins denies to Gould's correct conceptual relation of current utility and nonformal necessity of PE.It all depends if a "tracing" a human invention"" is being read from the probability that the metaphysical research programme of Darwinism Does yield fairly probably results. That the final cause being put inquestion does not make the defense offensive however fails the student who wants the time to seperate out the hierarchical thermodyanmics that spans this conceptual issue divided by the history of thought on geneotypes and phenotypes with a newer hierarhically true view of the DURATION of biological change.Agai, I will have to beg off and start more work on the program to simulate some faked chemical kinetics but illustrative of what I just said nonetheless. Loudmouth gave a response to the orginal poster and I dont want to get postal here just yet nor make it too complicated when a more simple answer might have been what was specifically being requested. There is a differnce between a cycling time and the time of cycles so should a human invention not adapt this environment to the actual tracing in nature it will not be clear aposteriori if the match was in the first manifestation but a mimic or polymorphic statistic. this starts the evophilosophy up all over again to the determent of the objection but the subject of final cause would have been found TO remand some utility currently thought nonnecssary by the present DIFFERNCE atomically (in two senses) of genetic outlays.

above was

quote:

---

One of the previous posters pointed to his belief that any mutation is new information. Such thinking is false.

​

Why so, false? Which contains more information?:

​

ATGGCTGTCGTAA

​

or

​

ATGGCTGACGTAA

---

For me the answer is in the word, "perversion" but I do not have the ability to turn this word into a biophysics of this moment as of yet,yet it IS odd to me that people are still trying to find serenity now and not trying to line up all the ducks. Obviously some of the disagreement would be cleared up with strict reliance of defintions about "mutation" but indeed this does not clean up all the guts. I do not use the word as rehtoric,even if that is all the ear hears. I am concerned with this difference as NOT one of nationality although the history of the use of it has been so clearly read. This could gett back to something OoOK! might have suggested, when it is not the orangs crossing by wire above the national zoo visitors.

Just ignore it wont you? Ill take up some Derridian ideas elsewhere. I had not wanted this to get too complicated here. When I was returning through NYC from winter break I had to merely make a walk across port authority and there I found a women standing after apparently completely a double shift in the city trying to get back to jersery and seemingly the only one who could see where indeed NY city stands in NJ, anyway she continued to have an argument through the tunnel and down all the roads of garden state IN TWO LANGUAGES ( not spanish). I never blinked the whole time.I knew NY better than she didnt know NJ and I dont know the city very well. I had just left DC that morning. My guess is that posts like that are made by multiple language users only.

There is a 1996 issue of the SMITHSONIAN in which the Orangs are pictured and having to read it because the social services dept of Tompkins County refused to tell me "no" and thus forced me to sit for one hour I gained a renewed respect for Oook who rasied this issue of base changes earlier(in color). I think we should both find that thread if we want to continue to take up this issue. I will provide detailed references and USES of the word "perversion" if you still want, there. I am done now here no matter what is posted next.There are no maths. If they show up, then of course I'll reconsider.

I responded to your dissemination "allegation"
http://EvC Forum: All about Brad McFall. -->EvC Forum: All about Brad McFall.
only I dont think it is for this four as I rarely ply purely (of) my own ideas much (any) more, even when I feel the need to

quote:

---

come back with a dissemination of ideas (another Derridian favourite!) that even Jacques lui-mme would have had great trouble deconstructing in any meaningful way. So I thought: maybe it works the other way around

---

When I first encounted that idea in JD, I was thinking of Lavosier and a gravitaional clinamen but the quote from Shepard deduces (transcendentally) that prior into something much more comprehensible and intelligiable, even if only by me.Funny thing how reality works. Its a small world actual all.