Constantly designed baramins and the evolving food chain

It is not a shhhhit design Dan. Instead it was the fact that man is not excepted from the destructive OR productive powers where there is a mechanism of its own without any purpose. It is taking me some time to make a direct reply to Mike's words but I think I have all I need. I found Mayr seemingly conflating Kant's product production with species reproduction where Kant simply meant that IF a grassy Newton ascended our knoll here on Earth over grasses it would be BY DESIGN but that physics can abstract from that as soon as it appears, no matter that Darwin already showed a change without a necessarily ordered purpose as Mayr interpreted. The shit was that physicsts were already abstracting before we(biologists) gave them the design (the Oxford BioMath Dept wanted me to do graduate work on the supposition that we HAD this design or formality already but both Mayr and I know we do and did not so have (had) it) and it was not nasty that one need fear an evagelical anachronism as Mayr justly warns from,, but if one did-not have this broader view as Mike devolves, one, is hospitalizable for ONLY believeing in evolution where there is more than behavior done on purpose etc.Below is an orginal description of a man-made food chain. I will post directly to Mike as soon as I cobble together... when I describe how,,, baramins might be used where evos do not find this plan(Rose in Lifelines thought that Bonnerian complex development was lost on ultra-Darwinism)or other creationism. Specifically it is because genic selectionism can contain information (an evo concept) not accepted by some of the best minds in biology that it seems probable that only originally religously motivated reasons will found the expansion of predication this thought provides to standard evo nich constructors. So I am back to your first post in this thread where you ask for your glasses back etc.This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 04-13-2005 02:24 PM

because then one might not be able to distinguish a demonology from the study of the production of beings.I am tempted to goto Bryant College and see if the baraminologists might not be interested in following up on Mike's suggestion as to a possible reciprocity bewteen occasionalistic propositions and a given pre-established harmony as it makes clear how to re-read the following two paragraphs of Kant's without the all the culture of a difference between ID and Biblical Creationism ( I purposely type them out of sequence so that you might be able to see the difference).Kant Critique of Teleological Judgement &86 (in the publisher Halfner Pub Company's page 294)

quote:

---

Since now it is only as a moral being that we recognize man as the purpose of creation, we have in the first palce a ground (at least the chief condition) for regarding the world as a whole connected according to purposes and as a system of final causes. And, more especially, as regards the reference (necessary for us by the constitution of our reason) of natural purposes to an intelligent world cause, we have one principle enabling us to think the nature and properties of this first cause as supreme ground in the kingdom of purposes, and to determine its concept. This physical teleology could not do; it could only lead to indeterminate concepts of it, unserviceable alike in theoretical and in pratical use.

---

quote:

---

If now we meet with purposive arrangements in the world and, as reason inevitable requires, subordinate the purposes that are only conditioned to an unconditioned, supreme, i.e. final, purpose, then we easily see in the first place that we are thus concerned, not with a puroose of nature (internal to itself), so far as it exists, but with a purpose of its existence along with all its ordinances and, consequently, with the ultimate purpose of creation , and specially with the supreme condition under which a final purpose(i.e. the determining ground of a supreme understanding for the production of beings of the world) can be allowed.

---

I lay awake at night wondering if this is where Mayr derived the difference of "ultimate and proximate" biology from, rather than training the student Gould to extend natural history into a new title called by Kant the archeology of nature. This seems to be the only way to resolve the human population problem by noneconomic force and the use of food chains and baramins might be a human means to this hopefully not final end of human life on this planent Earth.

The painting reference does seem to go beyond the topic in the thread which is about chains. But let the record show that Cantor thought it possible one day to compare a painting and a symphony cardinally. If there is an error in Mike's claim IN THIS THREAD it is only because by faith he seems to prefer harmony over the occassion. On the occasion a chain is designed by use of baramins then we would have the desginer and either the harmony as mike grants as a hypothesis or we will only have the occasional material and the blueprint.

quote:

---

A Device needs autonomy when you will not be nearby to handle or direct it. Thus, our planetary probes are largely autonomous, because direct control is technically impossible.

---

http://EvC Forum: Is it intelligent to design evolvable species? -->EvC Forum: Is it intelligent to design evolvable species?I dont think that Contracycle is correct about this autonomically but I will get into that other thread stuff later. What I intend to write in that thread will go a ways towards a resolution of your

quote:

---

Unlike paintings, living things reproduce and create offspring all by themselves.

---

.I cited Cantor in reference to asthetic taste because the art of the design is different than the natural purpose of the reproductive connections and Cantor's work beyond the organic explanation might be needed should the weakest link not be broken and the actual difference between ID and Biblical Creationism be apparent even to evos as easily as to creos.This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 04-19-2005 06:59 PM

I think harmony was the correct word. I think you simply underestimate the insistance that others will make until the chain is not just a thought. Anyway, it's your baby so sorry if my interdiction didnt help. No, I havent gotten to Tenneseeeee I'm in the tristate area, but I really like your idea that I might think to try to write it down to Wise someday.