Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The egg came first
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5033 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 68 of 111 (244080)
09-16-2005 7:58 AM
Reply to: Message 67 by Cal
09-16-2005 7:55 AM


Reference please.
If you would be kind so much a kind to kindly return a hint about where Dawkins said t of "discontinuous mind". Pretty please with sugar on top.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by Cal, posted 09-16-2005 7:55 AM Cal has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 69 by Modulous, posted 09-16-2005 8:08 AM Brad McFall has replied

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5033 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 70 of 111 (244098)
09-16-2005 8:42 AM
Reply to: Message 69 by Modulous
09-16-2005 8:08 AM


Re: Tyranny
Thank you. God Bless.Ohhhh, RD is speaking "Against" this tyranny??
If that is so, I do not understand at all what Parasomonium has been writing about on EVC!!
Since I know salamanders so well, my guess is that the inverts THE NAME 'salamander' for it's tail ontogentically. The issue with the word "salamander" is that the "white-headed" salamander name HAS NEVER been brought forward from Bishops original discription in South Carolina but instead every one is talking about salamander colors and tails etc.
So if One talks about what came first the salamander or the frog or the apodian then I guess I might be able to contribute to this thread unless it is actually about an "egg" then it really is the bird/reptile transition at which this discussion really works (for any given mammal).
This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 09-16-2005 08:51 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by Modulous, posted 09-16-2005 8:08 AM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 71 by Modulous, posted 09-16-2005 10:22 AM Brad McFall has replied

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5033 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 72 of 111 (244143)
09-16-2005 12:03 PM
Reply to: Message 71 by Modulous
09-16-2005 10:22 AM


Re: Parasomnium?
Today's post about time from Para seems like a repeat of
http://EvC Forum: Do you believe in a multiverse? -->EvC Forum: Do you believe in a multiverse?
about space.
Before that, I had some interaction over memes with Para long after our first real encounter years ago.
I had thought intially that Dawkins'must have been saying that the "discontinuous" mind is part and parcel of memetic change and perhaps there is still another layer of discourse for me to realize but given that Ben recently called (my) mind "discontinuous" and I am starting to actually *think* boolean wise, while doing some JAVA programs, I no longer understand what Parasomnium MEANS when writing clear questions. I suppose there are not prolific "answers" from Para but I would need to search and see.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by Modulous, posted 09-16-2005 10:22 AM Modulous has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 73 by Cal, posted 09-16-2005 1:17 PM Brad McFall has replied
 Message 74 by robinrohan, posted 09-16-2005 1:35 PM Brad McFall has not replied

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5033 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 75 of 111 (244194)
09-16-2005 3:55 PM
Reply to: Message 73 by Cal
09-16-2005 1:17 PM


Re: Parasomnium?
This is unlikely.
There *Can noT* be anythiing deeper scientifically. If science does THEN change, it will only be because the concerns of creationists, as just represented on NPR science friday, evolution, social problems, just BECOME SCIENCE. This is Johnson's view. I dont hold that. Dawkins will be arguing with him and not me in the future etc.
My own ideas are not "precedent setting". I have no ideas about LEGAL THEORIES. I am only interested in theoretical biology and its truth. The idea that one can not change a few words and make a teaching constitutional is just wrong. One can. If indeed the "new argument" is going to be (no legit controversy, no necessary conflict) it is not hard to see how the verse can be made both in conflict with the power extended law sufficency as well as the nessissty that currenly lacks due to foucs not on life on Earth or its origins. What I am suggesting, myself, only relates the community of no legit conflict BECAUSE of thought on primative RNA life. The reason I object is because the there is a much larger ranger for vital forces if one is not thinking that RNA and natural selection are absolute. Will Provine did not consider the full effect of "external variables" in his own thought. Discovery of life off Earth can change anything as to A NECESSARY CONFLICT if one writes up the new curriculum from Kripke's point of view. I have always refused to try to do this because one ends up with a conflict of life based on any kind of elements and there through the idea of infinity would already exist.
NPR's view is dependent on the legitamcay being to NOT include infinity in the theory. That by my view is absurd. Thus it can not get material deeper on my view unless the science already moved to where NPR represented it is not.
If you really think you can engage me in another thread go ahead but I will be relating it to THIS PARTICULAR question as to which came first the egg or the adult. THAT IS THE QUESTION. The parents only stray from the line.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by Cal, posted 09-16-2005 1:17 PM Cal has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 78 by Cal, posted 09-16-2005 5:56 PM Brad McFall has replied

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5033 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 76 of 111 (244195)
09-16-2005 4:02 PM
Reply to: Message 73 by Cal
09-16-2005 1:17 PM


Re: Parasomnium?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by Cal, posted 09-16-2005 1:17 PM Cal has not replied

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5033 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 79 of 111 (244327)
09-17-2005 9:05 AM
Reply to: Message 78 by Cal
09-16-2005 5:56 PM


a game of chicken or scrambled eggs?
Yes the chicken's egg can be defined. Do you want to try to do that an clear up this display process that is a funk?
This is the only picture I have given wich starts to show how I think about the "chicken&egg" problem along animal polyphyletic lines.

@+scroll;
http://EvC Forum: Croizat Track / Wright's Isolation by distance -->EvC Forum: Croizat Track / Wright's Isolation by distance

but because one can actually read Mendel's "country" and "garden" /pollen-artifical insemination as the same "issue" it might be better to try to frame the suggestion in a broader context perhaps symbolized by the following pics, I entered for the record in the above thread, below
If you want me to evc search some of my comments on Mendel so that we can discuss the question there then fine.
The problem is that growth and development are related differently in different monophylies. Snakes never stop growing even though they can be thought to have reached full development ( with some exceptions perhaps electrotonically(I dont know)). I dont know except very abstractly and dealing with math to think of adult"" plants in the same line as adult animlas.
If you want to discuss which amphiba came first, the adults of the different kinds or the eggs sorting among the guilds, that is viable question herpetologically but I will read this thread in more detail before I just start talking about it all.
If the question is the actual bird egg or a kind of bird, well, first off I am no ornithologist but I have been able to notice that one might use topobiology to mediate a claim about the extracellular matrix such that one might propose FOR BIRDS (that have at least feather reminants) that the egg definitely came first. This would be coupled with some discussion about misperceptions of playtpus as not being seen as much as a reptile as it really does appear to look at the human. But .... and here is the big "but" one must also analyze the topology of egg "layers" in mammals and relate the behavior of young climbing ON the organism in placentals to really get at the tissue.
This summer I think I might have found a short cut to this long and involved discussion which relates to lipid-proteins such that on is not hampered by the geometry of said topological conditioning but that one might reach the same text via discussion of reptile eggs and adults instead in terms of specific protein pathway expressions.
Please do understand that EVC is not my life.
When the topic is something I can sit down and type out an answer. then I can really do that. But when the question requires new reading and thinking on my part I do not necessarily have all that time in real time.
Now, as for the problem in "parsing" my posts. Look there is no problem. Just ask away as you have been doing. If I dont have time for a particular I will tell you that. I am not hiding anything. I dont get embarassed if I missed something or dont know something.
As for the apparent incongruity in my last post. ... You should be able to notice the difference in my posts as to what is simply my opinion from what I consider based simply on reading texts. While I dont, in terms of what I REALLY have to say on EVC, try to talk about , as I said, "legal theories", I have some opinions on the subject in general and perhaps in particular. What I could have said was
I am an expert on theoretical biology.
I know how to judge truth claims in that field.
I have had some experience with US Courts(local, state & federal).
What rules much of the public discussion of e/c IS about what has happened in court cases since the 70s.
What I would rather the issue be is about details of evolutionary theory that fail's students rather than changing the court representation or funding for the science...
but now I am sounding a bit opinionated and I dont like presenting my self that way,rather than having a discussion of the science involved. Am I an expert if I dont even have an undergrad degree?
Perhaps you are not really interested in the chicken and egg problem but would rather answer the question, Why did the chicken's egg cross the road?
so no, i do not think that dog tail chasing is appropriate. It is simply the lack of application of groups of rotations to the common divisor in Mendel's presentation that makes the dog but not the human cross this section.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by Cal, posted 09-16-2005 5:56 PM Cal has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 85 by Cal, posted 09-17-2005 12:50 PM Brad McFall has replied

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5033 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 80 of 111 (244328)
09-17-2005 9:20 AM
Reply to: Message 78 by Cal
09-16-2005 5:56 PM


a game of chicken or scrambled eggs?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by Cal, posted 09-16-2005 5:56 PM Cal has not replied

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5033 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 86 of 111 (244392)
09-17-2005 1:13 PM
Reply to: Message 85 by Cal
09-17-2005 12:50 PM


Re: scrambled eggs
Then why did you say
quote:
good luck doing so without resorting to some degree of arbitrariness
??
Are you simply not saying that it is any different to "define" a chicken as it's egg??
You are repeating yourself. You did not notice that I moved my way among the details neceesary to so circumscript the prob. If all you are going to do is repeat yourself I see no need for me to try to go through all of details necessary to explain how the EGG can be sinlged out of the population. Just because Mayr doesnt think that a population can be DEFINED doesnt mean that I can not apply Quantum compelentarity to idviduate reducts of population variance INTO an individual organism and attach an irrational number say to EACH living creature. There are finite numbers of eggs on earth but an infinte number of irrationals to label them with. I asked why Mayr did not want to do something like this and he got lost in his defesnse of speciation by geographic isolation. Naming and suffiency are two different things.
Mayr attempted to use HIS OWN idea to replace a figure in Wright WHEN trying to show FISHER that he was wrong. I just say we need to EITHER electrotonicize or macrothemodynamize the SHIFTING (not one step) BALANCE of ISOLATION BY DISTANCE. that is why biogeography and geographY MUST be seperated to enable the label to be more than a tag but to actually fall beyond the phentics it also is.
There is NO REASON that TheoreticalBio has only "scratched" the surface. It is only because the philosphers who came over to it were not biologists. The field was clearly visible starting say at Cambridge in 50s with Woodger to the Serbolloni conference in the 60s and 70s but because of the dispute between Thom and Crick say, the field never got higher educated than reruns of Lewontins' statments. This is as much the biologists fault as the mathematicians. There is no excuse that Creationists have "diverted" there attention or any such. They just dont think through the whole problem like might be better approved of in other countries where there is less of a tradition than the anglosaxons's.
Ok, thanks for the reply at the end but still I see nothing but a restatement of your position. You said nothing about considering seeds as eggs etc. Do you know much about Topobiology?
There is nothing "arbitrary" in my ambivalance conceptually as to if macrothermodyanmics or electrotonics represent the equations to applied theoretically. It will depend on the actual relative causal determinability of thermal currents vs photons etc. Which ever THEORY is used will be the immediate decision of the scientist on see the output of the data. The point is that biology unlike physics does not have MULTIPLE THEORIES from which it can experiment. Creationism opens up the mind at least to these possibilites , the two of which I mentioned are NOT creationist. There is also the ID possibility for relating data between a supernatural creator and mechanisms selectively. There is no reason that biology did not train people to think in mutiple theoretical ways for THE SAME translation in space and form making in nature.
This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 09-17-2005 01:18 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 85 by Cal, posted 09-17-2005 12:50 PM Cal has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 90 by Cal, posted 09-17-2005 3:15 PM Brad McFall has replied

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5033 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 94 of 111 (244448)
09-17-2005 7:31 PM
Reply to: Message 91 by Parasomnium
09-17-2005 3:49 PM


Re: On the street.
There is some error in the lack of reply buttons to cals posts so I ma reThere can be no doubt that von Baer won his greatest fame through the embryological works written in his youth. He published the results of these in a brochure entitled De ovi mammalium genesi, which came out in 1827, and a larger work, Uber Entwicklungsgeschichte der Tiere. of the years 1828 and 1837. In the first-mentioned treatise he describes the most important of the discoveries he made in this field - namely, the egg of mammals in the ovary. Apart from the vauge ideas of earlier scientists on this subject, de Graff (Part II, p. 172) was the first to explain at all the conditions obtaining at the earlies stages of development of mammals. He described the follicles named after him in the ovary and believed these to be eggs; when later he discovered eggs in the uterus of a rabbit in a later stage of growth, he supposed that these had moved thither from the ovary for their further development; he met with an insoluble difficulty,however, in the fact that the further advanced uggs in the iterus were smaller than the follicles, and moreover, the latter proved to be not very constant, wherefore Haller, who carefully investigated matter, assumed that the egg was formed out of the follicular fluid through coagulation. By carefully following the development of the egg in dogs, von Baer learnt to know its later stages, afterwards tracing its origin back by investigating a series of animals approaching nearer and nearer to the fertilization stage. Here he found the egg to be a minute yellowish cell inside the follicle, after which he was able to continue the study of its progressive development.[/quote] THE HISTORY OF BIOLOGY A Survey Tudor Publishing 1928. by Erik Nordenskold p363-4
Well in the 90s I was “sucking ovaries”, removing mammalian eggs from dead cows’ follicles and keeping them alive with sterile techniques. I then added sperm. Some of the cells became blastocysts.
What does it mean? Is this the same thing as artificially pollinating day lilies which I also did a two years ago, creating hybrids?
Well I can not answer the second question because I don’t think that A:“eggs cross the road to get to the other side” is the same thing asQ:” which came first, the chicken of the egg?” By equating them you reversed something. Let’s see if we can see what it was.
Nordkenskiold quite textually and VERY Clearly associates the “adult” issue with inability to notice the difference of the follicle and cell in it’s” insides”. With birds we do not have this problem. We see the NEST as well as the egg, no matter that it is an ovary rather(that) we were speaking about, since you lumped my seed and the egg into a single responsive post. So it does matter to some extent that one can remove one’s mammalian bias when discussing strictly the duky problem you got but not I, in your syringe. I will think about snake lipids going through the skin instead of any rejections of the follicle or let me say Mendel’s binomial across these generations’ generation. The thing is that even in 1990 based on results of the 1950s animal physiologists completely misread the total literature, for they fail to appreciate that the PHYSICAL ACT of follicular release may well be causal and determinative no only for what are the “later stages” of evo-devo but also for variation in the phyletic use recombinations of growth and development retain whether silencing transposons or not. There, do your feminisms if you desire.
Let me say that again, what N said textually is physically at issue , if one tries to think whether said egg or later staged individual came first (no matter the difference in ontogeny or phylogeny). There is complete lack of realization on the part of animal physiologists that the egg’s relative position to the follicle to the ovary to the female to the niche to the mother earth etc could be absolute. It is assumed it is only relative to the chemical melilue, gene expression environment, phylogenetic position etc. So if we have this much problems imaging what it is like for kinds close to us, I had my son, when doing this work, imagine what it is for a pea?? Or don’t, since you think they are the same answers. The questions at least are different.
This is my last word until Cal answers something.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 91 by Parasomnium, posted 09-17-2005 3:49 PM Parasomnium has not replied

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5033 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 95 of 111 (244454)
09-17-2005 7:40 PM
Reply to: Message 90 by Cal
09-17-2005 3:15 PM


Re: scrambled eggs
They were YOUR words. I wouldnt have written as much if you didnt care. Which you seem to not. And NO it does not matter as to the "species" it only matters as to the seperation ON earth of the garden and the country. Species"" might as well be what a German matriarch puts in the soup. Species being a class MIGHT be used but then you are immediately open to creationist criticism no matter what kind of Kitcher your math enables etc.
These were mine.
http://listserv.nhm.ku.edu/cgi-bin/wa.exe?A1=ind0103&L=ta...
http://listserv.nhm.ku.edu/cgi-bin/wa.exe?A1=ind0102&L=ta...
Find the first in this series and you find where i intro DUCE on-line the idea of such an index
This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 09-17-2005 07:46 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 90 by Cal, posted 09-17-2005 3:15 PM Cal has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 97 by Cal, posted 09-18-2005 2:12 AM Brad McFall has replied

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5033 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 98 of 111 (244624)
09-18-2005 12:28 PM
Reply to: Message 97 by Cal
09-18-2005 2:12 AM


Re: An apology (already)
No, I do not feel "pressured" to respond. You measured return is well taken, at least by me.
It seems to me that you are categorically not thinking that a hierarchicalization of biological information enables me to have responded prior to the already old 'apology'.
What I had at last presented was a clear delineation of a level of organization issue that CAN NOT be a level of selection problem. If we need to do some philosophy of biology here we can. I am not using Cornell's library lately so I can not easily run and pull off the relevant titles from the shevles very fast as I used to be able to do.
I tried to demonstrate the a "coagulation" can be better refined by indexing masses at worst quantum mechanically and that thus in the SELECTION of these non-spheres one attained in a hierarchical expansion of current evolutionary theory not merely a way to remark on the development but also grow the class the species would likewise name.
It might be best if we await another opportunity. I have no pretension to "change" Parasomonium's mind nor yours. It is fully logical to reject what I am proposing after reading how it might be worked out in detail if you suppose perhaps with Richard Dawkin's that no matter what the hierarchicalization is, it will always only be the account of the genes involved that counts.
I dont believe in such a reconciliation. I believe and write on EVC that the philosophers of biology have not analyzed far enough. It is like the mathematician magician who recently came to Cornell and using rules of binary threes could guess probabilistically who held red cards randomly distributed to the students and thinking thusly that manipulation of the genetic code that way is as far a nanotechies will ever get realistically. I just think on a much more divided grid.
I do not think that Mendel's concern for the taxonomy of the pea plants matters one track in this probabilistic decomposition that I attempt not only to analyze but also synthesize. One would start but not end with the phenetic approach. As Croizat said, taxonomy is the last but not the least occupation of the biogeographer. Phenetics and indexing is the first of the last. People have a hard time thinking past that.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 97 by Cal, posted 09-18-2005 2:12 AM Cal 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