Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
8 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 7/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Darwinist language
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5032 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 3 of 68 (23248)
11-19-2002 11:53 AM
Reply to: Message 2 by nator
11-19-2002 10:28 AM


I guess it may be my turn to make circles out of squares but you likely more correct S, the idea of a generalized reproduction replacing NS seems far, very far, in the future if it is possible at all. A considerable change in our understanding of mutations (next mutation etc) would have to occur first. I sometimes think the formula {A x (non-universal group theory A_a x a} may be in-expressing the thread head's thought but the difference of orthoselection and orthogeneisis for say Ford's position which is not Wright's tends to crop in/up here. As far as I understand it NS is not about sex but is it allways to be associated with denial of some double signification of Mendel? This I do not know but could signal the change to some general reproduction of cross generational information transfer. Problem would then be definitionally with concept of information that Wolfram holds to as to denial (when not the thing itself) of Von Neuman's claim that computation implies entropy increase. I do not know if anyone has 'disassociated' cost of human caluculation from the freeing of reasoning nauture that atutomatic computation devices provide. This notion of general reproduction however does not seem to be coming from cybernetics however.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by nator, posted 11-19-2002 10:28 AM nator has not replied

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


Message 4 of 68 (23252)
11-19-2002 12:05 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Syamsu
11-18-2002 11:35 AM


[QUOTE]Originally posted by Syamsu:
[B]I would like to invite some opinion on changing the language of the
theory of Natural Selection into a general theory of reproduction,
thereby getting rid of the emotive language of Natural Selection
theory, and providing some secondary scientific benefits as well.
To illustrate what problem I am addressing, I will quote a line from
Darwin's "Origin of Species".
"and as Natural Selection works solely by and for the good of each
being, all corpereal and mental endowments will tend to progress
towards perfection." (Charles Darwin, Origin of Species)
What's Darwin talking about here, a magical force of goodness leading
to perfection? Before reading further, you should try to translate
this line into more neutral scientific language yourself, to see if
this emotive language is a problem for you.
The translation should read:
"and as Natural Selection works solely by and for the reproduction of
each being, all corpereal and mental endowments will tend to become
more efficient in working towards this end."
The "good" Darwin is talking about means nothing more then
reproduction, and this is what his theory is "solely" about. This is
also well said in a phrase that Darwinists often use to make clear
what the unit of selection is. If you are familiar with Darwinists
literature you might have come across it several times:
"the organism either reproduces or fails to reproduce, and therefore
it is the unit of selection"[/quote]
[/B]
Let me agree with your lexical intention but disagree with grammer, no matter the semantics. Reprodutive isolation when thought "prophetically" between the cellular nature and populational instantiation need not meso evolutionally be symetrical even if micro evolutionally and macroevolutionally there is no deviation even transitively from a common symmetry per taxogeny (ie no matter the particular reproduction). "barriers" to reproduction could be topologically constrained but not topograophically and we yet do not have a reliable enough biogeography to express this in terms of whatever the genes *could* horizontally at least co-ordinate.
My papers will be next year put on their own web site and there are three components I recognize here.
1)Somatic Programs
2)Deductive Biogeography
3)Hypothesis of Nuclear Action at a Distance.
but even with all this, natural selection could still be the operative function of the change(optimal efficiency), this work may bring biology; to helping: prevent #an elite collapse of a food web< that supports ANY reproduction.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Syamsu, posted 11-18-2002 11:35 AM Syamsu has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by Syamsu, posted 11-20-2002 7:14 AM Brad McFall has replied

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


Message 7 of 68 (28042)
12-28-2002 9:24 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by Syamsu
11-20-2002 7:14 AM


Let me get this straight and then I will address the "juglar".
You mean to intimate that I:
1)am denying something visible and/or am in some state of denial,
2)I use some conceptual response that is "too difficult" IN REACTION
3)I am *NOT* using to see the complex as simple IN AN ARGUMENT? or I am really ARguing???
and as far as oak trees go I spent a lot of time trying to figure out what Croizat meant for the distribution of these kinds more in your neck of the woods than mine as I figured Croizat's notion of "genetic block" which he tied to TREE FROGS to which if they also werent next to the discusion of Pythons I might of said something. Ineed the reprodution of Pythons, tree frogs, and Oaks if they even have any climate in common would be difficult to follow for I expect to do this some day in reading Croizat again but this is not me but rather him. So please do inform me if I got the order of you scripting correct for it is possible to read with you syntax the sentence another way around.
For instance, I, BSM, do not think I am in denial, so maybe there is justice after all. But if you are asserting this claim to some kind of psyche you would need to be more specific beacause I wont be able to get the Oaks out of Canada on the basis of only your respone and not my original.
as to selecting on the environment... I do have this idea but it is inlvolved with my ideas about electrochemical theory but not that but the classical genetics idea of "external variable" (these need not be Darwin's wedge)on Olby's notion of Mendel, not the ones generally in the books that do not recognize the binomial expansion as an EMBRYOLOIGCAL concept before being classical genetic.
[This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 12-28-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Syamsu, posted 11-20-2002 7:14 AM Syamsu has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by Syamsu, posted 12-29-2002 6:36 AM Brad McFall has replied

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


Message 11 of 68 (28082)
12-29-2002 10:02 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by Syamsu
12-29-2002 6:36 AM


I lost my post to you, sorry, I guess I am finding out that your position is even more remote then I incline to believe. The post aforementioned was not intended as a multiple choice. You may-be are using English in a more formal manner than I am acclimated to from you. Time will tell.
for instance: I am suprised that you say "organ"isms go extinct when it is POPulations that do. Even on my formula for expanding Mendel's addition operationally does not grant me freedom to speak of confusing the individual change with the parts that may fail to change.
[This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 12-29-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Syamsu, posted 12-29-2002 6:36 AM Syamsu has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by Syamsu, posted 12-29-2002 11:01 PM Brad McFall has replied

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


Message 16 of 68 (28203)
12-31-2002 1:54 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by Syamsu
12-29-2002 11:01 PM


OK

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by Syamsu, posted 12-29-2002 11:01 PM Syamsu has not replied

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


Message 17 of 68 (28205)
12-31-2002 2:06 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by Syamsu
12-30-2002 10:23 AM


The subject of "variation" is very 'tricky'. If one looks at Fisher's demeanor to Wright the whole "tension" (which I do not think existed but transiently, historically) seems reducible in this exemplar of population genetics to Wright's having CHOSEN for the sake of getting something done a Measure of Variation. This done, Wright made calculations and at least in one case was able to find an error in Fisher's RESULT Before he did by his own intended method (on fitness etc). IF Variation were every to be in a theoretical position of naught this state of computational biology *would* (maybe too strong?) be approached by instead of this person-on-person disagreement but a symmetrical distribution variety of variation biometrics. I can see the need clearly in data of the classical genetics period and Wright even suggested the need for a statistical refinement to his approach. We are finding in stead that Fisher's Ford etc to Dawkins etc et al take over this domain of talk to such a sociobioloigcal extent that if once used as criticizm of Wright can not be used for evolutionary dissusions and remains only plausible for creationists to pick up the double edge and hence suffer interminably from internal problems of evolutionary nature. Natural Selection COULD?? be the problem, at least this is how Wolfram thinks and I am beginning to gess Syamsu too, but I still see middle ground here.
One could DEFINE zero variation but we need a symmetrical measure which in theory we do not have. I suspect, but not having done the homework I can not say for certain, that Haldane can be modified to approach this kind of magnitude without affecting the inprint wording or the historically significant interaction between Fisher and Wright.
It would be possible to construct such an emprics on the basis of Maxwell's IMAGINARY FLUID for which reason I started the VAIN FARADAY SEARCH THREAD, so as to see if we have enough talent on this web site to stick to a closed curve about this work.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Syamsu, posted 12-30-2002 10:23 AM Syamsu has not replied

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


Message 19 of 68 (28245)
01-01-2003 11:27 AM
Reply to: Message 18 by Syamsu
01-01-2003 10:54 AM


Ok, I guess we did not communicate. It is possible that PERVERSIONS as per Gibbs statistical mechanics permit pure reproduction espeically if engineerable in Wolfram's notion of formulas interacting with formulas. I never said that I *knew* what point set meant for any formula you may be refering to. It is not true that in Cantor's sense (of infinty) at least that reproduction is not the application. Reproduction in nature is not Random. That is an abstraction made in factor genetics which need not even have been the claim against Mendel that he had used %rational% numbers when the actuality was only an approximation yet Mendel could have been correct. You do not seem to be displaying in your "reproduction" any ability to utilize "theory" relative to biology in the raw and cold etc. I am sorry I must depart ways with you on this point.
I know you wrote this to JOHN but my comments, stand, I believe; nonetheless.
[This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 01-01-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by Syamsu, posted 01-01-2003 10:54 AM Syamsu has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by Syamsu, posted 01-02-2003 9:00 AM Brad McFall has replied

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


Message 21 of 68 (28295)
01-02-2003 10:22 AM
Reply to: Message 20 by Syamsu
01-02-2003 9:00 AM


A frog does not live in a sock. If one looks at a book published in Auburn NY the same few years as Darwin's origin one can see represented just about all we visually know today about anurans. You are free to follow NOBLE if you wish. I am not averse to imaginig frog call types as per transverse and longitudinal transmission mediately thru both the physical envirnoment and any reproduced one on fertilization (genetic). One does not necessarily need natural selection if one makes a staright line description in terms of orthogenesis. With respect to Frogs I and an unusal mutation from Western NY I suggested to Will Provine the extent this chemically reversibly can be thought by showing that it also has input to notions of adapation independent of simply understood gene frequency changes (ie cutting in solids and not liguids (gene pool). But that is a speicalist subjectivity and only provides herpetological motivatation not necessarily communicable knowledge. When I tried to communicate about snakes for instance all I was told was to go back to NJ which showed me they authority I was trying to work with did not know snakes as I did. I think you have assumed something from whatever it is you read I wrote. Sincerely, Brad. I do believe I commented something like this to you before.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by Syamsu, posted 01-02-2003 9:00 AM Syamsu has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by Syamsu, posted 01-04-2003 4:22 AM Brad McFall has replied

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


Message 29 of 68 (28464)
01-05-2003 11:59 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by Syamsu
01-04-2003 4:22 AM


Are you relying on Weismann to explain the Haekelgut/stomach that MAyr could not in one long argument get out of his tadpole mind? If not, then the burden of proof is indeed on you. I need only the tadpole, Mayr need's the bird of paradise when not any one PICK-A-Form. Touch it bidirectionally however.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by Syamsu, posted 01-04-2003 4:22 AM Syamsu has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by Syamsu, posted 01-06-2003 5:29 AM Brad McFall has replied

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


Message 32 of 68 (28511)
01-06-2003 3:09 PM
Reply to: Message 30 by Syamsu
01-06-2003 5:29 AM


You are clearly reasoning in a circle. I am done here. Of all people I am one WITH a lot off effort being given to any such framework. You seemed to have missed the very cognitive difference of "chance" and "randomness". It is one thing to agree with you as to what is a significant level of confidence to accept anything randomly or statistically than it is to explain generative randomness.
If that is indeed what you do with Darwinist language then you will not be able to do without a paragon of the work. I had establised papers in 3 different course at Cornell that Comptuer Scince categories are not as diverse as biologically existant variations but Wolfram has now written a book to challenge this. You seem only to be (if) arguing from the distal end of the reasoning but this is not suffient to answer Kant even in the way Einstein did.
If you insist on word "form" then how do you Darwinize Gladyshev's Macrothermodynamics for which he requested info on to do it. As far as I have been able to understand your intention it would be able in part to return a response to this Russian author but you splitting homonculi with me seems to mis this very viable point.
Reproduction IN MENDELS sense may be if his notion of ADDITION was extended to any Russel relation and still I have not specified the artifical selection or the taste of soup that Croizat stewed for Gould nor any reproduction for all or every natural selection.
I really can not touch this loop to which you seem to refer. When you look at forms do you consider the complex parts as due to simple programs or is your impression of any innate itution such that you do not use any work framed?
I can only guess that you are playing {animal, vegatable, mineral, with me} but if you do not answer any of these questions I will have no choice but to think like JOE somebody when posting in another venue. Some questions must be answered before education can result from the learning.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by Syamsu, posted 01-06-2003 5:29 AM Syamsu has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by Syamsu, posted 01-07-2003 1:16 AM Brad McFall has replied

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


Message 34 of 68 (28554)
01-07-2003 12:04 AM
Reply to: Message 33 by Syamsu
01-06-2003 11:48 PM


Ohhhh,
Of course you can have selection without variation if like in a disipative system two parts equlimrium an attractor takes one between two states and this attractor DIRECTUM is artifically selected but to assert that the variation Fisher associates with NAtural selection is this even in theory is a bit of strech beyond even what I assumed was reality for you. I was in other lines pointing out issues where current ideas in natural selection passed knowable work in genetics but that is a different formation of variance than is standard fare and is les s quesitonable than reproduction without any variational selection, as I guess I know now now know you to say how.
[This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 01-07-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by Syamsu, posted 01-06-2003 11:48 PM Syamsu has not replied

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


Message 36 of 68 (28561)
01-07-2003 2:25 AM
Reply to: Message 35 by Syamsu
01-07-2003 1:16 AM


Indeed they may.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by Syamsu, posted 01-07-2003 1:16 AM Syamsu has not replied

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


Message 66 of 68 (109903)
05-22-2004 3:16 PM
Reply to: Message 64 by Syamsu
01-21-2003 12:36 PM


not necessarily new
One would not have to know that one knew it was "new" every time but in some Darwinization of Macrothermodynamics the ability to seperate a given supramolecular strucutre must exist in essential or metaphysical categories you mentioned as PER a given application in macrothermo of the LeChantiler-Braun principle (at least as to our discussed issue of the 2nd law thermo)this however MIGHT be divided into Mendel's statistical cateogorialy hope out of a say 1:3 across generation but if the thermostat which would thus be isolatable suggested something "new" to you, you might not have been entirely out of your mind on variation but there is a possiblity that one will have to rethink how variation itself arises as well for the relation of the levels to radiation and carcinogens seems somewhat undefined. With respect to Gladyshev's ideas I indeed found my self STILL comparing espsecially the relation of collagen and to lipids where Gladyshev simply notes in equilibrium that DNA changes('adapts') to the temperature enviornment in a slower pacing than RNA than etc. etc. etc. I have had to use my understading of Cantor to keep this from simply being something "new" as Georgi's ideas are really quite classical but difficult only because they span the entire range of physics, chemsitry AND biology. He thinks that divide and rule applies socially as well but I am not so certain. Any way time has finally come 'round' (not that it was in any way renewed) for me to respond to the funny imaginaries Loudmouth and I mentioned so that will be next. I hope you all survived while I was doing dilligence.
see for comparison
quote:
according to how they affect human fitness and aging. At the heart of the theory is the concept that substances or products with chemical make-ups close to that of young, simple organisms from colder regions have the most health benefits and will help prolong human life. For example, seaweed or shellfish from cold waters are dietetically better for humans than more complex food products from warmer climates.
Page not found – yet2
This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 05-22-2004 02:29 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by Syamsu, posted 01-21-2003 12:36 PM Syamsu has not replied

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


Message 68 of 68 (188591)
02-25-2005 7:17 PM
Reply to: Message 67 by gnojek
02-25-2005 7:08 PM


Henderson I believe made this point about the purely spatial aspects of panbiogeography regardless of if Symasu's notion of reproduction applied to clones or not. This is the same issue about how Provine might have thought that Fisher changed his mind about the extendability of population fission on reading WRIGHTS MATH! Yes as long as there is translation in space there can be formmaking by mutation independent of the kinesis,locomotion....but not exactly and that I think is WHY Wright constructed his calculations on selection or mutation or migration (equilibrated)?
This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 02-26-2005 10:22 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by gnojek, posted 02-25-2005 7:08 PM gnojek 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