|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: The Evolution of sex | ||||||||||||||||||||
Brad McFall Member (Idle past 5061 days) Posts: 3428 From: Ithaca,NY, USA Joined: |
Now that is question!!
Is there some way to think about sex synthetically or is it purely a part of our analytic capability? I hate it that EVC moves on before I can leisurely develop a topic so you will need to press me with some kind of extraordinary endurance but I will respond in a particular direction and to a particular end if pressed. I am begging to think indeed that the traditional symbols 0+ and <-0 before:
The neat thing about ferns' sex is that I think some graphs about the different gene frequencies in haploids vs. diploids might indicate via the 1-D affects actual phenotype differences(not charms) of the heart shaped form which water mediates fusion of the different kinds of gametes in these plants. This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 01-26-2006 06:14 PM
|
||||||||||||||||||||
Brad McFall Member (Idle past 5061 days) Posts: 3428 From: Ithaca,NY, USA Joined: |
Ok I will start with the plants before trying to see if sex is not merely analytic. The synthesis is much vaguer to me but I have thought about it.
The line of sexual demarcation that I intend to denote is found on page 57 of Evolution and the Genetics of PopulationsEvC Forum: The Theory of Gene Frequencies by S.Wright chapter 3(Systematic Change of Gene Frequency: Sinlge Loci) there, anyone with eyes can see two different cross lines. If my view is NOT off topic then male "sperm" is litterally redisplayable from that graph COMING OUT of the upper left corner thanks to water flowing "down"(?that is the question) to the lower right corner with the condition being that unstable and stable changes ( in the difference of phases of diploid and haploid survivals) in the haploid phenotype are divided by the difference of unions of gametes over time. Once I get the visualization over, I will move on to discuss how the correlation shadows of relative correlations remand sexual differences BOTH in the distance WITHIN this graph and between any two given gametes IF RANDOMLY breeding. Water aside from tending to go "down" would tend to give random sperm directions, so a Hardy Weinberg starting point will not be put off in the begining of the -discussion. The prothallium does justice to Darwin's notion of a "brancH" in any plurivocal sense.http://gecko.gc.maricopa.edu/~lsola/NonFlwr/fern105.htm As a preview read Weyl on symmetry or be prepared for me to refer to it. http://www.pupress.princeton.edu/titles/865.html I wouldnt be saying that it is a problem with expressing different "phenotypes" but that the correlation beween phenotype and geneotype seperate geometrically (sexually) INTO the actual fern diploid form irreversibly including charms of fern morphology.
http://EvC Forum: A proof against ID and Creationism -->EvC Forum: A proof against ID and Creationism )and inbreeding vs meiosis. Since this representation (it is about a year old)I was able to collapse the horizontal presentation in this figure. More later. This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 01-28-2006 09:04 AM
|
||||||||||||||||||||
Brad McFall Member (Idle past 5061 days) Posts: 3428 From: Ithaca,NY, USA Joined: |
The Principles of Heredity by LH Synder
This is a book my Grandfather used to teach (genetics, (I suppose)) with . in the 50s. Here is page 355-6:
quote: For me which parts make up which individuals all depend on how the perpendicular is “mentally” dropped (see thumbnails inEvC Forum: The Theory of Gene Frequencies by S.Wright ).
|
||||||||||||||||||||
Brad McFall Member (Idle past 5061 days) Posts: 3428 From: Ithaca,NY, USA Joined: |
I think it is justthat the diploid form just IS the haploid form differentially sexualized.This is a little hard to explain unless I start to dissect the sexs down to the largest atom aggregates they might be explained in. This would be the synthetic part whereas so far I only was trying to say something that does not remand any changes in knowledge. I might be wrong on the visualization as this depends somewhat on fern speciation but using the complex plane to situate my lexicology does not detract from my projection and pinpoints the relations I intended.
This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 01-29-2006 05:26 PM
|
||||||||||||||||||||
Brad McFall Member (Idle past 5061 days) Posts: 3428 From: Ithaca,NY, USA Joined: |
Great question!!
Dont let Marks' binaryness nor other babblevcfish detract from your posts as you have no problem comprehending any questions as far as I can see. You are moving a bit faster than me so you will have to wait while I put together a little bit more information. Yes, that is the question about the motility of the sperm but since the sperm could twist left OR right and still approach whatever the line is to the egg symmetrically (given the general prothallus shape) AND this is only a matter of one allele's potential stability or instablity the falsification would appear not in the sperm anatomy etc but in possible non symmetric traits in the diploid. I will have to discuss the visualization a bit more, please give me a day or so, as we are using something that is a bit overly morphological, on account of the analogy to strucutres in math without knowing the details themselves but because I suspect I am not and was not mistaken when I wrote:
quote:@http://EvC Forum: The Theory of Gene Frequencies by S.Wright -->EvC Forum: The Theory of Gene Frequencies by S.Wright differential sexualization is dependent and consequent and not formative (relative to some amount of DNA to possibly also falsify this idea)on the CORRELATION between zygotes and gametes in terms of overal gene combinations no matter how frequently. If it is true that the thought is divided instructively but not mathematically (it could if biophyics is not biochemistry) differently among gametes (sexually) than unions (zygotes) provided water does have the most randomization force during theeffects of gametic unions (neither the prothallus shape nor the sperm turn radius,seems to block this condition)than the amount of non random sperm directions still gives the starting point of the egg and the sperm as the same place. This is the same "requirement" of Mendel when he symbolized seeds and pollen by the division symbol"/". Yes I think we can take the analysis a little bit further. I will try to explain this again a little differnly later. You DO understand the >80% of what Holmes has claimed in the past in what I am saying. Of course I might/could and someday will be wrong(not today)!!
The "+" in the above tumbnail expresses how to see how the molecules would relate to a kind of 1-Dsymmetry that is irrespective of direction. I now however consider this preliminary vision to remand the female connection over the male whether in plants or animals. If this paramount issues is correct then the circle in the last figuration above is a precursor to the form of sexuality as expressed by DIFFERENT chromosomes. This consideration must be qualified by an understanding of Wright's position on "harmony" and his complaint about Fisher's use of advatageous and deletierious mutations(see pages added at http://EvC Forum: The Theory of Gene Frequencies by S.Wright -->EvC Forum: The Theory of Gene Frequencies by S.Wright ) . My grandfather's thesis was already within this understanding or lack of it but if for instance Will Provine's classes at Cornell was the modern standard this very BIOLOGICAL presuposition to communication would be lost as soon as the first mark was put on the black board. This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 01-30-2006 02:41 PM This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 01-30-2006 02:46 PM
|
||||||||||||||||||||
Brad McFall Member (Idle past 5061 days) Posts: 3428 From: Ithaca,NY, USA Joined: |
I tend to think more continuously like;
where any deviation from Wolfram's approach comes from interpreting this: quote:in terms of Wolfram's- quote:It would be nice if the original poster "harped" in, so that we could know just what the poster was after. The use of MATH leads me to discount some of the comparisions of Wolfram as sexualization could not be the same unions for higher plants than the gametes for ancestors OR lowerplants. Wolfram used the same idea of a subsitution system for them all. I doubt that. I am also not so sure how the infinity of the complex plane must be related to the curvatures(in topology-book extracted pics) necessarily though we did discuss sufficiency . This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 02-03-2006 07:12 AM
|
||||||||||||||||||||
Brad McFall Member (Idle past 5061 days) Posts: 3428 From: Ithaca,NY, USA Joined: |
There are ways to avoid the c-word as impartial does not cross heteroshowvanism but I must show the mistaken misology in Spanier's span of molecular genetics and molecular biology presently as "hetero/sexism" was published in its' place. This can be done by substituting this figure of mine
, IN Spanier's use of 3 in one determinants figured near the end of her text: for any circle on the cover of her book- quote: quote: This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 02-04-2006 02:36 PM
|
||||||||||||||||||||
Brad McFall Member (Idle past 5061 days) Posts: 3428 From: Ithaca,NY, USA Joined: |
Could you give me a little better clue about what you mean by
quote:. Would the difference between formal and informal logical expressions express this or would a possibly changable attitude also be remandable?
|
||||||||||||||||||||
Brad McFall Member (Idle past 5061 days) Posts: 3428 From: Ithaca,NY, USA Joined: |
The effect may be, hypothetically.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024