|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: The Evolution of sex | ||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1404 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
all I know is that, with typical male chauvinistic perogative, I'd hapliod diploid in any imploid receptive chaiotic phenotype attractors ... (ducks)
This message has been edited by RAZD, 01*29*2006 08:54 PM we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share.
|
||||||||||||||||||||
Brad McFall Member (Idle past 5032 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
|
||||||||||||||||||||
halucigenia Inactive Member |
quote:The haploid phase of mosses and ferns have an adult phenotype separate from the adult phenotype of the diploid phase. In this life cycle we can assume that evolution is a factor in the morphology of the haploid phenotype as well as the diploid phenotype, therefore the haploid phenotype is as 'important' in the evolution of such organisms as the diploid form is in ours. I can't see how evolution could influence our haploid form as much as it could influence an adult haploid form that exists separately from the diploid form, as in ferns and mosses. Anyway I get your point, I think, let's call it the selfish haploid hypothesis?
|
||||||||||||||||||||
halucigenia Inactive Member |
The question of the sperm's motility was not meant to refute your hypothesis about dimentionality, but the graphing of the sperm due to the water flow. Surely the direction of approach is not as important as the spatial relationship between the location of the origination of the sperm and the site of the egg, even given the fact that the fertilisation takes place on a prothallus of a different individual, even though self fertilisation is not ruled out entirely. The symmetry question is entirely of the morphology of the prothallus I would have thought, not the sperm anatomy (though I can see the the symmetry of the sperm would affect its path towards the egg, though I can't see how this would be significant).
I don't think that water has a randomisation force, unless you are thinking Brownian motion effects? Anyway, the non-determenistic nature of chaotic attractor of the complex plane certainly could be affected by a directed motion of a motile sperm towards the egg. In a 1D symetry, or a symmetry greater than 1D, but less then 2D, (fractal dimension) the symmetry should certainly be independant of directionality of the motile sperm. Gametic unions in the phase space of the prothallus, if they are non determenistic, should not be a precursor to the form of sexuality, even if expressed by different chromosomes IMO. Let's hope that this communication is not lost as readily as the first mark on a blackboard.
|
||||||||||||||||||||
macaroniandcheese  Suspended Member (Idle past 3927 days) Posts: 4258 Joined: |
precisely what i was thinking. i need to reread my margulis.
|
||||||||||||||||||||
halucigenia Inactive Member |
quote:I was alluding to Dawkins.
|
||||||||||||||||||||
macaroniandcheese  Suspended Member (Idle past 3927 days) Posts: 4258 Joined: |
*brain fart*
|
||||||||||||||||||||
Brad McFall Member (Idle past 5032 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 5032 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
|
||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1404 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Yes, but sex necessarily bears a different attitude whether you c it or not (even if full circle\cycle). It is a divergence tendency within the forced convergence from without.
|
||||||||||||||||||||
Brad McFall Member (Idle past 5032 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?
|
||||||||||||||||||||
halucigenia Inactive Member |
Formalised in the way of creating a formal system capturing the essential features of the real world in a conceptual mathematical system. That is if, sexuality is remandable in a mathematical system at all, though I can't see how, which was my point. I am not alluding to formal and informal logical expressions at all. As for a changable attitude being remandable, I take it that you mean the directional attitude of the gemete and not my 'attitude' towards this intermittant discussion
|
||||||||||||||||||||
Brad McFall Member (Idle past 5032 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