Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 63 (9161 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,581 Year: 2,838/9,624 Month: 683/1,588 Week: 89/229 Day: 61/28 Hour: 3/4


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   "CLIMBING MOUNT IMPROBABLE" - Critique
mick
Member (Idle past 4976 days)
Posts: 913
Joined: 02-17-2005


Message 31 of 37 (256883)
11-04-2005 6:00 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by Brad McFall
10-27-2005 11:46 PM


Re: One for the Mountain of Evidence as well ...
Hi Brad!
Thanks for your post. I understood it apart from a couple of bits:
brad writes:
...did not see analytically how differences in protein answers to adaptive questions may create STRAIGHT lines that might be beneficial in the sense debated by Gray and Darwin figuratively.
Could you explain what you mean by straight lines? If we are using a topological metaphor then it's clear that one could climb the mountain more easily (but more slowly) just by going around it in spirals. What is the importance of straight lines?
brad writes:
Adaptation is pretty much a death ticket over evolutionary time
You may well be right, but could you elaborate just a little?
Thanks, best wishes,
Mick

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by Brad McFall, posted 10-27-2005 11:46 PM Brad McFall has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by Brad McFall, posted 11-05-2005 7:52 AM mick has not replied

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5023 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 32 of 37 (257018)
11-05-2005 7:52 AM
Reply to: Message 31 by mick
11-04-2005 6:00 PM


Re: One for the Mountain of Evidence as well ...
I dont have all time just now. I will edit back here. Here are some picks I will draw the line within, as I answer less reflectively.
Deviation from the line comes through with deniability or not(is the causality different or not?) in Kant’s(p259-260 Critique of Judgment) -
quote:
“On the other hand, it is just as necessary a maxim of reason not to pass by the principle of purposes in the products of nature. For although it does not make their mode of origination any more comprehensible, yet it is a heuristic principle for investigating the particular laws of a nature, supposing even that we wish to make no use of it for explaining nature itself, in which we still always speak only of natural purposes, although it apparently exhibits a designed unity of purpose - i.e. without seeking the found of their possibility beyond nature. But since we must come in the end to this latter question, it is just as necessary to think for nature a particular kind of causality which does not present itself in it as the mechanism of natural causes which does. To the receptivity of several forms, different from those of which matter is susceptible by mechanism, must be added a spontaneity of a cause (which therefore cannot be matter) without which no ground can be assigned for those forms. No doubt reason, before it takes this step, must proceed with caution and not try to explain teleologically every technique of nature, i.e. every productive faculty of nature which displays in itself (as in regular bodies pruposiveness of figure to our mere apprehension, but must always regard such as so far mechanically possible. But on that account to wish entirely to exclude the teleological principle and to follow simple mechanism only - in cases where, in the rational investigation of the possibility of natural forms through their causes, purposiveness shows itself quite undeniably as the reference to a different kind of causality - to do this must make reason fantastic and send it wandering among chimeras of unthinkable natural faculties, just as a mere teleological mode of explanantion which takes no account of natural mechanism makes it visionary.”
This possible deviation from ”straightness’ is only with respect to the forms. It does not reply the “central earth” of Newton although it does if the induction Newton attempted below is true of the same particular shape.
“As Gravity makes the Sea flow round the denser and weightier Parts of the Globe of the Earth, so the Attraction may make the watery Acid flow round the denser and compacter Particles of Earth for composing the Particles of Salt. For otherwise the Acid would not do the Office of a Medium between the Earth and common Water, for making Salts dissolvable in the Water; nor would Salt of Tartar readily draw off the Acid from dissolved Metals, nor Metals the Acid from Mercury. Now, as in the great Globe of the Earth and Sea, the densest Bodies by their Gravity sink down in Water, and always endeavor to go towards the Center of the Globe; so that a Particle of Salt, the densest Mater may always endeavor to approach the Center of the Particle: So that a Particle of Salt may be compared to a Chaos; being dense, hard, dry and earthy in the Center; and rare, soft, moist and watery in the Circumference. And hence it seems to be that Salts are of a lasting Nature, being scarce destroy’d , unless by drawing away their watery Parts by violence, or by letting them soak into the Pores of the central Earth by a gentle Heat in Putrefaction, until the Earth be dissolved by the Water, and separated into smaller particles, which by reason of their Smallness make the rotten Compound appear of a black Colour. Hence it may be, that the Parts of Animals and Vegetables preserve their several Forms, and assimilate their Nourishment; the soft and moist Nourishment easily changing its Texture by a gentle Heat of Motion, till it becomes like the dense, hard, dry, and durable Earth in the Center of each Particle. But then the Nourishment grows unit to be assimilated, the central Earth grows too feeble to assimilate it, the Motion ends in Confusion, Putrefaction, and Death.”( p386 Newton Opticks)
The line does not apply to Kant’s somewhat narrowly denoted same(Critique of Judgment p195)-
quote:
“The fluid state is, to all appearance, older than the solid state, and plants as well as animal bodies are fashioned out of fluid nutritive matter, so far as this forms itself in a state of rest. This last, of course, primarily combines and forms itself in freedom according to a certain original disposition directed toward purposes (which, as will be shown in PartII, must not be judged aesthetically but teleologically, according to the principle of realism), but also perhaps in conformity with the universal law of the affinity of materials. Again, the watery fluids dissolved in an atmosphere that is a mixture of different gases, if they separate from the latter on account of cooling, produce snow figures which, in correspondence with the character of the special mixture of gases, often seem very artistic and are extremely beautiful. So, without detracting from the teleological principle by which we judge of organization, we may well think that the beauty of flowers, of the plumage of birds, or of shellfish, both in shape and color, may be ascribed to nature and its faculty of producing forms in an aesthetically purposive way, in its freedom, without particular purposes adapted thereto, according to chemical laws by the arrangement of the material requisite for the organization in question.”
Nor does the self same line apply formally with the combinaortics thought by Weyl with reference to Helmholtz (in PHILOSOPHY OF MATHMATICS AND NATURAL SCIENCE)
(if you have a hard time getting into Newton’s ”mind’ for Provine’s USE of Enstein’s stature or Newton’s “optick Nerves of such Animals as look the same way with both Eyes(as of Men, Dogs, Sheep, Oxen &c.)meet before they come into the Brain, but the optick Nerves of such Animals as do not look the same way with both Eyes (as of Fishes, and of the Chameleon,) do not meet, if I am rightly inform’d” )(op cit p347.) or Kant’s opcit p229, “Natural characteristics which demonstrate themselves a priori, and consequently admit of insight into their possibility from universal principles without any admixture of experience, although they carry with them a technical purposiveness, yet cannot, because they are absolutely necessary, be referred to the teleology of nature as to a method belonging to physic for solving its problems. Arithmetical and geometrical analogies, as well as universal mechanical laws - however strange and admirable may seem to use the union of different rules, quite independent of one another according to all appearance , in a single principle - posses on that account no claim to be teleological grounds of explanation in physics. Even if they disserve to be brought into consideration in the universal theory of the purposiveness of things in nature, yet they belong to another {science}, i.e. metaphysics, and constitute no internal principle of natural purposes in organized beings it is not only permissible but unavoidable to use the teleological mode of judging as a principle of the doctrine of nature in regard to a particular class of its objects.”
The line does belong to Kant’s, Critique of Pure Reason page 392,
quote:
“If we review our cognitions in their entire extent, we shall find that the peculiar business of reason is to arrange them into a system, that is to say, to give them connection according to a principle. This unity presupposes an idea - the idea of the form of a whole ( of cognition ) , preceding the determinate cognition of the parts, and containing the conditions which determine a priori to every part its place and relation to the other parts of the whole system. This idea accordingly demands complete unity in the cognition of the understanding - not the unity of a contingent aggregate, but that of a system connected according to necessary laws. It cannot be affirmed with propriety that this idea is a conception of an object; it is merely a conception of the complete unity of the conception of objects, in so far as this unity is available to the understanding as a rule. Such conceptions or reason are not derived from nature; on the contrary, we employ them for the interrogation and investigation of nature; and regard our cognition as defective so long as it is not adequate to them. We admit that such a thing as pure earth, pure water, or pure air, is not to be discovered. And yet we require these conceptions ( which have their origin in the reason, so far as regards their absolute purity and completeness) for the purpose of determining the share which each of these natural causes has in every phenomenon. Thus the different kinds of matter are all referred to earths - as mere weight, to salts and inflammable bodies - as pure force, and finally, to water and air - as the vehicular - of the former, or the machines employed by them in their operations- for the purpose of explaining the chemical action and reaction of bodies in accordance with the idea of a mechanism. For, although not actually so expressed, the influence of such ideas of reason is very observable in the procedure of natural philosophers.”

Getting this across is what makes writing the like I do, so difficult. Since this involves a taste NOT IN ART that Newton used the word Art for, in a different part of his text I did not quote, but Kant appears to have logically kept the same separate transcendentally where Newton rather wrote less sublimely on principle “ For the Air abounds with acid Vapours fit to promote Fermentations, as appears by the rusting of Iron and Copper in it, the kindling of Fire by blowing, and the beating of the Heart by mean of respiration. Now the above-mention’d Motions are so great and violent as to shew that in Fermentations the Particles of Bodies which almost rest, are put into new Motions by a very potent Principle, which acts upon them only when they approach one another, and causes them to meet and clash with great violence, and grow hot with motion, and dash ---“(Newton p380 Opticks) I drew or thought I might have so scrawled in the end, next to the numbers 25 and 40 actually below, said line in question, as a representation of the blood system of fish across any grade assuming the body is rest and not conspiring. The problem for Will was that he seems not to have thought much about Cantor’s claim that continuous motion in discontinuous space is possible (mathematically) yet he more than willing to call up the Ghost or spector of popular science’s Einsteinan past.

Will simply thinks that any line I am working on here is just a difference of choosing one’s maxims as a large or small as one wished. It is too easy to show this only works if evolution IN NATURE is ONLY an engine of atheism. Perhaps Razd missed that when I said that ID still collapses today. It is much harder to show that Mayr is as mistaken down the lines that Provine and Mayr disagree on.
I am about finished with the post but I will finish it later and add the scholarship about Mayr relating to the first four pictures I started with, instead of Provine next. In the meantime I address your second question somewhat firstly.
If Newton’s description of biochemistry above-
quote:
Parts of Animals and Vegetables preserve their several Forms, and assimilate their Nourishment; the soft and moist Nourishment easily changing its Texture by a gentle Heat of Motion, till it becomes like the dense, hard, dry, and durable Earth in the Center of each Particle. But then the Nourishment grows unit to be assimilated, the central Earth grows too feeble to assimilate it, the Motion ends in Confusion, Putrefaction, and Death.” p386 Opticks
be found to include Macrothermodynamics then the view of evolutionists that a well adapted population can become extinct not being fit WHEN THE ENVIRONMENT CHANGES (the death ticket results if one suspects that the environment almost always changes) does so BECAUSE the thermostat could not be changed out for another one phenotypically and genetically quickly enough (probably because of cohesion of the genome (multiple influences of genes on one another)) to stay in hierarchical thermodynamic sync with the “solidity” of the relevant central Earth.
Will’s lack of response continues to merit my display not of the “bull” that he ”sallies forth’ as a bs meter for P., two “l” Johnson, but the simple morymrid
picture

I was studying a cousin of, while Will was taking 15 years to write a book that now another 15 years later he does not question in the least. I should have asked him dirctely about Shipley’s book on Cause and Correlation but because he was speaking on ID I limited my comments that night to that. All his talk against purpose in evolution remands an answer to the simple question that Faraday asked long ago but I have never seen answered, “Can electric fish be alternatively conductors and insulators?” So instead of being under a more determinate scibilia, intellectuals must alternate the discussion under God, Science or the UN? I should hope not.
Notes for the rest of the post below
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
Now Mayr insists that there is a developable high or low (structure)but that it is not apriori of Agassiz. It IS though in Kant’s dream, dreaming in conflict of faculties, dream of Aggaisz’s
Dreams are not apriori but failure to use this contingently is Mayr’s ignorance so we only have to show . the instructions on how to breed the beneficial line I asserted contrary to Will presentation of Gray and Darwin does exist.
You could note that Kant said, “This internal phenomenon cannot be admitted to be a self-subsisting thing; for its condition is time, and time cannot be the condition of the thing in itself. But the empirical truth of phenomena in space and time is guaranteed beyond the possibility of doubt, and sufficiently distinguished from the illusion of dreams of fancy - although both have a proper and thorough connection in an experience according to empirical laws” if I may be permitted to extend the fancy paleontologically. Critique of Pure Reason p298 Trascendental Doctrine of the Elements.
It is just that it might NOT be found by a simple extrapolation of Morganism(what my grandfather took biological change to consist in).
Quote of Mary on Aggasiz part one on gentle Darwin and two on sharks
“Agassiz’s first great outburst against the Darwinian theory came in a series of open discussions at the American Academy of Arts ad Sciences, culminating in a detailed rebuttal published in the introduction to Volume III of his Natural History of the United States (1861) and preprinted verbatim in the American Journal of Science and Arts (1860b). This was the end of the scientific debate. In the next dozen years Agassiz took his case to the public. In lectures, popular articles, and books he pleaded the cause of creationism, reiterating his previous arguments in a form intelligible to the layman. However, shortly before his death, he turned once again to a more serious and systematic consideration of the question of evolution. The results of these studies he presented, in the fall of 1873, in a series of lectures, of which only the first was completed for the press, to be published posthumously in 1874. The situation with respect to Darwin had greatly changed since 1860. Darwin no longer was a maverick and rebel to whose theory Agassiz could refer as a “scientific mistake, untrue in its facts, unscientific in its method, and mischievous in its tendency” (1860: 154). The theory of evolution had by now been almost universally adopted and Darwin had become the grand old man of biology. As a consequence, Agassiz is far more gentle in his references to Darwin.” P 274
“p272 Finally, Agassiz raises one point which concerning the fossil record by which he thinks he can inflict a mortal wound on the transmutation theory. If this theory is right, says Agassiz, the “lowest” representative of a type should be found in the lowest strata and the “highest” in the most recent strata. But this is not what one finds!
“What then are the earlies known Vertebrates? They are Selachians (sharks and their allies) and Ganoids (garpikes and the like), the highest of all living fishes, structurally speaking . In all their features the Selachinans, more than any other fishes, resemble the higher animals. They law few eggs, the higher kinds giving birth only to three, four, or five at a brood, whereas the common fishes lay myriads of eggs, hundreds of thousands in some instances, and these are for the greater part cast into the water to be developed at random. (1874:100)
In this argument Agassiz is quite oblivious to the fact that he speaks like a true Aristotelian , selecting his criteria of “high” and “low” on the basis of a priori considerations: “The limitation of the young is unquestionably a mark of superiority. The higher we rise in the scale of animal life the more restricted is the number of offspring. In proportion oto this reduction in number, the connection of the offspring with the partent is drawn closer, organically and morally, till this relation becomes finally the foundation of all social organization, of all human civilization.” The facts of internal fertilization and placenta formation among the sharks are quoted as additional evidence of their “superiority,” and yet, Agassiz continues
Pearson thought Malthus works with Darwin. Wright argues from Pearson. Provine asserts Wright’s drift does not exist. Lewontin defended Will view in the presence of postdocs. There is an error here in evolutionist theorizing . .I think it is contextually around . Kant on Beavers
“footnote p 315 Analogy . but then I cannot therefore conclude that because man uses reason for his building, the beaver must have the like, and call this a conclusion according to analogy . ”
and NicheConstructors on Beavers relation of HOME to final cause in Kant’s example AS a function of nonneutral polymorphic might be DIVERGENT to DIFFERENCES of effective causes through products or relative purposes naturally objectivfied as far as is possible empirically at a given time. I also question IN THIS DIVERGENCE Mayr’s connotations from Aggaisz’s COMBINED use of embryology and fish paleontology OF HIS DAY. Mayr did not take account of Aggaiz’s description of HIS DREAM on FISH FOSSILS, but only what the record prima facie presents. It is easier to get to this in the contemporary context of discussing Shipley’s cause relative to Kant’snotion of causality than to clear up any historical trace of a difference that seems consitently to be drawn back to former times of creationism. I hold that if evolution was as good as it is being taught at some point in the tracing one would ONLY end up with evolutionary yields. Looking now at the present generation of evo commentators like my former high school class mate Carl Zimmer who is lauded by the older bevy of evos I can only concluded that his WRITING depends on MY HUMAN FACE being either the Bradydont or Chimera as it was actually a mormyrid instead.
Show picture of fish
I was collecting those FORMS (and seeing how ecological inheritance might exist) while Will was finishing his propadeutic to anti-Wright literature. In truth I tried to present these lines before I collected the fish which showed me otherwise but Will thought it only speculation and metaphor as you first suspected. So if you had asked me this question in 86 before I went to Lac Tumba I would only have had a feeling that the lines were in truth drawable. I know more determatively now. During this whole time Will has only solidified his anti-Wrightian perspective more so while I have suspected it even MORE beneficial to evolutionary biologists. The strange thing is that no one is really USING Wright’s 4-volume work which I attribute to Provine’s poor review which instead is taken as a great one. It just is not for me subjectively but that is not science only opinion.
Malthus said,
“I am told that it is a maxim among the improvers of cattle, that you may breed to any degree of nicety you please, . It cannot be true, therefore, that among animals, some of the offspring will possess the desirable qualitites of the parents in a greater degree; or that animlas are indefinitely perfectible . ”
It is possible that ecological inheritance passed genomically by a difference of kinds of I-D symmetries in the force decompotions proteins and other biomolecules “encode” can “perfect” monohiericheis by simple truth of gladyshev’s law TRASITIVELY across generations. If this trasversality IS within the difference of dominace and recessive there is not any problem within the confines of already published evolutionary theory in spriti. Some other theoretical point may need to be true if this is not. Of course it does not mean that someone might suggest it has already been falsified but I have not seen a clearer expression than the one I keep trying to communicate on EVC. In other words it might be within an poorly understood genetics made hard to write by the current use of the difference between phenotype and geneotype. This particularization I am working with deos not mean that there is full perfectaiblitly in the sense intended by Malthus but it does mean that where Malthus thought a definition determined the conclusion is not where the application of modern math divergence and convergence intersects the mathmetical representations of biologivcal form making. Cantor’s math purely already extended this. It is only that biologists operating with a poorly communicable population thinking arehaving problems refining the communication of the notions that either work for or against it. This is due to the desire oversteppiong the intuition in the attempts to keep up the hierarchicalization of academic biology withihn a generally expaninding humanistic heierachiy of sholars and this is why you can read among Wilson, Gould, and other the separation of magisterial but shi does not lead to supporting artifical selection directly as to fish in particlaur which is what it HSOULD be doing culturally. A shepherd is not an acqualigist but this difference is lost by TURNING the vertical and horizontal line that is straight one way among the lowe cold bloods but is orthogonal in the same object or subjectivity in latter three verts becoming hot/lukewarm bloods.
Mick I am developing my own web site called APPLIED POPULATION THINKING. Those are the only words there now but I will envelop this position further there. Those words are all that is on-line just now@
Brad's URL
|_____________individual one___________________|
|--birth margin--|-----------------LIFE-------------------|--death margin--| }species A
|_____________individual two__________________|
Ecosystem Engineering can create ”effective Lamarkianistical behaviors’ in the sense that can read in Mayr that might both be heritable but conserved by wildlife conservationists cum biomass productivity specialists of a former relation of human population growth to agricultural society. These transformation between Niche Space and Species Space can be vertically passed down through the generations despite the horizontal maintenance either culturally or by reverse genetic enginerring but neither is the relation of irreducible complexity and its Baramin container an absolute indication of changes from God’s power nor is it a arestriction of human birth extremes and hence death to life on Earth should other species mesoevolve in SPATIAL step with the natural purpose in the different of intellect, size/population,a nd economc reality be. If the theoretical position from which I am movtivated to write is true then the lines I describe are as straight as any part of any letter within the writing.
Carter continuing”We must then think of a species which is distributed into demes in this way as taking place in a network of dividing and fusing demes. When two demes fuse the differences that they have evolved in isolation will not be entirely lost. The population formed by their fusion will be intermediate between the two original demes. Advantageous characters that have been evolved in either deme will be retained by the action of selection. This process of frequent fusing and splitting of demes will go on over the whole species range. The result should be that the species genotype is kept everywhere similar by transference of genes and that it should gradually evolve by accepting advantageous characters that have been evolved in the demes.
I have tried to show how the advantages “characters” ARE advantageous/benefical “lines” but they need not be an aggregate of mutations molecualarly summed since thermostats are not a part of life but only affect the margins of life if at all monoheirarchically. Croizat wrote about what might “have been taken advantage of “ by a prior generation and I read this as prior generation of evolutionsits that creationists are against (the 60s) not biological change and translation in space. Now I could be absolutely wrong and mistaken if Provine is actually correct that there never was and never will be any drift or shifiting in the balance. I do not see fish this way. I might see other verts that way however. I am learning to call this the monohierarchical multiplication effect just as in banking one refers to the multipler effect for the final potential deposit creation only there is some issue theoretically only about the form of the distribution this multiplication combines with the analogical sense of the multiplier effect concurrently and really not theoretically enabled by fiscal policy but here in the synthesis of genomes not aggregate supply and demand. What is conceptually different than in macroeconomics is that there IS reverse information flow through the graphed changes biologically but not socially unless artifical selections are viewed as part of natural selection in nature but as long as evolution is ONLY being taught to be an engine of atheism this is as hard a point to bring out as it was for Keynsians to get beyond some Marixists. Mayr’s work continually asserts either that what I am suggesting is essentialistic or that it doesnot exist and Gould continues to try to separate out the human element no analogy to beasts continues to sustain, that is why I prefer Croizat to either of them.
My point is that it takes a HUGE amount of knowledge in biology do even do possibly instructable work that criticism remands (one has to challenge Dick Lewontin NOT a bible study group(and that requires getting a PHD, I could not get a BS with the funds I had available)and yet I was made into the form of a retarded/disabled student rather than supported by the wedge that outcompetes even itself . I have to thank creationists for keeping the controversy alive for as long as it took for me to mature my thought that I already had incipiently. The truth may indeed be on the evo side but the literature FORCES one to deal with Creationism. It makes NO Scholarly sense that academia (as opposed to public education which must maintain some separation by law) does not have a place for students that attempt to straddle the horse of no bucks. I HAD to do this growing up. It was only minor part of my consciouness. Now the adults are arguing over if the sky is under god or if we have the legal bar too high but we all need to deal with whether we are under the Kantian refered scibilia p321 instead.
The academic point is that people have confused relative and final purposes pretty much on purpose. Of course this straightening out of Aggaisz’ curvature by showing how a simple Lamark/Darwin difference fails does not address every modern understanding there is no question in my mind that language is on my side. Rather than trying to develop this historical counter point I would rather simply look at the biology of the below fish and frog(toads) AND THAT is my Point. That is what I tried to do at cornell not argue the difference of creation and evolution and still being dedicated to the line between amphibians and reptiles I could not and did not “make it” there. Yes I am still here but it is by error not errands.
The material was from the TimeLife series on FISHES and Mayr's 1976 book and
Kant I. Critique of Judgment. Hafner Library of Classics
I Newton Opticks Whittlesey House
I Kant Critique of Pure Reason Barnes & Noble
This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 11-08-2005 06:39 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by mick, posted 11-04-2005 6:00 PM mick has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by Brad McFall, posted 10-14-2006 2:35 PM Brad McFall has not replied

  
Cal
Inactive Member


Message 33 of 37 (257043)
11-05-2005 10:33 AM
Reply to: Message 25 by Chiroptera
10-31-2005 3:13 PM


Re: One for the Mountain of Evidence as well ...
it's hard to see how a truly detrimental "adaptation" could become fixed in a population.
The founder effect is one way.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by Chiroptera, posted 10-31-2005 3:13 PM Chiroptera has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by RAZD, posted 11-05-2005 4:18 PM Cal has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1395 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 34 of 37 (257107)
11-05-2005 4:18 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by Cal
11-05-2005 10:33 AM


Founder or Bottleneck?
You could also have an "bottleneck" event.
With over 6 billion people living in the world today, human beings are a phenomenally successful animal. But our species, Homo sapiens, once came close to outright extinction. (click)
Clues from genetics, archaeology and geology suggest our ancestors were nearly wiped out by one or more environmental catastrophes in the Late Pleistocene period. At one point, the numbers of modern humans living in the world may have dwindled to as few as 10,000 people.
Professor David Goldstein, a molecular biologist at University College in London, has uncovered evidence of a very ancient population bottleneck. A bottleneck is an event that reduces the genetic difference, or diversity, in a population of animals.
While this would act similar to a founder effect the cause is different, and the core population is already established. The survivors could be a lucky fringe group of the main population and thus have 'non-optimum' adaptations that are not related to their survival.

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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by Cal, posted 11-05-2005 10:33 AM Cal has not replied

  
Mirabile_Auditu
Inactive Member


Message 35 of 37 (259488)
11-14-2005 12:26 AM
Reply to: Message 8 by Nuggin
10-27-2005 11:54 AM


Re: YOUR "Critique" is not MY "Critique"
Nuggin wrote:
quote:
The thread title is "critique" but you aren't really offering one.
What you are doing is cherry picking quotes and attacking those particular lines of text.
In my mind a critique would look something like this:
Book Title
Description of Discussion within the book
Main points of the author
Assessment of the author's arguement (merits, failings)
Your counter arguement and data to support it.
All I'm seeing here is you pointing to misquotes, or disagreements within the ToE community.
If you have a specific problem with one of these quotes, or one of these ideas. Let's discuss that particular idea or quote.
Too many times on this board we've seen people throw 20 quotes up, then when we try to discuss 1 of the quotes, the original poster jumps from topic to topic to avoid conversation.
Pick one of these, I'll happily discuss it with you in great detail, but I'll insist that we stick to that particular quote / idea throughout the thread.
For any infidel to challenge a God of Darwinists, such as Richard Dawkins, is to take on the entire evolutionary universe.
Generalizations would be met only with disdain and challenges that I "took him out of context" or I am "too ignorant to understand _____". Dawkins was quoted very precisely in order to avoid claims of my failure to understand or the like, and what did it get? Why a claim of "cherry picking."
If one were to examine science, one would not cite all that is right with a proof or a series of steps. No, rather one would cite what is wrong with it. This I did. Dawkins wasn't just wrong once or twice, he was wrong again and again. He is a hateful, bitter atheist with an ax to grind. As Carl Sagan said in, Cosmos I think, scientists aren't the objective bunch they pretend or are portrayed to be.
Insist to your heart's content what quote we stick with. But don't tell me how to critique books. No matter what I said as a criticism of Richard Dawkins or anyone else on your side of the argument, you'd find fault with it even if you had to manufacture it, a la "cherry picking."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Nuggin, posted 10-27-2005 11:54 AM Nuggin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by Nuggin, posted 11-14-2005 12:35 AM Mirabile_Auditu has not replied

  
Nuggin
Member (Idle past 2483 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 36 of 37 (259490)
11-14-2005 12:35 AM
Reply to: Message 35 by Mirabile_Auditu
11-14-2005 12:26 AM


Re: YOUR "Critique" is not MY "Critique"
So, to sum up your response...
You won't pick a specific topic to discuss, thus proving yourself to be just like every other "God did it with Magic" poster on these boards.
I see no further reason to engage you in what is clearly not a debate

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by Mirabile_Auditu, posted 11-14-2005 12:26 AM Mirabile_Auditu has not replied

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5023 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 37 of 37 (356498)
10-14-2006 2:35 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by Brad McFall
11-05-2005 7:52 AM


Re: One for the Mountain of Evidence as well ...
Here
attached are lines of curvature (different ontogenetic trajectories through a computer image dividing phenotypes and genotypes to a given phylogeny) between the two individuals in the post above that will be necessary in answering Bernd @
greater detail what exactly is a "grave of a cell death"
(Graves OR Vehicles)(phenotypes) per genotype *were not* necessarily distinguised in this thread. I will have to do so in the aforementioned thread. This curvature (in this thread) has to do with upperbounds only.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by Brad McFall, posted 11-05-2005 7:52 AM Brad McFall 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