|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 1405 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Evolution and Increased Diversity | |||||||||||||||||||||
Brad McFall Member (Idle past 5032 days) Posts: 3428 From: Ithaca,NY, USA Joined: |
Someone reading Darwin's "Origin" one can encompass his notion of diversity via the angles here (only diagram in the book):
The line at the top is suppposed by Darwin to transform, back, into the boundaries of any given country, and generations later, there are six places variation supposedly wrought. Darwin's notion of diversification in form-making is tied to diversity triangulatable in space. It did not seem to me to be any old kind of novelty creation. If a creationist wishes to argue not against Darwin's view but rather something created 100yrs or so later, they could simply point out the no one has followed up on Wright's notion of a gamodeme strictly. People are arguing whether or not Wright's complex process exists in nature but the question could be could man create isolatable breeding communties able to outevolve (into currently unoccupied regions of niche space) currently endemic genetic variations in nature, given nature. I suspect however that a creationist position against macroevolution would looke pricipally to showing that Darwin's spatial restriction of diverification can not exist on our actual Earth and thus his process for giving rise to 5 lineages from two within a country necessarily collide. I have not made this determination. It might be possible however. Gould however takes the position that Darwin failed miserably to explain diversity hitching his bit to levels of selection rather than levels of organization. I think Panbiogeographic statements can be read in part to provide the spatiality that is not simply a mirror image (among E, F G) as Darwin seems to have figured it. Temporally it matters how much time is supposed to be represented from the top to the bottom. The Earth is near spherical after all.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
Brad McFall Member (Idle past 5032 days) Posts: 3428 From: Ithaca,NY, USA Joined: |
Yes Darwin did not make it clear how many generations are represented with each line.
He was however trying to apply Malthus and to do so requires some macrospatial boundary IN which to compare the geometric growth of reproductions to the arithemetic increase of the food. To be willing to reduce the places in an actual geography on Earth envisaged with this math to the petri dish while logically scaling ok, I find leads to suspcious use of the notion of "metric". The diversity where, despite some extinction, becomes represented on both halves of the figure is to present how there need be NO LAW to the extinction of forms.There has to be an origin to the "species" with it. To say that the Mendel binomial not available to Darwin expunges his planar accompaniment to the words in the text seems like a cop out to me. It seems to me that by restricting one to a sphere rather than an infinite plane Darwin's diversification DOES become constrained in some visiable way. I would love to have some other way, other than words, to express this. Now if one of course does reduce the scale, without any intention of disrupting the topology (definition of 'neighborhood')implicit AND one assumes that it may not be on the Earth that a "country" is supposed to present linearly as per the diagram, then in bringing it back to macro size after the process has commenced, one is not subject to my restrictive configuing because one has the Universe as the outside bound of any niche rather than the rotating and revolving place we can in our best of moods can still be phoned home. If I reject Malthus, it is a piece of cake, to keep with your obervation, but it was in relying on that, that I think Darwin failed, not as Gould supposes, of failing to start with species selection but failing to realize that a number of things to be selected is not so easy to even describe let alone cut out of nature for human comprehension. Correct me if I am wrong, but it seems to me that Wright's isolation by distance is simply the ability to genetically support any given branch"" of Darwins' whether extinct or extant in the picture. Wright still maintained that some immigration from the population (as a whole) could still enter a given braching (Darwin compass of a country) This is why Wright spoke of that, THEN the stepping stone model (some where in between the middle of the diagram) then density dependence and now that then, a continuum(see quote below). If one is not a reductionist it is hard to simply accept the scaling operation creates not but a torque force of minsucle magnitude. This continuum must be one to one and onto Darwin's linearity it seems to me. I have not tried it but it seems to me that the purely arithemetic and geometric properties of transfinite numbers may supply a different drawing board from which to circumspectly represent Darwin's reasoning but with a different, not restricted to the plane, resultant depiction. But then what a "number" means biologically would be composite of genotype and phenotype, and that being hard for one without the intuition to so proceed, is unlikely to motivate in readers. So it would be easier for me to stick to tyring to interpret the already suggested evolutionary ideas.
quote:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
Brad McFall Member (Idle past 5032 days) Posts: 3428 From: Ithaca,NY, USA Joined: |
quote: RAZD came out after I posted with, quote: I am suggesting that maybe IT DOES have to according to Darwin, but not necessarily by post neo-Darwinian assertions.Look: The question as RAZD has it put, is-is, are a-z "at the end" necessarily containin more species than on Darwin's A..L line of beginner's luck. In between I have labeled two lines "greater number" and "lesser number" to accord with Darwin's use of the word "number". The question is, are there actual places where a lineage would have more species than at the end. Where is the end? This would depend on where Darwin's Fline necessarily is represented in my figure. This I have not determined.It may be that a measure of adaptedness is needed as Dobshansky wrote in the 60s (quote available). Regardless GS Carter in 1957 wrote quote: I feel that this outline of Darwin's depiction drawn via light cones in quaternionic space supplies the very "surface" mentioned by Carter. Dobshansy subsequently wrote, quote: Gould has decided that the position on adaptations had hardened in this time frame. Instead of finding this surface I revised, he expects us to wear the cap of his team that finds instead the arguments within evolutionary discussions ARE those of Paley-Agassiz 'transmorgified' (read Darwin and Darwin's "god" here). If the surface I am presenting is a better rendition than Goulds' then perhaps there was NO hardening but rather a softening up and faliure to pursue questions to an end. It seems to me that Stanley in the 70s who has said (quote in Lloyd's book) that "species selection" was never about general adaptedness may be correct historically but wrong rationally. It might be instead that the "hardening" was a failure to develop the methods called for by Dobshansky. Could it not be that the Gladyshev law contains such a law for the extinction of forms? Now if your question turned into mine is not comphrended, all I can do is rephrase it. The culprit is probaby what the word population means and what a "check" is on one. That seems to underlie Hoot persistant use of sexual selection but that is not my conversation... The places in dispute or under possible extinction directions seem to have been denoted by Carter with ,quote: For physicist's (using time as the scalar component (biology may? not use this))use of light cone representations with quaternions see
doing physics with quaternions
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
Brad McFall Member (Idle past 5032 days) Posts: 3428 From: Ithaca,NY, USA Joined: |
quote: How is one to take this paragraph? Can you tell me where in the literature ( somewhere on the topic of pangenesis ?) is there discussion of this “flaw” and if it really ”sent’ him back to Lamarck. Richard Lewontin insists (I will happlily provide content to this effect if requested) that evolution today is one of a differential relation between organisms and environments so if Darwin in historical time went back to Lamarck then by today’s evo standard he, Darwin was flawed to do so because there is no actual environment in which this happened. Now if one wishes to test or question what is the full differential implied by Lewontin and insist on some monophyly out of the pleunum of biological change then one might find that there was an equilibrium here or there, whatever the supposed litertature you connote denotes. So please it would help if I had some better idea of what you mean here. Is it just generally or is it to mean something like Darwin’s “laws of growth”. As to what prompted FHW to postulate . well I think this thinking was more general - to the difference of Lysenko and Morgan for instance. Indeed my grandfather, a teacher of evolution and holder of PHd in genetics before DNA would insist on something about biodiversity from mutations without knowing the algebra of the holy trinity of evos. Shouldn’t that rather be attributed to De Vries instead? What led them “to postulate” is somewhat complicted. Take Fisher for instance, here on the relation to thermodynamics:
Now if Gladyshev is correct (I have a copy of this paper here) then this is incorrect as there is supposed by Georgi to be both a within species and a without series law ("Note that each type or species of organism is characterized by its own average life-span value for each respective hierarchy. However, series (5.1), is observed for each species of organism(page 61)). Nowthen, if one replaces “equilirbiurm” with “environment” (if one doesnt then I cant really follow you here as we are left with a standard temperature and pressure environment the skein boundary between ourselves and whatever is outside) then indeed we can see what is leading Gladyshev to postulate the likes of Fisher and this explains how Darwin could get the pangene (regardless of which side of the Chanell ones views our wake from) wrong but I do not see how it is supposed to relate to diversity. This has to be something between the species and the clade. So when you ask what is the difference between Wright drift and Kimura neutural one has to recognize that there are many potential causes of drift that are not simply chance changes of DNA. Small populations sizes for one instance otherwise. Kimura used the situation between Fisher and Wright to argue that biologists were not recognizing the small good enough. If we see that the full differential referred to by Lewontin is actually an issue of equilibrium (a closed vs and open vessel of water etc) and not an individual under Scottish economics vs a peasen in Russia, no matter the science then indeed this difference can can be made clearer. I will show something more along these lines by writing about the Russian LomonosovMikhail Lomonosov - Wikipedia (becareful with wiki as the actual papers I read, Lomonosov was using phlogistin as extant) later in the thread on time. EvC Forum: Is time merely a concept? I think I understand what Darwin was trying to say about increases and this could occur by osscilation (so many wedges into the nair same spot on the surface (across the seasons)) rather than progression (of the Earth around the Sun (Gould always held dear to Darwin's statement that he (DArwin) 'saw no reason for progressive development in life') no matter the rotation but I am not sure what you mean to have had Darwin say. Is is simply a matter of my not reading more of your posts? Edited by Brad McFall, : spelling
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
Brad McFall Member (Idle past 5032 days) Posts: 3428 From: Ithaca,NY, USA Joined: |
Are you saying that Pangenesis is Lamarckian or French?
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024