Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 84 (8913 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 06-16-2019 8:30 AM
23 online now:
AZPaul3, Percy (Admin), RAZD (3 members, 20 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: Arnold Wolf
Post Volume:
Total: 853,803 Year: 8,839/19,786 Month: 1,261/2,119 Week: 21/576 Day: 21/50 Hour: 0/3


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev12
3
Author Topic:   All about Brad McFall II.
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4656
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 31 of 39 (411912)
07-23-2007 6:13 AM
Reply to: Message 29 by Rrhain
07-17-2007 11:07 PM


Re: All About EvC
As far as I'm concerned, a homosapien of the past has the same abilities as a modern human. I don't see why they couldn't do everything we can do if they were so taught. That you stretched the definition of human to your own means via equivocation, doesn't mean we should oblige your definition.

This is your attempt to argue that there is only a quantitive "unique" aspect to humans, however, that assumes that any quantitive credence is therefore not qualititive credence. However, that popular dichotomy is false, because if a quantitive difference is only the result of the fourth dimension, then only time has stopped those traits being shown previously. i.e. humans have only developed internet from their abilities NOW because they needed time itself in order to do so - and large population. (Yet other species outdo us in population - u might want to remember that point before you pounce on my irrefutable countenance)

Since we can assume all creatures are on par fourth dimensionally, because we evolved from the same single celled organism, then we can assume that the rudimentary similarities in other creatures, is the sum of their abilities, in regards to those brilliant abilities in us.

Logically, this would mean that comparing rudimentary capabilities in animals would be quite valid - but the scale and sophistication-level being evaluated as the equivalent of their success, would also be valid.

Therefore I think it is reasonable to assume that they have reached any peak they can reach, from their given talents.

I can not conclude much from this, other than that we have been given the ability - or evolved the ability, to simply be brilliant in these areas. I understand the person who sees humans on the same par as animals. Universally, that's correct, as the lion can eat me at any time.

But their are no allusions in phat's posts, as Taz was so eager to conclude, as infact Phat is merely being stoical, bordering on superman's cheese-level, as per usual.:) It won't be long before we see him in those dreadful blue tights, saying that he will serve truth and justice in the american way.


" 'My dear Watson,' said he, 'I cannot agree with those who rank modesty among the virtues. To the logician all things should be seen exactly as they are, and to underestimate oneself is as much a departure from truth as to exaggerate one's own powers. " - Sherlock Holmes,(The Greek Interpreter)
This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by Rrhain, posted 07-17-2007 11:07 PM Rrhain has not yet responded

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4656
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 32 of 39 (411915)
07-23-2007 6:35 AM
Reply to: Message 18 by Brad McFall
07-16-2007 7:51 AM


Re: All About EvC
Hi Brad - thanks for your message. I just want to say that I can understand your frustrations, and on my own small level have some of my own.

You're not obliged to explain yourself to me, so don't busting a gut with any further explanations. All i will say is that I think your efforts on yur website and in your writings, have proven that you have important insight, and not to be too frustrated with fellow-intellects in your life, as they, I think, for most part, are burdened and frustrated to a similar degree. I.e. You will be in the same boat as them, and if God does exist, I'm sure he won't let your findings go unnoticed forever.

Regards, the irrefutable wizard with the tongues of unbreakable truths. :)


This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by Brad McFall, posted 07-16-2007 7:51 AM Brad McFall has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by Brad McFall, posted 09-07-2007 7:35 PM mike the wiz has not yet responded

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4656
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 33 of 39 (411917)
07-23-2007 6:40 AM


I confess I was going to write an inapropriate and rather cruel message to Rrhain. LMAO. Here it is in all it's glory. I admitt that it's entirely created for my own amusement so do forgive me, but the mike-crowd might want to read it, and I'm sure Dan is one of them;

Phat said "welcome back Rrhain". Is it usual for you to forego common courtesy when you are on internet boards?

Forgive me for assuming that he is a valid human being worthy of a response, even from Rrhain. Here I'll help you; Perhaps in future you could say, "thanks Phat, and by the way, I see you as more than a piece of irrelevant gue on my shoe even if you are a Christian I vehemently detest".

Forgive me if it seems I am teaching you basic manners:), I assume your coveted reputation held water, and I've heard that any advanced species is excellent in all areas, including pleasantries.

Forgive my numerous spelling errors and misapplied terms, but the temptation to sound pompous and have a good vocabulalararalyaryy always gets the better of me. Please ignore my painful honesty, but am I being harsh in not kissing your arse? perhaps I'll just be phat's baseball bat, and beat the hell out of you for being more informed than him. ;)

Don't worry Tony, most of this post I'm just expanding my mikeyisms to an altogether different plain. Your hopes in Rrhain's reign still hold water I'm sure. mike is simply giving him a home-coming spank, and showing him that atleast one Christian will never kiss his arse in the hopes of becoming one of his deatheaters.


  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 3195 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 34 of 39 (420429)
09-07-2007 7:35 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by mike the wiz
07-23-2007 6:35 AM


Re: All About EvC
Hi Mike;

Well for want of a beter place I am posting to you here.

I guess EvC isnt all that much better a place for me to get my ideas out. Adminmoose knows this well enough. I was just getting up to steam when Mod shut down

quote:

www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&f=5&t=782&m=191#187 -->www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&f=5&t=782&m=191#187">http://www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&f=5&t=782&m=191#187


as Ray and Razd could not come to agreement anyway. If anyone else wants to resume some things considered off topic there and there is no objections from the Mods I will continue the Mayr questioning here.

I think some plausibility for Razd’s relationships comes from Lloyd’s observations such


Some authors, when discussion genetic changes in populations, speak of the system in terms of a phenotype state space type (Lewontin 1974b, p.9-13). This makes sense, because the phenotype determines the breeding system and the action of natural selection, the results of which are reflected in some way, in the genetic changes in the population. In his analysis of the present structure of population genetics theory, Lewontin traces a single calculation of a change in genetic state through both genotypic and phenotypic descriptions of a population. That is accorinding to Lewontin, population genetics theory must map the set of genotypes onto the set of phenotypes, give transformations in the phenotype space, and then map the set of phenotypes back onto the the set of genotypes. We cannot expect, then, that descriptions of state in population gentics would be framed in terms of both genotypic and phenotypic variables or parameters. But this is not the case – the description can be in terms either genotypic or phenotypic variables, but not both. Dynamically, then, it seems as if population genetics must operate in two parallel systems; one in geneotype state space; one in phenotype state space (Lewontin 1974b, pp 12-13)”
(p37)

But note that Lloyd

quote:
The Stucture and Confirmation of Evolutionary Theory EA Lloyd Princeton 1994

considers in the deterministic models, that the initial conditions of the population are represented by an ordered set of values of variables, i.e. a vector.

I am requiring use of quaternions from here on out.

'Lewontin explains that such independence of systems is illusory “ and arises from a bit of sleight-of-hand in which phenotype and genotype variables are made to appear as merely parameters that need to be experimentally determined, constants that are not themselves transformed by the evolutionary process “ (1974b, pp.12-13)…Thus information regarding values of phenotype variables is smuggled into the genotype models through parameters.'(p37 op.cit.)

quote:

But Lewontin seems to be saying more than this.

The case he is considering involves the following problem. In one case the gene frequency, Q, of a certain allele is calculated using a series of randomly fluctuating, uniformly distributed values of the selection coefficient. In the other case, the same procedure is performed using the same set of selection coefficient values, except in reverse temporal order. The resulting values of Q are different for the two cases.^12 In other words, in general, if the curves representing the path of the selection coefficients of each population through time are not identical, even though they have the same mean, variance, and any other statistical measurement, the model outcomes will not necessarily be identical, due to the difference in temporal order of the values (Lewontin 1967, p84). Thus , if a possible worlds representation were possible, it would seem to contain more information about the system, because the time histories are preserved in a certain sense. If this is so, then there would probably be problems translating between two possible types of systems, i.e. , possible worlds and instantaneous state space (analogous to Heisenberg and Schrodinger pictures, respectively, in quantum mechanics). Are biological systems different from physical systems in that the descriptions of the systems, conceived as both a function of time and independent of time, are not both represented as two aspects of the same system in a Cartesian space? Lewontin explicitly claims that the gene frequencies of populations do not follow the law of large numbers (1967, p84). In any case, this poses an intriquing problem for future foundational research.”


(p 40 op.cit.)

Now Gould has no problem discussing the “vector of progress” while asserting no matter of Darwin, that D had decided that there was no ‘progress’ in evolution (to Gray in the US etc.). This happens for Gould because he uses Nietsche to get an exaptation from apt aptations via very quirky functional shifts (Gould's use of terms ‘gliding’ and ‘fecund’ can be read as underground references for Provine, but I may be wrong).

Where a design can subvert Gould’s wordings happens IF the exaptation of snail umbilicus (has not a parasite as in Darwin’s umbilical area) is but an adaptation in the space that no cross-level spandrels had potentially enlarged the theoretical connectivity of evolutionary theory/biology. It seems to me pregnant to use Hamilton’s notion
(the middle of Darwin's drawing and Gould umbilical space is the handle of the game)
of the Around the World Game


Click to enlarge

as temporality algebraically where Gould insists on geometry (this would be Gould's odd questio to me about what I was eating for lunch when he perfectly well know what a raw green pepper was). I have not done this but if so then it would be possible to address the non-Cartesian aspect with gene combinations in individuals onto gene frequencies with actual phenotypes without smuggling anything in and the reasons for Mayrs’ position would just be an historical step comprehending that cross-level effects generate intuitions rather than sense over understanding.

I will try to get actual clade diagrams of the snails, Darwins’ diagram


Click to enlarge


Click to enlarge


Click to enlarge


Click to enlarge

and how quaternions can relate these.

The processes will not be more involved than the non-commutative nature of quaternions represented by


Click to enlarge


Click to enlarge


Click to enlarge

And


Click to enlarge


Click to enlarge


Click to enlarge

Gould seems to think that the snails are exaptations because the trait shows up in a few peripheral groups. This may however be a manifestation of the extremes of the Lorenz transform. I don’t know yet. I know for Darwin this was no other than the subjective color perception of yellow vs purple imposed by us on insect vision.

I think.

One should be able to get all of Gould’s snail morphospace this way, phenotypically. Showing how Wright’s deme fits IN Darwins’ species at the question of physics vs biology is a lot harder. This is why giving Gladsyhev his Darwinian instantiation is important. It forces the situation regardless of GOD.

I have been able to visualize curves NOT CURLS in quaternions places (where Lloyd had vectors), I think, but this is from an idea of parental care in reptiles over amphibians. Answering Lloyds question seems possible and also possible to avoid Mayr’s view as well as ambivalence about genotype presentations capturing the actual phenotype shapes. One is not given the luxury to write on Nobokov as Gould DID however. A house in Ithaca is not Darwin’s “new home”.

Here is a test of my own ability. I do not yet know what the “law of large numbers” is, so if Lewontin is merely saying that there is some asymmetry here, despite “the same mean, variance, and any other statistical measurement” then I will agree but the residency of this sheltered ability to intuit biology remands a common environment constraining what parts of quaternions can represent time and what can not and IS contained in the non-commutativity. It seems that “light cone” physics may shed ‘light’(sic!) the cone of increasing diversity itself. Why I was ahead of the times in the 80s I will never know but how I am figuring this out these days is quite miraculous, so far to me, mostly. I think they can be represented as both aspects of the same system in a Cartesian space formed from quaternions but this is not the confusion that Mayr represents with words. The Cartesian space is not biological however, it was the albatross instead that Mayr never reduced.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by mike the wiz, posted 07-23-2007 6:35 AM mike the wiz has not yet responded

    
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 3195 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 35 of 39 (420645)
09-08-2007 9:21 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by Taz
07-16-2007 10:16 PM


Re:hair, fur does not make
Darwin made an instructive use of fir trees but Lloyd (who I introduced in my last post in this thread) actual argues about "fur" in an evolutionary context. It turns out I will have something to say about this part of this topic after all.

It spirals in that in the mid70s when Georgi Gladyshev was first making his ideas about thermodynamics and evolution available in Theoretical Biology, Stanley was trying out the first exemplars of "species selection". Lloyd in the course of constructing his 88/94 book The Structure and Confirmation of Evolutionary Theory (Google Books) tries to establish how one is supposed to think of more than one level of causality in biology but this is afforded WITHOUT a consideration that while species selection was being argued for(which IS also Wright's idea(two level theory according to Gould)), a higher level downward cause might not rather be adaptive and extant regardless of the sieve (Lloyd used Goulds recent distinction of aptation and adaptation)as seems to be the case with Gladyshev's law. This seems to be due to an artifical seperation of laws of changes and changes of lawlike behavior in the chapter divisions.

It seems that constant parameters, additivity, fur and quaternions can be contained in a evo bio thought. More on the connection if there is interest beyond the angle (Euler).

Edited by Brad McFall, : qualification for comprehension


This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by Taz, posted 07-16-2007 10:16 PM Taz has not yet responded

    
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 3195 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 36 of 39 (442068)
12-19-2007 9:32 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by Fosdick
07-09-2007 8:59 PM


Re: real life vs reality
This is in response actually to
http://www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&f=11&t=318&m=45#45
in the thread on Time. I dont see this as really about me but about something not exactly on topic in that thread.

Ok, what is it about evolution that is such that I might be able to say it cannot or has not been communicated over the phone?

Well, let’s say its ones’ ability to apprehend some transition from an evolution mentality (objected to in general, in general by creationists) to one of expectability. Just what to expect becomes a matter of intuition.

I was already expecting something from my Grandfather as written in 76 (the book I say was given me was actually only loaned but then given me after I said it was mine).


Click to enlarge

And seen in other letters of 79.

Click to enlarge


Click to enlarge

My ability to write on a 9th grade level continues today – notice “by” for “bye” etc. The grammer of my contemporaneous posting has nothing to do with what to expect from someone who has an idea of evolution in mind.

I use the word “mentality” in Penrose’s sense.


Click to enlarge

Where this can be attributed to an individual mind or that of “a Plato reality” aka Penros etc. which is what I expected to be communicating to my grandfather in writing (I realized that what I was talking with my grandfather about was not something that had anything to do with anything that the phone rang about (knowing that my father worked for ATT (the phone for me)) who had studied bacteria


Click to enlarge

And wrote this


Click to enlarge

For his PhD thesis over 40 years before.

Which really may not be an assumption but the adoption that Darwin’s view on diversity is a “roll” between two poses.

(to be depicted later)

This is unlike the attempt at combining quaternion hierarchies with Gladysehv’s law in the time thread as one must also find a hierarchy in phylogeny (finding a Kind is harder because this seems purely geometric to me) which I think most often in applying Cantor's thought process to Croizat’s method (but is not not (not a typo) unavailable to other thinkers not using this approach (insofar as I can not yet expect people to have more than a mentality about what I tend to expect anyway)

Once one has this mentality then it is possible to find a counter example but one must first get the example I am working up. I do not find that chemical and biological evolution need to be kept separate logically as I do not find Gould’s logic as anything other than a glorious accident so far. I had not realized that attention to levels of organization is historically subordinated to the difference of atoms and molecules and I do think this is likely something rather new to the literature if extant outside the net at all.

Anyway there you go quasi- if you are still complaining let my equilibrium know.

Expectancy was narrated by Blum in his Times Arrow book.


Click to enlarge

http://www.amazon.com/Times-Arrow-Evolution-Harold-Francis/dp/0691023549

Edited by Brad McFall, : No reason given.

Edited by Brad McFall, : No reason given.

Edited by Brad McFall, : some logic


This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by Fosdick, posted 07-09-2007 8:59 PM Fosdick has not yet responded

    
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 3195 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 37 of 39 (452927)
01-31-2008 7:36 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Brad McFall
02-17-2007 8:56 AM


Redirect from teen4christ
At

www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&f=11&t=334&m=27#27 -->www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&f=11&t=334&m=27#27">http://www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&f=11&t=334&m=27#27

teen4christ asked about my Grandfather (Willard Stanley) and so as not to take that discussion off topic I have responded here.

There is a lot on Willard Stanley in this defunked thread on EvC. He was a geneticist in Zelensky’s lab (Sewall Wright also studied there).


Click to enlarge

before DNA, an accomplished ornithologist, a teacher of evolution, and pretty much the worlds’ authority on BioPhilately. Those derogatory remarks about biology being stamp collecting pretty much describes my Grandfather. He was not an especially noted biologist. He was your average Darwinian. He seemed like a bit of a recapitulationist but I found a “working paper” from Zelensky’s lab that shows how to think about embryology evolutionarily and this isn’t all that different than the current interest today in “developmental constraints.”

He did not publish a lot. He did encourage many students at SUNY Fredonia (he was the second science teacher there(teaching all of science at the start in the 30s)) and James Lloyd who eventually discovered fire fly flashing patterns. He kept copious notes about animal behavior in the field and established his own place to do this (Fredonia College Lodge). He as a conservationist and was offering some of the first courses on field biology in the SUNY system.

He passed on Mendelism to me during the Cold War. I knew I was learning something that was not common to everyone in NYC. He also informed me (my mother knew of this as well) of how molecular biology “took over” biology departments after DNA was discovered. He warned me about it before I had the ability to understand what he was warning me about. Richard Lewontin and other organacists are aware of this general phenomenon in biology departments across the board. Physicists can be on the extreme end of this problem as was queried in the thread you asked me from.

Here are a couple of his lectures.


Click to enlarge


Click to enlarge


Click to enlarge


Click to enlarge


Click to enlarge


Click to enlarge

And a general view on the relation of biology to society in general.


Click to enlarge


Click to enlarge


Click to enlarge


Click to enlarge

Edited by Brad McFall, : fixedevclink


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Brad McFall, posted 02-17-2007 8:56 AM Brad McFall has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by teen4christ, posted 02-04-2008 1:04 PM Brad McFall has responded

    
teen4christ
Member (Idle past 3961 days)
Posts: 238
Joined: 01-15-2008


Message 38 of 39 (453846)
02-04-2008 1:04 PM
Reply to: Message 37 by Brad McFall
01-31-2008 7:36 PM


Re: Redirect from teen4christ
Thanks for the explanation, although most of it flew right over my head and splashed onto the wall.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by Brad McFall, posted 01-31-2008 7:36 PM Brad McFall has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by Brad McFall, posted 02-19-2009 8:29 PM teen4christ has not yet responded

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 3195 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 39 of 39 (499698)
02-19-2009 8:29 PM
Reply to: Message 38 by teen4christ
02-04-2008 1:04 PM


Re Panbiogeography
I am using your post to respond to Nighttrain. Hopefully what is contained below is not literally "over" your head.

Brad.

This is a reponse to Nighttrain @
www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&f=32&t=118&m=9#12 -->www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&f=32&t=118&m=9#12">http://www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&f=32&t=118&m=9#12

Sorry I have not been as active here as I have been.
I have been busy with my website
http://axiompanbiog.com/default.aspx
And softwaretesting CROIZAT by Mauro Cavalcanti
http://axiompanbiog.com/collectpinpoints.aspx
Others here might like it it is simple and when combined with downloaded data from GBIF
http://data.gbif.org/welcome.htm
It is easy to plot
http://axiompanbiog.com/idplane.aspx
and create minimal spanning trees without a GIS (uses Python).
http://axiompanbiog.com/spantree.aspx

Also, the first author of Panbiogeography:Tracking the History of Life, Robin Craw, says he has learned something from my site saying that my work may be (is potentially)influential for the future of the field.

As a result of it all, I have been asked to write up a chapter on Axiomatic Panbiogeography for a new book tentatively to be called Advances in Panbiogeography.

I wish I could devote more attention to Gladyshevs work as well and I will need to, as I delineate the competition for theoretical space with Post-Gouldians (ecological locking) but this is my chance-just now and I am going to take it.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by teen4christ, posted 02-04-2008 1:04 PM teen4christ has not yet responded

    
Prev12
3
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019