Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Ready When Made
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5033 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 5 of 73 (61099)
10-15-2003 9:56 PM
Reply to: Message 2 by sidelined
10-15-2003 9:48 PM


its pretty clear as to preciesly what Mike said. I thought I was hearing something "alien" when I first heard an ICR back to genesis clip that introduced creation with the appearence of age. You may try this and see if it helps in understanding what Mike the Wiz said.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by sidelined, posted 10-15-2003 9:48 PM sidelined has not replied

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5033 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 11 of 73 (61109)
10-15-2003 10:20 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by mark24
10-15-2003 9:55 PM


when we are ready to be made
Gould wrote p 677 The Structure of Evolutionary Theory
"I like to play a game of "science fiction" by imagining myself as an individual of another scale (not just as a human being shrunken or enlarged for a vist to such a terra incognita). But I do not know how far I can succeed. As organisms, we have eyes to see the world of selection and adaptation as expressed in the good desgin of wings, legs, and brains. But randomness may predominate in the world of genes - and we might interpret the universe very differently if our primary vantage point resided in this lower level. We mightthen note a world of largely independent items, drifting in and out by the luck of the draw - but with little islands dotted about here and there, where selection slows down the ordinary tempo and embryology ties things together. How, then, shall we comprehend the still different order of a world much larger than ourselves? If we missed the strange world of genic neutrality because we are too big, then what passes above our gaze becuase we are too small? Perhaps we become stymied, like genes trying to grasp the much larger world of change in bodies, when we, as bodies, try to contemplate the domain of evolution among species in the vastness of geological time? What are we missing in trying to read this world by the inappropriate scale of our small bodies and minuscule lifetimes?
Once we have become mentally prepared to seek and appreciate (and not to ignore or devalue) the structural and causal differences among nature's richly various scales, we can formulate more fruitfully the two cardinal properties that make the theory of hierarchical selection both so interesting and so differnet from the convential single-level Darwinism of organismal selection. The key to both properties lies in "interdependence with difference" - for the hierarchical levels of causality, while bonded in interaction, are also (for some attributes) fairly independent in modality. Moreover, these levels invariably diverge, one from the other, despite unifying principles, like selection, applicable to all levels. Allometry, not pure fractality, rules aong the scales of nature."
I dont think our beloved EvC has gotten here yet despite the obvious weight on the E side of mike's V"". I thought of this when the bacetrial avatar looked like a man once. Saymasu's reproductive position aside in the last sentence of Gould to which I have not been able to philosphically judge as to if S already wrote on this herein you asked this science fiction question to Mike I think for the reason I mentioned already in this thread that Matchtte explains that individuals are still linked relative to the absolute- this would apply to Gould's notion of core extended individuality from the multilevel perspective but we would need a tool or a way to assume the time event sequence you mentioned or the scale differences in size changes different levels of organization provide. I feel that only a specialized .net application using XML targeted to say this audience which automatically coordinates the levels in the discussion esle we end with Joralex being accused falsely I would see for not being at every point in the table of entries that the maximum flow of posters is at. I am likely guilty of this as well.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by mark24, posted 10-15-2003 9:55 PM mark24 has not replied

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5033 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 28 of 73 (61213)
10-16-2003 1:55 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by Rei
10-16-2003 1:32 PM


Millins of years May* be too long as Mike said in 21- Croizat's method has such a quirky way to relate time in biology that it looks like it is still going to be centuries before the technology catches up to the Q&A

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by Rei, posted 10-16-2003 1:32 PM Rei has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by mike the wiz, posted 10-16-2003 2:25 PM Brad McFall has not replied

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5033 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 38 of 73 (61282)
10-16-2003 10:39 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by Brian
10-16-2003 2:52 PM


Brian,
I think this SERIES to the least is what Matchette meant by "As Dr. C. B. Davenport said in the course of a discussion: "The researches of Stanley are of peculiar interest to those biologists who have a more or less speculative trend. They suggest that we must about-face in looking at the problems of evolution. Hitherto we have sought to go downward in the series"
and not by next
"to find the simplest organism which might represent, perhaps, the beginning of the organic series. Now, I think we begin our conception of evolution with a consideration of the increase in molecular complexity and degree of organization of molecules."
which is something I have completely not expected to look for in the evolutionary literature but my guess would be that this series will be discoverable in the 40s literature which if found my guess again would be able to explain longer lives , faster runners and deterioratin as one.c Just a guess.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by Brian, posted 10-16-2003 2:52 PM Brian has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by Brian, posted 10-17-2003 6:48 PM Brad McFall has replied

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5033 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 42 of 73 (61411)
10-17-2003 7:00 PM
Reply to: Message 41 by Brian
10-17-2003 6:48 PM


Ok- fair enough - but I do not think that humanism IN ANY SENSE can "evolve" culture in the biologists sense yet this is a posssible requestioned answer by the new president of Cornell U for 2015- The potential of unregulated by political priveldges to research colleges access to the creation and invention of nanotech products seems to me BROADER and more dangerous than the past regime that founding fathers here had in mind. It would be as easy to understand as the difference between my one brother who believes today in artifical intelligence and is studing in France which for me I rejected the concept of the perceptron instead years ago which appears in converstion with my other brother over a natural lanaguage comptuer interface that without nanoecology keeping up with economics looks pretty scary to my educated arse which really is only worship as far as I can tell. Best of luck and God Bless. Brad.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by Brian, posted 10-17-2003 6:48 PM Brian 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