Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Kurt Wise - A YAC and an old earth evolutionist?
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5032 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 7 of 47 (63481)
10-30-2003 3:29 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Minnemooseus
10-30-2003 1:15 AM


The science revolves more around an actual time INTERVAL and less on what projected point constructions "metrically" are made post-Einstein rotationally not imcommersurable individually. THE EARTH obviously IS NOT a "time". Two process on Earth however may provide a "distance" spatially that time can be linearized from whether or not understood as a form of space and time or space-time with the concomittant mathmetical purity. Maybe Wise meant that an "old earth and universe" can not be transmorgified into the time frame of an Ussherite Newtonian Trinitarian. Any way the ellipse and the circle are different figures even if a Marxist may claim THE SAME economics on its ba(sis).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Minnemooseus, posted 10-30-2003 1:15 AM Minnemooseus has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by NosyNed, posted 10-30-2003 3:32 PM Brad McFall has replied

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5032 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 9 of 47 (63487)
10-30-2003 4:05 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by NosyNed
10-30-2003 3:32 PM


Well, I went to mess's link and got more out of this following than my own guess:
quote:
'For example,' heWISE says, 'I realized that evolution traditionally looked at organisms as being built from DNA. You hear terms like "organisms will struggle to preserve their genetic material into the next generation". I realized that's not the way God looks at things. That's not the way He looks at us. We are more than just a bunch of DNA.'
Wise is very wise and ABSOLUTELY correct about this. I will leave the philosophy of time in evolution to another time. I ran into a barrier educationally because I ALSO KNEW THIS. How did I know? Because my grandfather was an "evolutionist" of the generation BEFORE DNA. Then biologists were looking for change and EVOLUTION in terms of smaller and smaller organisms. But sometime (I can likely guess the date of the quote I have will be in the 1940s) biologists (first molecular biologists and today just about all of em) started constructively arguing about (amongst themselves) not from any idividual organism but from molecules themselves (see Crick on RNA for instance). My grandfather may have referred to this state of science in biology as the "disembodied eye". He, nonetheless continued to view science in the pre-1930 view and THAT is the biology I picked up on THAT WAS NOT BEING TAUGHT IN THE PUBLIC SCHOOLS. The view of change STARTING from gene information transfer sounds like it solves the questions that my grandfather for instance raised in his thesis and one may think that the future of molecular biology will and or did answer some of the insights being derived before (the synthesis?) but at least this is NOT how "God" views change but rather how biologists have changed in thier somewhat myopic view collectivity (if I was to speak for the bunch of sour grapes). I know this because my Mother who also grew up with my Grandfather does not understand the molecular biology position except by name but I do by dint of popular science. Matchette had quoted Darlington in 1949 in terms of Darlington SUGGESTING this change of view in evolutionary discourse but in fact it was a less certain thing than the difference of opinion between biometricians and mendelians. Oh well this is longer.
Here is a quote from a paper from Stan that was out of his thesis- see for yourself-
"It is now generally agreed the total characteristics of the whole gene complex produces the total characteristics which make up the individual. The mutation of a 'normal' gene to what we know as 'vestigial' has resulted in a large nomuber of changes in the morphological and physiological make-up of the resulting individual. This study has demonstrated that those morphological changes which have been measured are affected at different periods of development. This suggests that the action of the vestigial gene is highly varied and extends over the greater part of the developmental period. Whether or not all of the effects catalogued above are to be attributed to the change in the one 'vestigial' gene is open to question."
"One objection to this sort of hypothesis is that no inhibiting effect on wing length can be detected in the heterozygotes which carry one vestigial gene and its normal allelomorph. It would be necessary to assume that some substance was produced by the normal gene in such excess as to entirely overcome the inhibitory effects of the vestigial gene. Another objection is that the supposition of the production of an inhibitory substance involves an addtion of some sort. Practically all gene mutations result in some sort of deficiency, at least in their somatic expression. Most of them are recessives. It may be more logical, therefore, to assume that the normal gene produces a substance which promotes wing formation, and that the mutation from 'normal' to 'vestigial' has resulted in a loss of part of the governing mechanism, so that the 'wing-extender' is not produced in sufficient amount in vestigial at average and low temperatures to produce more than a rudimentary or 'vestigial' wing."
"This study has necessitated an hypothesis to the effect that some sex-linked accessory factors are present which influence the action of teh vestigial gene in its production of wing length and which account for the marked diffences between the sexes. If such is the case, it is not unreasonable to suppose that they may also affect the productin of 'secondary characteristics.'"
"We may assume that the normal gene, interacting with all the other genes, brings about the production of an excess of this substance which stimulates wing development, and the one normal gene brings about the production of enough to stimulate normal wing development. The mutation of the normal gene to the vestigial gene may have resulted in a deficiency of this substance so that the threshold value of wing formation is barely exceeded at average temeperature."
Wise is correct. The contrary is wrong. Dont get me started on how this deficiency is the psychiatrists lithium unbalanced in the IQ controversy for then my answer will be even shorter- all else is wrong!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by NosyNed, posted 10-30-2003 3:32 PM NosyNed has not replied

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5032 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 11 of 47 (63510)
10-30-2003 6:57 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by MrHambre
10-30-2003 6:44 PM


Re: If you love your Bible, don't cut it to shreds
It's only "preposterous" from today's way of learning and haveing looked at things. This kind of thought is something that my Grandmother still "scoffs" at but the fact that SHE DOES so SCOFF porves some truth in its existence. Others today dont even go this far as you may be in the number. Who knows maybe you are a Saint. Atomism based on what we have QM IS NOT the particulation that popularized made the posture no longer "pre". Your comparison seems a little broad to me. Ya know I couldnt understand how it could cause a rejection either which is why I read little bit about the life of Price. In the context of his day as a strugling writer it did make sense because he did *SEE* the missing use of logic in geology. You question how in that time that could cause one to deject evo stuff?? anyway- as soon as I learned that he and DS JORDAN couldnt come to terms I realized that this was the same "not coming to terms" of me and Kraig Adler who had told me that Jordan was given a MASTERS from Cornell WITHOUT completing his undergraduate. So...the only differenece was a generationaly thing which if biology as my analogy went and still does seem to go comes out as STILL a biological misreading of Mendel not any which way but loosed readings of the Bible yet even this is not what you raised for you asked why the scoffing would be not in support of the same to which even this I think if with less vituperation could be drawn in c/e talk as the teaching of the difference of life in terms of the difference of molecules and atoms may indeed be science and still even not emotionally reacted to developed by any one of any faith, mature or not.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by MrHambre, posted 10-30-2003 6:44 PM MrHambre has not replied

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5032 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 15 of 47 (63640)
10-31-2003 12:00 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by roxrkool
10-31-2003 12:46 AM


Re: If you love your Bible, don't cut it to shreds
Yeah, like my brother Greg, but he doesnt know a whit about tracking the clade of the platypus and Randy's bird feather as one. The hex may be 5 .. but let me not speculate. I am not imprisoned in my Grandfather's VESTIGIAL wing cell as most others who dont understand any TWO topobiological cells for there are all kinds of genes yet no reliable defition of the thing that is targeted in drug discovery. What does my bro-choose INSTEAD- Chomksy's notion of natural language from a genetic program. If that was the general opnion the diveristy WOULD be limited to a particular cybernetic feedback signal circuit but the difference of the egg laying and non egg laying mammals IS more diverse than this.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by roxrkool, posted 10-31-2003 12:46 AM roxrkool has not replied

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5032 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 18 of 47 (287540)
02-17-2006 7:08 AM
Reply to: Message 17 by Minnemooseus
02-16-2006 7:44 PM


Re: Bump - Seems relevant to other currently active topics
I t is possible that Wise is simply using the difference of versimultude and probability and that his notion of “opposite” depends on how he thinks ”hybrids’ have opposite”” DNA combined. That is giving him the benefit of the doubt. He did go to Harvard and not ”Delta Knew’.
quote:
--Introduction to Logic--by I. Kant This is a critical chapter for Kant. He will have explained that in discussing logic he could not present it how he wanted but had to add things for the benefit of the reader. Whatever “logically” is to be meant by ”opposite’ the thought cognized, the cognition, can be divided according to Kant, in the Appendix that follows among “practical”, “speculative” , and “theoretical”. If Wise did not cut out the appendix then his apparent wako level prima facie might have in truth been mediated DISTRIBUTING opposite DNA divisions of species claimed as baramins among his mind in terms of speculative and theoretical differences while leaving the practical to his religious side for some consistency. It is more likely that he might have juggled all three if he had not had a vestige of a thought on versimultude.
This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 02-17-2006 07:09 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by Minnemooseus, posted 02-16-2006 7:44 PM Minnemooseus has not replied

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5032 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 30 of 47 (312096)
05-15-2006 5:27 PM
Reply to: Message 29 by subbie
05-14-2006 8:10 PM


Re: Dr. Kurt Wise replacing product with process
There are both reflective and determinative process in creating what technologically are the products of doing science. The reflective product does exist (mentally and psychologically) and there is some overlap in that, between thought on science and (teleology vs theology) so Wise must only be speaking about the determinatve production of scientists. In that I would agree. Gould got around this discriminatory praxis by construction of his notion of 1-10 worms and Cornintian columns vs Phanoric bricks but Wolfram's use of homeobox's might easily segement Gould's process into a product that would be outside science but result from a creation wise process, IF INSTITUTED. It will be interesting to see if Wise can do other than Dembski who never resolved my issue with probability as on EVC.
There are both reflective and determinative process in creating what technologically are the products of doing science. The reflective product does exist (mentally and psychologically) and there is some overlap in that, between thought on science and (teleology vs theology) so Wise must only be speaking about the determinatve production of scientists. In that I would agree. Gould got around this discriminatory praxis by construction of his notion of 1-10 worms and Cornintian columns vs Phanoric bricks but Wolfram's use of homeobox's might easily segement Gould's process into a product that would be outside science but result from a creation wise process, IF INSTITUTED. It will be interesting to see if Wise can do other than Dembski who never resolved my issue with probability as on EVC.
You said,
quote:
I tend to think that if more emphasis were placed on teaching the processes of science, it would be all to the good. Wise might not like the results, as I suspect it would result in broader acceptance of evolution and rejection of any form of creationism, at least as a scientific proposition.
but I think Wise would recognize that reflection creates for both science as process and religion as a product of social life a product that might or might not create the intelligence necessary to the design that might THEN be segmented out to science or religion.
Edited by Brad McFall, : extra words.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by subbie, posted 05-14-2006 8:10 PM subbie has not replied

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5032 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 43 of 47 (329623)
07-07-2006 1:31 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by ketrine
07-04-2006 8:03 PM


Re: Kurt Wise
yOUR second para-graph seems to express my own guess on who Wise was.
Drawing on the move from a free to a pure will the practicality of, Wises' wiseiness, relates, seems to me to a transition between the reflective and the determinative judgement. So when it comes to data it can not be reflectively objectionable in any way, aka as to some comments in this thread, but if the determinative judgement preceedes the TIME taken in reflection prior to the facts garnered , no matter how gained, there can be an error. Using a biased glass to see that grass will never have a chance explanation without a design does not fall into this category. I am not a student of wISE is Izzz can not say that did not fall here but I would doubt it. I think what you indicated is close enough to truth for soverign work.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by ketrine, posted 07-04-2006 8:03 PM ketrine 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