Forum: Darwnist Ideology

I would like to see some study in Darwiniana of the how the changes in the study of CHEMISTRY affected his(darwin's) thought. When I began reading The power of motion in plants and read the MIT sponsored intro which tried sans plants haveing an "endocrine" equivalent of moving things on the beyond phenomenology of auxin I fully expected some chemical info. It was about taxonomy of motion of motion in plants. Darwin, Asa Grey and other were interested in perversions in tendrils and Hukley passed from the pea to the tendril this fast but there was recently scholarship that indicated that these 1800s scholars were not recognizing Ampere's use of it in magnetism. It all sounds too suspcious for my scientifically santized mind and I wonder how much Darwin did not get the idea of "individual varation" straight out of Faraday's need to be wrong ONLY IF ANY CHEMCIAL VARATION exist. This is clearly not the evopsych but what is it? BWhahah it was not either.

I wonder however if HM Morris' had his alliance of Christian Colleges that have CREATIONIST SPECIALITY TECHNICAL DEPTS (say geology on the west coast and biology in the east etc) that( with a high amount of on line connectivity in this, my, version), the changes in THESE may indeed proceed independently of any "social" Darwinism ongoing concern elsewhere or extincting, while it might in that retrospect should it happen be hard to extract the origin of the Christian College Community's biology from an extripated social Darwinism. It seems to me that the geology could be however phenomenologically not tied so in origin. This is the future of c/e not e/c but we live in the here and now with few c-e n/or e-c.

It may not be "nonexistant". I was looking at the recent NATURE mag DNA octahedra and can imagine a day when the lab meets this field of record. Of course you would have not a fourm but likely a whole webservice by then.

I am beginning to FINALLY read the OPERON book and seeing some history there it may be that S(syamsu) says so because he is USING (even if unawares) the difference of "instructive" modes of biology and what happened in biology after 'MONOD'. The issue for me IS the explanation of the 's" curve and I do not mean to spell for this guy but there is some bad marxist biology (that caused Haldane to NOT defend genetics much and Monod to rephrase his object from "adaptive enzyme" to "induced enzyme synthesis" that perhaps is what is operative for this poster. For my grandfather he had his own idea PRE-regulation or preemptor or termintor or ribsome arrest or 45BP per sec etc etc and it was only about stocihometry not structure except that which is not specious but of a species in kind.

Well, S actually is not the M. Cohn to Monod's superhero.---------------

quote:

---

The weakness of response surprised me, maybe I began to actually believe that people here actually think about what Dawkins wrote, like they imply they do. I must remind myself that the authorititive gibbering many people engage in here is mostly empty posing.

---

said SYAMSUI have made an observation here (on my own) in the first sentence before and indeed now wonder what this second one means if it is not mere "posing" struck from all performances before. Sorry if I overstep someone else's bounds for I have not been reading as much of the board lately as I used to.
So to answer you sysamsu wrote

quote:

---

I see, so first you accuse me of quoting out of context for quoting that Dawkins says "we are born selfish" and that "altruism has to be learned" that genetic altruism is a limited special exception,

---

which for me at least puts his above period between two sentences into abeyance. There is a way that "learning altruism" still may remain for biology and have to do with what was mentioned less 100 relative to 'extinction' having to do with the idea of cell death. But I would have to explain first how Monod as well as being incorrect on many material details may have been mistken to speak about differentiation AFTER anti-repressors or anti inducers provided the creationist knowledge in the different applications of the 1st and 2nd laws be accepted in research given. I have not established this much here so beg for more time awaiting to see one else understand that Syamsu could be correct about Dawkins in a post-Selfish Gene writing (Gould makes a distinction in the periods of Dawkin's work) but I have not gone head to tail with S lately and I have NOT internalized Dawkins' claim against Gould which I had thout posters here did hence my observation in the first sentence and resason to see that not reading the Selfish Gene is not reason in itself to dismiss for summary judgement.A for my own repose I was disinclined to read anything else that Dawkins wrote after the SGENE (which with Gould's understanding (as my own then was) that the warmblooded brain IS NOT a herp brain on drugs or drugs on top of the brain etc) and still I have yet to sit down to dinner with one of his newer bound plates of pages as the side dish but EITHER marxist biology (French or otherwise) or Gould's latest voluminous ouput which declines creationism EXPLICITLY will at some point force me to take up the luxury of commentary meanwhile I am satisfied to explore the error. I am getting MORE than less conviced of some kind of mental phenomena of trans(XXX)between Larmkianism and Creationism that was cashed in in the late 70s against thermodynamic equilibrium which implies to me at least that a board such as EVCF should stablize over time no matter how many of us personally "mutate" exists.

Hey roady,
I think the reason is clear in Gould's acceptance of his 1998 student's will to use Nietsche. Gould seems to have accepted that FORM will be DOMINATED by a "quirky functional shift" and that THIS more than anything else is what he wants students of evolution to follow up on. In this same discussion he brings up DARWIN'S BAT,BIRD,REPTILE wing AGANINST 5%wing creationists in general and NOT necessarily Eldredge's MIVart in particular yet I will hope to show that at future times this teaching lowers rather than increases the sudents understanding of fitness over time BECAUSE it has been accepted as well since the late 70s that RNA secondary strucutres solidity is LESS important than WHEN said wing or other strucutre encoded forms. I hope this clears up the sociology when not indicating a direction for the biology to follow. I will likely be in a position to show that Gould misused the word "preadaption" for the unknown divisons that any subtraction of point data (collection locality GISed etc) in determinnig a allopatric speciation geometry (panbiogeographically) may involve. This unknown however will not be Mivart's that Darwin winged with a red-bull''. I will suggest this WITHIN Gould's allopatry of reptile surface to volume ratios without having to employ (opps lost the word) should the molecular evidence come along for the ride continguously. My guess is that "thermoregulation" is not the "original" context but only the content of thermal vs voltaic chemical bonds' electricity routing fORMS not functions. But that last will requrie some thermodynamics.I was quite shocked to get an elctrostatic charge from running water yesterday. So what was TAUGHT as wing analogy may indeed be wing homolgy as I proceed if I am not physically rebuffed. I could be wrong. 5% will look more like Darwin's difficulty and not mine.To continue this specifically would be laborious as I would need involve Kripke, Putnam and Two Books of Mayr when NOT Nozik. The argument will deny that what is stronger is not what was first but that what is thought of as first was stronger and will look like the putting of one's thumb and first finger through a circle of the other hands's same formed with the exclaim of evos that what is 'seen' is the first finger no matter if the thumb was (or was not first) even if the thumb is also stronger. I wil explain this interms of transcription later and the degree of fredomm that winged eucaryotes may have lost to procaryotes as they thermally ascended this electric "atmosphere". All in good time.

Ok, I'll take that quote on complexity from an "ideological" standpoint. I'll believe that the book is the selfish gene and not the Blind Watchmaker. That would have been my guess. But first Gould and some ideology Darwin style...IN The Structure (of Evolutionary Theory) Gould has a chapter "Pattern and Progress on the Geological Stage where he serializes his disucssion of Cuvier and Thompson and I guess I think I read an anti-creationist slant in connected"" pages from 484 to the end of the Chapter8 without putting my two panbiogeographic cents in the same sense. Gould is presenting a view that seems new. The question I had was WHY is it only being described NOW when the subjects lived more than 150 years ago??My answer is that at the same time (then) Boole wrote THE LAWS OF THOUGHT p50 Should it be said the existence of the equation x^2=x necessitates also the existence of the equation x^3=x, which is of the third degree, and then inquired whether that equation does not indicate a process of trichotomy; the answer is, that the equation x^3=x is not interpretable in the system of logic. For writing it in either of the of the forms
x(1-x)(1+x)=0, (2)
x(1-x)(-1-x)=0, (3)
we see that its interpretation, if possible at all, must involve that of the factor 1+x, or of the factor -1-x. The former is not interpretable, becuase we cannot conceive of the addition of any class x to the universe 1; the latter is not ....."but 50 yrs later Russel wrote, p285 PRINCIPLES OF MATHEMATICS "There is nothing in the definitions above enumerated to show that a real number and a rational number van ever be either equal or unequal, and there is are very strong reasons for supposing the contrary. Hence also we must reject the proposition (p.24 IN CANTOR) that, if b be the real number defined by the fundamental series (av) then, v=potential infinity Lim av=b. Cantor is proud of the supposed fact that his theory renders this propsition strictly demonstrable. But as we have seen, there is nothing to show that a rational can be subtracted from a real number, and hence the proof is fallacious."Why would this matter for "darwinian ideology?"-- Well. I take it panbiogeographically that X^n=X IS a part of what Gould intends qua Dawkins (not creationism) to expand heirarchically and that my insistence via levels of selectin vs levels of organization potentially and not thing wise (in Dawkins not Gould's support)is containted in BOOLE's "interpretation" Russel denied to us but IS within Gould's epirically plooding instence that Dakwins GENE ACCOUNT is false. Economics is ONLY X^2=X (liabilites+equity=asset). Gould views the issue of evolution, "we can only assess the the speed of evolution by calibration against elapsed geological time...If Kelvin has now demonstrated that time must be shorter, we can only conclude that evolution has generally been faster." But we dont have an ideology of the generatlity. Indeed Gould would have us have it in particular as well (even if a creationist (such as Cuvier of today could disagree at this point I dont think it is even homologous to Solomon juding the women with two babies) where he quotes Darwin and Darwin's recirocal "move" "It is, however, probable, as Sir Thomspon
[sic] insists, that the world at a very early period was subjected to more rapid and violent changes in its physical conditions thabn those now occurring; and such changes would have tended to induce changes at a corresponding rate inthe organisms which then existed".p498The reason that I brought in the math is that I have begun to notice Einstein's reasoning that this biological literature may be falisfying but I would need to relate my reading of "The Feynmann Processor" (perhaps Pasteur's grand assymetry only applies to Booles (3) above) which is not strictly in this thread at this time) where AE agreed to disagree with Ritz over spectral line combinations as to if the OBSERVATION spoke to 2nd law of thermo OR to where probablities could be applied. It is clear to me that a group vechicle for Dakwins can remove the ACCOUNT argument of Gould but the ideology against Creationism remains and this I object for the reason that if Russel was going to be as Specious as he was to Cantor he might as well have taken Kronecker's poistion but for philsophical reasons instead he did not. Philosophy is not plodding in empirical time. Yes I may believe in a skyhook anti-Dennet but then I expect instead that all of this ideology will need replacing first.If creationism can bring in a new MATH (not differential as Einstein relied on) by challenges rates then I think this math will be by showing how the irrevesibility of the 2nd law and the reason for Kelvin's generating "fear" in Darwin is due to domains of sequences of rationals (not mere segements"" as Russel had them) first being not one to one AND onto both ways with an ability to subtract a rational 1/3 mendel number (Naglei denied integers here)from a real (possibly coherent but not necessarily perfect algothrim of a projeciton of geography) then ONCE THIS HAPPENS in time it may happen becuase unlike quatum inteanglement genetic correlations can be triply decomposed not becuase Boole said he couldnt interpret it but becuase Russel on getting a scribbled page of notes from Cantor circular filed it in his mind. It may even be that creationist issues on rates of radioactive decay carry over into research on rates of biological change. I would guess that reptile wings change at aslower rate than bird wings wich would change more slowly than bat mammal wings. Eisntein's 16 year old thought may become commonly available in Darwin's fear but let me not overreach.

Whoa there boy bound! I'm going to tell you a secret and and you can choose to keep it to yourself of sell it to the Russians. I think that I really do understand why Einstein switched between looking for parallelizations in 5-D space & asymmetrical tensor relations over time ~1910-1950 BECAUSE I SIMPLY read the NEED for such with a baramin LOGIC or variationwith a kindID....as you were about to leap captial T with.No there is not a sociological give and take that can switch "blame" like this just because the edge is beyond the reality of the man in the street Eugenics in the US where sterlizations programs were disseminated and offices almost set up in NYSTATE was due to darwinISM if not IDEOLOGY. The reasoning however was like, well if I add acid to my pool it will turn the test kit blue therefore people in jail should be sterelized. My grandfather who retained doucements on eugenics in the US partly becuase I guess there was an "expert" who did some historical research on Californina and Virgina at SUNY FREDONIA was also writing papers about sex education in elementary school himself. I can see in papers circa 1925 how both he and the other biologists were reasoning as I tried to leave a sample for you but my Grandfather was dealing with a personal crisis while you NOW want whatever THAT was to be transferable to a third party, neither my Grandfather, the acutal eugencists of the time, or any biological reasoning, namely creationists. NO to that I call for a moreATORiUm.

Do you have "ears" for the difference of "mathmatical" evolution AND "physical" evolution or would this perhaps merely be an OLD difference of physiological and transmission genetics for you?? The results comes to bear on if the "distances" in a common trajectory of life is or is not representable by a framework or not(Euclidean etc). It may be that in the end we can only deal with the NAMES man gave to the animals and our parents-us but I am not quite that pesimistic.[This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 03-23-2004]

But dont forget to forgive not backfeed. I am not suggesting you are doning this, just preparing my self for the reality. It really is looking more difficult for me to seperate HOW I know from WHAT but there is a difference of "absolute" and "unique" but once you become able (nor not) to read differences into my OWN uniquie take of evo-cre (maybe warmer America is "closer" to it than UK EVEN AS UNDERSTOOD BY HARVARD LIGHTS) (my Grandfather TAUGHT evolution from the 30s to the 70s SOUTH of Buffalo and practically out of reach of the garment district in NYC). I learned natural history from him not the notheastern establishment (wherein I grew up) as he was from South Dakoda by way of Illionis. He was "the authority" both on stamp collecting and biology and nature in Chataqua County. Computers have enabled me to go beyond him however, in terms of communication of/in the same. God Bless and Thanks ADDminimus.

before the fact After the FACT
` ~
` ~
` $
` ~ $
` $ $ ~
` ~ ` $ $ $
` $
`Directional directionaL
` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Gould questions chapter 4, STOET with " For we still struggle with adaption and constraint just as Paley and Aggassiz contrasted the comparable positions in natural theology:" The creator foresaw the needs of each species and created just those organs that were necessary ot carry them out" vs "God had in the beginning established laws, and nature was left to unfold in accordance with them" (characterizations of Appel 1987p7). Do not Fisher vs Wright, or Cain and Maynard Smith vs Goodwin and Kaufmann carry on the same debate, evolutionarily transmorgified of course?" and yet IN CONTINUITY (no matter the materiality of the boar's watch or watching the boar's morph etc) and yet I find it FALSE(p269) that "Paley enjoyed no conceptual access to this legitamte adaptationist exit from the dillemma." but it is necessary to access the level of conceptual advancement that Gould underwent in before his passing/exit in order to explain Gould's curious ommsion of Wright/Fisher in the VS"" passage on his second entry % "Evolution does not establish an ultimate divide for all transitions in the history of biology. Several themes pass right through this great revision, only altering their terms and explanations. Formalism vs functionalism may be the most prominent and persistent of issues too grand even for evolution to undo (or fully resolve). Paley an Agassiz once fought this battle in grand style; Dawkins and Goodwin cannot cast so broad a conceptual net, or muster the same stylistic panache today, but they pursue the same conflict"%of the same framed on page (no matter the wrench for the watch or boar bone etc) for/as the word "environment"comes under observation there thru there-where. I do not NEED to discuss the change in names provided I accept the fractal fracture in page 256 footnote (WHICH I, BSM,DO( I prefer a detailed enumeration of uses of the word "dimension" rather than the neologisms fractalwise="frustration" (spelling chagri''n instead))
Gould assumed that "ancestral adapation" was localized logically Gould legged strucutre not to Aggazi's GOD of higher classifications. Instead I find the faliure to reexit Wright/Fisher there as NOT depending on the connotations of "environment" but rather because of Lerner's us of location lexically in word MEso VS "point of no return" of microevo published in the 50s for any denotation of the symbology Gould signed in with Aggasiz's "four". I will show that Cantor's continous motion in discontinuous space provides the "perfection" thus versioned inter alia and that (natural) selection can be futher discected by ONLY Einstein's SECOND axiom , necessarily. Subsequently I wil try to demonstrate the logic by explaining MODE changes of stabalizing selection from central to extreme via disruptive selection of this disconinutiy WHICH WAS aforesaid continity ONLY VIA negentropy sinks CORELATED with cell death explaining directional LEFT VS RIGHT selectability in apodian scale symmetry breaking under "constraint" of sound dependence on light independece of the source Mendel common denominator. I would prefer simply to comment on the so-called sand contrast of Paley and Aggassiz and have that reasoning accepted but I know really better that that can not be accepted as of yet here on EVC even if it was CVE. Part of that difficulty is that unlike physics which progresses by reducing national styles Gould insisted on constraining biology this way unwisely but should the math work up the physical modifcation in new stats unevetfully such explanination of GOuld's passing work would not need the comments I provide here.We have instead the "good old days" of creationism but that is my choice.Gould misadjudicated modern biology when he adjudged in sum his opening to his chapter Four, p278. After I caught my first milk snake by saving the specimen from the matchtte of my father clearing briars for goats I NEEDED to know why the milk snake had 13 different names NOT how to calculate its speed when challgenged instead by a ditch I put it and other differently named speices for the distance crawl as reveled orginally on my watch I had got from dad instead of a two-edged sword for track training. Agassiz and Paley supplied the science behind the kind of question my father was concurrently asking of Jesus to Peter's mother rather than the location that birds depart for Canada for good my Grandfather had implied applied to snakes as well as birds but eventually knew less than I did as well as that my father knew as well. Why I had to be asked if I ever thought I was JESUS is beyond me. Gould had intellectually confused "dimension" with "transversal". Still ,he may have also failed to appreciate Lerner's divide of 'mathematical genetics', 'biometrical genetics', and 'population genetics' in the name of God but I am not prepared to find that yet on Earth. Life on Mars etc would "accelearate" that research however.Today I will remark that contraaccount Bridges we may indeed be staring atthe affect of"p115The last parameter, "motion," according to the usual implication may be anyting, accelearted in any way or not. Logically this is probably demanding more than we need, and we could get along with the postulate that the velocity of light is independent of any UNIFORM moiton of the source. It could then be left open to experiment whther in fact there may be any effects due to acceration of the source. As far as we know, there is no reason to expect the existence of such effects, except insofar as they may be connected with intense gravitational fields." because in Aggaszis style Paley's eye by light might be writ materially (not just entropically as this paper details cotra contrast any pigeon holed) by melaning black body Plankemmission become ADAPTION itself never hardened(only not manipluated in the recpetion) as the likes of the current baramin of evolutionary bioloigsts dont suggest can gain say the physical rigor of Enstein studying physicists actively. We need indeed this faculty of reason. I hope my son will understand I am not dead down beat but up beating still this drum bommeranged in life. A firsbee is not the bommer that the hula hooped the snake that my Grandfather was the first to find swamped in south illionis. NO myth noindeed. This is the "exception" I personally wrote to ICR to participate with me on but I had not the degree. I probably need some time before I can revision my first idea aka Bridgman that involved gravity where now it simply depends hopefully only on biological details. I guess there is maturity after all! And I accept that ascii of GOuLD!!. One does not need to "drinK" A pilattte to "get it". Note Aggasiz gave MORE to geology!!!

The reason they are "absent" is because there is no current account of incidences vs frequencies. Perhaps however this is presently only an issue"" I,BSM, preceive, but real it is nonetheless.