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


Message 13 of 46 (94129)
03-23-2004 12:47 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by Loudmouth
03-23-2004 12:33 PM


Re: Are New Kinds Produced
That's a tough question. It REALLY depends on, "All this, of course, would not be possible if the complete logical cogency of Von Neumann's argument as to the impossibility of concealed mechanisms is granted."p37 Bridgman SINGLE FRAMES OF REFERENCE. I have been able to marginalize the answer to page 49(if red)of A sophistprimer where Bridgman wrote, "As long as it is assumed that the propagation of light is characterized ONLY by its two-way velocity in any direction, it would appear that an experimental clock of isotropy is necessary for EVERY direction. For one can imagine a medium constituted of infinitely fine threads raditating in every direction, each thread having its own characteristic velocity of propagation. Such a medium would permit discontinuous variations for every direction would appear to be necessary. Hence it ouwl logically apper ((((BSM BARAMINICALLY)))) that, in order to verify the physical correctness of relativity theory, the velocity of light should be checked in every ((POLYBARAMIN))) direction. Practically, we doubtless will be satisfied with a single triangle, CHOSEN AT RANDOM.
so can the randomization make an increase? I doubt it. but I also dont thinkt that I am satisfied as the equivocation shows.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by Loudmouth, posted 03-23-2004 12:33 PM Loudmouth has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by Loudmouth, posted 03-23-2004 1:55 PM Brad McFall has replied

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


Message 16 of 46 (94153)
03-23-2004 2:57 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by Loudmouth
03-23-2004 1:55 PM


Re: Are New Kinds Produced
p233"Can probabalistic models of proteins and nucleic acid sequences be developed that allow for longer range interactions? Can we compute efficiently with such models? In this chapter we will step back from models of particular sequence problems and address these more theoretical issues."p311"Probabilistic models are the main focus of this book. A model can be anything from a simple distribution to a complex stochastic grammer with many implicit probability distributions."p161"The phylogenetic tree of a group of sequences does not necessarily reflect the the phylogenetic tree of their host species, because gene duplication is another mechanism, in addition to speciation, by which two sequences can be seperated and diverge from a common ancestor". Genes which diverged because of speciation are called orthologues. Genes which diverged
by gene duplication are called paralogues. If we are interested in inferring the phlogenetic tree of the species carrying genes, we must use orthologous sequences. But, of course, we might be interested in the phylogeny of duplication events, in which case we might construct a phylogeny of paralogues. even the paralogues within a single species."
Light is related via the CHOICE IN study of para or otho descriptions per physical but not mathematical manipulations. An increase would remand the math as well. This reference finds this work in entropy which may not hold biologically but would work computationally. I can justify this explictly by a detailed discussion of the color red in Bridgmans book for any interested in how the connotation may differ from the denotation in the defintion given in the reference. Bifurcations and Frames of reference may be heterogeneous. Sure my ability to infer an interactin between Bridgman's photon and para duplications may seem remote to you but to me it brings Einstein's view to life in a clearer way than even Paulings use of the word perhaps coopted from Bohr of "complementarity". I think Bohr was wrong but the logics is tending to be post modern emphasized rather than the design it mUST nonetheless point Wolfram to.
The reference was BIOLOGICAL SEQUENCE ANALYSIS by Cambridge University Press.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Loudmouth, posted 03-23-2004 1:55 PM Loudmouth has not replied

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


Message 17 of 46 (94155)
03-23-2004 3:01 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by Lithodid-Man
03-22-2004 6:50 PM


to be so kind
Gould wasnt clear on this point except for being anti-c so unless the data on the morphspace IS indeed robust enough to extend the the"hard" parts of organisms no matter the form/shape per form-making it seems unlikely his idea of hoxology will survive despite his good contra account to gene selfish perspectives. He knew this but I guess this is just the THING that Gould denied "potential" to.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Lithodid-Man, posted 03-22-2004 6:50 PM Lithodid-Man has not replied

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


Message 18 of 46 (94158)
03-23-2004 3:09 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by RAZD
03-23-2004 2:30 PM


Re: Are New Kinds Produced
If gene duplication PREVENTS speciation IN THE SAME PROBABLE 1-D sequence the 3-D relations of multiclocks to multirods could be upset such that there is a stop even if migration is larger than mutation or selection. I am holding out that Gould's physical manipulation will NOT describe this in the stats he could get even from a heirarchical PE BECUASE of Loudmouth's discontuity CHEMICALLY. But now that I useALL of science it gets hard to follow me for I could just as well ascend to the Mount of Olives as well. There is a path it is just very hard to discern in real time. I dont know if the primary"" sequence is to be understood in terms of primes or not.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by RAZD, posted 03-23-2004 2:30 PM RAZD has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by Loudmouth, posted 03-23-2004 4:25 PM Brad McFall has replied

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


Message 21 of 46 (94410)
03-24-2004 10:56 AM
Reply to: Message 19 by Loudmouth
03-23-2004 4:25 PM


Re: Are New Kinds Produced
There is a general failure when trying to EXTRAPOLATE evolutionary connectivity from a training set of data (say proteins or whatever start sequences one has from the lab by cDNA etc etc) to REALIZE that unrelated changes IN A FAMILY (of sequences in our case)might be correlated between families but look like Goldschmidt's hopeful phenotypic monstor only being in our sample genotypic.
Now, p109BIOLOGICAL SEQUENCE ANALYSIS2004"In either case, for practical purposes the result we want to consider hen evaluating potential matches is the log-odds ratio of the resulting probability to the probability of x given our standard random model." which I take rather from Wright's shifting balance prior trial and error process in process.
tHE ERROR from using "entropy" not in the change to be from Bridgman/Croizat FROM Einstein NOT BOHR/SCHRODINGER et al is viewable on page 42 where the text is seperated with the TITLE "Dayhoff PAM matrices while the wend became p42, "This suggets that we should use scores that are matched to the expected divergence of the sequences we wish to compare." I am NOT suggesting this and I AM SUggesting that this suggestion is wrong. They assumed that protein "Families" cannot be sequence disimilar but time wise similarly in order. FYI "The basisof their apporach is to obtain substitution data from alignments between very similar proteins, allowing for evolutionary relationships
There is no doubt that one CAN find more similar sequences as one finds optically more similar bears but what goes "unaltered" is the correlation NOT as you inferred "gene sequence" else we do find these families and they will be familiar to you and me. What I am saying is that there IS no deeper than the PHYSCIAL MANIPULATION I obtain behind this my analysis. But my work then ends back where I started without a bang this year on the issue of the Galvani-VOlta dispute. That not aposteriori data from gene sequence experimental math is how I figured this out. We do not know if the danger of Einstein's optical solution will continue to hold or if c-symptoms will continue to recall other religous activity not familiar in US. If Gould had spent his energy on MATH and not small disptues about fish digits we might have been in a different place today. The issue of divergence however CAN be dealt with on the larger conceptual history but this I have not yet done.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by Loudmouth, posted 03-23-2004 4:25 PM Loudmouth has not replied

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


Message 22 of 46 (94413)
03-24-2004 10:59 AM
Reply to: Message 20 by RAZD
03-24-2004 12:23 AM


Re: Are New Kinds Produced
Yes, and I hinted that the change in electrons and not photons is what is at issue here. There is the very eminent possibility that bios can adapt to photon velocity interms of momementum however. All that I inquire is about THERMAL changes in electron flow. I could be wrong of course.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by RAZD, posted 03-24-2004 12:23 AM RAZD has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by Lithodid-Man, posted 03-24-2004 11:14 AM Brad McFall has replied

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


Message 27 of 46 (94925)
03-26-2004 10:34 AM
Reply to: Message 23 by Lithodid-Man
03-24-2004 11:14 AM


reception vs emission
I may need to start my own web page just to deal with the interest my thought itself generates because I know that the following precise for orgo biologists will be inadequate to the level of discussion going on hear but I am confident that I have put P's free on board to some good use.
1)CA$H in Einstein's visual aid of "traveling with light" with motion of an observer monkeyevolutionist with respect to gene flow.
2)Find the answer to Bridgman's question p44 as a Tuatara's Third EyE.
3)Create a graph of basline on the ordinate and Wgener's time at the line abcissa with Croizat's MASS(so defined) in "islands" of dATA:: which onto form a projection of imaginary planes ordertyped cardinally.
4)Use the contained theoretical infinity to maintain as far as possible in principle of causality while adding age and area anti-selection conditions one to one to Gould's ding for thing by unschooling that which Bridgman doubted could be but miraculous if you or I learned it.
5)Look into the existence of Nucleoli-ERreadthrough providing the operational forms that instrument the above interms of unique and not absolutely discriminated by two way velocities(The relation of the imaginary numbers to the track width will contain this blueprinted).
6)Actually find creationism does not have anything to do with wrong thinking that herpetology is not a discipline in its own right.
NOW we can talk about Baramins.
For instance Ned starts to talk here AFTER this last sentence where we rarerly get to go back to 5 and if 6 only then there is judgement of me and not what I said yet I HAVE TO GO THROUGH STEPS 1---- in order to even type in my password!! I know this helps but little but it does sum up to date.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by Lithodid-Man, posted 03-24-2004 11:14 AM Lithodid-Man has not replied

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


Message 28 of 46 (94927)
03-26-2004 10:41 AM
Reply to: Message 26 by Lithodid-Man
03-24-2004 1:41 PM


No it wasnt and insnt "meant" to be that way. The point list above prepares you or one to be able to add data on herpetology (under evo assumption of amphibians BEFORE reptiles)to Wright's shifiting balance updating the math to handle the explict implications of age and area in terms of EMMMSION (not reception) on gene flow in cold bloods. The barrier to do this was contained in Bridgman's work where he BOTH accepted biological process and Von Neuman's idea of computer memory functionally. The key will be knoweldge of differntial genetics of sound vs light propagation in the BEHAVIOR of these creatures per genes sequenced. I just am setting up the framework so that the work can go forward. It appears that one DOES NOT need to imagine HOW Einstein got his results if one uses the motion of the light beam aka Bridgman rather than Einstein's wonder of the magent but the hepetological distance also needs to be NOT isolated but part of a general trial and error process that simply rebalances by the one way velocity alone.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by Lithodid-Man, posted 03-24-2004 1:41 PM Lithodid-Man has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by Loudmouth, posted 03-26-2004 3:14 PM Brad McFall has replied

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


Message 35 of 46 (96048)
03-30-2004 4:27 PM
Reply to: Message 29 by Loudmouth
03-26-2004 3:14 PM


direct evidence, thanks for noticing
There may be no such thing as "survival of the fittest". Is it not possible that there is only one way(did I say ONE?) to spread TIME over space biologically? We generally accept that Darwin did not understand FORM in so far as he missed the idea of Mendel proportionately. Croizat has fairly voluminously pointed out in life that Darwin did not understand SPACE but did he also not understand time?
The idea that there is only one way to spread time over space biologically IS NOT reductionistic as the first criticisms of this idea are likely to capitulate for it is spread over the space form-making occurs in (both translation in space AND formed cell populations). I can rather not accept before trying out this idea Gould's nonpopable stacking orders which implicate as to epistemic frequencies required accounting of incidences no matter the coincidence but the Dawkins alterntive WILL reduce to the metric available should only ONE way to spread time be found particularly as nanotech technically proceeds. If such is the case Gould's slight against the time in anageness will evaporate with a more instruemental apporach to any potential two way velocities tha+ I represent so far here. The symbol or sign for this time would not be Fourier's nor Einstein's suffiently for it will still be unresolved how far mankind can get the nervous system into different levels of organizations frequently per incidence geometries but it might be that there is a linguistic conflict between the concept of tensors and adaptation. I just have not thought Bridgman's words "dynamics and electrodynamics" far enough yet but logically if Darwin was off with regard to space, time AND form I think it high time to stop bringing his name first and foremost to the biologist's school of lower learning.
I have never had the idea that time may be different for form-making over biological change time and yet in the face of Kelvin Darwin thought this explicitly. Gould's citing Goethe as a test case for his own structure unfortunately continues this kind of past time. There is nothing I can see so far logically (but I have not applied the Russel Cantor difference in the Poincare vs Einstein individual population as of yet) that Gould is theoretically on the functional path of good future operations with a claim for PE as to frequency but I begin to narrate the science one step earlier with the notion of incidental contanct. If the particular as well as the one wayof spreading time across the space and translation in space occurs inter alia then...and the idea of different 'ages' could go by this way side (Mesozoic, Cenozoic, Gouldazoic) because time no matter the origin would be SPREAD the same way for all 1st law of thermo. It would be quite an error to establish that Darwin and Gould got the cycle wrong because they relied on time changes rather than a wrong probablism of covariance between a cow and cat but let me not question without results. Provine admitted that every one, not only Wright, wanted to know how much the hand vs head contributed to overall size and perhaps by eliminating Darwin's connectivity of past generations adaptively (with newer technology) we can turn Wright's balance into a fulcrum not only twisting but actually transforming the interpretation of equations asscociated with the names of Poincare and Lornez when I should have been talking about Faraday so far instead. It may even be that this newer concept of time, a creationist idea of existence with the appearence of age, not only will build newer techonology than that which approved of its own existence but that the logical consults of Bridgman will have achieved an instrumental and pracitical truth denied explictly by the evolutionists individual concept of surivial of the fittest. It might be found that biology was more in cohoots with the corportate genotype economically than could be rationally supported as to the numerical insults as well as the grammetical. Darwin had said in the power of motion in plants that the movements of various organs to the light, which are so general throughout the vegtable kingdom, and occasionally from the light or transversly with respect to it, are all modified forms of circumnutation; as again are the equally prevalent movements of stems,&c., towards the center of the earth. In accordance with these conclusions, a considerable difficulty in the way of evolution is in part removed, for it might have been asked, how did all their diversified movements for the most different purposes first arise? As the case stands, we know that there is always movement in progress, and its amplitude, or direction, or both, have only to be modified for the good of the plant in relation to internal or external stimuli.
The idea of idea I have in mind is that the details of mole bio accumulate information not merely about density relations but about information (not programs) of the stochiometric eventuality of coincidences (1-D) thermal currents ionically match to time of heat transfer by Brownian motion during the survial (without cell death) of DNA,RNA,Protein chemistry. There would be NO survival of the fittest individual under sexual reproduction but merely cellular existence with the apperence of age (perhaps meaning adaptation"" but I can not say that yet) namely state of NOT undergoing programmed cell death by incidence without coincidence!! This is a falsifiable possiblity but requries a level of scholarship above that being proffered by elite institutions today. The details I suggest even might explain historical conflicts of the topic as due to failure to find that negative time and negative entropy dont go together homogenously. That is my own opinion and subject to modification.
The first thing that this notion does is to discount Gould's idea that the stair step is the answer by showing under what population thinking indiviudality CAN be associated. If I am correct then the ++ 1-D symmetry with >> 1-D symmetry BUILD neontological coincidneces irrespective to Mayr's thought or even Gould's constraint because there is a restraint on constraints invariantly but this is NOT due to time but rather to the physical spreading of time under photon existence vs electron existence. It may be possible to build electrokinematic clocks that one simply attaches to a plant (or animal) and it keeps time but it would not recall any old invasive science fiction machine-man implntation technique. This, however, remands that I be able to convert a SPLIT adaptive landscape into a force-free constant velocity presenttion across some actual space. I'll try that next.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by Loudmouth, posted 03-26-2004 3:14 PM Loudmouth has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by Lithodid-Man, posted 04-04-2004 7:27 AM Brad McFall has replied

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


Message 37 of 46 (97894)
04-05-2004 1:45 PM
Reply to: Message 36 by Lithodid-Man
04-04-2004 7:27 AM


Re: direct evidence, thanks for noticing
It is not,modern taxonomy is out of its league compared with barminology. There is more precision in the baramin than in how precisely taxonomy is to be reorganized should the heirarchical view of levels of selection succeed. Please consult the thread on Baraminology where I was quite explict about the kinds. I am sorry you feel this way but your perception of me is ONLY apparent. If you take the time like Abby to get to post with me you WILL come to know me differently.
http://EvC Forum: Distinguishing Baramins -->EvC Forum: Distinguishing Baramins
[This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 04-05-2004]
[This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 04-05-2004]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by Lithodid-Man, posted 04-04-2004 7:27 AM Lithodid-Man has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by Denesha, posted 04-06-2004 6:41 AM Brad McFall has replied

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


Message 39 of 46 (98153)
04-06-2004 4:23 PM
Reply to: Message 38 by Denesha
04-06-2004 6:41 AM


Re: not the best moment
I am no "DR" though I did get two post cards from Down Under and South America asking for reprints of an article I wrote as a teenager.
Frankly, I am quite surprised that you ventured to judge MY OWN idea for it clearly witnesses that there is very little learning despite my saying the same thing here day in and day out. You "think" or 'cant believe' that i am wrong yet I KNOW you are wrong to think that I am thusly. I am sorry for such strong language but I will explain this one. Esentially you and others are saying NOW, that rather than having another, or in your case, a first, go-, with me y'll perfer the kind of "science" of CarlZimmer in AT THE WATERS EDGE than my own ideas. I begrudge no one for having opinions and can acknolwdge that socially but I warn you this is not the way. Dont walk in it. While Carl was thinking up that it might be oK to figure a woman with a frog I was under the water of Africa getting my nose filled with black dirt just to find just one more DIFFERNT electric fish. Just yesterday I chanced instead to see an illustration in MECHANISMS OF BEHAVIOR by Peter Marhler and WD Hamilton (no light weights mind you) from 1966 which in my own understanding (which includes the baramins' logic I inverted from what you will find in other cist lit.) trumps any firing of Carl's synapses that caused ALL his colummns divide in e-fish two collumm picture of 1966 which Carl got don in 1998. Zimmer columnizes tetrapodsP99,ottersP185,and whalesP203 quite EXPLICITY(his word)what was explained in 66 as "convergent". Marler and Hamilton called attention rather than sexually to the SNOUTS of these fishes which they noted might indeed indicate similar paths of evolution differently locomoted in SA vs Africa. Again, let me remind you that I did not see this figure until yesterday. I make no bones about it. I found out in 1986 that this idea is wrong but Veblen already knew in 1898 when he wrote, "The great deserts of the evolutionist leaders-if they have any deserts as leaders-lie, on the one hand, in their refusal to go back of the colorless sequence of phenomena and seek higher ground for their ultimate syntheses, and , on the other hand, in their having shown how this colorless impersonal sequence of cause and effect can be made use of for theory proper, by virtue of its cumulative character."
Such a sequence DOES STILL exist. I for one KNOW that I was NOT!! looking at "porn" when finding this combination I have already seen in nature by interactivity but there were messages that I had porn on my computer. I did not. But this only helps the people morally I would choose not to support.
Zimmer to some extent attempted to understand the colorlessness to Gould's conceptual degree undoubtly but if one rejects the left hand 1966 colorlessity it is not a problem to reject any distorted such sequence as well. I have not the time to explain again what I have done repeatedly here. Sometime someone will have to realize that they need to believe me as well. I may not be able to remember this moment exactly as I am writing out the negativity as well.
The snout will not work and nor will the fins as if they were either or handed but this information was lost and so while i was able to find a way to simply read nature using baramins that I CAN NOT within modern taxonmy for issues of current application of algorthims AND proabilities (which DONT address outstanding neoontological genetic issues)there is LESS lexical chance but perhaps a different grammetical chance that current classifications can survive my reading. I may die but the objectivity in the language or in this case the colorlessness of form will remain.
I had thought that this particular knowledge ONLY applied to validation of Croizat but now I percieve a broader need for the mess will remain no matter how much time you or i grant. I spent 4mothns after 8yrs of experience creating the data that was lost to THAT mess and I find that baramins already cLEANed it up. The issue of descent being conceptually seperated from mechanisms only made this matter worse so the elite lost its light to Veblen. The smart marxists will understand. Using crabs only gives 2-D, the fish get three. I can explain that in terms of current taxonomy not baraminology however.
I really do know what I am talking about. some day some one will relearn it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by Denesha, posted 04-06-2004 6:41 AM Denesha has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by Denesha, posted 04-07-2004 6:05 AM Brad McFall has replied

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


Message 41 of 46 (98518)
04-07-2004 6:47 PM
Reply to: Message 40 by Denesha
04-07-2004 6:05 AM


Re: the best moment
Did you mean to think or say that one can not DO good work with polyphlyetics? There was some confusion in the 70s in central Europe especially as to if Croizat was "working" with such but he wrote a paper on induction and deduction that cleared that up for me. You see, polyphyla becomes very erroneous if one had already seperated metnally descent with mechnisms of change which is apparently part of the "free will" of some currently praticing evos but with THAT division AND the assumption of any Croizat or Croizatist for that same connectivity I could have found how you might have been ambivalent about the circular file. Best. Brad-formality is not necessary.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by Denesha, posted 04-07-2004 6:05 AM Denesha has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by Denesha, posted 04-08-2004 4:11 AM Brad McFall has replied

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


Message 43 of 46 (98763)
04-08-2004 6:44 PM
Reply to: Message 42 by Denesha
04-08-2004 4:11 AM


Re: the best moment
Ok, you may be at a truth here. I went to Zaiire in 1986 and spent 4moths collecting electric fish every day to be subsequently used in disscetions of the electric organs in order to determine the MAXIMUM amount of variablity this trait has diverged in the lineages in Africa (which could then be compared with fish in South America as to any supposed convergence etc after the fact). I had already spent over 8 years in Hunterdon County NJ collecting over 700 specimens that I had kept for two weeks or longer and was very adept at LOOKING for combinations of vertebrate morph differences and seperating the collections geographically. All of this was going fine for about 3moths but then I became somewhat unable to find anything new to seperate when ONLY looking at the fish (this was BEFORE any electrical measurements of signals were done)so, contrarily to what I had done with reptiles and amphibians in NJ I decided to try to see if morphological divisions could be maintained by including environemental information (local vegatation, depth of water, surrounding landscape etc) and amazingly I was able to CONTINUE to seperate the speciems I bought from fisherman every morning. I kept all of the divisions seperate but there was no journalizing of the differences so they remained subjective with me. This however was what I WAS PAID TO DO. And the the grad student I went with was quite happy to have someone like me who was able to make prelimiary data divisions from which he took the fish (LIVE) and attempted to duplicate my icthlogical distinctions with electric signal differences. This information was however discarded by the lab back in ITHACA when it SENT the specimens to FRANCE for some "political" reason as not apparently to "embarss" the high european scientists with a punky NJ snakeguys seperation. Thus I see very easily how you can be concerned with polyphyla being a problem with fish but the problem in general IS with language as I have been able to understand the different approaches JUST IN LOOKING at the shapes of tube apodians are UNDERSTOOD DIFFERENTLY by FRENCH AND ANN ARBOR biologists simply becuase of some very scant data on development which in my opnion IS MUCH LESS INFORMATION rich than that I used to seperate the fish in the field. If one NOW then attempts to add the LOGIC of baraminology and kinds discontinuous to this DATA( including simply preferences for different words like annuli as we might discuss fish polyphylaaaa) then a resolution of this current high systmatics IS CLEANED up from without creationsit influence possibly but for me WAS BY MEANS of critical creationsim.
So with fish I found that one can supplement the form with the translation in space and one gets beyond the problem. I have not tried this subsequently with herps as I was pervented from doing what I knew probably better than all but a handful of people how to do for marxist influence reaches into higher education in US biology. I think lizards are ripe for this use case but I may not have any money even to retire with so I can not actually do what I want to do not for reasons of choice but becuase I presently have not this choice. Croizat had indeed made advances irrespective of creationism in this regard but contradictorily current biology wrongly attempts to have it cake (anti-Croizat) and eat it too (ant-Creationism). Out of eaten is not out of eden.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by Denesha, posted 04-08-2004 4:11 AM Denesha has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by Denesha, posted 04-09-2004 4:49 AM Brad McFall has not replied

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


Message 45 of 46 (98902)
04-09-2004 11:57 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Lithodid-Man
03-22-2004 4:29 PM


I have established so far in this thread sans negativity that the logic of Baramins added to the current state of paraphlyeeee might get a beter and thusly more kindly kinder classification than current taxonomy and be a kind of larger application than is current in evolutionary biology today. Now I seal the deal with a predication. ALL of the toads in North America are due to DeVresian step down saltations such that multiple origins of species (not kinds) of this kind result from purely mechanical differences of sound transmssion in the transverse vs longitudianl state. Gould had noted that this is "archaic" (progressive vs regressive) but I show that instead it is not being but the application of two KINDS of non-euclidean geometry (hyperbolic vs elliptic) within the current database of known genetic correlations. The error was not thinking like Croizat in terms of colineations in science. I will be detailing this reading in the more moleuclar threads where issues of 2-D (affects in perspectivities vs projectivites (bearing on interpretations of D'Arcy Thompson transforms) due to difference of even or odd nature of the dimension phenomenologically in self-similar kinematics) is focus of any changes.
In this kind of larger thread, you can note that it beginging to appear that the mathematical update of Wright's shifting balance theory is not only cognizable(last paragraph) but CONSTRUCTABLE especially by using the ever increasing data of molecular biology. Gould did not take this course. In order to achieve the guess I predicted I will show under what "laws of thought" it is necessary in order to rewrite the linear nature ofWright's rules by rotations of elliptic spaces (representing chromosomes or maximal DNA sequences natrually existable) relative to hyperbolic ones(where either photons are on both sides or thermal currents contact the symmetry(I have not decided on this as of yet although they need not be mutually exclusive)). No known concept in evolutionary biology is large enough to contain this thought should I show that any PE divisions remain within the 2-D presentation as it is clear that organisms and populations are IN "3-D". Bertrand Russel apparently thought that simply denial of Euclids postulate V was enough to extricate any philosophy of Kantwhile I take it to indicate only problems with categories of science in Kant's time which the Galvani-Volta dispute was Faradayed away. Final dismissal of Gould's "structure" will only occur should the transforms be expressed in the correlation data as hyperbolic metrics onto elliptic morphometric tangent refernce forms but I have not worked on the affine deatils of the suposed mechanism of thermal contact via quarternions but I HAVE mentally REMOVED (it did not need to be moved in the first place but current evolutionary biology could not get beyond Kaufmann) the faculty of thought that HAD decent and mecanisms seperate. There will also be open the ability to find the nonlinear nature that Provine asked Wright of btu the photon issue vs electron tissue must be solved materially before that advance commences.
If you have not the math maturity to work on this on your own simply start trying to understand the issues surrounding panbiogeography for Croizat rightly presents biology in terms of colineations (relations of points to points and lines to lines , tracks to tracks, nodes to nodes, baselines to baselines AND DOES NOT TRY TO TEACH biological change on the basis of correlations (point to line) that is standard and source of c/e conflict despite its easy statement. It would not have matter that Croizat used "polyphla" if he was stringently THINKING NOT of correlations even if he was more free with what colineations he had footnoted. DeVries had NOT discovered an "odd ball" but instead provides more conceptual acces of baramins to the notion of apo baramin. I might even find the celluar notions to be matching as subdiploid elliptics might be actually physcially plyed in certain dual ways that the colineations can find stronger statistical regressions but I have not a department at my faculty only one mind and you here I correspond with.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Lithodid-Man, posted 03-22-2004 4:29 PM Lithodid-Man has not replied

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


Message 46 of 46 (99491)
04-12-2004 6:19 PM
Reply to: Message 2 by Lithodid-Man
03-22-2004 4:31 PM


help hope, take moko
Have you looked at any of the panbiogeographic work in South America on Crabs? There was an interesting generalization of the track AFTER the New Zelander's picked up on what the AMNH threw out in the baseline by Morrone and Lopretto down there in Argentina which indicated carapace allometry AND geographic differentation I was able to lingusitic hold to the term "gold leaf". It would not be off interest to cite the use of Crustaecians by Croizat in Africa when attempted to remass the same distribution further north of Brazil. If one is SOoooo confident that created kinds can not match "next lower taxonomic level" then I think that these creatures of a "kind" (so said Hovind)ought provide all the data one needs as I suspect if extended across the bay of Bengal the phenetics might be comparable to any other thought creationists have had in kind to date. Best Brad.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by Lithodid-Man, posted 03-22-2004 4:31 PM Lithodid-Man 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