Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 63 (9072 total)
45 online now:
kjsimons, PaulK (2 members, 43 visitors)
Newest Member: FossilDiscovery
Post Volume: Total: 893,153 Year: 4,265/6,534 Month: 479/900 Week: 3/182 Day: 3/28 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   To and in re to Brad McFall
mark24
Member (Idle past 4428 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 4 of 13 (97936)
04-05-2004 4:03 PM
Reply to: Message 2 by Brad McFall
05-10-2003 12:47 PM


Re: ?
Brad,

Make your posts readable. 75% of them are such hard work I can't be bothered to get past the first line, let alone paragraph. If it were just me that had this problem you could reasonably say it's my poor reading & comprehension skills. But it's not me, it's everyone.

Try reading your post before submitting.

For example;

Brad writes:


As I read it Gould orginally used allopatry but it was ALL interms of speciation while he remains agnostic as to periparty,allopatry,polyplodiy. If I read him correctly he did not think that neobiology would invade the theoretical space he felt he opened for paleobiology by not needing to NAME the intermindable number of boundaries the resolution problem migh exascerbate. It is clear that as he thought Fisher's argument about species selection was "impotent" in the face of PE that he acknowdeges the differnt kinds of TIME I asked in question to you but still there is not way to COUNT objectively. My feeling like Gould has a "dominant stasis" feeling is that the form-making (including that preserved in rocks) can be better geometrized statistically such that conclusions that do not rely on his unsymmetrical relation of levels of selection can be arrived at. I have not done this as of yet. I hope this helps. I would perfer naming where Gould insists on statistical differences but that does not address the use of the distribution itslef which I think requires NOT using all of these DIFFERNT notions of time at the same stair step.

I am familiar with Goulds writing which means I can kind of get the drift, but others aren't, that post will be utterly impenetrable to them.

What, for example is this about?

If I read him correctly he did not think that neobiology would invade the theoretical space he felt he opened for paleobiology by not needing to NAME the intermindable number of boundaries the resolution problem migh exascerbate.

I honestly couldn't even rewrite that sentence to make sense, I just don't understand what resolution-based-boundaries-that-exist-in-theoretical-space you are talking about. An extra explanatory sentence & it could be perfect. You write like you expect someone to already understand what you want to say, without realising that you actually have to communicate it first. I think if I put my finger on it, your posts are in need of more explanation & less techy name dropping (generally speaking).

If you're not a lawyer, you missed your calling Seriously, I mean this to be friendly advice.

Mark


"Physical Reality of Matchette’s EVOLUTIONARY zero-atom-unit in a transcendental c/e illusion" - Brad McFall

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by Brad McFall, posted 05-10-2003 12:47 PM Brad McFall has taken no action

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 4428 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 6 of 13 (97945)
04-05-2004 4:42 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by RAZD
04-05-2004 4:17 PM


Re: Bump and replay
Abby,

Agreed.

What I find frustrating with Brad is that he clearly does understand the subjects he posts about, if he can be prodded to be a bit clearer then we all gain, Brad included.

Mark


This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by RAZD, posted 04-05-2004 4:17 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by RAZD, posted 04-05-2004 5:38 PM mark24 has taken no action

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.1
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2022