Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,807 Year: 3,064/9,624 Month: 909/1,588 Week: 92/223 Day: 3/17 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Behe's Irreducible Complexity Is Refuted
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5032 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 149 of 223 (92072)
03-12-2004 12:16 PM
Reply to: Message 146 by DNAunion
03-12-2004 8:47 AM


Re: Analogies Designed to receive
This would be like following a chapter in "BIOLOGICAL SEQUENCE ANALYSISROBABLISTIC MODESL OF PROTEINS AND NUCLEIC ACIS BY D,E,K and M Cambridge University Press 1998 or 2002 not with p215 "Towards more realistic evolutionary models" "Until now, we have treated biological sequences as one-dimensional strings of independent, uncorrelated symbols. This assumption is computationally convenient but not structurally realistic. The three-dimensional folding of proteins and nucleic acids involves extensive physical interactions between residues that are not adjecent in primary sequence."
Instead try to find a geometry of linkages programmtically by each site in the sequence itself able to increase the information content of the whole. I was able to gain say Einstein's physicality to the idea of discussing entropic VS ethalpic adaptations. Dont immediately look for long range correlations within the 1-D strech surround. And DONT think that the problem is the conception in 1-D if you will. This is clearly a difficult problem and I probably would need to restate to make it even intelligible to others besides me. Hopefully not.
see also ("The evolutionary models used so far have made some fairly drastic simplifying assumptions(p193.). The restriction to ungapped alignments discards useful phylogenetic information given by the pattern of deletions and insertions. It is also clearly incorrect to model each site in a sequence with the same substitution matrix,"..)
What these author's are trying to see done is have "yesterday's" organism(via sequence) be the shape of tommarrow's COMPARED series. It is a priori clear if deceptive evolution exists this is impossible out right but the error is in reading the deception as homogenous across any dimension of data even before there is any probablistic graph made.
What is considered "long range" may be information changes at the same site but becuase the historical basis for ARGUING about the scale was largely in the context of action at a distance vs bonding etc often the forest becomes a chemical before the solution is seen as it was. Of course it may be different.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 146 by DNAunion, posted 03-12-2004 8:47 AM DNAunion has not replied

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


Message 155 of 223 (92787)
03-16-2004 3:24 PM
Reply to: Message 150 by DNAunion
03-12-2004 1:39 PM


Re: Analogies Designed to perceive
YEP, the concept of a "prior" is at stake here. There seems to be the idea out there that indeed one can think of organisms changing as if the discrete probablistic change in a string or grammer suffices to explain the entire REDUCTIONIST side of biological life. The problem is that the sophitication to deal with probablility models tends to REPLACE the physical intuition of say an Einstein AND it is not that there is not phyiscist "precedence" for such research but this would not break the 1900 time barrier which IS NEEDED if one wants to obtain a slightly sophisticated enough notion of "species" worth discussing interms of sequence differences.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 150 by DNAunion, posted 03-12-2004 1:39 PM DNAunion has not replied

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


Message 156 of 223 (92792)
03-16-2004 3:31 PM
Reply to: Message 154 by RAZD
03-15-2004 11:29 PM


Re: Raining on the Love Parade
They may not be "blocks" but rods in the guise of clockwork AND/OR Newton-black bodies. Swoop, swopping and swap are not the same words, but not necessarily countable as the former would nevertheless be. To not count with my thumb as on the Weather Channel-- that is my goal!!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 154 by RAZD, posted 03-15-2004 11:29 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 157 by RAZD, posted 03-18-2004 1:42 AM Brad McFall has replied

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


Message 161 of 223 (93165)
03-18-2004 2:52 PM
Reply to: Message 160 by RAZD
03-18-2004 9:59 AM


Re: Staining on the Love Parade
Not only is it NEW it is eminently correct. You have compeletly missed trying. The fact remains that the place to learn what I can teach will be on boards like this. YOU WILL NOT LEARN correctly if you only take what is being taugt at elite instutions. I will talk about Cornell and the ISREAL-JORDAN project of information hiding later. You should apply the same respect for moderators to other posters as well. THIS I DO. One does not ever need to self depricate. The assertions about me are near slander but this is the internet not the personal world. I not only appear to be discussing what I am talking about but really I am doing it. That's why there is materially something behind what you or someone else doesnt understand. There would be NOTHING here if there wasnt something to what I have been CONTINUALLY SAYING. I could not continually be discussing c/e if there wasnt some reality and not just an axe to grind. Learn to life and then LIVE to learn.
If Behe's IC was refuted then IT WOULD BE IMPOSSIBLE FOR ME TO BE suggesting mechanical possibilites that is not just an egg falling in the wind. Why not rather than agree with other posters you dont ask me a question instead?
Now as for the design of the SPACE intelligently why dont one try to imagine how GAP alignments and Vicariant Biogeography can be scaled algorhthimically??? If you read NETWON's OPTICKS VERY CLOSELY you or anyone with my level of English ability can understand that Newton's very idea of light depends on the existence of discrete bodies that may be black. I read this in 1986 while spending 4 months in Africa. I have not even got the chance to explain my position on Behe in Behe's own words as it would require for me to see if not indeed Plank's BLACKBODY radiation were not applicable by design to melanin distributions. I have had that thought as well as everything else I have rit to this board--
I'll make you a deal- I will read Behe's BOOK word for word and respond to that book or anything by that author if you agree to stop listening to the naysayers about me and deal directly with me? Deal??

This message is a reply to:
 Message 160 by RAZD, posted 03-18-2004 9:59 AM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 164 by RAZD, posted 03-18-2004 4:02 PM Brad McFall has replied

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


Message 162 of 223 (93166)
03-18-2004 2:58 PM
Reply to: Message 157 by RAZD
03-18-2004 1:42 AM


Re: Raining on the Love Parade
It depends on if the "vector" is needed absolutely in evolutionary theory. It may be possible to concieve of the relation of lukewarmtemperature differences and MinkowskiTIME without by some idea of Wolframs' but I doubt THAT! I will be less opaque if you have already agreed to stop listening to the peanut gallery and talk straight forward with and to me, Thanks, Brad.
Do you think that the notion of a "molecular clock" makes any sense??? Sure molecules come and go but why something with a "rate". Why cant one simply THEN think of Newton's idea of fermentation and digestion as a gentle heat in the center of the Earth then? Read Newton if you cant or dont want to read me. Newton did not think that there was room to discuss "conspiring motions" but we may be indeed be on this threshold especially should carbon life be found in MArs bar none.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 157 by RAZD, posted 03-18-2004 1:42 AM RAZD has not replied

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


Message 163 of 223 (93172)
03-18-2004 3:29 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Loudmouth
02-10-2004 12:55 PM


If one can not "root" a clade in EUCLIDEAN space one can not presume that simple common morphological sense will validate the REJECTION of posterior probabilites in Bayesian models of alignments no matter the space scale such are carried out on.
One may have simply assumed otherwise.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Loudmouth, posted 02-10-2004 12:55 PM Loudmouth has not replied

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


Message 167 of 223 (93349)
03-19-2004 10:39 AM
Reply to: Message 164 by RAZD
03-18-2004 4:02 PM


Re: The raid without Behe or some such
when you sAiD, "false application" did you mean formally false or falsifiable false, or perhaps something the interface"" missed like false fact false????
Can we agree to standardize on Bertrand Russel's notion of the "history of logic" when within this particular area of discussion??
Are you aware of the apparently duplict but not dual use of the word "chaos" in translations of I. Kant's work? It appears to me that you might not have gotten farther than Kant(Stu Kaufmann KNEW he could not which is why he chose biology rather than philosophy in GBrit_n.)could have influneced J.Derrida on the Veritas in the Rift or Gorge at Cornell as to the "faculties" OF REASON. Let's be reasonable shall we?????????

This message is a reply to:
 Message 164 by RAZD, posted 03-18-2004 4:02 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 168 by RAZD, posted 03-19-2004 8:46 PM Brad McFall has replied

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


Message 169 of 223 (94104)
03-23-2004 9:37 AM
Reply to: Message 168 by RAZD
03-19-2004 8:46 PM


Rome such
Good (or rather bad for me). That is what I expected you to have meant. You may not have been following in my OWN path lately here on EVC so I will give you the logistics for now even though I just finished showing problems that remain in logic or dont. So let me expose in terms of designs EITHER apriori OR aposteriori- (you would have simply denied or attempted to counter assert my oberservation over the change in design arguments historically from aposteriori to apriori). I am sure we are not going to formally disagree about the mark used in the letter "i" but the issue of formally false bears on the use of TIME (or the lack thereof with a particular Einsteinian notion of TWO rods etc) BETWEEN (Biological Sequence Analysis Probabilistic models of proteins and nucleic ascids by R.Durbin. S. Eddy, A.Krogh, and G. Mitchinson Cambridge Uni Press 2002 p163)"More loosely, we refer to this as the tree TOPOLOGY (A topologist would reserve this term...) and denote it by the symbol T. To complete the definition of a phylogenetic tree, one must also define the lengths of the edges; these will generally be denoted (A deliberate echo of 'time', the variable we are ultimately interested in.) by tsubi with a suitable scheme for the iS."and (A Sophisticate's Primer of Relativity Second Ed. by PW Bridgman p85) "In fact on CAN refuse to accept the equations, and by fiat retain the absoluteness of distant simultaneity, by simply replacing the second equation by t^'=t. What is the objection to this. in view of the fact that we have already recognized that the way in which we spread time over space contains an arbitrary element."
You simply did not see my own thought path through this "maze" which is admittedly a bit hairier than doing programming but well leave that for another designing form to do.Plese be prepared if you are "arguing" with me that there will BE an issue over the representation of "prime numbers" programmtically. That is not by fiat mind you. In breif we have not "heard" this objection as of yet. That is NOT how Randy Jackson pronounces "iissssss". Tome around if you want to it will come back,

This message is a reply to:
 Message 168 by RAZD, posted 03-19-2004 8:46 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 170 by RAZD, posted 03-23-2004 12:07 PM Brad McFall has replied

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


Message 171 of 223 (94166)
03-23-2004 3:30 PM
Reply to: Message 170 by RAZD
03-23-2004 12:07 PM


R
It may not be too late to try to change the equations today but I would like to see one with temperature worked up. see also-PW Bridgman ASPORp128 so instead we have an event at least of some who say that this complex can not be seen as simple- fine. But physics may indeed have too much alternatives that will not come to light in medicine (hence irreducibly complex). We dont know that yet but we also can worship in the same time frame.
I am not limited by YOUR ability to understand. Only my own ability. this may be BY GOD however- you demurED instead.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 170 by RAZD, posted 03-23-2004 12:07 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 172 by RAZD, posted 03-24-2004 12:30 AM Brad McFall has replied

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


Message 173 of 223 (94419)
03-24-2004 11:17 AM
Reply to: Message 172 by RAZD
03-24-2004 12:30 AM


Abby,
My friend just look in this web site. We are doing it here. Perhaps we should give you a trade discount to window shop! If I am your last stop in the tour then you can be certain to come up against questions but we must be able to get over that stage. Some already have. I learn from MrH even though he didnt respond to me directly. It is a curious tangled bush that is not all that grand. see it for what it is.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 172 by RAZD, posted 03-24-2004 12:30 AM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 174 by RAZD, posted 03-24-2004 12:56 PM Brad McFall has replied

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


Message 175 of 223 (96052)
03-30-2004 4:34 PM
Reply to: Message 174 by RAZD
03-24-2004 12:56 PM


Re: trading knowledge
An open letter to Abby L,
"Doc., note. I dissent. A fast never prevents a fatness. I diet on cod."
There is no need for you to try to follow me around this board. If you simply settle into any particular thread I will adapt my discussion accordingly. I try very had to KEEP exposed the point of c/e but it is very difficult given the teaching and media repose in popular evolution. If you listened to last Friday's NPR scienceFriday (you need not note that this not "girl friday") you could have got my drift. The subject was fossil primate DNA analysis and there were numerous (more than one and I cant quite recall by rote (as is normal) the whole show"" places where the discussion touched on the points of entry of c/e that occurr regularly on this board but instead of making science on NPR an EVC media outreach etc the notion of ULTRAMETRIC distance was covered up. So just to document this let me let you KNOW that the following could have been discussed but was not. BIOLOGICAL SEQUENCE ANALYSIS p168-9
"Molecular clocks and the ultrametric property of distances UPCMA produces a rooted tree of a special kind. The edge lengths in the resulting tree cana be viewed as times measured by a MOLECULAR CLOCK with a constant rate. The divergence of sequences is assumed to occur at the same constant rate at all points in the tree, which is equivalent to saying that the sum of times down a path to the leaves from any node is the same, whatever the chioce of path. If out distance data are derived by adding up edge lengths of the tree T with a molecular clock, then UPGMA will reconstruct T correctly. To see this, imagine a horizontal line rising throught the tree T starting from the level of the leaves: each time it crosses a node, the distances of all the leaves in the left branch from that node the leaves in the right branch will be the current minimum distance, and a node will therefore be added precisely where the node is encouneted in the original tree T. If the original tree is not well-behaved in this way, but has different length routes to its leaves, as in Figure 7.5(left), then it may be reconstructed incorrectly by UPGMA(Figire 7.5 right). What goes wrong in this case is that the closest leaves are not neighboring leaves: they do no have a common parent node. A test of whether reconstruction is likely to be correct is the ULTRAMETRIC condition. The distances dji are said to be ultrametric if, for any triplet of seqeucnes x^i, x^j,x^k, the distances dij, djk,dik are either all equal, or two are equal and the remaining one is maller. This condition holds for distances derived from a tree with a molecular clock."
On MARCH9 Cornell's new president went to ground-breaking ceremony south of the DEAD SEA to bank the soil for a new "LIBRARY OF LIFE" which reported in the Cornell Chonicle for March,4,2002 printed "The complex nature of the data, he said, will require the development of new software and new database...Making the Library of Life's huge data set accessible over the Web also will require a number of technical breakthroughs. A new language will be created integrating classification schemes of different life science disciplines, making it easy to navigate between the biology of the small and of the large." You may also be aware that Master Books had just come out with J. Sarfarti's REFUTING COMPROMISE A Biblical and Scientific Refutation of 'Progreesive Creationism' (billions of years) as popularized by Hugh Ross. wherein on page 158 (thanks to preprint of AIG) two circles A&B are labelled "Maximum distance light could have traveled" within a backfound ostensibly representing the "big bang" containing intextu "The fastest way for regions to come into equilibrium would be for electromagnetic radiation to carry heat from one region to another. However, some of these regions are too distant for light to have traversed between them, even in the assumed time since the alleged big bang. The finite speed of light is a "horizon" which cant be crossed, hence the term "horizon problem." Even when the CMB was emitted, supposedly 300,000 years after the big bang, it already had a uniform temperature over a range at least 10 times larger than this horizon." One of the most common attacks on the YEC model by old-earthers such as Ross is that light would supposedly not have had enough time to reach earth from distant stars(this is discussed in chapter 6). But the horizon problem is the big bangers' own "light travel problem." How can old earthers freely criticize YEC on the very problem that they have not yet solved from their own perspective?"
I am not suggest that RNA fossil "leaves" may be seperated at these distances but in the chapter SINGLE SINGLE SINGLE SINGLE (DID i SAY single?) FRAMES OF REFERNCE P.W. Bridgeman wrote out "A Sophisticate's Primer of Relativity" onto page28 "Sometimes for example, the Michelson-Morley experiment is described as showing that "absolute" velocity does not "exist". Of course it does not exist, becuase it is not that sort of thing BY DEFINTION. What the physicist is acutally saying here is that there is no evidence for the old-fashioned ether, which if it exites could be taken as a universal frame with respect to which velocities could be measured."where I take it that critics of Safarti or me for that matter at this point would DENY that baramins are seperated by absolute motive motions(wihtout specifying the veolcity vs the simultanity of position etc) OR actually MOVE absolutely with respect to each other (on view only involves time and the other may equivocate between space and form(raw material))subjecitve divisions of the baraminologist for I doubt any own is claiming prophetic baramin knowledge(pehaps there are cists(you terminology who do however). I have my own place in all this because when I SAW A&B I thought I was looking at BONES at first which might primarily be due to me considering that in fact URNA is Bridgeman'sp27"The effect of the motion on the rate of a clock, or indeed how the rate of moving clock may be defined, is immaterial, Whatever it may be, it does not enter the defintion of self-measured velocity, which specifies a unique procedure and therefore a unique result for any given motion."
I think my particpation on this board has shown that it is no longer a matter of "experience" to determine this as it was in 1983 OR 1962 or earlier. So rather than slam the only advance in making less walking life's library I would like to stay with positive side only. I am far from asserting that polybaramins are universal biological frameworks. But dont hold your breath unless you have billions of years. Thanks..You cant "fake" this kind of writing. It done completely by me with no help from my teachers. Morality has nothing to do with it. I will leave making the word "horixion" univocal for c/e purposes as later exercise as this post introduces the axis no matter where it is actually, "z-ing", to try to avoid any neologistics in the future as I want students to go back before they go forward ONLY. You ideed have done to me it seems what Safrati is accusing or was accused of by Ross. Right?. I can dig Bridgman's use of the word "of" up in this context if this last is an issue. It shouldnt be else I will stop posting with you for the tiring reason of my age only. I am weary of seeing the GIFT horse not under the bed but only getting the mouthback.
byPeter Hilton-Doc no ted I......s..sentaf a stneherp revc nt saf saf sar etc etc etc......with modification.
Can we not get back to BEHE himself then??
[This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 03-30-2004]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 174 by RAZD, posted 03-24-2004 12:56 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 176 by RAZD, posted 03-31-2004 12:51 PM Brad McFall has replied

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


Message 177 of 223 (96616)
04-01-2004 11:38 AM
Reply to: Message 176 by RAZD
03-31-2004 12:51 PM


Re: trading knowledge and a fair trade
what does the word "state" mean in state of species diveristy?
for if the rate is constant than this state might be apporached or approximted but if it might also be if it is not, but that is a harder problem. Can species diversity be correlated with "empty space" for instance? Are "species" actual units of space,time and form or do they incline to other notions of the same than is currently standard physical science? Is the biology still overdeterming this state instantiation?? I'll agree that in order to understand "steady state species" we need to have the horizion problem in terms of adapation or tensors sensu stricto but then the simple solution of stacking order vs end to end stacking reduces endemisms to incidence points but I dont see any biological reason to scale the location of protein on DNA incidentally with Trilobite distributions in NY vs NJ etc which would be possible if the light phenomenology bore. It may not but if there is to be any assumtion of materialism that is all I can reliably grant given that motion and time are not the same things. If anything I tend to be able to think of increased categories of selection thus I see no reason given the current mold of taxonomy to suspect a reduction at first. Even with tensors and adapation at possible conceptual odds I find first and foremost instead that there ARE MOST LIKELY stable environments (but something that Gould thought was "internal developmental constraints") dynamically supported by (not resulting in) changes in stablezing selection (either from extremes to central (starting with extreme selection) or central to extreme (starting with your "median" stat)due to the kinematics of this "environment" EXTERNAL to gene flow much as one tries to THINK of the twin traveling light problem alongide TWO corridiante frames. There is only on here that due to this performationist (but time intervaled variable)opening that was first spoken of by Maxwell witht he word "electrotonics". I just think the whole motion (no matter the matter) can be biologically mechanized by truths out of topobiology not bald claims or my age approxately guessed correctly by you as to relative stregth of mutation vs selection. Fisher and Wright agreed at USING 10-6 but simply assuming some value will not be possible as I understand all the "Chess" pieces of the science. It will probably do more good for you and I to cool the jets as we are having a hard time matching conversation and I for one have found simply responding IN RESPONSE to someone of less value than engaging in beneficial improvements and as since we can barely co-ordinate our own understandings to each other it is likley seeing even the difference of our views is not likely to benefit any of the other readers here on EVC (except perhaps for purely rethorical gleanings which is notmy intent). I would like to be able to be able to communicate beyond the degree Loudmouth recently acquired with me as to where the opposition is not simply visible ligusitically but ONLY numerically. This requires a certain degree of similar use of terms. The reason I posted the clock info under a constant rate was becuase I posted as much POSITIVE info from Cornell that I could for I was completely questioning this as a studnet there in 80s where I got an A- from the class on Molecular Evolution, but the field has not improved and my point here on EVC if FIRST to show that evolution students are prevented from doing even there back most work and THEN on that agreement sociallly communicate words univocally to IMPROVE how the state of the discussion got where it is from where it was. As if you and I can not agree on where it came from and where it is it makes making linkagaes in betweeen of less value I feel than not posting at all and rather spending a proportiontely more amount of time reading what others have or are contributing so as better to target the placement of posts. I probably could have avoided posting the line about you "following" me. That was written with more anger than anything else in mind . Thanks again for your effort and it is nice to know that you saw my work elsewhere as well. Best. Brad.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 176 by RAZD, posted 03-31-2004 12:51 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 178 by RAZD, posted 04-01-2004 10:36 PM Brad McFall has replied

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


Message 179 of 223 (97029)
04-02-2004 11:23 AM
Reply to: Message 178 by RAZD
04-01-2004 10:36 PM


Re: trading knowledge and a fair trade
All of this is fine but where is BEHE or IC in all this. If there is empty space THEN there could be a complexity by GOD and Behe might be correct but I have not gotten there as you for instance denied even in question here as to "correlation". LOOK, when calculating heritibility (regardless of you and I cleaning up our own terms statistics wise)the current elite crop is looking for correlations genetically, ie -GEENTIC CORRELATIONS. I am looking at a differnt causal depth where themal current correlations may ordinate THE SAME DATA. I could be wrong but the possibility remands creationism's existence in general when not in particular, and in general we are supposed to be discussing behe here! It is fine for you to not want to know what I think (however the contrary seems to be the case, thanks god says I...)but if I can not introduce the information EVEN IN QUESTION there is thus an unfair use of language going on that prevents the "debate" from reaching the table or board for this matter. What I am arguing against here on EVC is the standard of A cROnell education that prevented me from matureing this very concept of heritable calculations. I feel that Lewontin is too generous to stake a claim for organisms constructing the environments, for one has to blue-print not TOE but the construction itself. He failed becuase he did not take topobiology and topology serious enough to the current issues such as co-adapatation but some of these opinions if I pressed them with you would veer off the main point of this thread, aka p or c ro on IC and Behe or not.
So to TRY to orient you back to the issue on tap locally,
in A life of Sir Francis Galton by Gillham p 183 you can read,
"Having tortured himself over Galton's paper, Darwin wrote his cousin on November 7, 1875: "I have read your essay with much curiosity and interest, but you probably have no idea how excessively difficult it is to understand. I cannot fully grasp, only here and there conjecture, what are the points on which we differ-I daresay this is chiefly due to muddle-headedness on my part, but I do not think wholly so. Your many terms, not defined, "developed germs"-"fertile" and "sterile" germs( the word "germ" itself fromk association misleading to me), "strip,"-"sept,""residue" etc.etc., quite confound me. If I ask myself how you derive and where you place the innumerable gemmules contained within the spermatozoa formed by a male animal during its whole life I cannot answer myself. Unless you can make several parts clearer, I beglieve(although I hope I am altother wrong) that very few will endeavor or succeed in fathoming your meaning." Darwin maked several passages in Galton's paper with numbers and enumerated his criticims in the text. One dealt directly with their disagreement over the heritbility of acquired characteristics. "If this implies that many parts are not modified by use and disuse during life of the individual, I differ from you, as every year I come to attribute more and more to such agency." Darwin was "very sorry to differ so much from you but I have thought that you would desire my open opinion.""
If there is ONLY one way to spread time across biological space (I could be wrong, I just wanted to set up some conditions under which BEHE could? be correct) AND heritbility is due to sequence correlations among (not necessarily between) DNA, RNA, and Protein (as per acutally timable differences of heat transfer and ionic flow)(hence Gould and company (and you?)) are looking for the correlations in the wrong place(and lewontin in the wrong prefix) (and it may even be possible to find one with repsect to the old prerelativity ether in the future of life exploration...)THEN we could even apriori dissus IC. That's what I look for. Use and disuse of thermal speeds of electron transit may even find a Darwinian Larmarkist anti-creationist possibility here but YEC would also be "scientific" in the same breath. This may be more than you would grant or others need find, but I can get here etc. Furthermore the issue of biochemical irreducibility would find an academic place among Lamarkianism, Croizatianism, Darwinism-Creationism(because of Gould etcwhen not was Provine...) but I do not impose my own "social insistutional" preferences on any one, sometimes rejecting them personally myself.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 178 by RAZD, posted 04-01-2004 10:36 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 180 by RAZD, posted 04-03-2004 11:34 AM Brad McFall has replied

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


Message 181 of 223 (97887)
04-05-2004 1:32 PM
Reply to: Message 180 by RAZD
04-03-2004 11:34 AM


Re: trading knowledge and a fair trade
The reference had to do with the word "residue" I took to take and have here forwarded, in that I am now looking for the different grass and hay by comparing the central dogma as a set of Hamiltonians to the equivalent analytic geometry of rotations to set any such correlation (should it exist) to effects of thermal contacts which would be quantitative. You will have to give me some time as I ensure that for there are no simple mathematical contradictions in this apporach at first. If I find none then I would have, I think a large enough physical surface on which to place claims of reduction of IC on. If I can do this phsyical manipulation we would not need to see any references to "spirtual planes" although you or rather perhaps more I, would have access to the thought in private. I am not arguing that Provine for instance must find that ther is God and not his control of free will but I AM ARGUING that I should have been given an undergraduate degree to look into issues such molecularly that Gould asserted with or without Rhodes that species a can not offspring into species B in geological time. I think the notion of stratigraphic "simulatenity" applies to cells and not ecologies as if we could discuss the at large as well. I wil not do that to remain on topic.
Yes there "needs" to be a mechanism but Provine in argument with Johsnon tried to say that even Darwin allowed a seperation of descent and any mechanism. I do not find this at all to be true. So if Darwin said that he was wrong. I am working up the kinematics of "spread"in terms of statistical dynamics of thermal ionic currents which would spread at a differnt rate than heat transfer thus could be a phsycho-chemical paramter subject to disturbing if not other kinds of selection when not occuring by self-organization. It is all so scientific that it is a joke I was given the hospital and not the degree. I consider Gould's statement that heirarchies are allometric and not self-similar to be at fault but the cladistic investment of computer algorthims has not helped the statement of gene flow over all either. If heireachies incidentally are proportionately MORE self-similar than metrically divided creationism stands to gain even more ground but this can not be attained until biology stops proping up the drug industry and starts to work differntly on diseases. If the quarternions work then I may have a workable mathmatical defintion of alleomorph series and show that Watson would have been likely mistaken (in so far as IC would then be cognizable)to think with Gate's $ heritible disease can be solved but Lewontin already said this out(side) of cist content. Again give me the time to read back to IC and Behe. I do appreciated your responses. Thanks. Brad.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 180 by RAZD, posted 04-03-2004 11:34 AM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 182 by RAZD, posted 04-05-2004 5:55 PM Brad McFall has not replied
 Message 183 by RAZD, posted 04-06-2004 1:04 AM Brad McFall has replied

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


Message 184 of 223 (98198)
04-06-2004 7:42 PM
Reply to: Message 183 by RAZD
04-06-2004 1:04 AM


Re: back to Behe maybe next
I havent done my homework on Quaternions yet I still eked out a hubric statement on prediction so lets forgive the superlative and get down to growing the vine somewhere else. Provine would not give me the support when I was dealing with neophytes (Provine is not) such as Humphries who (now at Kansas I understand) was dogmatic (Provine is not) about encoding of polymorphic characters but he was too busy with Wright to attend to me when I was there. He reniged on letting me use his library though he showed it me once. moving on...Will is actually TOO conservative for my blood and Marjorie Green agreed in some philosophy standing in judgment of Will AFTER he spoke but look if one can not DO NEW DESIGNS OF EVOLUTIONARY CHANGE Provine's elite grad students will not permit excurions into IC of anyone else for this matter. That is why it was sad that Simon Levin saw my design as TOO philosophical for this was starting to get too hard for Will when for Simon he just prefers strict applied stuff. My guess is that Behe gets the same read and write from many but I have not had a chance to comisurate. I like to make sure I can not actualy bring both the cake and eat it too. We should take our personal conversation to some other thread. I will no longer respond as much as I like to to material but that on IC here.
It is possible that Behe did not do enough work on Mendel before writing but then I would have looked to Lester to see if there was something else I might have missed genetically in Creationism. It is possible that my links to Wise's work was enough to catch myself into the glare of up to date Creationism but I have never followed the ICC proceedings nor CRS so I really dont know.
I am starting to get very senstized to words like "previous assumed strucutre" and on that very wording alone am inclined for EVOLUTIONARY REASONIG to look even more out of my own ordinary into IC as alternative if that is what the generation of Zimmer is sipping my zip code way.
Let's try to say what IS known. There is no way that Gould can say that heirarchies ARE allopatric EXCEPT within his own "structure". If one is a creationist or an ICist then this cirularity that may indeed be self-similar indeed does not find a circle( humanly speaking as an agnostic (might)) but a projection and then one remains mathmatically with parrallels only and material differences of the caliber of Bohr and Einstein and not even Provine's teacher Dick Lewontin. let's not prejudge where you or I or anyone esle here fits into that sequence as of yet please.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 183 by RAZD, posted 04-06-2004 1:04 AM RAZD 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