Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
0 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Stephen Jay Gould (1941-2002)
TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 1 of 4 (10065)
05-20-2002 9:13 PM


I thought I would go and see what was happening at the usual 'Evolution is a Fact' chatroom in yahoo as I do regularly sometimes. One of my Evo friends notified me that Gould had died monday. I think that was a great misfortune. I enjoyed reading his work. He died of Cancer at 60 in his home. You can read more about it here:
http://dailynews.yahoo.com/fc/science/stephen_jay_gould
--I think this could be a day of mourning at EvCForum.net
------------------
[This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 05-20-2002]
[This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 05-20-2002]

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by Dr_Tazimus_maximus, posted 05-20-2002 11:20 PM TrueCreation has not replied
 Message 3 by Brad McFall, posted 07-26-2002 11:28 AM TrueCreation has not replied

  
Dr_Tazimus_maximus
Member (Idle past 3217 days)
Posts: 402
From: Gaithersburg, MD, USA
Joined: 03-19-2002


Message 2 of 4 (10078)
05-20-2002 11:20 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by TrueCreation
05-20-2002 9:13 PM


[QUOTE]Originally posted by TrueCreation:
--I think this could be a day of mourning at EvCForum.net
[/B][/QUOTE]
Agreed, he beat cancer once but no one avoids the Reaper forever. As if this spring/summer has not been depressing enough.
I have to split for a few days again, I will sign in as I can. Have a good one TC.
------------------
"Chance favors the prepared mind." L. Pasteur
Taz

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by TrueCreation, posted 05-20-2002 9:13 PM TrueCreation has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by Brad McFall, posted 01-16-2003 8:10 PM Dr_Tazimus_maximus has not replied

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


Message 3 of 4 (14213)
07-26-2002 11:28 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by TrueCreation
05-20-2002 9:13 PM


Mayr's Q and Brad's A before reading his student-Gould. If Mayr stuck to Farady's Fishy Finishing School of Williams he would have been in a better teacher to admonish gOuld if that is what vegtable Mayr intended his birds to eat.
Q1- The findings of molecular biology are incompatible with Darwinism.
A-- End of Darwin's Tropism for Pascal's Conics
Q2- The new research on speciation shows that other modes of speciation re more important than geographic speciation, which the neo-Darwinians claim is the prevailing mode.
A-- Neophenogenesis
Q3- Newly proposed evolutionary theories, like punctuationism, are incompatible witht he synthetic theory.
A--Catastrophe Theory analytic (continuity whether homogenous or heterogeneous equilibria within) applies due to cellular automata applications
Q4--The synthetic theory, owing to its reductionist viewpoint, is unable to explain the role of development in evolution.
A-- Developmental canalization can be viewed as a plurality in space as well as any particular narrowing directum direction
Q5--Even if one rejects the reductionist claim of the gene as the target of selection, is unable to explain phenomena at hierarchical levels above the individual, that is, it is unable to explain macroevolution.
A--combinations are able to get extinctions but not energy budgets
Q6-- By adopting the "adaptationist programm," and by neglecting stochastic processes and constraints on selection, particularly those posed by development, the evolutionary synthesis paints a misleading picture of evolutionary change.
A-- The kinematic consequence of different means to calculate the magnitude of mutations is no end to velocity in principle that alterations can intertially change masses that are endemically stationary yet change over time is not expected to go faster than the speed of light for the kinetics do not need to hold all the movement in the equilibrium for any speciation.
I would assert that this criticism by Mayr's own analysis supports his historical position by denying his contribution as all inclusive. Mayr simply included Hacekel where he should have looked more closely at the German between Weismann and Driesh. I say all this in preparation to READ Gould's book for at least Steve's lizard tail is not counter indicated. Provine unlike SJ Gould was unable to think on his feet unless his will came along. I may be a little hard on Will but he was the the offical reason I was removed from the loop, of course, Cornell cries Owl not Wolf.
E. Mayr credits Malthus and an idea like "exponetial increase of a population was entirely independent of the actual number of offspring of a given pair" whether in protozoans or humans with Darwin's title "struggle for existence" yet this thought is actually more properly Pascal's for not even Galton actually said a prior what the number was and Mayr denied that this question is even in population thinking to me yet it was Pascal who answered this question for me that no biologist at Cornell ever attempted to approach when I asked. What is the class of numbers that measure offspring and not parents? That is the question and the doubleness contained in Pascal whether in response to Warsaw criticism did not remain time as it did for Newton but gripped Darwin as it did Psacal and will any one struggling with a man-made measure of biology as is the entire study of biometry dedicated but what goes on doubling has never but economically been shown and Wright was not presumtious enough to fall into this human struggle when breeding plants or animals. Just as it is wrong to say that nature has a pasion such that it could abhor a vaccum the resitnece to nature/nuture is wrong to not say that it is not impenetribility of Newton but to deny in this homeostasis any change that this twice considered idea reduces to is NOT holistically counterindicated.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by TrueCreation, posted 05-20-2002 9:13 PM TrueCreation has not replied

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


Message 4 of 4 (29315)
01-16-2003 8:10 PM
Reply to: Message 2 by Dr_Tazimus_maximus
05-20-2002 11:20 PM


I am starting to get into GOULD's book and I find that my opinion of him is changing. I had thought that I disagreed more with GOULD the man than GOULD the biologist but now I recognize I had this judgement in reverse. I guess that was my problem from having associated with Richard Boyd. I wish I had been like Wise or Cummings. They did better without Provine too. I can only say that aside from using the word "agent" where I would have used the word "force" there is likely a diminishing difference between Gould's structure and my as yet written in idea of converting functional groups to side chains affordance but this is the mourning 'after' instead.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by Dr_Tazimus_maximus, posted 05-20-2002 11:20 PM Dr_Tazimus_maximus 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