Croizat Track / Wright's Isolation by distance

{NOTES ADDED BY EDIT BY ADMINNEMOOSEUS:

​

I have taken the liberty of spinning-off one of Brad's messages, into this new topic.

​

The message seemingly randomly appeared in a topic that has been inactive for 22 months, as a response to a Brad message from 32 months earlier.

​

I would like to further pursue the meaning of its content.

​

Brad - What are you up to here?}

Brad, is there any reason for the 7 of Diamonds? Are you a fan of Vladimir Nemukhin?

---

Keep America Safe AND Free!

As I think no such domains or to be broken barriers/boundaries exist if the red in two below (first and third images) help in changing Gould's image into Stans'(second and last images)
then
the red on the card might have more than deconstructive significance where Gould quoted the blue of Nobokov "The tactile delights of precise delineation, the silent paradise of the camera lucida, and the precision of poetry in taxonomic description represent the artistic side of the thrill which accumulation of new knoweldge absolutely useless to the layman gives its first begetter...There is no science without fancy, and no art without facts."(FOXPOXBOXedbooKp167)I will describe how the Wright strech might express the track width later. I tried to tell this in a somewhat different chemistry to Will Provine but he preferred by then to be dealing with Phil Johnson. Moose if you wish to discontinue the laminator's thread on me, I would not be averse to forcing me to deal with very weighty issues, only in this one but then other posters who prefer not to deal with these will loose the opportunity to simply write whatever comes to mind when reading what I post. Your call.

Brad McFall 2003

SJ Gould 2002

WFSTANLEY 1927

Willard Francis Stanley 1927This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 02-17-2005 13:11 AM

This is pretty much the barest illustration of how I think Geometry and Morphospace are related.I think the only other place than the recently deflunked thread
EvC Forum: Where do all the creationists go?
at EVC where I referred to the content in this thread was http://EvC Forum: The Creation model of biological evolution -->EvC Forum: The Creation model of biological evolutionThere I had said in part,

quote:

---

I do not consider the the search for this 'dendogram' a futile exercise and I see no reason that technical study of graph theory should be even qualitiatively obviated in the enterprise provided the physiolgraphy (cliamte or no etc) inherent in the defintion Anderson provides does not categorically historically dissociate topology from within the practive of physiography and hence the idea of connected areas of endemism informing topology or catastrophe sets modelling the other way around simply for the reason that if not more the shape of the Earth IS is a topology Newton forms generally into a sphere but the next Faraday Terra Firma is also to be excepted space for.

---

(that was THREE years ago, and I did not skip a beat in this one either. It is no wonder that creationists go, are going and might be gone. It looks like I am MORE focused than ever)
One can notice the difference of a thamnogram and a dendogram on the web in birds at

quote:

---

The modem birds are reviewed in the second half of the fourth chapter and in chapters 5-8 (pp. 166373). The relationship of the orders of modem birds to each other is still highly controversial. The reason for the difficulties is now becoming clear. When the Alvarez event wiped out almost the entire Cretaceous bird fauna, the few surviving transitional shorebirds had a chance to radiate into all ecological niches open to a flying vertebrate. This, as already mentioned, happened almost instantaneously. As a result, the phylogeny of birds resembles a bush (thamnogram) rather than a tree (dendrogram). As shown also by Sibley's DNA hybridization data, the branching points of the orders of birds are incredibly close to each other and even a slight change in the molecular clock of one of the branches will result in a drastic shift in the apparent position of its branching point. For this reason, Feduccia wisely refrains from endorsing any of the currently competing classifications but arranges the orders and families of birds on the basis of their major adaptations.

---

Mayr1997AmZoolThe only bit of literature that goes in another direction seemed to be some French work that attempted to add a topological discussion to Wright's ideas but I have perferred the more visual issue in Croizat and it seemed to me that the fruit fly geography discussed by Wright as he developed his notion of change through isolation by distance if thought restrained perpendicular to Croizat's "lines on the globe" does not make any contradiction mathematically.Any way the top two extents indicate different means of organizing purely morphological data, where in the midsection is the whole dispute that falls under visualization of phylogenetic "forks" and possible baraminic discontinuity. Because it is somewhat true that we tend to prefer dictomy to reciprocity the kind of presentation of the form gets lost in the physics of the thing rather than further depictions. That is why I made "graph theory" a superset on the whole display of any organic form as IT is what is presently the best MATH of Croizat available in the literature. This might have to be changed once one conditions the full population genetic implications of Wright's DISTANCE (still only in terms of Dobshansky's fliers)(migration vs locomotion) The USE of Wright's ideas however can not be reduced to a straight line in space and so the implication in the drawing was that by combining a Croizat track and Wright Distance one had read the "I" sign BETWEEN the two ways to depict bioform if not the entire curvature. I cant quite recall what James C. Maxwell page 521 refers to but I will look it up. It is a reference to a page in the DOVER edition of his collected works but I will guess it is in his paper on "reciprocal figures" with the letters MEANING the very ones Maxwell used. The variables could however be from Maxwell's paper on planimeter's however.However now I might be able to use macrothermodyanmics to outfit this explanation a little better. I will elborate quite a bit more below and especially to help in reply to Faith elsewhere.This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 02-18-2005 17:45 AM

Brad writes:

quote:

---

...the red on the card might have more than deconstructive significance where Gould quoted the blue of Nobokov...

---

No, no; not Vladimir Nobokov, Vladimir Nemukhin, the artist. The Seven of Diamonds is one of his popular paintings.Sorry, I thought you might have been throwing out a clue about your cultural taste as you did with your movie references a few weeks ago.

---

Keep America Safe AND Free!

I must admit I am much less cultured than you gave me credit for but much more knowledgeable in biology than has been utlized here at EVC. I just forgot to say, "no I hadnt see the painting etc". But the NOBOKOV reference was just a coinidence in naming as I guess it must have been Gould's misFreudianized Nietshe taste for that IS relelvant to, if, the figureation exists outside the Herbertian failure to so judge as you have done so well as if others could use your tasteful link else I would have had to agree with the steps in SJ's thought process on foxes and hedgehogs. I do not. The heavy metal reference was a trick I played on NPR, not you.The butterfly DOES figure nonetheless and makes indeed the following of Gould's no longer the color of the fishyness it brings to mind."Most tellingly, in a typical Nobokovian passage in Ada, he playfully excoricates Hieronymus Boch for including a butterfly as a symbol in his Garden of Earthly Delights, but then depicting the wings in reverse by painting the gaudy top surface of an insect whose folded wings should be displaying the underside!"A tortosieshell in the middle panel, placed there as if settled on a flower- mark the "as if", for here we have an example of exact knowledge of the two admirable girls, because they say that actually the wrong side of the bug is shown"...."This thread is actually about whether the below is or is not rotated 90degrees. That is where it is going and what it is "up" to.
It is really and not as tasteful as beauty when all of the details start to get fleshed in and one feels say like Sheldrake that in the end Gould's work is rather dry and targets more borish things than the works that inspired him to write. Gould's entire "step" solution is encapsulated (by me) in a red circle. The figure above is my attempt to smooth out his steps. I wish it was not my job to redo Gould but evolutionary theory got Gould and not Brad. Perhaps I will live to see this other day.

Escher fan?

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

No- but not because I dont like BACH. I do very much. I got "over" GEB by thinking about the "grandmother cell" in ways that Hofstader never would and this somehow made me look less at Escher material than Godel might have similarly usshered in sequence. I find looking at actual shapes of biology more interesting. Infinity in mind once thought does not need the helpmate of the artist. Yes Escher helps beginners out but once one starts to listen to multiple notes timbre it is useless to argue about the difference of absolute and relative pitch in paintings. One should note if not recalled that Cantor speculated that the cardinality of music and paintings might be transfinitely identical. So for any infinity in biology this would then become possible.

Then, sticking with Escher, would you be closer to Puddle than Stairs?

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

That will depend on if the shape of this thread is more like an ellpise or a circle and which matches which pic most closely. Participation in content is required. You might try below if you dont trust my ability to choose colors.


i think the unattributed type is from Maxwell (not me) I will check this as well as finish what I started to say in this thread
This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 02-17-2005 16:40 AMThis message has been edited by Brad McFall, 02-19-2005 10:58 AM