When micro = macro ...

I came along a couple of interesting threads about macroevolution, how it's supposed to be defined etc.. and had an interesting (I'm sure not original) thought about this whole issue. (please forgive me small terminology mistakes, due to being a layman and writing in another language than my motherlanguage ;-) )From my limited experience with Creationists, the denial of "macroevolution" is their main goal. They understand that "microevolution" is so concrete and demonstrable by now that even a public of laymen/women wouldn't be willing to deny its existence. So they focus on "macroevolution" to be able to use their usual arguments of "can not be shown in a lab" etc.I think we can also agree that the inability to reproduce among each other is a sufficient reason to consider two organisms members of different "species", and that "speciation" would be considered to belong under "macroevolution".But, personally I wouldn't be surprised (and I'm sure the experts here will be able to confirm or deny) if there are examples of *single* mutations which accomplish just that: that the target organism of the mutation is no longer able to reproduce with ones who don't have it.Some interesting thoughts:- do examples of such mutations exist (and can they be demonstrated)?
- can organisms with these kind of mutations still be fertile and can the offspring still be viable?
- CAN it be the source of speciation, in the sense that there will be enough viable offspring and that the new "species" has a future of reasonable length in time?
- would this always be a strictly discrete and/or irreversible event, or is it also possible that organisms go through periods of "less likely to produce offspring", "even less likely to produce offspring", "impossible to produce offspring" or possibly "AGAIN likely to produce offspring"
- is it necessary to make a distinction between higher and lower (less complex) animals for this (hypothetic ?) issue?
- do Creationists accept this possibility (or accept that it is confirmed) and what's their stance? Do they refuse to consider it "macro-evolution"; i.e. their definition of it is chosen as such to exclude it from "macroevolution ? Or do they acknowledge it as macro-evolution, but some sort of rare exception that is not relevant to their argument? Is it a useful concept to confront them with the fuzzyness of "macro-evolution", in that accepting micro-evolution automatically leads one to macro-evolution?This message has been edited by Annafan, 08-09-2005 08:44 AM

Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

Hey Annafan,I'm not sure but I think you may wan't to check out ring species:
Ring species - WikipediaBasically the idea is a population slowly migrates over an area creating several isolated pockets. As each pocket forms slight variations develop. Eventually the specieas form a sort of ring of genetic variation.Someone brought up an example that a Great Dane and Chihuaua probably couldn't mate, but that a Chihuahua could mate with an "intermediate" dog which would mate with the great dane.But hey, I'm a layman myself, so I may be totaly off ABE: Another good link on the phenomena:
Evolution: Library: Ring Species: SalamandersThis message has been edited by Yaro, 08-11-2005 08:30 AM

Interesting indeed I've read something like that before in a book. I think it might have been the Larus gulls...

This is debatable.There was a paper in Nature about snails which suggested that a single mutation could produce the neccessary circumstances for speciation by a reversal of the chirality of their shells (Ueshima, 2003). This is a bit more complex than it sounds however. The mutation is in a maternally effective gene, meaning that the phenotype of the mutation is manifested in the offspring of the maternal organism bearing the mutation rather than that organism itself. All of the sinistral species in this paper are thought to be desended from one mother heterozygous for the mutant allele. Also bear in mind that these snails are hermaphrodites. Their models predict that should the sinistral phenotype frequency exceed 50% within the population it will be likely to be fixed by selection. The fact that the sinistral allele is recessive, along with its 'delayed' presentation, allow it to be maintained in the population despite the frequency dependent selections tendency towards fixation of one chiral phenotype.TTFN,WK

I'm not sure I'll ever show enough determination to be able to follow more than 50% of what you just said, LOL. But I guess I'm right when a very simple translation would be "we have an observation of a single mutation indirectly responsible for the hypothesized effect" or something ;-)

Its more that we have a mutation that could lead directly, but not immediately,to two reproductively isolated populations. We have not, as yet, seen two persistent reproductively isolated populations form via this mechanism in the lab, there is however substantial genetic evidence that this has occurred in the wild.TTFN,WK

by coincidence, I read something today in the papers in relation to one of the questions that I raised It was an article about a "liger" (I think that's what it's called), a mix between a lion and a tiger. It was said that most of these hybrids die at a very young age from cancer etc., but that there were at least two ligers known that had reached normal age.I guess this is another illustration how "speciation" in terms of reproductive isolation is a very fuzzy concept. There seems to be quite a bit of flexibility which could at times introduce a lot of pretty "instantaneous" variation.edit: I understand this is not "speciation" as such, but it illustrates that discrete boundaries between able to reproduce and unable to reproduce are rather unlikely?This message has been edited by Annafan, 08-11-2005 11:27 AM

Excellent thread to draw people in. However, I disagree with the fundamental division set between micro and macroevolutionary labels. To claim that micro is "small changes" and that macro are "large changes" or "speciation events" is ridiculous and shows a misconeption evolution. I don't mean to be rude, we all know that evolution is misunderstood by both sides. Please scroll on down and judge afterward...Let's return to the basal definition of evolution in this post-modern synthesis age: Allelic variation over time. Speciation, variation, etc. are obviously implications of evolution, and the methods of these implications are what Darwin described in this THEORY of Evolution by means of NATURAL SELECTION. We know allelic variation happens over time, and we know that selection occurs. The theory connects these two dots.That being said, where is the line drawn for macro and micro? Only if there is a speciation event? What about a population-level division? Or metapopulations that share <20% of genes? Is there really a speciation event per se?Now, with this paradigm in mind, let's look at some of Annafan's excellent questions. I'll try and use the same example to show how the different questions and answers interact. Absolutely. Particularly in Drosopila melongaster. A group of scientists led by Shu Fang at the University of Chicago established that a mutation in the desaturase 2 gene led to selective mating among D. melongaster females. This altered the pheromones excreted by females, thus attracting different males. Not only that, but the desaturase 2 gene also works on metabolism, so there were different rates of activity among the flies too! As such, the populations showed a significant difference in breeding. Let me say that again with added affect, THE POPULATIONS SHOWED A STATISTICALLY SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCE IN BREEDING. This supports the sympatric model of speciation as well. To view the actual paper (which is surprisingly readable), head to Mutation in the Promoter of Desaturase 2 Is Correlated With Sexual Isolation Between Drosophila Behavioral Races | Genetics | Oxford Academic, You won't be disappointed! Yes. As the theoretical aspect of Darwin's work states, selection works on variation. Let me put this in a hypothetical: The gene for desaturase 2 is turned on for group A, and off for group B. Group B shows higher rates of flapping it's wings, thus burning more of it's energy... more suited to intense competition in hot environments. Group A can live in colder environments, where the "live free or die" mentality of Group B leaves them burned out. Depending on environmental shifts, we can have the populations seperate. In fact, with the example shown above, it is argued that it is already the source of what seems to be nascent speciation in Drosophila. Yup. We see this all the time in every population. This is where basic genetics come in. We have dominant and recessive alleles. So, let's say for our Parental generation (P1) and the "Bad Baseball player" gene. To start out, we will have parents Laura Bush and Mickey Mantle, 0.5BB and 0.5bb The F1 generation will have all horrible baseball players because the genes will evenly match, Bb. Because B is dominant, and that comes from Laura Bush, none of the children will have Mickey's throwing arm. However, the grand-children will have a different story. Using our handy-dandy Hardy-Weinberg equation (p^2 + 2pq + q^2) we will have 0.25BB, 0.5 Bb, and 0.25 bb. But... B is dominant so we will have 25% of offspring (.25bb) playing baseball well, and 75% (.25BB and .5Bb) throwing like girls due to their grandmother (bada bum). That would be our F2 generation. See? The Baseball trait is abscent for a generation, then comes back! This is of course oversimplictic, but it does illustrate mathematically that genes do sweep in and out of prominance. Not in the least. Many genes are pleitropic - that is they affect more than one trait. At the same time, many traits are affected by polygenes, which means multiple genes. And, sometimes the two preceding big words can be overtaken by this one: epigenetic, which jumps over the Mendelian genetic process all together! (See http://www.bioon.com/...y/genomicglossaries/gene_def.asp.htm). If the world were simple, we would need to make a distinction, and it would be easy to do so. But genes don't act in predictable ways, and even in simple cases the effects of chaos and complexity can come in... which leads to a whole other can of worms. Similar to my views on micro and macro, I think that simple and complex is a false dichotomy, the division really isn't there in the first place between the two.I won't answer for the creationists, but generally the YEC's discount evolution entirely, while the OEC's cling to microevolution like a drunk man clings to everclear. Of course, I'll blow my false-dichotomy horn again and say that those two categories don't reflect all of creationist beliefs and that there are many shades of gray of acceptence of current science. Just ask a Raelian.So, to come back to the initial question, micro vs. macro, let's use a metaphor... oh, say, the Tour de France. You have some racers like Lance Armstrong they're macro racers! And you have the kids riding on bicycles watching their heroes as they pass by, the micro little cute ones. In between there is you, I, Nosy Ned, deerbreh, TheLiteralist, jar, Faith, and all the other posters on this site. We don't form discreet categories, and we shouldn't be treated as such. It's easy to see the difference between Lance Armstrong and a child, just as it's easy to see the difference between an amoeba and giraffe. But don't fall for the dichotomy trap, there are more than just two options to describe evolutionary events. Remember, there is huge genetic variation in all species that just leads to behavioral and morphological differences, while the desaturase 2 gene in some fruit flies leads to population divergence. Can any one here justifiably draw a line in the genes?שלום
Theus

---

Veri Omni Veritas

I dont think that what you presented is a "confirmed" consensus. It can be in an evolutionist's mind but besides that question I would reason that a single change to an introgressive possibility would be macro"" or rather I would tend to say obscures a needed work out with the term "meso" as per what follows where there is no automatic step (rather I tend to think that we were mislead to think of transitional forms by focusing on BONE. It only seems out of a need to remand the reconstruction issue moot that one would necessitate a direct transition from change to macro evolution no matter the mechanics just going through the motions):This is the only likely on line reference discussing a term ("meso-evolutionary") coined by Dobshansky but little confined in the difference between micro and macro that I suspect causes most of the disagreement on this subject. It appears from the abstract below perhaps that the authors might have tried to expand the use of the term by reference to exaptations. I have mentioned the lack of support for this notion of where to draw the line in the gene before on EvC.
EvC Forum: 'Micro' evolution vs 'macro' evolution
http://EvC Forum: IS IT TIME? -->EvC Forum: IS IT TIME?
http://EvC Forum: Information -->EvC Forum: Information
there are more in the evc search engine

quote:

---

[PDF] GWOF 59(2)
File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat
Your browser may not have a PDF reader available. Google recommends visiting our text version of this document.
neo-Darwinism and, together with Theodosius Dobzhansky, of the Synthetic Theory
... macro-evolutionary level of species, the meso-evolutionary level of ...
taylorandfrancis.metapress.com/ index/TKNY9CD22HDAT42G.pdf - Similar pages

---

ABSTRACT

quote:

---

Since formulating the theory of punctuated equilibria in 1972, a group of prominent evolutionary biologists, geneticists, and paleontologists have contributed towards a significant reinterpretation of the neo-Darwinian image of evolution that had consolidated during the second half of the twentieth century. We believe a research program, which we might define as "evolutionary pluralism" or "post-Darwinism," has been outlined, one that is centered on the discovery of the complexity and multiplicity of elements that work together to produce changes in our evolutionary systems. We are talking about a three-dimensional multiplicity: a multiplicity of rhythms in evolution (i.e., the theory of punctuated equilibria); a multiplicity of evolutionary units and levels (i.e., the hierarchical theory of evolution); and a multiplicity of factors and causes in evolution (i.e., the concept of exaptation). Although the reductionistic and deterministic view of natural history interprets the intelligence of evolution as a panoptic and executory rationality, evolutionary pluralism, going back to the original flexibility of the Darwinian opus, sees in the intelligence of evolution an ingenious m tis, an imperfect but very creative, craftsmanlike cleverness. The new metaphors of change introduced by evolutionary pluralism and the consequent criticism of the adaptational paradigm offer some very interesting spin-offs for the study of evolutionary systems in widely differing fields, from theoretical economics to the cognitive sciences. I propose a particular hypothesis concerning the possibility and usefulness of expanding the concept of exaptation into a general theory of developmental processes, both in biology as well as in the cognitive sciences.

---

The google text version is not workin for me at this time.

Welcome to the Science Forum. It withstands refutation with or without being confirmed in a high-school prom vote... the stamp of approval from scientists is not what we're aiming for... it's the withstanding of refutation. Microevolution and Macroevolution have no discreet boundaries and as such remove themselves from that playing field. They are hypothetical whether we like them or not, Evo or YEC.Regardless of whether it's in an "evolutionist's" mind or not doesn't matter outside the social sphere. Support your division of multi-generational allelic variation into micro/macro categories with evidence. I would be very interested to hear it... The only time I've ever seen it given scientific treatment is in Levinton's "Genetics, Paleontology, and Macroevolution", but that is to specifically address the act of speciation itself, it doesn't attempt to distinguish it from micro evolutionary processes. That occurs in YEC/OEC literature, such as it is.Concerning the posts you referenced, I'm surprised that non-adaptive morphology was given such taboo treatment. Many interesting problems in evolutionary biology stem from this subject as ancestral traits must at some point cause problems in adapting to new environments.Vale,
Theus

---

Veri Omni Veritas

In the case of whether or not ID survives a more classic creationism or not, in terms of the changing goal posts TO an empirics of macro"evolution", biology not being evolution, it did matter that I was trying to single out the evolutionary frame in mind.It is a matter as to whether the syllogistic four figure subtility that made it into current logic deals with deducibility or inference can replace MORE than one word with pictures (names rather than predicates)once displayed (amphibian-reptile-mammal) as to the reduction in the number of judgments made at the prom or otherwise.Are you really sure you KNOW what you are asking me?The whole basis for arguing TO transitionals, whether in creationism or evolutionism is due if my childhood interest still holds up in the "reconstruction" of bones. I could easily limit the response to the biology of the mid 1800s and read results into the present situtation we are discussing.I had been able to visualize the HUMAN KNEE as a radially symmetrical structure. Imagine that!!I will present evidence on how to dissect this part such that loose connective tissue scaled shows showing, that much of the older discussion that hemmed biology into evolution via bone morphology and targets the classification beyond species where meso evolution would exist in our discussion if people focused on it rather than then non-controversial nature of microevolution for any other illegitamate hierarchy is simply the lack of application of logic to biology. This is caused in part by over emphasis on logical postivism for it appeared to me that the negativity need be put in front before it can be put behind.It seems to me that it IS the continuous nature of temperature that coupled with a defensive probablistic evolutionary rear gaurd that refused to advance the links non-adaptiveness plays into the group selection READING of the writings on evolution. There can be sources and sinks without any "hardening".There was an article in Nature or Science about a year ago that attempted to remove the notion of "homology" from curent discussion. It appeared to me to be particularly German in bias. Maybe that was just me. Where would the thread-head be if the logos of the homo were not available to discuss as picture rather than a proposition?

quote:

---

Welcome to the Science Forum. It withstands refutation with or without being confirmed in a high-school prom vote...

---

quote:

---

the stamp of approval from scientists is not what we're aiming for...

---

Who is "we"? DO you mean you?? If you do there is not need to get defensive. I dont bite. Oh, I can read other threads on this board.

quote:

---

it's the withstanding of refutation.[

---

Using offensive psychological offense (lets call it evolutionary psychology for short) to remove a student from the time needed to "refute" however is illegal if the matter of evolution IS still the substance in question. If it is the "spirit" attached, no. I am speaking about higher education, not you.

quote:

---

Microevolution and Macroevolution have no discreet boundaries and as such remove themselves from that playing field.

---

Ok then use Al Gore's "fuzzy" net boundary in a creationsist nonuse of "meso" from the Christian Dobshansky. I mean, lets *not* do this.

quote:

---

They are hypothetical whether we like them or not, Evo or YEC.

---

again who is "we"?

quote:

---

In the case of image-propositions, there is again a lack of parallelism with negative facts, but of a different kind. Not only are image-propositions always positive, but there are not even two kinds of positive image-propositions as there are of word-propositions. There is no ‘not’ in an image-proposition; the word ‘not’ belongs to the feeling, not to the content of the proposition. An image-proposition may be believed or disbelieved; these are different feelings toward the same content, not the feeling towards different contents. There is no way of visualizing ‘A-not-to-the-left-of-B’. When we attempt it, we find ourselves visualizing ‘A-to-the-right-of-B’ or something of the sort. This is one strong reason for the reluctance to admit negative facts.

---

Bertrand Russel, On Propositions page317 in LOGIC AND KNOWLEDGE published by Capricorn Books 1956.Can you understand that meso evolution might be seen as sorting ONLY the middle baseball player below propositionally? In the diagram from Data Structures & Algorithms in Java (page 78 ) like the current state of understanding in MesoEvolution there is no object in the middle. The brain however can reason where this lack is by taking the not the subtility of the predicatly mistaken subtility of the four syllogistic figures recognized but by denying the place of suffiency to the natural kind substituted where Kant names the difference of physical and a logic link in the thought Russell makes pains to show is not simple but complex. One might view the complex as simple.We recognize the distinction BEFORE we apprehend what we distinguish. The taxonomist who might have used non-adaptive traits to sort mentally the same space could have done this before the cladist who relies ONLY on computer output of the same structure. It is not easy for me to explain what I have seen but it is easy to make plain what I do see.Kant said,

quote:

---

Human knowledge is full of such unprovable judgements. Some of these come before every definition, since in order to arrive at the definition we must represent to ourselves as an attribute of a thing that which we in the first instance immediately reconise in the thing. Those philosophers are mistaken who proceed as if there were no fundamental truths incapable of proof except a simple one. Those are equally mistaken who are too free in admitting several of their propositions to this privilege without sufficient guarantee.

---

p95And so, Russell with

quote:

---

Before we can begin the analysis of belief, however, it is necessary to consider a theory which, whether explicitly advocated or not, seems implicit in pragmatism, and capable, if true, of affording a strong argument in favour of that philosophy. According to this theory — for which I cannot make any author responsible — there is no single occurrence which can be described as ‘believing a proposition’, but belief simply consists in causal efficacy. Some ideas move us to action, others do not; those that do so move us are said to be ‘believed’. A behaviorist who denies images will have to go even further, deny image-propositions altogether. For him, I suppose, a belief will be, like a force in physics, an imagined fictitious cause of a series of actions. An animal, desiring A(in whatever may be the behavioristic sense

---

p310 ON PROPOSITIONS op.cit.I do not subscribe to Elliot Sober’s evolution analogy to force to process this image. Perhaps there has been some addition to his mass media ability to force a relation between the small and the bigger but I doubt it. I am not beginning this analysis but am sticking with the science of it all. I think a full discussion of biogeographic homology would coverThis message has been edited by Brad McFall, 08-22-2005 11:54 AM

I do find that terms such as creationist, ID and Atheist, get thrown around rather loosely with each individual putting his own spin on what the word means.I consider myself a creationist but my interest is in finding out how God did it. I view the Bible as a book of truth but not scientific truth in general, so when I want to know how God did it I look to science. As I have no educational background in either physics or biology I turn to reading those that do. When the terms get technical I am naturally lost so I’m just trying to grasp concepts but knowing that I won’t be able to sort them all out.I have found the terms micro evolution and macro evolution useful. From what I have garnered from the biologists on this forum evolution is not the smooth gradual progression that I would have anticipated. It appears to me from what I have read that speciation, (or micro evolution), humms along nicely for long periods of time and then there seems to be a short period of very rapid speciation, (or macro evolution), for whatever reason.Naturally because of my Christian blik I tend to see God in the whole thing, and I see Him particularly in the periods of rapid change. The blik of the Atheists cause them to see the changes as a natural part of evolutionary process. It is highly unlikely that our bliks, (no matter what our position is), will change, but it is helpful if we use terms that we all understand.It seems to me, that at least for those of us who are biologically illiterate the terms micro evolution and macro evolution are useful because it distinguishes between periods of incremental change and periods of more rapid change. Frankly I fail to see the problem.

---

Everybody is entitled to my opinion.

Interesting post concerning Kant and Russel. However, brilliant as they are, they do not meet my challenge at identifying discreet boundaries between "macro" and "micro" evolutionary levels. Once again, it's not as simple a matter as lining up 9 kids on a baseball team, there are thousands of interacting genes in a generational feedback loop with multiple inputs to produce the tissues and proteins that form a complex system.Perhaps I was not as clear in my previous post. It is not a matter of the amount of scientists that approve of a single theory so much as the value of the data supporting that theory. Remember Ether? Albert Einstein has a wonderful speech (located at 404 | TYPO3 Doku TUHH) reconciling aspects of special relativity with Lorentz's idea of ether as an explanation for Maxwell's four equations. It is eloquently argued and well defended by leading scientists of the day... however much incorrect. We know there is no substance known as ether that affects interstellar physics. The same can be argued for paleontologists concerning the cold-blooded and non-avian natures that were applied to dinosaurs for much of the past century. We have better data, and we can come to better conclusions. This is not to say that these weren't brilliant men, they simply were not as fortunate as us in having more data to build better theories from. Perhaps this is the root of the disagreement. You're arguing philosophy, and I'm arguing science. I'm not trying to argue philosophy, and I have no idea what the honorable former Vice President has to do with this level of genetic discussion. I'm asking for evidence, in the journals of Nature of Science, or anything to support the division of "micro" and "macro" as separate processes. I'm not asking for evidence that these words are used in such a context, I'm asking for a well supported set of evidence that shows that small generational genetic variation operates under different rules than larger generational genetic variation.Essentially, a well argued philosophy does not work to replace data in science, particularly genetics. It is too complex of a system to be reduced to "micro" and "macro" levels, however useful they may be. Explaining the universe in terms of a mystical and wonderful substance called ether was also probably useful... but incorrect. We have data collection techniques now for genetic that don't require such hypothetical borders in the change of genetics.So, to make it perfectly clear Brad McFall, I'm asking you to present evidence of a discreet division in multigenerational genetic change/variation that would justify two separate processes, microevolution and macroevolution. Without such a division, the terms form a false and misleading dichotomy.Au revoir,
Theus

---

Veri Omni Veritas

I am afraid it is all NOT just "philosophy" my friend. The trouble is only really over a few verbs. If you think that my realizations that break up this easliy are then "philosophy" because it depends on how ENGLISH is a part of science then indeed we disagree. IF BIOLOGY IS A SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINE (like physics say) then disagreements about verbs (translation in space and form-making, emigration-immigration, change) MUST translate biologically the same into any language one wishes to discuss evolution in. I can only communicate with English so, I am somewhat limited in DEMONSTRATING the univocity scientifically at odds in the POSITIONS of Kant and Russel TO these biologicals but you should be able to figure it out.What needs to happen next is merely to present images rather than strings of words if you are so concerned with the "not" in the part you quoted from me. I presented an IMAGE in the HAECKELII thread and that could easily (with quite a bit of biology discussed (Mammuthus for one knows enough biology to see this level of discussion reached etc)) which could substitute for a purely "scientific" discussion. Of course if one wished to avoid you-said/I-said we would need to read up on Maxwellon-line color and apply that to "art" ( the art of setting up what pictures in what order, and THEN we would be disagreeing about trait difference programs (PAUP etc). Please try to realize that it is the broader perspective of creationism that enables me to understand that biology needs the micro made meso no matter what the RELATIONS macro are differed on either within biology alone or in a broader context. One does not necessarily "need" a negative feedback loop to understand what I am saying about change.Russell

quote:

---

When I say that my logic is atomistic, I mean tha tI share the common-sense belief that there are many seperate things; I do not regard the apparent multiplicity of the world as consisting merely in phases an unreal divisions of single indivisible Reality.

---

p178I do not regard the apparent multiplicity of Wolfram's new kind of science as a science that conects with ANY POSSIBLE "unreal" divisions of Kant that can be read out of Russell as to either an already a priori or a constraint on thinking in Kant's philosophy(synthetic etc). This "single"(indivisible Reality) can be differentiated from a realism of infinite divisibility if the form and positioned constituents are known. That is why we need to not be confused IN the verbs used.Russell

quote:

---

At Cambridge I read Kant and Hegel, as well as Mr.Bradley's Logic, which influenced...I therefore returned to the problem which had led me to philosophy,namely, the foundations of mathematics, applying to it a new logic derived largely from Peano and Frege, which proved atleastI believe) far more fruitful than that of traditional philosophy...Cantor freed the conception of infinite number from contradiction, and thus disposed of Kant's antinomies as well as many of Hegel's

---

p324The use of a Kantian ORGANON is biological but insofar as into Kant's "horizon" etc it is not mathematical (more logical than mere difference of logical and physical atomisms philosophically on the programs to put data through etc)it need not be evolutionary! Cantor explictly was trying to provide SCIENCE with the datasuperstructure from which the organic contributions could proceed a Kantian pace.Russel

quote:

---

To say that facts are complex is the same thing as to say that they have constituents. That Socrates was Greek, that he married Zantippe, that he died of drinking hemlock, are facts that all have something in common, namely, that they are 'about' Socrates, who is accordingly said to be a constituent of each of them.

​

Each constituent of a fact has a position(or several positions) in the fact. For example, 'Socrates loves Plato' and 'Plato loves Socrates' have the same constituents, but are different facts, because the consituents do not have the same positions in the two facts. 'Two and two are four' contains two in two prositions. '2+2 =2^2'contains 2 in four positions.

​

Two facts are said to have the same 'form' when they differ only as regards their constituents.

---

p286So rather than determine what I said negatively do it postively using various combinations of the THREE below in writing on creation and evolution.1)ontogeny (recapitulates) phylogeny.2)ontogeny (recapitulates) phylogeny
OR
phylogeny (recapitulates) ontogeny.
3)phylogeny (recapitulates)ontogeny
&
ontogeny (recapiulates) phlylogeny(or the other way around).The whole difficulty is that recapitulates isnt quite the correct verb no matter constant the form would be in the present or the future.You say that "ether" is not correct- well I would say that is "philosophy" as to Mach vs Poincare etc in a realism that you might on purely scientific grounds reject but inless you are only forcing a view of science that is not as bright and broad as I am typing you will continue to narrow my contributions significantly. You cant be closer to this truth. Fitting a model to data and fitting data to a model are not the same thoughts. Images are better biological data that words about them.I am not ONLY doing "analysis". I am also writing in the consequences of it. Material from Bertrand RussellLOGIC AND KNOWLEDGE edited by Marsh third impression 1968