Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,742 Year: 3,999/9,624 Month: 870/974 Week: 197/286 Day: 4/109 Hour: 0/4


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   What is the mechanism that prevents microevolution to become macroevolution?
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5058 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 17 of 301 (343735)
08-26-2006 6:31 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by Archer Opteryx
08-26-2006 11:54 AM


Re: what is the mechanism inhibiting change?
One reason they may be intransigent on this point is because we have not even the tools to discover the predicates responsible for formal and normal restrictions on what species groupings (in and out of biogeographic homology) can be rationalized to show where coincidentally the first figure of its truth rotates.
Logic will prevent it if it exists.
I feel fairly confident in this assement based on a limited purview of the vertebrates(that I have). It seems like this should be true as the issue of hoxology wends it way in another 100 yrs.
You are a clever poster but I have seen like you before on-line.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Archer Opteryx, posted 08-26-2006 11:54 AM Archer Opteryx has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by qed, posted 08-27-2006 10:25 AM Brad McFall has replied

Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5058 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 19 of 301 (343942)
08-27-2006 12:02 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by qed
08-27-2006 10:25 AM


Re: Cheetahs??
I dont know bout the cheetin cheetahs'cheetoh either as a "pick."
The "bootleneck", "constriction," "allopatric isolation", particular path in path analysis, problems with defining effective population number, difference of Fisher, Wright OR Huxley do not necessarily have the same theorectical nor sufficient consequence unless specific geographic regions are more than implicated. Creationist criticism simply looks on all of the(se) possibilities as something "outside" their own banna(b) of an anngram.
You will see something forthcoming from me over in the thread on benefical mutations and intentionality soon. I have a souce I do not have the reference title for.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by qed, posted 08-27-2006 10:25 AM qed has not replied

Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5058 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 38 of 301 (345031)
08-30-2006 12:03 PM
Reply to: Message 36 by anglagard
08-30-2006 8:07 AM


Redonedancy of common sense
Please hold while I work out the "redundancy"
Without wedging in either the current ID or Darwinworship sense and more space for genetics, it might be possible to state more than metaphorically,
quote:
" the subset of genes in one species is greater than the set of all genes of all species,"
Where "of genes" refers to Johannsen but the set refers to parts of expressible genes susceptible to recombinant techniques only emphasis is on the subjective problem in the word "species" than the objective ostentation of "genes."
I know my work below is too confident and written only "for me" just now but I see no reason that if proved by actual statistical information that vitally it is not insignificant to what may prevent abduction to all macro-issues.
As for which is the larger number... well that depends through the ordertype whether the FIRST one was manifested in thought as a cardinal of ordinal before...etc.
Mendel’s “Developmental” Bionomial, Boole, and Relational Database Normal Forms - Using 1-D Frieze Patterns to take apart the the “+” in the symbolization of “A+2Aa+a”
ABSTRACT--During a period in the history of biology that SJ Gould feels can be phased, organismic biologists realized that they had not properly focused on their level of preference, the organism, as molecular biology advanced. This has resulted in various versions biophilosophy and the plausible relations of contingency to form-making and translation in space among creatures. The cause of this failure in inution of a phenotype is due to failure in the history of logic to extend its line of thought theoretically far enough to be incident with outlines of form-making that might be co-ordinated Cartesiastically. Advances in the molecular nature of inheritance provide a means to support Mendel’s original use of the form of maths’ bionomial through the use “ornaments.” The traditional/classic/standard explanation that a disagreement over adaptive vs non-adaptive traits was the “fall guy” is thus shown false and the actual reason becomes a failure to project theoretical structures into the area of visible comparative ability, subjectively held by biologists. Application is made to the biology of Lichens and a potential niche construction among Cicadas, CicadaKiller Parasitic Wasps and Fowler’s Toads.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Olby wrote 93/4:” Added to this evidence is the well-known absence of double letters to represent the pure breeding offspring of hybrids in Mendel's scheme. Thus the three classes in this second hybrid generation (F2) are given the symbols: A + 2Aa + a rather than AA + 2Aa + aa. If these letters refer to the hereditary elements or factors to which Wilhelm Johannsen later gave the name 'gene', we would expect Mendel to have used double letters for each class. To defend Mendel's claim to the gene concept geneticists have indulged in special pleading thus: 'It is but an abridged way of expression. It was perfectly clear to Mendel that those elements occurred paired in homozygotes . . .' Or: 'throughout the papers (and even in his later correspondence with the botanist Ngeli) he has described the three classes of individuals in an F2 as A, Aa and a, evading the unproved doubleness of the "homozygote" AA class.' “
Olby's "Mendel, Mendelism, and Genetics," at MendelWeb
This is why I take apart the “+” rather than focus on sexual group selection issues over the sign”\” between pollen and seed etc generalized to any living thing.
The reason that the unknown or neutral phenotype arose by the early 70s was because the “doubleness” that differentiates the work of Fisher, Haldane or Wright , (Kimura etc) is false and due to a decomposable situation statistically where a ring field replaces a Cartesian space but because Russell ruled against a particular kind of mathematical proof about “ limits” the narrow focus of Boole’s x^2 only dominated the language of biology such that not even the restrictions of Woodger’s attempts (or others analytically) could be furthered within the organism and instead the plan was frustrated by criticism outside biology (creationism etc) This false double or false positive can be recomposed by splitting the “/” sign into group theory symbols of 1-D Freize patterns when ordinated to actual effective population numbers.
The lie is thus given to “overcrowding” as the first and foremost image of the surface of transformative biological potential and the notion(Gould SETH 473) of wedging(Darwin) is shown erroneous because the Mendelization of population genetics with Freize pattern decompositions has increased the place of genetic rotation and revolution (Gould on Goldschmidt and D’Arcy Thompson (Gould SETH 463”He then praises D’Arcy Thompson for locating the phyletic meaning of these ideas in small mutational changes in rates, operating early in development to yield saltational origin of a new adult phenotypes”’’ “)without altering the mathematics of analytic geometry. The prejudice of 2-D is revealed as “saltational origin” and first order logic only in relational databases constricted by the historical relay from Boole’s resticted rules to X^2 only, in “perception.”
In the mean-time I for one have to remain content with my own marginilzation here:
quote:

Edited by Brad McFall, : justification

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by anglagard, posted 08-30-2006 8:07 AM anglagard has not replied

Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5058 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 48 of 301 (345103)
08-30-2006 4:28 PM
Reply to: Message 47 by Quetzal
08-30-2006 4:04 PM


Re: Faith (in) Logic
In my own defense I can only say that streching across a recent conversation here (on EVC) over a measure (metric(by me)) of "genetic" information I have set my own problem to show
quote:
George Boole An Investigation of The Laws of THought On Which Are Founded The Mathematical Theories of Logic and Probabilites
that trichotomies are not simple links on EVC nor metaphysical fanices substituted with words.
Close readers of EvC may pine for the day I show what (1-x) or (1+x) or (-1-x) are determinatively and genetically extant when NOT a simple extension of my armed arm and have every right to deride simple claims, such as mine, that the day is coming.
If it doesnt Percy would have been correct to think waaaaay back that "bootcamp" would have done me good. I know he was wrong then. But now...with "theological creationism and ID" as a thread head, well... all is not biology as much as I wish it was.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by Quetzal, posted 08-30-2006 4:04 PM Quetzal has not replied

Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5058 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 103 of 301 (346018)
09-02-2006 11:45 AM
Reply to: Message 83 by Quetzal
09-01-2006 3:20 PM


Re: What about the topic?
I do not think that we have been able to promote "our" EvC 'gaze' though(see Gould at bottom of page 443 ("But suppose that we "promote" our gaze and consider evolutionary trends through..."). I am still working on my own contribution.
quote:
by Stephen Jay Gould Harvard University Press

This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by Quetzal, posted 09-01-2006 3:20 PM Quetzal 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