Thread Reopen Requests

Topic: Is evolution the only thing to contradict the Second law of Thermodynamics?This thread was closed before I could respond. If I had to make a judgement it was due to "evo" devolopmental bias. I am at least cognitively aware of artistic interest in things that may "contradict" the 2nd law and not be evolution such that on another (other) side of evolution falsified in culture it could be possible to express this ANTI-my own position as to carrer goal In science.YOU suggest that one can simply start a new thread but the point is that the creation side on the web is begining to come into its own and by SEPERATION electronically we can be haptically challenged in ways that were only visual challenges in the past.The question about Maxwell's Demon was not off in answer. I was in the middle of a thought in SICENCE and was not able to turn my mental image immediately out of this conditioned state of my mind but now I have a response which could show how sicne topobiologically logic is not what changes cellcollectives the physilogy of the artist and the biologist would have to be the same but the interpreation could differ and sTILL not be evolution in the sense that GOUld intedns to use economic analogies. My short cuts I always try not to expose like this but the adminstrator got to "tigger" finger the fish before I could eat it.I was aware that I was not liking the kinds of changes this borad is going thru over the new Year and this incident reinforces my opnion.Take it or leave it

thanks but now I have to really do a *good* job.

I didnt miss the point in time this time. I am about ready to post a summary of my postion and MARK24 got it right this time AND opened a thread spot for me to continue even if I didnt want it linked to the dissucssion with John on EvPE... so closing Down the vistor thread on punctuated equilibrium would be fine with me. I am just glad that some progress was ACTUALLY made- well done Rei! and thanks Mark24 for reading thru my raw wordings... to any others I fleww Cookkoo with I leave that to my password-and the comic coffe cashe- tha much I know I did not put in here but I have it memorized unfortunately.just wait-- yeah I am ready- nest next. I'm just not sure if I need to seperate the worms. So far I havent done that.

For indeed I saw a non-spirtual response haveing to do with the conventional use of Maxwell and Delay in Catastophe theory so while I was amused, in fact, I did not think of myself the first time I read it, I only started to after I read Ned's - I have not position on the closure of this one. I still have much "house keeping" to do to distinguish a bare bear minimum baramin from that which it bears on. LAter--

Nope-get glad not mad brad. I a not. Go full throttle -There is still Themla and louise. I just noticed the INTELLIGENT DESIGN category today and could not recall if it was always on this board or if it was only put up after I stopped trying to read to this site rather than right to it. That mark didnt want to be off my no answer in genesis hook was also somewhat funny. But I dont know how this helps Adim A out.

I will search for the Monod quote on Maxwell's demon.There is a footnote in Niche Construction The Neglected Process in Evolution which was sort of being hit on in the most recent BSM thread and so I will call all Wolframites interested in discussing it to try to do so in the sense of something otherwise culturally that violates"" the 2nd law. I think the writings on Gladyshev between Berrbery etc and me show that Georgi might be correct that this discplined understanding is only an error that arises from the huge amount of science that's needs to be comprehended even to discuss the problem. The niche-constructers however re-opened this e/c issue for me. I dont however see it as an e/c one so far. Perhaps I can be dissuaded.This book was publised by Princeton Univ Press in 2003 and has a footnote page 172 "A possible alternative source of guidance is von Neumann's (1956, 1966) description of self-reproducing automata, later cellular automata, which combines a universal Turing machine (Turing 1936, 1937) with a universal construction machine (Arbib 1969; Laing, 1989). This approach is also relevant to any enquiry into the universal properties of niche construction."book is shelved QH546.3 .O35 2003.Soory Moose if this is not what you meant by "message1" I guess you wanted to keep this only for "requests". My bad- I will take this up back in the BM thread. Feel free to move and delet this if necessary.This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 08-10-2004 11:05 AM

Seeing that John DID repost and both Wounded King and I were interested in the topic I wish I had had this thread left open.
EvC Forum: Information
I dont think it should have been cut back at #182 as you suggested. Just because others want to make the point which I did also notice in the few posts before you stoped that one does not mean that the relation between genes (say 30,000) for man and messages (said, 150,000) for same need follow the nonlinearlity of Gould's emergence, to speak like mammy does me. I do not want to resort to this kind of backhanded commenting. Of course I understand it is hard to figure out how to limit useless postings, like if I had posted a letter to my mom, etc. I am sure JAD,WK &BSM would survive but I am not interested in micro.net either and perfer this older CGI WOLRD. At the moment I only wanted to thank Davison so feel free to keep it closed. You know where I stand. Surely it is serious and not funny.

I guess,
you have the same prob I have hevc.(r)Pink&you at mess14 wrote"Why? Speciation events have been documented, that is, instances where one species becomes two. If abiogenesis creates one species there is no reason that one species couldn't have speciated into numerous species. If any one of those species begins engulfing one of the other species, a food chain is formed.I mean for Pete's sake the food chain is intricate. Each critter is designed for a place, and when one critter dies out, it's obvious that God designs another organism to replace it.You are making some kind of assumption that in order for the food chain to exist as it is now, it must have been originally set up that way - this is simply not the case.
"I was thinking of cheerleading when you first got it opened but I have now found a possible error in Kant due to lack of Croizat knowledge that justifies constructive comments in that thread in the coffee house. I guess either I needed to not have had two glasses of wine tonight or else you simply needed to ask nicely, either way, I like your post even without the changes. I can now see baramins as producing a category BEYOND natural selection but I am not quite ready to get into all of it. Your post on design or undesign opens a lot of the issues

should only the person requesting a reopening be posting in this thread? is post 190 too much here too??This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 04-11-2005 08:47 PM