|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: What to do with Brad? (Yet another Brad McFall topic) | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Brad McFall Member (Idle past 5033 days) Posts: 3428 From: Ithaca,NY, USA Joined: |
No, I have not Buzz.
My knowledge is pretty well focused on how to gain an understanding of how to extract energy from organic formations. I read whatever science and philosophy I need to gain information in this respect. The only IQ test was one I took with Carl Zimmer in Jersey. I think he scored higher. I was 129. The thing is is that I think I now understand the difference, between his and my approaches to the field of evolutionary biology. I do not think it is any consequence that we both started out in central Jersey and I went west to Upstate while he stayed "local" at Yale coming back to stay in THE CITY while I continue to go in the direction of Buffalo instead. Neither Carl nor I saw the Hunterdon Plateau differently. I actually saw more of the land and he saw more of the buildings (his Dad was in State government, mine worked for ATT in Manhatten) but the writing of EVOLUTION is reversed compared with the environment outside. Carl simply assumed it was not and let the words of modern scientists speak for themselves. Thus he did not have to worry if the tower of Pizza was in Jersey or was just a joke leaning somewhat one way or the other nonambiguously. I did have to worry because the salamanders found at the top of the crick were not the same ones below the plateau springing forth. Of course we both escaped our Jersey shirt. I stepped up and he over.
Carl's Page This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 11-17-2005 04:00 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Brad McFall Member (Idle past 5033 days) Posts: 3428 From: Ithaca,NY, USA Joined: |
Well, of course that is what I am working towards. This takes time. Eventually I will be able to "write" less, here, but then I might hear people saying that they want direct conversation rather than reference to other pages, like Para suggested, a downloadable bra-bsm-chat featureD. That would be better. Perhaps that too can be attained beyond the simple use of an external site. I still would like to see the EVC store develop first.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ohnhai Member (Idle past 5162 days) Posts: 649 From: Melbourne, Australia Joined: |
.you have to google all of the dropped names and try and piece the puzzle together! and there in lies the root of Brad. Not to serve up conclusions but to cook up an interesting cocktail of meaning, hints and avenues of enquiry for those who wish to understand: homework will be required. Dig out those encyclopedias, dust of google and learn. Though I will admit that more plain narrative would help in following the threads to their conclusions. ABE--But as we are not paying him to teach us, then I guess we can’t blame him for not wanting to come down to our level. It’s up to us to reach his . This message has been edited by ohnhai, 18-11-2005 10:01 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
robinrohan Inactive Member |
Is Brad an evolutionist? I assume so, but I can't really tell.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6408 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
Is Brad an evolutionist?
It is my distinct impression that he is not an evolutionist, and that he sees value in ID. But then I can't really tell either.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Brad McFall Member (Idle past 5033 days) Posts: 3428 From: Ithaca,NY, USA Joined: |
Well that's the question (to me)isnt it?
It was always very curious to me why Darwin had placed as much stress on artifical selection to justify natural selectionas he did. Did Wallace or Mendel write like that?? If I assume that Darwin WAS influenced MUCH by Malthus then it is OBVIOUS how one can populationally think from artifical to natural selection. Let's assume that was history. During the so-called "synthesis" period, Mendelism was applied to versions of combined natural and artifical selection that have been supported up to the present day where we have ENDLER et al showing natural selection in nature and Wright concluding his last book on the need to move from theory and lab inferences to environmentally based confirmationing. If by "evolution" we mean simply the defensive attidue that attempts to think from artifical selection to natural selection for any imainged rate of morphological change I would say I AM NOT SUCH an evolutionist. That is the type of evolution that Will Provine for instance holds to (without changing any views as far as I can tell over the past20yrs). I am an evolutionist who thinks MORE like Croizat than Gould (that the Earth and Life evolved together (but I have not decided on the time element explictly))and hence likely more like Wallace and Mendel than Darwin and his Grandfather, perhaphs even more like Lamark or Osborn etc(that is hard to say generally) AND that this view of translation in space and form-making can use artifical selection OF natural selection in a logical arrangment THAT IS CURRENTLY only supported on the ID/Creationist side of the "ledger". You see, if it is historically true that defensive evolution arose from reasoning TO natural selection FROM artifical selection then these "evos" would be prima facie against MY VIEW TO artifical selection FROM natural selection. This is the only explanation I can give for Will Provine's failure to engage me as a student or as a person despite my clear consciousness, interest and knowledge in understanding the reproductive connections of reptiles and amphibians. Carl Zimmer was not this bad. I think evolutionary theory written AFTER the synthesis was too focused to defend against niave creationism that it failed to see how logic itself was not practically structured for its own benefit. There are just not enough mathematically inclined biologists for any serious critical mass to change things even within the outlines I keep trying to scratch over. Some day... some day. I went to college TO BE A PURE EVOLUTIONIST. I am back to PURIFY the APPLIED MATH involved and write an organon where the stochiometetry is suitable to the vision of any possible instructable transition among forms imagined even if some are not as likely as others (creation ex nihilio is not strictly "teachable")and if it turns out that baramins and IC are the only FORMATIONS of the body of descriptive horizons able to retain a larger communicable vision of natural selection of evolutionists artifically selecting clade inertial representations, then evolutionists will be the dinosaurs as man's population increases. I just am not so sure that human population increases will simply reach equilibrium by development of culture without changes in agriculture to biomass productivity where we live off nature artifically selecting prior natural selections. It is this view of applied evolution to a future state of mankind that causes the problem of deciding how to categorize me. If I figure out how to extract energy directly before I write how to test if ecosystem engineering is viable it might be possible to avoid the extreme of restricting the human appetite to nonluxuray items and perhaps development of the world society will sufice to inhibit growth. That seems probabilistically less likely to me, but that is only my educated guess, and we all know these things are only worth the price of a cup of coffee. I hope that answers your question. BEst, Brad. This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 11-18-2005 03:33 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
mike the wiz Member Posts: 4752 From: u.k Joined: |
I am back to PURIFY the APPLIED MATH involved and write an organon where the stochiometetry is suitable to the vision of any possible instructable transition among forms imagined even if some are not as likely as others I love these wordages Brad. I don't know what they mean. All that matters is that they are poetically tongue-enticing. You said you were a YEC! Maybe you meant a Y.E.C. Your. Everpresent .Coherent-poet.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Brad McFall Member (Idle past 5033 days) Posts: 3428 From: Ithaca,NY, USA Joined: |
YEC it was. and it continues to be more of that than TOE.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
mike the wiz Member Posts: 4752 From: u.k Joined: |
I think you have a vast amount of knowledge, pertaining to every factor involved, which furthers incoherency to the lesser mortal. So I am not going to say you are a YEC for the usual reasons, as that would be ignorant.
I guess it means a different thing, for the fully endowed intellect. Your average YEC, hasn't even heard of Darwin's grandfather or Mendel. Do you know everyone? WHo was Cavendish? Answer now if you are omniscient! WHo was Baird? Is there a theory of televisions bringing forth biological life? If there is, I'm sure you support it. Just kidding Brad. "All judgements come from ignorance, the well spring of assumptions, accepted as facts" -- The wiz,
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Brad McFall Member (Idle past 5033 days) Posts: 3428 From: Ithaca,NY, USA Joined: |
Mike the electrical mass of lap top went Faraday on me just about right when you asked for a response. I never saw your post. Rather than cheat let me continue round’bout and say that during that time you requested god-like nonobsolescence I managed to tape a bit of NPR addressing the same things we were just then talking about. The words “back” and “Osborn” were also used somewhat simulatenously incidentally.
Science Friday quote: quote:says Ed Larson. Eldredge had really only just said the word “much.” This is/was an interchange about the supposed internal dispute about plausibility or relative frequency within notions of biological change. It was based on the FORMER vision that there are clear differences between species and that new populations that reproduced from the old ones could change into what were in the prior view differently named ARE not just man-named different by different by and in and through nature. I spent much of my childhood days assuming some kinds of changes occurred. Newton even compared the change in physical properties of heat and light and matter to tadpoles becoming frogs. Something like that was happening. If the books really did a good job in naming the differences then when one went out into the wilds and uncovered a creature previously uncollected it was often not hard to exclaim out loud its name. Thus one can be lead to see that toads are not frogs and that perhaps salamanders are more likely to have reproduced from the pool of frogs and toads than lizards and snakes. In that sense I NEVER EVEN DOUBTED that evolution exists. What came out on NPR is that some schools are not even teaching that THIS evolution occurs! The schools speak of change but do not call it “evolution.” Well, why would that be? On some of my teenage and earlier excursions to the backyard and beyond I chanced onto some green slime with lots of small circular round objects inlining the green color. I had seen pictures of eggs in books and I got so very excited that I had now found eggs, probably of frogs. I was so excited that I did not want to disturb them lest I do something to kill them unawares. I left and let them be. I kept coming back to see how the “eggs” were coming along. One day the circular protrusions were gone. I assumed the “eggs” hatched. So it went for a couple of years each spring when I was 8 or 9. Sure I could find larval salamanders in the creek but I never found any tadpoles in this particular body of water. Also the vision of the “egg mat” was not as striking in my mind as the difference between a salamander and a frog. Then in 8th grade during a summer science camp at Trenton State I actually saw some eggs!! I had obviously missed the distinction between primordial slimy potentially non-living giving life ooze and real miccoy. THIS IS THE MENTAL FRAME THAT A YOUNG CHILD IS IN WHEN THEY ARE PRESENTED WITH THE IDEA OF EVOLUTION. It can be very confusing to demonstrate the difference between species and the difference of life from non-life and probably why “change” is used rather than the word “Evolution”. The problem is that on more and more sophisticated levels of understanding the same visualization problem remains and THAT is where the more sophisticated IDvsEV argument has gone. Eldredge simply said that evolution is: 1.There is variation out there.2.It’s heritable. 3.Not all organisms that are born can possibly survive and reproduce,there are just too many organisms born each generaration &&&&&Niles continues,
quote:and quote: Imagine if you were a teacher and had a student like me who asked the following questions. It would be very difficult to structure the pedagogy so that all of these points could be covered and yet if there was no problem with the MECHANISM of evolution then there should be just as much a problem providing the answers as there is to explaining how a SUV works. Instead I got put in a mental hospital for asking these kinds of questions that no one knew how to answer. I was only assuming what I was told, that evolution exists. Is the circular shape of an egg a variation or is it just an expression of just enough being born? Is the green color a part of inheritance suited to frogs? Can alge co-reproduce but not survive with frogs like tape worms do? And so what do Eldredge and Larson say about THAT? Larson said,quote: quote:and Niles said, quote: There are at least and probably more than two things going on here. Yes, some creationists were taken aback when punc eq came on strong and stronger but this more a mark of period of discussion of evolutionary theory than any fact I can ascertain with more than relatively somewhat frequent somewhat not certainty. Ed may have a point about specific finger pointing at Eldredge and Gould that was probably less called for but there is a double standard during this period of the debate where it was allowable for evos to avoid fully disclosed answers on mechanisms (by what I called defensive evolution in this thread) while keeping creationists at God’s arms length. Now that can be the subject of a whole thread on EVC but ahaa, I would like to point out that if Darwin was wrong about the number of parents and Niles is wrong, (not about PE necessarily, we can debate that) that MOST kinds of species’ individuals’ individuality CAN survive, horizontally transfer, deme shifting properties, to reproductive functionalities that are statistically dissectible then the biogeographic implications that Darwin seems to simply have lifted EITHER from Malthus or adjunct animal breeding (Mendel’s garden vs country) that Croizat wrote thousands of pages to rid biology of, survives the present Harvard foreguard, and Cornell adulterous back alley, that Croizat left for Venezuala parian vs hortzianism and Creationists targeted(debated) correctly, during the period of the 70s. This if nothing else, raises a question. That is a good thing. It is a bad thing if for medical or political reasons we oppress the laborer or the student who asks these questions,no matter what country they are in or from. NPR reported that the Vatican astronomer said that ID should not be taught in with the biology class. As NWR indicated, I am not done with ID as of yet because I still see need to change Malthus’s use of population retrograde changes into grade visualizations of form making with absolute biogeographic position changes in the same sense that astronomer’s see star positions. Eldredge asserts that ID DOES NOT predict. Yes, have not seen these predictions from ID but I can see that if laws are, and I am not remiss from trying to see through Gladyshev’s law in this regard, then there could be some ID predictions in a future where baraminology is more than a study group but includes stoichiology of DNA for any possible hybrid for example.
quote: quote: Eldredge,Darwin and defensive evolutionists in general seem to have become stuck on Malthus’ “prescibed bounds.” Maybe that is where the “prescription” was writ by God that had me hospitalized. Croizat contends these “bounds” do not exist. PANBIOGEOGRAPHYPage not found - Buffalo Museum of Science clearly gave a different division of this “firm”ament. Mayr’s whole “philosophy” of biology writes right up to the word “necessity.” This seems to be why the odd placement of Monod’s “chance and necessity” is in his “Growth of Biological Thought” My position is very conservative compared with other voices out there. But perhaps I have not been liberal enough. Nelson used Croizat’s notions to suggest that there are no “centers of origin” biogeographically, as in no sufficient bounds but if one presses the answer far enough there are some shapes the bind. This is where I am going but I can not use Nelson and Platnick’s version either. That method stalled before it even could get started. Instead of area cladograms we need to look into the quantity of the land like moving stars in the sky so that we CAN SEE how to escape Malthus’
quote: quote:specifically I think humanity needs to reject Malthus’ quote: quote:in a Mendelian and Croizatain manner. I do not count creationism out from surviving the change. It could even be a major player if it so chooses. My choice is rather more personal than that. Apparently there was guest from Ithaca onNPR, which I missed talking with youquote:And this shows me, my point(see first link above). I have right to believe in GOD and be at Cornell. While we were talking on the College Town side of the Gorge at Ithaca , NPR was talking or trying to talk with the other side of the Finger Lake or the other side of the Engineering Quad.In fact I am and was here and yet I got kicked out. It can only be explained by persecution and that is why I side with YECS when one adds it all up!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!Look again, just two weeks ago I was sitting for a 1/2 hour 15 feet from Cornell's President Rawlings and this week you could see former Pres Bush and CUpresident in China within the same picture size. Something is wrong when you compare the pictures. If we all only knew.... This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 11-19-2005 08:51 AM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
mike the wiz Member Posts: 4752 From: u.k Joined: |
Brad. This was a lengthy post you posited, so I done you your earning, and payed you your wages. I.e. I digested it all.
I don't understand all of the post, because of my lack of knowledge. I can only make guesses, to make a workable abstract in my own mind, without having to learn all the words and names. It struck me that your post was very interesting. The quotes from Malthus, about nature providing life but not space, I would have thought indicated that infact there is either a contradiction in nature, which makes it seem like there is no plan, from looking at it. But look deeper and it seems that that could be the plan afterall, afterall, would God want planets full of worms, or do worms serve their purpose in their designated space? Which leads me to think about our exchanges pertaining to behaviour. I think at one time I even suggested that a niche is infact a designated place. Which give me a brainstorm. What if actual evolution is infact animals wandering from their behaviour, and going against the designated food-chain scenario?. I also know what you mean (somewhat) about the observabal confusion over change. As it stands, you seem to have a disgruntlement with the way new ideas are buffeted in favour of the preservation of absolutes. Unfortunately, people are prone to do this in all areas of life, or atleast, those that come to protect the grail. The problem is when you have politicians make rules for things like science. And you don't know whether the man who kicks you out, is a closet-politician. My suggestion; I will read your posts because I infact know you know what you are saying, but I might not come to know so much. It's fair enough though, just don't spend to much effort on this semi-intellectual fool-of-thought. (My computer restarted when I was reading yur post)/ This message has been edited by mike the wiz, 11-19-2005 12:27 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Brad McFall Member (Idle past 5033 days) Posts: 3428 From: Ithaca,NY, USA Joined: |
quote: I am going to be working on my website today.http://www.students.tc3.edu/bmcfall/fripge.htm There is a link there now to niche construction but most pages are blank and I removed the Malthus essay pending a revision. We'll see then if was able to get back to your food-chain niche question. There seems to be some politics in the use of "wedge" for both evolutionists and creationists. With the wedge we still dont have the space no matter what life we talk about in the chain or out, which is why I prefer YECS to IDERS. This seems only to be a contradiction in upper English seeing across some H2O others in poverty, or take France today for instance... Yes God and product vs purpose was left behind by NPR. They still don't "get it." They think the whole thing is about something that is very minor for me (do I study or worship on Sunday). The first page on the site will explain the places of niches that expand our theoretical places such that there is space for different discussions of kinematics that dispersalists focusing on explaining how one kind got from point A to B miss, whether this is by behavior, forced emigration by humans, or simply something I call environmental torque (which might be related to chemical effects on earth motion) is up in the air for me, at present. I'll have to see as I try to put the meso and micro levels together on the website. God Bless.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
mike the wiz Member Posts: 4752 From: u.k Joined: |
It's all very interesting Brad, and I seek to understand more. "Environmental torque", I like it.
I will go over your site when I have time. At the moment my internet access is somewhat restricted to sharing. I might post back to you in due course. Thanks much.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
mike the wiz Member Posts: 4752 From: u.k Joined: |
Brad's link writes: If it can be proved that man has not invented, but only traced this systematic arrangement in nature, that these relations and proportions which exist throughout the animal and vegetable world have an intellectual, an ideal connection in the mind of the Creator, that this plan of creation, which so commends itself to our highest wisdom, has not grown out of the necessary action of physical laws, but was the free conception of the Almighty Intellect This is what I have been philosophically contemplating lately when I'm not drunk. That the very nature of the way things are, precede and therefore point to a future occurence of significance. A "making way" so to speak. As surely as God made a way, a preparation through the sea of reeds, so tell I you that this universal and biological reality of this situation, IMHO. yay! That's is the problem, as described in your website. That's we can't seperate what we think God's thoughts are, from "the way things are randomly", in the sense that any example that shows "thought" from a higher being, could be deemed as our own thoughts on the matter even though these are previously created conditions. And so anyone can see that it is thought, in reality. God bless Brad and the impending Bradmania thereof. (Tony's with me on this one, I think).
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Brad McFall Member (Idle past 5033 days) Posts: 3428 From: Ithaca,NY, USA Joined: |
You got it!
It appears that evos do not follow the thought because of the lack of perfection. It is hard to say. But I will be able to say less here on EvC as I get more said over there. Keep it up, its great, I mean Tony toooo. This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 11-20-2005 11:33 AM This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 11-20-2005 11:34 AM
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024