A proof against ID and Creationism

I am about 2/3 rds through the first video. It seems to be saying that the form of the strucuture of evolutionary theory is not valid in part because the charms of life (beak vs individual bird) while possibly selected in a whole are not the whole nor the hole in the material (foundation) of life.Quoting Darwin with "more complex changes" than caused by electricity and heat on the WALL of cell is implicated as a false statment. This proposition in the first video could indeed be true as it may be unknown biophysics than simple biochemsitry that affects the changes BETWEEN cells.The second video depends on a better "deconstruction" of the word 'system' than I am able to write currently, eventhough I suspect such is indeed a present capability of humans rather than monkeys.This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 01-27-2006 01:10 PM

Well

quote:

---

Note that mean fitness is calculated as a mean over the set of individuals, in contrast to the fundamental theorem of biology (Fisher, 1930) where mean fitness is calculated over the set of genes leading to a dubious teorem.

---

why can't your distribution be derived from some division of genes distributed PER individual. Without THAT it seems that though your idea is well designed it might be more proof against ID than for Creationism etc.To me the difficulty in doing this comes from having to keep in sync 4 DIFFERENT hierarchiesA)Transfinite GENERATING a finitary list of real number groups
B)Tracks,Nodes,Main Massings, Baselines GENERATING a finite list of baselines
C)Ecosystem Engineered Populations GENERATING an actual list of species
D)Phenomenological Monohierarchies GENERATING a divided place other than Boltzman listing differences of macrothermodynamics and hierarchical thermodynamicsIf all four hierarchies were logically related(other than independently listed as I did), it seems to me that your notion might apply to genes and individuals in the same structure.This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 04-18-2006 07:03 AM

It seems to me that your notion requires one to second guess that cllimbing by Cornithian columns (SJ Gould's idea on the same "individual of Mayr but modified) can not predominate. I doubt that it does (then I would have to be way wrong and Wolfram all right in what he wrote on cellular automata) but it is the "good" scientist in me to wait for that kind of evidence first.