If change is "physically constrained"(for instance the new ice beyond pluto might cause one to read OUT the wordSSSSS "remittance and immitance" in Newton should a probe find a different kind of bacteria on the thing than here OR Mars et etc) the future logical moves of an evolutionist can not extend to regions that only the logic of the extension extends/display especially if GOD DID IT after taXES. The use of statstics itself may not be able to provide the interchage of tree/data vs data/tree probabilites on such recovery if God intends it. There may also me nonsupernatural explanations but we need the research FIRST.
it may not, no indeed, evos might NOT predict DNA basedL but there is a current linguistic "preference" for RNA "fossils" which my guess may indeed get up set apple carted as Jesus is alleged to have once already done. Will Provine used THAT and a vialaild reference to Amy McCune's fish from the buliding blocks of rich people's homes on the NJ Hudson (brownstones) instead of thinking that maybe Johnson DID NOT NEED to answer Will as Eldridge also sat thinking or sits...OK "rules of change over time" -- Sir, with your head back IN this window I know indeed that I, BSM, HAD indicated that such will not be "rule based algorthims" as Dennet thinks he can skyhook Penrose with- WRONG- but for too detailed reply assume insteadthat xenobionts are FIRST to be discussed here on Earth in Lichens etc. I would...Logics was there please advise... SO YOU MUST- if you say that say what THE TIME is. I say this might come from haptic research in HUMAN COMPUTATION prosthesies that simultaneously feedforward info on the different places and hence over this time, TIME of changes in feeling of temperature. Instead you think the terminator with RNA is a old alien from california or you sought to polarize or you simply didnt need similarly to rail on "c"ism.
Plus you were wrong absolutely in terms of BIOLOGY if I am correct about the next-(no one has ever (did I say I have cornered the "flab"never market?) shown my biological"" visualization to be incorrect, approximate, or even with age and error (which I wish my older views had been waylaid to).- by BmCFll-"Time in 4D pointset might be "extractable" via revolutions around points by thermal contact molecularly. Nanotech might indeed provide the tools to show this up to point the modeling I am working on by reading the book I so far sighted in this thread. This will END c/e plolarization as we know it today if accomplished (and hopefully stop instead of references to athority not the author as here interalia instead such things as Crashfrog TRIED to say about me in other weave...). The idea is that repetitive DNA might indicate algorthimic repetition of rotary process NOTttttt PROCESS OF PRIOR 'turne"d"' ALGORTHIMIC SINGS. Physicality may clock/time without any so-called "molecular clock"." Also you failed to indicated how the PHENTYOPE of any XENOS would NOT depend on such proposed clocks which if not a part of the synthesis havEEEEvos concieved AFTER the period of organacist emergence (sic!). Dont forget TIME, not time to find such xenos if they exist TIME in terms of the "rule" YOU not me wrote.!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Now for the remainder of my OWN thought-- "else(I had to cut my sentence to accomodate your post-trial attempted closing...)the experimental means of accessing the symbols currently I think will need revision. If biologically closed electric circuits exist one means is immediately suggestable else than (not "then") I am clamping onto the notion that movement of the above is possible by concurrent application of water pressure and voltage"pressure".
YOu could hone your understanding of creationism accordingly. Please do.
I said my own things you tried to refer to authority.
Yes S, I have thought that DNA and flesh are comparable. I am at the issue of sequence alignment and simultaneity( not an older thought of speices distribution and trajectory simulations bound by c speed of light) but let me put that in abeyance for now.
By finding that there appears to be a fulcrum or twist in topobiology at the single cell level it appeared possible that DEATH (not life) could influence shape and form-making if there is any correlation of this to the physically known rotations and revolutions of the EARTH as a frame of reference (for older than 1900 physics this might rather be a discussion in the same scientific reality of the existence of not of an aether but just because there were no motion relative to earth for physical processes as to said aether might not xenobionts from some were else be able to move (in the alignements calculations derive???)relatively differently and not discount Michelson Morely--any way that doesnt really matter as per flesh as you indicate. What seems to be missed by evos(perhaps by confusing self-reference in immunology with atomic identity) is that no one has said how the placing of carbon patterns REPLACES form-making vs shape making and instead they simply tout the materiality of nanotech without seeing it only as a tool to the life-death issue. Mayr simply said BIOLOGISTS dont (even) talk about life and death anymore and yet he (Mayr) actually spoke with both my Grandfather AND ME!
And so even taking Crick's position they have to come from somewhere and yet there is as yet no way to find out how slight shifts in the relations of carbon bonds PREDICT where life may be. If we find it elsewhere this may be possible but still we have ideas about physics that are TOO standard and make even this reductionism appear as HOLISM to such a rigorous thinker as Dick Lewontin. If one mulls over Wolfram in this content then one can be disabused of his coupled differential equations but still we must have time in some way and I have not figured out mathematically or physically how time from 4dspace/time&lukewarmplacmats is to be recieved or conceived. I do percieve it however. Thanks- you got my drift. The standard evo response also came however.
No, I was not aware of that at Priceton. I live in Collegetown and do not get INTO Cornell day time much. When you mentioned "Lack" it made me think of Bateson and my idea innerthat that Gould didnt read him correctly. I had thought that it was MAYR that "philosophized" proximate and ulitmate"" into a growth for biology but since you said so I guess then that it may/must have been the issue Provine left off discussing about whether the Finches were adaptive or nonadaptive traits as per whole specimens and NOT DISECTIONS. Knowing that you are likely correct that is indeed very interesting for it shows me that there if futher proof that Provine illegally did something in my case. I had thought it was just bad judgement on his part. For I had come back from Africa with a very sophisticated notion of "phenotype" that he has no organismic notion of so if it was David? Lack and not Ernst Mayr who put up that idea not only does it allow me to re-read Pasteur but I can now "deconstrct" Provine's autobiography of Wright without having to rely totally on the mathematical differences. Thanks for the info. This is the real stuff for without proximate and ultimate as CONCEPTS(which is what I thought evolutionarily the first time I heard of them)it is much harder to but up RESISTANCE to ID.
I'll edit in a reply later- I do not have a browser at home. You'll just have to wait. The issue of parsimony and Occams razor was not lost on Croizat who tried to situate Catholicism and Panbiogeography to around the 1960s you seem to be only dealing with post 70s issues. I will need more time to verify of alter my response. Thanks again.
quote: First paragraph pretty hopeless imho, your conclusion "Instead you think the terminator with RNA is a old alien from california or you sought to polarize or you simply didnt need similarly to rail on "c"ism." does not follow from the paragraph or any preceding information. C'ism is earth centric, adamantly so
Please dont get confused between me being or representing Cist or Croizatist they may be the same for you for me they are likely not because track width is still undefined and the optical solution Bridgman found is NOT available for the Panbiogeography short of a complete change in evolution studies but Gould in the context of Bridgman only went so far as to update evolutionary theory (to my and yours? generation) ONLY in terms of physical manipulation OR re-physical description (hence strong vs weak pe). I insist as to creationism that the mathmatical angles be available too. It might be that bilateral and other kinds of biological symmetry are SPOOFED one-way velocities in PW's lingo hence my "vield" reference to local simultaneity of ribosomes or not as to a DEFINTION ONLLLLY.
quote: You have not shown otherwise. I suggest you try that again: show how C'ism can account for life on other planets.
my guess is that you have a difference of C'ism and E'ism as to life but I was talking about a difference as to Death. In life we still can not decide if biologically we are theoretically only dealing with two rods and a Russel strech (for any opening or Gould center of twisted shell)an acutal infinte with a single clock or lots of time divisions. That does not mean that one can not reason and think with "biblical glasses". I can not download my "canned" response on this computer.
If you and not me were talking of LIFE and not death you should be able to say WHAT the creature looked Like (aka "phenotype") while I was saying THAT THERE will be A WHERE such IS (by death). I assume you are aware of the concept of an "open habitat"?
quote:probably mistaken hypothesis? Let it put forth some science and I will look at it.
I spent much of my first series of posts in showing that cism IS science. Now I see what you want. Well my personal posts to evc are about showing not the science outside of my own suggestions but rather to indicate that eists PREVENT people like me who WANT to DO the science from getting the opp to do it. YEs I can do a limted amount on line but that alas is not what you wanted. It seems highly likely to me that medicine will fail and not just for the cists reasons and once this happens perhaps then you will find the evidence bubbling to you from the backgound of this my work wich indeed will becone foreground even if I pass today let us say.
I called Ken Ham but he was more interested in big models than bigger technical answers. That is OK some day I will have the day for tonite but cant go to ICR because EVOS kept me from obtaining the undergraduate degree and I am not "rich". as for how much MORE "proper" I can bring ID, that will be seamless with c/e discussions everywhere on the net so there is just as much hope I have convincing evos than with creos who already agree. If I can succeed with the few for real here there is no doubt it will work any where else that the difference of ICRID and questionableID are NOT or are asked. Thanks again.