Intelligent Design in Universities

if this^1
http://www.energyfields.org/science/becker.html
&
this^2
http://www.iabc.readywebsites.com/page/page/623959.htmare true... the circulatory SYSTEM as opposed to the nervous SYStem or the digestive SYStem might have a natural purpose if we(can) identify the product teleologically unitarily.1

quote:

---

AND BASED ON YOUR KNOWLEDGE IN THE WORK YOU HAVE DONE IN YOUR CAREER CONCERNING ELECTROMAGNETIC FIELDS AND BIOLOGY, WHAT IS YOUR OWN ASSESSMENT OF WHERE WE STAND TODAY IN 2000 IN RELATIONSHIP TO THE PROLIFERATION OF CELL PHONES AND THE MAST TOWERS THAT PUT OUT THE RADIO FREQUENCIES?
As far as I'm concerned, these factors DO have biological effects. I think that the overwhelming evidence indicates that happens. There is an effect even though physicists and engineers continue to say it's impossible. But the biologists know biology. The engineers know engineering and electromagnetics and the two were never able to see eye to eye on this subject.
I have no doubt in my mind that at the present time that the greatest polluting element in the earth's environment is the proliferation of electromagnetic fields. I consider that to be far greater on a global scale than warming...

---

2

quote:

---

a closed-loop circulating current and energy flow is accomplished by the transport of charged particles (ions and electrons), producing slowly varying electric currents in the human body, utilizing various conductive pathways (interstitial fluid, blood vessels,

---

I have often wondered if the same possibilty being described for animals occurs in plants here:
pic@
http://www.biology.ualberta.ca/courses.hp/bio366/plants.htmwhat if the torus SHAPE was a means to adapt different ionic effects voltage/capacitance wise as well as by pressure? Could plants have a circulatory system *designed* like animals do?? If a Harvard prof could seriously consider plants analogous to animals endocrinologically then why not circulatorily???Would we still ONLY have chemistry?

I would like to note that ID is leaning towards what Newton did not suggest, aka, THE CAUSE(reciprocally noticed by KANT), but if it can be workable without an hypothesis seems difficult(even if we were able to keep Hume's mite ontologically on a fringe) as I dont know if the reptile to mammal transit transitions Agassiz's fish articulations or not. I have not tried to look that up or compare the current evidence on it.

It seems to me that we need to raise the discussion to the level where JAR's question returns a determinate answer. I would be just as "happy" using "H" for '++' and "T" for '>>' 1-D symmetries thus if the microstates were properly delimited we might get to some estimates no other place/publisher has produced. In other terms, the distribution of the four T's might contain "more" information distributed to the right than randomly "mutated" throughout the sequence in a cosmopolitan species than one with limited geographic distribution where even the pure H pattern might contain most. Who knows??Perhaps evc needs more posters with more diverse abilities to achieve this possibility. Of course if we are only subjectively each individually thinking what the the information might be "more of/for" we can not even get here with such addition(s) of contributions. I tend to think one list might give MORE with respect to showing that Wright's adapative landscape is not incomprehensible and does work. I dont know enough quantum to say if this discussion would suggest changes to physics sensu stricto or only exists (if)in the division of macrostates only. I wouldnt think quarks were needed but I could be wrong as to the effect of hierarchical thermodyanmics IN phenomenological thermo...I have wondered if these illustrations of Langmuir might not assist in tentatively proceeding.I also thought laughingly that L might have digrammed Cornell's Football Field rather than an actual mixture of chemicals.
This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 05-06-2005 12:13 PM

Paul,
I think I see what the prob with the issue is. I had heard NPR interview Owen Gingerich a couple of weeks ago or so in the artery of being a person able to have both ID and science and today with SNOOP blaring in the background and having had enough of Science Friday on NPR I purchased Ginverich's book "THE BOOK NOBODY READ". I verified a lot of things extraneous to this thread.The first time I thought I had encountered Feynman discussing quantum computation I had had the thought that he was discussing what Jerry calls "logical entropy" here at least in part but READING GINGERCIH'S book in view of NPR's spin ON ID I notice something highly significant on page 264 where Owen discusses if Copernicus had stablized his geometry with knowledge of past Islamic math antecendents or not. Gingerich presents history with two possiblities, that Copernicus had the whole thing past Ptolemy in his own singluar mind OR he had information from the collective Islamic past. He decides that TWO (as Gingerich WRITES it) asethetic appearences WERE all in copernicus mind.The problem we are dealing with is not this one about the direction to outlining geocentrism or not but rather if ID has an ability to contribute IN THE JUDGEMENT OF WHAT Gingerich presents as two are rather only one thus misused unconsciously by IDists or if instead of two or no ID does present something that science has not addressed because it cant grasp this enumeration as of yet.You are quite correct to point to failures of understanding evolutionary biology for to remain wholly in a physical teleological mode grammer will never bu itself resolve or solve the problem. The issue remains however( in my representaion here) as to if the division is justified (I suspect instead that NPR is wrong even to audible sounds) or rather if the import of ID to islamic world is new or old.Either way it is quite interesting to consider. Jerry is remarkably good at presenting a discussion within the confines of what has been ALREADY posted on EVC but if it is not one mind but many here it would be nice to see IDists reveal what the asthetic is that drives their judgement. I am not judging Jerry there by. I could be wrong about Feynman as I have not tried to think Gingerich's position from Feynman's perspective irregardless of my own theoretical biological interest in the matter of whether or not astrology has anything to do with biogeography or not.
_---------------------------------
I hope this helps. If not, please ignore. Best, Brad.

I have been trying to track down some information bearin on these two paragraphs of Georgi Gladyshev:http://www.endeav.org/evolut/text/pon_jour/pon_jour.htm

quote:

---

Several results relating to the chemical composition variation of proteins and nucleic acids in the course of the evolution of organisms are discussed in papers [1,5,6,18]. However, there is still a lack of reliable information unambiguously confirming the thermodynamic nature of changes in the composition of these natural polymers. This is well illustrated by the growth of the melting temperature of chromatin in the course of ontogenesis. This growth is believed to indicate definitely that the evolutionary aging of chromatin in the ontogenesis has thermodynamic nature [1, p. 161-163]. New results [18] make it possible to conclude that the evolutionary optimization of the RNA structure is determined not only by the thermodynamic stability of its secondary structure, but also by that of its tertiary structure. This explains why not only the sequences containing GC pairs are selected in the course of evolution (which is most beneficial thermodynamically for the secondary structure formation). In the course of the evolution, sequences including AU pairs are also selected. We obtain (according to the theoretical predictions) that the thermodynamics of tertiary and higher supramolecular structures influences the chemical composition and structure of the RNA. Therefore, from our view point, selection of natural (AUGC) sequences is most advantageous macrothermodynamically. P.Shuster considers these sequences as the most stable ones with respect to mutations.

---

http://www.endeav.org/evolut/text/ttbe/ttbe.htm

quote:

---

On the other hand, there are known examples of a thermodynamic tendency in the variation of the composition and structure of nucleic acids (chromatin) in ontogenesis. It has been found that the thermodynamic stability of nucleic acids is determined by the content of G-C pairs, as well as by the ability of these biopolymers to form complexes with proteins and various low-molecular substances, and other known factors (Cantor and Schimmel, 1980; Gladyshev, 1988). Hence it is clear that efforts to accurately identify the general correlation between the degree of an animal (plant) evolution and the composition of nucleic acids have failed. For instance, the classic data (Marmur and Doty, 1962) on the relationship of the denaturation temperature (Tm) of different DNA to their content of G-C pairs gives no reason to conclude that this relationship is linked with the evolution of the organic world. It appears that only some cases contain dependable evidence of a relationship between the trend of evolution and the content of G-C pairs, whose growth (on a par with other factors) contributes to the increased thermodynamic stability of submolecular structures formed with the participation of DNA and RNA (Gladyshev, 1988).

---

quote:

---

P. P. Gardner, B. R. Holland, V. Moulton, M. Hendy, and D. Penny. 2003. Optimal alphabets for an RNA world. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B270, 1177—1182

---

@http://awcmee.massey.ac.nz/people/dpenny/
might help as well as
http://www.sfu.ca/~eemberly/pubs/PRE_68_041904.pdf

That question IS the "holy grail" of theoretical biology as I see it and the only reason I am attracted to the field. There might be probabilites or there might be a deductive structure. I for one cant choose as of yet. It seems however that I can only sense a heuristic taste for belief that such exists rather than any hard data. I like to think that some day I might try my math mind at that problem (specifically point sets) but first I would like to know if the probability space is necessary or if pure thought would yield the subject on topic(possibly rather more topology than density issues).This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 05-06-2005 07:55 PM

I learned something non-reflectively in this thread but the answer was that Fisher's fudamental theorem needs to be altered definitionally before I could order the various series nongenerally. I will propose a new thread to discuss this once I get enough written and %out% of my own mind. This solution however does not "sell" ID as a political movement but an improvement on the failed details of evo theory as it contingently exists.I need to gauge preliminarily how Wright's, Haldane's, and Kimura's contributions would be affected before I release such whim as I could incidentally today. I would be using three formal cateorgies biologically rather than the two (genotype and phenotype).Sorry Jar, I can go no further determinately but I can comment reflexively if others are still thinking it through and as I continue to do so.This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 05-07-2005 11:49 AM

Yes, at least to me, it IS an invaluable question. I would guess that some here might not agree but in truth I think that even self-assembly ideas (if in biology) will be subsumed by your question.Gingerich had said on NPR that he felt that ID was "not grounded" *in opposition* to evolution but the difference of biology by the art of theory and formal statistics seems doable logically and thus a design IN ID could exist not only reflextively (as we have discussed it here) but exist in a general deterimination in the empirics of evolutionary theory however increases in fitnesses would have to be related to the different "strings" you presented for example (turning the answer to which string had more information into which string was better fit).I see even Gingerich's stand off of ID VS some science as a consequence of the division of phenotype and geneotype and relatedly the notion of increase in fitness to genetic fitness variance. I would suggest altering the word "genetic" here to be but a formal category rather than an aposteriori empiric as it is currently used in measures of heritibility.Soooo, I think by answering your question we would have reached a period in Kant's writing,

quote:

---

If, on the contrary, we supply to nature causes acting designedly and consequently place at its basis teleology, not merely as a regulative principle for the mere judging of phenomena, to which nature can be thought as subject to particular laws, but as a constituative principle of the derivation of its products from their causes, then would the concept of a natural purpose no longer belong to the reflective but to the determinate judgement.

---

period period periodI was able to judge Fisher today. Gould did not do this. Instead he showed where Fisher's work might not apply. Dembski had said last week that there was no way to have intelligence and evolutionary theory but I think I see a way today. The reason we dont have this seems to be not because there are non-believing IDsts( Jerry, etc) but because we have evolutionists who are not even interested in expanding Darwinism as Gould promoted. I had been having trouble understanding how computational issues were to be resolved biologically but I now read Kant to have subsumed them within his but this does not eliminate asthetic approaches (hence the continde reflection on the object of the thread) but I also find that biological difference(s) of geneotype and phenotype DOES introduce the so named by Kant particular causality (that is why Gingerich thought ID was a a marketable product being sold. He was mistaken).It was funny that he thought himself able to differntiate big I from little i. Aye, I cant find the difference nonasthetically parsed.This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 05-07-2005 12:31 PM

Ok, ok
BSM on Crow and Remine @EVC
but genetic deaths are likely to have more than one effect in the causality (that's why Nosy didnt understand Jianyi Zhang).
yes yes,
I am trying to get more out of the the TWO asthetic ideas (line between Earth and Sun and the loss of the equant) Gingerich pens (in THE BOOK NOBODY READ)to the letter, as I gave my first presentation of the way I thought my Grandfather meant by "ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny" (interpreted by me with quotes from the Bible on the relation of parent and child 'phylogeny recapitulates ontongey') at a LENTEN service in the Presby Church in high school with reflexions on experience's of my younder younger years . I have to get beyond my own attempts with a "bicycle chain". I am fully convinced that what I understood from Croizat falls into the line from Copernicus to Kepler to Newton...to Croizat(with Cantor in the motion) but still I dont know that a propability space is required(for macrostates) if the physics itself suffices. You did not say if I was correct historically
http://EvC Forum: Current status/developments in Intelligent Design Theory -->EvC Forum: Current status/developments in Intelligent Design Theory
about the spaces used by evolutionary theoreists that JAD called in the ARN thread an affect of Ernst Mayr and which situates the words due to "organization"s.In any effect it would be a unification without the geodesic(as Einstein perhaps enabled his earlier Kant reading to eclpise into Godel conversations etc) no matter Haldane's dillema. The closest depiction of said chain on EVC is @http://EvC Forum: Current status/developments in Intelligent Design Theory -->EvC Forum: Current status/developments in Intelligent Design Theory
But I did not attempt to make the drawing from the perspective of Mars parrallels. That seems to be required to get out of Ptolemic Biogeography that which is post Darlington and Matthews as required biologically(panbiogeographically). The geometry of such is way beyond my present ability. I dont doubt that it doesnt exist but it might only exist statistically, in which case I can not be as confident ontologically as I presently am.

practically one has to think it can be done mathematically FIRST
(i thought quickly out to
http://www-users.cs.york.ac.uk/...ib/nf/b/jmshbrwn.htm#10263Center for the Study of Complex Systems | U-M LSA)
and then the rigor of geometry might fall where Kant would design the designer even if physics abstains. There would have to be things in themselves in this appearence. Gould rather denies this exists.Anyway the thread is closing so I dont mean this to whip up too many comments