Most all of the formations described in “Wonderful Life” appear to me to forms dependent on Bertrand Russel’s segment and series definitions in “Principles of Mathematics” and very much in particular
251”Throughout this Part we shall often have occasion for a notion which has hitherto been scarcely mentioned, namely the correlation of a series. In the preceding part we examined the nature of isolated series, but we scarcely considered the relations of different series. These relations however are of importance which philosophers have wholly overlooked and mathematicians have but latterly realized.”
This is not a problem of time to emerge but time for biologists to have pure math and applied bioinformatics as elaborated as theoretical and experimental physics. You see as Holmes did A SERIES ABOVE AND BELOW THE FORM, you might say isolated biohistorically by the inversion issue/tissue in verts and inverts.
Gould had this at CHANNELING THE SUBSEQUENT DIRECTIONS OF BILATERIAM HISTROY FROM THE INSIDE
quote: If the bilaterian ancestor possessed a full complement of Hox genes and if all major variants upon this initial system had already congealed by the end of the Cambrian explosion then subsequent bilaterian evolution must unfold within the secondary strictures of these realized specializations upon an underlying plan already channeled by primary constraints of the common ancestral pattern. But lest we begin to suspect that rigid limitation must represent the major evolutionary implication of such constraint, I must reemphasize the positive aspect of constraint as fruitful channeling along lines of favorable variation that can accelerate or enhance the work of natural selection.”p1161The Structure of Evolutionary Theory
You , electron, on second thought had said
quote: It's quite striking to compare the limited range of animal forms found throughout most of the archaeological record with the wde diversity of bodyplan seen at the start of colonisation episodes.
but I, BSM, didn’t find these as different amounts. I suspected instead Russel’s for any one(morph) diagram/reconstruction “Two series s, s’ are said to be correlated when there is a one-one relation R coupling every term of s with a term of s’, and vice versa, and when if x,y be terms of s and x precedes y,then there correlates x’, y’ in s’ are such that x’prececedsy’. X and Y could be twists THROUGH said FORMINVERSIONSCEINCE(covered by Gould as well in another chapter).
SO I have WITHIN Gould’s inside already hardened for reading the rest of his chapter on this subject but he did not expand this in SETH Term wise except for a python’s mesoderm and that depended on a Goethian view of plants that Croizat did not support, so short Paulk’s replicators(in another concurrent thread at EVCTIME (which I DON’T think exist either) even if we could guess at their terminology)) we retrun to the Boole Russell preported and unless we find the detailed character evolution of the shapes proposed etc. my best guess is that it is not hoxology but cell death that is operative across taxa here.
I get the same morphogenic effect of order if I look at the bony parts processes extending from the spinal column in Permian herps and THERE there are clearer precedents to work out issues of homology. If it is soft parts then one could just as well have snake skin not in abeyance..
Instead I find more instructive to motivate the logic of the categories of form appended below more possible especially if the diversity as puproted by Gould was for the above, “The diligent annotator of Aristotle’s De anima included several branching…virtually proving the case for strong human inclinations toward sequential dichotomy…” (The Hedgehog,the Fox, and the Magister’s Pox Mending the Gap Between Science and the Humanitesp126) Please don’t misrepresent me, I know the dichtomy is a crutch (IT IS NOT A DUALISM PLEASE NOTE) but there are just too many mathematical as opposed to purely biological issues that arise in replacing the simple key with a table database. This is the theory vs expt physics for biology that will but is not yet but perhaps but this is not recognized precisely because of creationist criticism of the energy converter of the correlation. That shall always be evos’ job to supply.
We need to start finding correlations of sequences serially decomposable genetically. If we get this then we can get biogeography worked into the program as well. This would provide what Holmes read as I did from Gould that
quote: There is also the difference that none of those species seem to have a purpose beyond themselves. Every invention has an obvious missing component, a being that it is going to provide a service for. Like a car has seats... for what? We don't see evidence of tertiary purpose.
I can see it if you use this instead to guide the gestalt of these “”exploded creatures or as Meyer was want to say for the multiplicity of forms at that horizon.
I dont have an explict opinion on that just as I think that multispecies Desmognathus guilds might be composed of cross species demes wherein females sometimes put the eggs above and sometimes below the rock. One could recognize contemporarily that Kant walked arocss the Prussian Bridges in BOTH ways, so to speak SO... "But if we go through the whole of nature we find in it, as nature, no being which could make cliam to the eminence of being the final purpose of creation; and we can prove ...We might also, with teh chevalier Linnaeus, go the apparently opposite way and say; The herbivorous animals are there to moderate the luxurious growth of the vegtable kingdom..."METHODOLOGY OF THE TELEOLOGICAL JUDGMENT. Just to be clear, while I doubted the discussion of ANY TERTIARITY to have been raised to Kant's distinction of ultimate and final purposes, not having to decide which way is up, does not preclude finding that Gould overused the notion of constraint. The thing can be a lot cheaper and still have both sides of Kant's "Pair" "The answer is: This pair first constitutes an organizing whole, though not an organized whole in a single body. I have (allso) wondered if the denotion OF Gladyshev's thermostat enables on discussion of this on purpose. Sure creationism and GOD is outside this but so is every change in time.
This picture looks more like it. If by "earliest species" you
quote:that these peculiar critters are representative of some of the earliest of species?
meant along the lines of Eldredge's "is violated, even downright falsified, by the early Cambrian fossil record" in THE TRIUMPH OF EVOLUTION AND THE FAILURE OF CREATIONISM I must insist still on the larger sectors than NE's motivate a deeper than diversity than any implicated convergence of the smaler areas being Niles' The other two illustrations are from TOPOLOGY by Hocking and Young and OUTLINE OF METAPHYSICS by FJ MATCHETTE
I am not so sure that ID *has* to be the 'question.' I do think it might answer a lot of things that "might" be but I think that there is problem with FORM ( this occurred in philosophy with WIttgenstein and liguistics with Chomsky) that has a pure biological component being covered over by Darwinians today, having to do with odd shaped creatures.
I know Carl well enough to suggest that his writings only butress standard technical science writing despite his good grasp of the science itself. He would not see the biology that I do.
I think we might be seeing parasitism in a wrong fleshy way. This is hard to explain. The following two pictures from
5 years ago I came to a halt in reading that work because I could not find any way to continue to work through the ratios he presented MATHEMATICALLY (1/2,2/3,3/8...) but with these images of not dogs nor snakes I see some hope to continue my reading of plant life.
I think learning to read books the way I see nature is a better indication than the simple history that creationists had not considered God creating unfit creatures.
This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 04-13-2006 08:30 AM