Irreduceable Complexity

The only reason that "intermediates" would be hard to "imagine" is only becasue science has taken on the attitute that it must be 'partial differential equations" that model the space etc. Yes if one is a biologist and MUST think this way that is hard. Wolfram had to search billions of images to find his new PDEs but funny, I think me sees a lizard and snake in them such that I can now fancy many herp intermediates prior to WOlfram's search I could not.The problem is more that Gould was accepted in some circles prima facie but doing the thought/math to TRY to imagine any of these fancified intermediates was not supported by the same community. I do not know Gould's case by rote but my guess is that he talked to the "right" people at the not left time. I do not know how important the Russian connection was but there still is room for correcting that if that is wrong.

Yes, MOZ welcome. Maybe when we get to ZOMI post #s we will be able to communicate. The web is prone to lead to so-called flame wars which is how it comes that I am begining to explore writing Haptic Mouse JavaScript ...That was Zarwa for those who didnt know (A trade language I needed at least some numbers in)which I used to buy fish for research purposes in Africa in 86-7. You are correct that I "hold a grudge" with elite taught evolutionary biology but I meant nothing against you. That said I am not sure I know how to think of Irreducible Complexity because this was something in C/E before Wolfram's book came out this year and yet Wolfram speaks of non-reducible complexity in terms of simple programs. Maybe Intelligent Design is slated for another C/E metamorphsis. But as to intermeidates there is a difference between imagining them in any fancy and showing that the classification claimed resultant to such change in prior taxonomy is more objetified than the subjetive confidence of the pheneticist, phlogenist, cladist or baraminologist etc.

It, I think the "point" is that one can not go to a web site and view a EXCEL spread sheet that shows the actual biometry of the biological change proposed for reproductive isolation for any taxon execpt perhaps in the specialists WORKING DATA BASE. The point is if evolution were known to occur in ONE way it would be taught monophyletically but because there are differnt kinds there may be different ways the bio-change occurs. You two are simply talking past each other.For instance from a slightly different angle one might READ "accumulation of microevolutionary change over time" as biochange after the kind; in which case ecological speciation could be a subset if objected for the taxa underconsideration.I, in particular was very intent on determing modes of speciation in salamanders but because of failure to find evolutionary biologists in accord about data collection to even address speciation issues it was impossible EVEN knowing as much as any body on salamanders. Bishop was from Rochester NY and I read this book as 9 year old in my grandfather basement in Fredonia NY and decided there and then on catching a Spring Salamander that I could uNDerstand the salamanders of NY and NJ and yet the OBSERVATIONS that Bishop cites I was not able to use at the elite CORNELL because they were only arguing the most elite aspects of the theory. I had "seen" in nature what WAS called in the literature "concerted evolution" but once I was trying to explain what I understood by this evolution in detail each and every biologist wanted there own say just like much of what goes on on this board. I wish we could all learn to get out of the way and let the evidence dictate interaction but I even find that I am talking past people too."good emprical evidence" and "accumulation of"'evidence' are not the same thing even if the contexts are the same. Obviously it can not be that the contents actually differ. There may be learning to be done by posters and it is always my intent to be here to learn so in good faith some better communication (should) be possible. I dont see how "divergent natural selection on traits" is a single thought.

JUST refer to Wright's presence in your homeland and the differing opinions about the outcome. Like war this is not hard to understand.I did work by "hurting" pea plants with copper in 1987 giving a stimulus to the pisatin biochemical pathway.The reform I spoke of to Percy in Buffon's :mould: is not "paltry" compared to Darwin's own but like Croizat I seek a curriculum reflecting change rather of the order of Wolfram's non-biologically motivated response to computer use in society in science on the whole instead.I may not be against your siding with post-Mayr/Dobshansky sympatric-sibling rate but I was generally thinking this kind of way back in the 80s when I WENT to Cornell. It can not be denied under/ground that I WENT. Cornell has a 4 rating in evolution/ecology/systematics and is despite its lower rating in other areas of biology at the top in the country in this field. I wa a top student BEFORE i began to write about evolution and actually TO DO it (in studies). The problem in the doing, and I have not read your link further&farther; enough to tell(is) if this is just another Ford ecology or rather a Wright supplementary space and time information?Regardless your posting is of high quality and will help elevate c/e working groups generally. God Bless. Brad.PS I tend to think about NS aka via artifactual artifical selection AFTER the "kind" of speciation n o t before. One can try this *reversal* affirmed as you wish but in resemblence by some other unspecified continguity (I have none in mind at present) through TEACHING evolution one may way this directum I guess but if that is what it is actually here(understood) say with respect to cell cycle timed philosophy (no matter the realism) and ANY Poincare RETURN POINTS point SET}{... my guess is that it will tend to meet MORE resistence (this would be becasue I happen to prefer Wright's math to Fic(spel?)sher's hyperselectionism FOR THE SAME BREEDING PROGRAM even though by your influence in this higher education available on line some actual and absolute progress be made reactantly or impedantly ence wise. May you out live Gladyshev's retirement fund for biology and not only drive a BEETLE so that we can out pace Mayr's "genetic revolution" with the next...