Darwin's Greatest Mistake?

even without "progressive" in the dark spaces between German snails for an claim of Provine against the Museum citing of Johnson,... I think the words "ascent" and "descent" may indeed point to a problem. If any one goes back to my recent longer posts you can observe that I have updated them somewhat and in the end I DO CONCLUDE that Gareth Nelson's failure to use main massings and Croizat baselines could be BECAUSE the macrothermodynamic prinicple that the highest level stability is accomplished by the least stable in the lower level IS the NZ panbiogeographic baseline representations. The failure to reveal this could be due to the conceptual difficult of free thought inversions of "ascent" and "descent" with or without technical progress I suggest electrotonics be used for the probe of...But I dont know if any one is bothering to try to follow"" me (to Sweden? and back...).

The why would Eldridge on the positive side say that Dominion is related in his any past theological mind to agriculture LEAVING humans out of ecosystems rather than into them and why was this positive content NOT addressed by this reviewer?? » Page not found

Ned I dont have my copy with me. IT IS in this book and Niles comments that he couldnt help but mention it as it was ALSO going to be a part of another book he is? was going to write. It is possible that the reviewer simply choose not to address this as it was rather an aside in the"Triumph" book but it indicated to me HOW to really write about Niles' views taking into account any past Baptist influence that may have influenced him to think about man as leaving ecosystems in the formation of civilized agrigulture. I would be arguing a different notion of "ecosystem". That is all. I know what he meant by FIRST being a hunter/gatherer and THEN having cities exist because of crops but I am unsure that this is actually LEAVING nature behind. Sure URBANIZATION is but KNOWLEDGE IN/OF Agriculutre may not (be). If you would like some detailed quotes out of THIS BOOK I linked a reviewer of to, just say so one more time, and next time I am at the computer I will bring the book and try to do justice to his comments where he said he wanted to put the c/e issues behind and get to the broader issues of extinction and survival in the future(protection of the envirnoment).This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 05-15-2004 10:31 AM

Then YOU jar, must be of the opinion that Gladyshev's reasoning of deacceleration of evolution is only "emotively" concieved but he as indicated (UNLIKE ME) that he is NOT with "creationists". The notion that the lowest of the lower levels components support the stability of the highest stable entity on the higher level INVERTS the picture that Huxley DREW of anagensis in vertebrate linegaes but I give you a reciprocal conversion of this for invertebrates but by mathematical reasoning (Like Mendel used by Naglei first rejected etc) the reasoing and faculty of doing this reasoning stands. Furthermore the actual relation of descent with gravity might be more than potentially maintained. Phil Johnson was correct to some aspect that evolutionary theory can not continue without account for the dissent from the rest of "us". THE PROGRESS however as I understand and write it is wholly "technically" (or what Gould called socially Lamarkian) and I suggest the use of electrontonics to PROGRESSIVE invert any GRAPH of devolution in to evolution by fliping the view of deaccerlation but it seems that it would be better not to use these terms but simply to show what grade that might refer to. In my recent update I start to do this working thru Lichens, Toads,and Baceteria as a whole. THIS IS PROGRES OR progessive development IN hyatt's sense that Darwin dissed and Gould continued to support.see please http://EvC Forum: Water under the Bridge -->EvC Forum: Water under the Bridge the involutionThis message has been edited by Brad McFall, 05-15-2004 10:40 AM

quote:

---

If you have a friend who is a theoretical physicist and you wish to upset him or her, you simply say to them, 'That latest theory of yours looks rather ugly and contrived to me'. They will be very upset, because you are saying to them 'It doesn't have that indispensable character of mathematical beauty'. When we use mathematics in that way, as a key to unlock the secrets of the universe, something very peculiar is happening. You see - what is mathematics? Mathematics is the free exploration of the human mind. Our mathematical friends sit in their studies, and out of their heads they dream up the beautiful patterns of mathematics. If mathematics is not your subject, just think of mathematics as being a pattern-creating, pattern-analyzing subject. What I'm saying is that some of the most beautiful patterns thought up by the mathematicians are found actually to occur in the structure of the physical world around us. In other words, there is some deep-seated relationship between the reason within (the rationality of our minds - in this case mathematics) and the reason without (the rational order and structure of the physical world around us). The two fit together like a glove. If you stop to think about it, I think you'll see that is a rather significant fact about the world. It's a fact about the world that the mathematicians, in their very modest way of speaking, would describe as non-trivial. Non-trivial is a mathematical word meaning highly significant! Not only does it strike me as significant, but it also struck Einstein that way, which is perhaps more interesting. Einstein once said, "The only incomprehensible thing about the universe is that it is comprehensible". Why are our minds so perfectly shaped to understand the deep patterns of the world around us?

---

If you at once deny mathematical proof AND beauty sure you have materialism but is that going to be anything but regress for science it self. At best it approaches the unconditioned in a different way but the question was IF ascent would be better than descent not the other way around. There is ugly art and pretty art but there can only be one nature of science. I do not think that this world is simply spittle bugs' guts because I think Russsel misjudged Cantor. But that's me. see also Polkinghorne where this quote was taken from "religion in an age of science"
Yes there is room for economics to alter this opnion of/from Einstein by use of macrothermodynamics but I hope we all here will get to understand that before some new economic sector makes EvC obsolete then.This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 05-15-2004 10:57 AM

You would be wrong in my understanding for Will Provine used FAR MORE EMOTION to maintain his position before me than Henry Morris. I do not have any sense of John Morris however. Marjore Green and I agreed evolutionarily together that Will was scientifically (perhaps not historically in some sense) wrong.Ok then, NO THE TITLE has nothing to do with it (unless you believe also in Darwin's right angle of a seed capsule in his power of motion in plants.). This being the internet, I can imagine Rhain latching on to that! The concept is not Darwins as you know. I personally liked Kant's version pretty much.