A Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis

You said, right here,

quote:

---

Everything now being discovered pleads for predetermined pathways, preferred sites of chromosome reorganization and very ancient origins for what were once thought to be very recently evolved gene families.

---

I am concerned to understand the relationship between the conotations of your words "pathways" and "sites" here. I would like to try to understand if pathways 'relase' "sites" or if 'sites' release pathways or both or neither. And to this effect I will ask my original question that might be answered by anyone now with sufficient intution of PEH in this thread. The predicates seem to me to be SITES and PATHWAYS.If we can make some motivated progress here, you can get an inkling of where this line of questioning is headed in my reply on EVC @http://EvC Forum: Is Abiogenesis a fact? -->EvC Forum: Is Abiogenesis a fact?

Thank you,This answers my first question having to do with the statistical use or interpretation of "latency". I shall move on to a more substantive and thankfully more interesting line of questioning thanks to your response.Edited by Brad McFall, : grammer

Have you ever thought explicitly about ontogenized phylogeny by differentiating growth and development?Black racers for example develop from a spotted form to all-black but continue to grow till death. It seems to me that “accelerated” phylogeny if ”created’ (even at least via analogy to ontogeny)

quote:

---

examples of what he (Berg) called phylogenetic acceleration or the premature appearance of advanced features in primitive organisms.

---

(bold added) might posses ”higher’ order derivatives of position that physics disallows theoretically but may provide nonetheless a theoretical basis mathematically beyond the alternatives of Lamarck and Darwin ( from which you situated your notion)

quote:

---

Historically there have been two major hypotheses to explain organic change, that of Lamarck, based on the transmission of characters acquired during the life of the individual and that of Darwin, which placed Nature in the role of selecting and thereby preserving those genetic changes which proved to be of advantage to the organism. These changes were presumed to be the means by which evolution proceeded

---

such that a slight shift of the fulcrum between development and growth by PEH or some other alternative, could provide new and different correlations predictable allometrically?Quotes@EVCDataDropEdited by Brad McFall, : quotes added

Well simply ask me a question about any "word" and I will 'translate' it this time. Last time I was concerned about the SHAPE possibly implied by PEH but I was unable to to determine, back then, if it would be more like a branch or more like a bush. I can see a way, depeding on how you respond, that the PROBLEM I have with your alternative possibly being in the form of a "branch", need cause no worries. It did last time. This time you have said with Grasse, that allelic mutation play(s) "no part" in 'creative evolution.' I am not sure this is the best way to describe PEH but then again the extent of my intuition is not any better tha WKs. To you I must defer until I can understand better how the genomic information *is* ontogenized. I have been personally thinking somewhat generally like you for years. I have called it "phylogeny recapitulates ontogeny" if you care to search EVC.

Well here is a bit of a puzzle then.Broom is R. Broom of:

quote:

---

Ghost lineages and “mammalness”: assessing the temporal pattern of ...
... of new characters in the course of the origin of a major new Bauplan.” ... Broom, R., 1932. The mammal-like reptiles of South Africa and the origin of ...www.psjournals.org/.../?request=get-document& issn=0094-8373&volume=024&issue=02&page=0254 - Similar pages

---

And

quote:

---

Mimicry & Evolution
Broom, R. (1930): The Origin of the Human Skeleton: An Introduction to Human Osteology ... Broom, R. (1933b): The Coming of Man - Was it Accident or Design? ...www.natur.cuni.cz/~vpetr/Broom.htm - 106k - Cached - Similar pages

---

http://www.natur.cuni.cz/~vpetr/Broom.htm
???????????????????????right?Also, the PLAN is the “bauplan”, yes??If so then it would be necessary to distinguish Woodger’s use (relying on Bertrand Russell and Whiteheads’ “Principia Mathematica”) as further discussed by Gould and the standardbearers of all that was past evolution from a larger logical compass your notions seem to behold in more than one place. This can be done. Is there some other notion of “plan” involved???Unremarked Quotes from GOOGLE.com

Well,I guess I thought it was obvious what it had to do with PEH.You mentioned that no one can know whether there has been ONE or more than one origin"" to life. Indeed, but as to "the plan" that binds forms together, whether by some spiritual force or some material tracing of reality, it does matter if the PLAN refers to a or a plural amount of different forms (no matter the number of origins)as logic )may( work(s) differently, depending on how the ordination of the cardinality of these formations format.This is why I was wondering if the capitlized on plan you mentioned prior was restricted to the bauplan"" that had sedimented into contempory evolutionary theory (sustained with the what I would indeed call restricted logic that PEH would need to purge in the general biological community to win further acceptance, coming from Russel but maintained in the standarized accounting of academic biology); if Broom's "bauplan" was plural via PEH or if the position remained singular in effect only as to the actuality of PEH.If that did not make sense I will rephrase it. You answered my first question as to reality behind any statistical interpreptation of data bearing on or at PEH but I do not yet see if the forms (no matter whether a "bush" or a "branch" in theoretical shape, at this point in the discussion)are divided by PEH or rather if PEH maintains simply "oversight". I assumed simply from bringing back, the Broom you swept up, that this MUST be plural, if my sense of PEH had any weight.Now that you question the relevance of Broom's plan to PEH, I wonder...Feel free to continue to divaricate darwinism within any or every sentence because although I am not of your generation the sense of Darwinism passed down to me from my Grandfather is, and of that I am fairly acutely aware. I got to listen to Gould, Mayr, Stebbins, D.S. Wilson, Lewotin and Provine instead. There *is* a generational issue within Darwinism but you are correct that ^this^ should not show it's tail in the heading nor body of this thread. As to OTHER alternatives than Darwinism and Lamarckianism, there ARE... Croizatism is one. I have not tried to see how acceleration or decelearion of evolutionary rates is related to specific geographies. That would need to be done if other alternatives were to be contrasted with PEH. I am not at that place just yet, in this (our errorless) conversation.If I can clear up the logical issues I may not have with PEH perhaps your wondering what else might be behind what I am questioning can be revealed. I have not secret here.

Pay no attention to the structure of the means to communicate nor the negative chatter (on EVC). It never bothers me.You wrote

quote:

---

The simplest explanation is that the information was present in a latent state and simply revealed or derepressed when the chromosome segments were placed in a new configuration (Davison, 1993).

---

http:///DataDropsite/APrescribedEvolutionaryHypothesis.html
I would like to understand if this implies, per simpliciter, One or More Than one EVENT(evolution). That is the extent of my questioning in the last post.I have not axe to grind against alternatives to Lamarck or Darwin, so in this sense you will find no challenge in that from me.Edited by Brad McFall, : No reason given.

John -Things take time.
I do not consider it a waste.
I have gained some vital information from you that is definately helpful in showing that PEH is not simply a verbally false architeclonical discussion. Credentials are not needed. Ability to write beyond historical Darwinism and Lamarckianism is.Now that I know that you have no objection to a certain number of "front loadings" I will be able to make a guess. I have other things to do than monitor EVC, though. Please be patient. You need not bring up my name unless you desire me to comment. You have posted many responses to me and I have not had the free time to get to all of them. Edited by Brad McFall, : new subtitle

quote:

---

I propose that the information for organic evolution has somehow been predetermined in the evolving genome in a way comparable to the way in which the necessary information to produce a complete organism is contained within a single cell, the fertilized egg. Just as differentiation involves the ordered derepression of pre-existing information, so then I propose, did evolution proceed by a similar means. Viewed in this way, ontogeny and phylogeny become part of the same organic continuum utilizing similar mechanisms for their expression.

---

http:///DataDropsite/APrescribedEvolutionaryHypothesis.html
If a group of organisms change in a comparable way to that individuated by an organism’s processing through differentiation (no matter the topology) then an implication of PEH remands an effect for the contents of that neglected process in evolution titled “Niche Construction.”See http://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~seal/niche/index.htmlIf there is more than one event, there is no way for phylogeny to become part of “the same organic continuum” (even if ONLY utilizing “similar” mechanisms . ) without so said, “derepression” being heritably informed in an uncontroversial manner via

quote:

---

Second, when organisms inherit naturally selected genes. They are in effect, inheriting information molecularly encoded in the nucleotide sequences of DNA. Genetic information is, of course, noncognitive (See chapter 4). Nevertheless, it is information that is used to inform the expression of phenotypes in ontogenetic environments, relative to their local selective environments (J. Holland 1992, 1995; Eigen 1992). In contrast, when organisms inherit legacies of modified natural selection pressures they do not inherit information.”

---

quote:

---

page 15 Niche Construction

---

Else one is left with a philosophy of

quote:

---

OZ revisted
Let me highlight some of the central aspects of Oz-science. The criterion of success in Oz is not truth in every respect, but empirical adequacy. When a scientific theory is accepted, it is accepted as empirically adequate and not as true. Acceptance in Oz involves the belief that the theory has accomplished its aim, meets its criterion of success, i.e. is empirically adequate. Hence acceptance involves somebelief, but it is belief in empirical adequacy as distinct from (theoretical) truth. But acceptance in Oz involves more than belief: it involves what van Frassen has called ”commitment’: “a commitment to the further confrontation of the new phenomenon within the framework of that theory, a commitment to a research programme, and a wager that all relevant phenomena can be accounted for without giving up the theory’ (1980:88) . .Yet, in Oz, believing in the truth of the t-assertions, or even aiming at theoretical truth, is simply not part of the picture.

---

p200 Scientific Realism by Stathis Psillos
http://www.amazon.com/...duct/041520819X/104-7561392-7025564
reference to OZparableonline
and further controversy and claims that one can believe AND commit to PEH. This is not a matter, John of ME having the time to post but of people new to the idea to perceive”” it. An exciting possibility for PEH is that it implies a completely unanticipated dynamics IN THE THEORETICAL STRUCTURE of models for niche construction through ecosystem engineering (specifically expanding points where the models all predict interpolation).John if you think it is a waste of time to try to find what is the thorn in the evolutionists’ indifference to alternatives then I can be of no help to you. I looked at Brainstorms and signed on but found the discussions there to be less scientific than here. To each his own.This may not be the full range of possible falsifiable and verifiable regions for PEH but it outlines an area plausibly actual for PEH, as I understand it.Edited by Brad McFall, : No reason given.Edited by Brad McFall, : 3 no reason links and this one to OZ

There is an analytic position in math (Cantor's) that permits continuous motion in a discontinuous space. I am sorry that you wanted a reply sooner than I am able. The appearence of a disjunction between ontogeny and phylogeny in my posts may only be due to a yet undetermined instruction (in an organon, metaphysically)in the proportionment FROM space to synthetic statements of ontogeny and/or phylogeny. Bertrand Russell insisted as a thesis even after the fact, that math and logic were identical. That is the cause, not my rather hard or hardly working, writings, of the your notice of temporality here, I would say.I will be putting a post together on how, by logic and math NOT being identical, that a further issue as to the nature of any continuum, that holds ontogeny and phylogeny in the same point sets are(can be) bound by the form of a circle (possibly of chromosomes (per gene (sic?)(by subset)(I mentioned the first time with you))where algebra is different than geometry but I can not post at the rate you seem to insist on, givin my work schedule. It is not or never too late when it is a good idea (such as creative (infinte)form-making).