Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 83 (8950 total)
35 online now:
Diomedes, Faith, jar, JonF, PaulK, Tangle, Theodoric (7 members, 28 visitors)
Newest Member: Mikee
Post Volume: Total: 867,340 Year: 22,376/19,786 Month: 939/1,834 Week: 9/430 Day: 9/63 Hour: 0/3


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Creationists Cannot Define "Kind".
Budikka
Inactive Member


Message 31 of 69 (37325)
04-19-2003 11:40 AM
Reply to: Message 28 by NosyNed
04-17-2003 12:24 AM


So you basically want the evolutionists to lay down, roll over and let creationists continue to have it all their own way in debate, being able to blather endless, unsupported inanities without being challenged? This is what will happen if they are not challenged, and this is what will happen if we idly stand by and let them get away with avoiding the issues while pretending it is the scientists who are doing that. Pussy footing around their failures is exactly what they want us to do.

I'm not on that band wagon. Creationists are demanding equal time and they are in-your-face. Just look at web sites like Kent Hovind's and Fred Williams'. I don't see any empathy and fairness there. I don't see a good attitude there.

I didn't start out this way. I was forced to get down into the trenches by the creationists' own tactics. They are the ones who insisted upon this battlefield, not me.

The very existence of creationism is an insult to the real hardworking scientists who have spent the last 140 years carefully building the framework of what we enjoy in the sciences of cosmology and biology.

It looks like the four quotes you offered were all from my response to Joralex - who you may have noted has completely failed to not only answer the two questions, but even to address them. I note that you did not respond to Joralex and discuss his attitude.

If he had actually *attempted* an honest answer to the question, he would have got a completely different response from me. He would have been taken seriously and debated with, but I will not countenance garbage spewed out by creationists in place of intelligent and supported argument. Nor will I resect a creationist who comes into a thread that has been set up for one purpose and tries to usurp it as a pulpit for his own purposes.

NN: "That might be almost all of them. It seems to me that they may well all be true. And I understand how annoying these people are. But it just feels bad. I think it also drives some of the more sensitive ones of them away and that's no fun.'

Well since not a single creationist has actually attempted to seriously address the two questions (not here or in the two to three years I have been asking these same questions on the Internet), we will never know. My purpose is to get them answered and to keep this topic as free as possible of the inevitable garbage with which creationists addictively lard up these threads. (Case in point, Joralex's attempt to pervert this thread. Another classic example (although who knows if he is a creationist or not) is the mindless pretentious adolescent babble of Brad McFall, which offers nothing of value whatsoever with regard to the two questions upon which this thread is founded).

NN: "The committed creationists probably don't have the courage (and in many cases the intellect) to really ever grapple with these topics."

That goes without saying! But it is amply supported by the lack of competent responses even to questions as simple as the ones posed here.

NN: "Others may have some chance of learning something but not if you piss them off."

They're not going to learn a thing if their side offers no competent argument. The opportunity for learning comes from discussion, not from avoiding an exchange.

First of all, Joralex was completely off topic. I am not going to allow this thread to be derailed. Secondly, his approach was insulting. He offered no means of learning anything about the topic.

His whole approach was typical of the cowardly stance creationists take. They never directly respond to evolutionist challenges. Instead, they side-step them and throw out a barrage of supposedly unanswered questions, then pretend the pretence that these questions are unanswered means that evolution is dead.

Fred Williams was a classic example of this in the debate I had with him on his own web site. Kent Hovind is another classic example in that he doesn't even dare debate me on the Internet.

Creationists are the ultimate in freeloading. They want to do no work of their own, but incestuously steal each other's material (which they rarely attribute), and then misquote and misappropriate the work of evolutionists, and lie about evolution. They want to avoid, like the plague, actually grappling with the serious challenges they face. Instead they wallow in negativism, constantly whining that evolution doesn't get it done in complete oblivion that their own "science" never could get it done and doesn't even pretend to do so.

"Remember they have their entire world view, life (eternal even) and everything all tied up in this. It is understandable that they should be more emotional. You don't have to let it be that important."

It *is* that important, because if they are allowed to go their way unchallenged, we will be teaching creation in science classes and our entire world, not just our world view, but our entire world, will be back in the dark ages.

Now I am not going to pursue this any further or respond to Brad Mcfall's drivel because it is once again getting away from the creationist inability to answer two simple questions which are fundamental to establishing their belief system as a science.

Whilst this thread was moribund, it stood as mute testimony to creationist impotence. Now it is getting bloated with irrelevancies, the creationists can blindly pretend that the topic is being addressed. Well, let them enjoy their dream for a while. They will wake up with a shock before so very long.

Budikka


This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by NosyNed, posted 04-17-2003 12:24 AM NosyNed has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by NosyNed, posted 04-19-2003 12:07 PM Budikka has not yet responded

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8868
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003
Member Rating: 7.2


Message 32 of 69 (37327)
04-19-2003 12:07 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by Budikka
04-19-2003 11:40 AM


Easy
I'm on your side and agree with all the statments about them you've made. But if you keep your tone at a different level the uncommitted (if there are any) might respond better. That's all.

Boy, it's difficult that I know. They are such annoying jerks at times! (am I allowed that if not directed at a specific individual? )


This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by Budikka, posted 04-19-2003 11:40 AM Budikka has not yet responded

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 3377 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 33 of 69 (37332)
04-19-2003 1:28 PM
Reply to: Message 30 by Budikka
04-19-2003 11:07 AM


question without apparent answer
Sorry BUD but I have to disagree with your TYPO of "aa" and purely for scientific reasons haveing to do with the COMPREHENSION of evolutionary theory itself. Please try simply to state your case and not call people names or letters for that matter. A misspelling is forgiven.

You say "creationists" have not been able to define kind but I kindly have disagreed with you. If you read evolutionist stuff relative to this very question there is a sense in the literature that this attempt to come up with a DEFINTION is just a anti-evolutionist trick or tactic but I, Brad McFall, do not intend it this way so that before you site me on the Fisher/Wright TENSION which the evolutionists I know and not me see it as and call me a letter whether available by inbreeding in time or not please realize that such naming of species will not be tolerated on this board at least for much of a time that any bio change evolutioanry or creationist can occurr. I simply warn you what the admins can inforce.

I had earlier IN THIS THREAD, suggested by title use the term "cell collective" as the rubric underwhich I kind COULD BE DEFINED. This is an evolutionary concept from TOPOBIOLOGY but if I, brad, was to conintue in this thread or another I would in terms the best Huxleyite would adhere to use the character to show in like kind that squaring any kind with mendelian constancy is possible. I did not find you in this mood but do not say I did not suggest no way to understand the kind.

I even explictly distanced my self from Richard Lewontin's interpretation DIALECTICALLY and I feel somewhat confident that the pair in any legend he would use to discuss morphology whehter of marsupials or mammals is not the one I AM USING.

Perhaps I need a clarification from the admins that we have reached a state where there are polarizaed discussions going on ONLY with bipolar topic subjects??? Please understand this thread-head and admins that is a question much like is the whole NO ANSWERS IN GENESIS site only permitted to post there is NOO answer in the book of Genesis. If that is what you meant that I understand your question but as even an evlolutionist if cellcollectives rigorusly exist then even the evolutionist has to wonder if indeed the baraminologist had not already used some such MATERIALITY to define something that are not natural kinds and yet ARE NOT supernatural.

I am not a fool. Some help admins??

Can one only post on the INABiLIITY"" here when there are plenty of capable things that suggest that such is NOT what is able to be continued?

If threads themselves have even some such double polarization going on in the context of biological change I understand this both for MENDEL and for FISHER(vsWRIGHTorHALDANE) without saying what the creationist (my self ) thinks and so it would be eminently unfair in yet another generally interpreted as evolutionist(Croizat) sense and by fiat excluding another point of view for which I have always felt was not the rasion de existence of this board and policy of Percy himself.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by Budikka, posted 04-19-2003 11:07 AM Budikka has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by John, posted 04-19-2003 1:31 PM Brad McFall has responded
 Message 39 by Budikka, posted 04-20-2003 5:08 PM Brad McFall has responded

  
John
Inactive Member


Message 34 of 69 (37333)
04-19-2003 1:31 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by Brad McFall
04-19-2003 1:28 PM


Re: question without apparent answer
Wow... Brad... that was crystal clear. What happened?

------------------
www.hells-handmaiden.com


This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by Brad McFall, posted 04-19-2003 1:28 PM Brad McFall has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by Brad McFall, posted 04-19-2003 1:41 PM John has not yet responded
 Message 36 by NosyNed, posted 04-19-2003 3:21 PM John has not yet responded

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 3377 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 35 of 69 (37334)
04-19-2003 1:41 PM
Reply to: Message 34 by John
04-19-2003 1:31 PM


Re: question without apparent answer
guess I got hit by light-NING

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by John, posted 04-19-2003 1:31 PM John has not yet responded

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8868
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003
Member Rating: 7.2


Message 36 of 69 (37339)
04-19-2003 3:21 PM
Reply to: Message 34 by John
04-19-2003 1:31 PM


Clear?
"crystal clear..."

Is is? I read this one. It almost felt like I was going to "get it" but ... nope, didn't again.

Could you translate this one then? Please?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by John, posted 04-19-2003 1:31 PM John has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by Brad McFall, posted 04-19-2003 5:54 PM NosyNed has responded

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 3377 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 37 of 69 (37350)
04-19-2003 5:54 PM
Reply to: Message 36 by NosyNed
04-19-2003 3:21 PM


Re: Clear?
Are you spiritual? I was confused by Bill Clinton myself.

The problem that may not be clear is called Woodger's Taxonomic Paradox that my MATERIAL way of concieveing from topobiology ?may? resolve some problems I but maybe you do not have with Huxley that may or may not bear on the topic in this thread but have to do with the details of bio-change that may be understood with one word "Bauplan" but that invovles issues of descent to which in the geometry of the arithemetic I may not be able to count let alone to more than tangentially approve of.

The point was that I had added** content that was slandered. That is all. best Brad. There is a difference between those who try to think with infinity whether purely theologically and those that insist on only orienting thoughts of bio-change from evolutionary perspectives.

My own motivation is to figure out if or how to get energy from the constant nature of forms across time and thus I am less concerned with the issue of species change than species stability.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by NosyNed, posted 04-19-2003 3:21 PM NosyNed has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by NosyNed, posted 04-19-2003 6:16 PM Brad McFall has not yet responded

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8868
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003
Member Rating: 7.2


Message 38 of 69 (37353)
04-19-2003 6:16 PM
Reply to: Message 37 by Brad McFall
04-19-2003 5:54 PM


Re: Clear?
Thanks for something salty. As best as I can tell this latest post isn't a translation of the previous one but an additional pile of words.

I wasn't asking you to translate, in any case. I was hoping someone else could. If you want to try I'll offer some feedback.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by Brad McFall, posted 04-19-2003 5:54 PM Brad McFall has not yet responded

  
Budikka
Inactive Member


Message 39 of 69 (37402)
04-20-2003 5:08 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by Brad McFall
04-19-2003 1:28 PM


This thread is aimed at creationists. There were two questions. Here they are:

1. What is the definition of "kind" as used in the Biblical creation and flood stories? What is the scientific support for your answer? Give detailed examples of these "kinds".

My contention is that there is no creationist who can scientifically define "kind" and there is no consensus among creationists on any sort of definition.

2. What is the mechanism which prevents one "kind" from varying into another "kind"?

If you are not a creationist responding to these two challenges, nor responding to a creationist's attempt at answering (neither of which you are), then you need to find your own thread to blather in.

Please refer to the rules for posting on these boards before you blunder into any more threads.

Can I make it any more clear than this?

Budikka


This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by Brad McFall, posted 04-19-2003 1:28 PM Brad McFall has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by Brad McFall, posted 04-21-2003 12:44 PM Budikka has responded

  
lpetrich
Inactive Member


Message 40 of 69 (37422)
04-20-2003 11:18 PM


History of Taxonomy?
I wonder if anyone has put together a history of taxonomic schemes; I could not find very much on the Internet.

Here was Aristotle's classification of the animal kingdom:

Blooded animals:
- Viviparous quadrupeds (mammals)
- Birds
- Oviparous quadrupeds (reptiles, amphibians)
- Fish
- Whales and dolphins
Bloodless animals:
- Cephalopods
- Crustaceans
- Insects (true insects, arachnids, myriapods)
- Shelled animals
- Plant-animals (zoophytes) (sea anemones, etc.)

Linnaeus's classification of the animal kingdom was similar in spirit, though explicitly hierarchical and more detailed.

His classification of the plant kingdom, however, was much more artificial -- he classified flowering plants by stamen count. It was convenient for identification if not much else, and later biologists worked out a proper "Linnean" classification of plants.

Linnaeus's system we remember on account of its being biologically "reasonable"; there were several others proposed in past centuries.

I recall from somewhere that 18th cy. naturalist Buffon proposed classifying by usefulness to humanity, with the cow coming the closest to our species.

And in the early 19th cy. a certain Swainson proposed a "quinary" system, which was a hierarchical system that used groups of 5 arranged in circles. This seems almost impossibly forced, and it was strongly criticized by Swainson's contemporaries.

[This message has been edited by lpetrich, 04-20-2003]


  
lpetrich
Inactive Member


Message 41 of 69 (37426)
04-20-2003 11:52 PM


That digression aside, the main criterion I've seen from creationists is interfertility. A set of all organisms that are interfertile with each other form a "created kind" or a "baramin". However, there are ambiguous cases, such as ring species, where neighboring populations are interfertile, except for one spot. This has a natural explanation in evolution: an ancestral population spread in a ring shape until the two ends ran into each other.

A similar phenomenon happens in domestic dogs, where the largest and the smallest breeds cannot crossbreed, but are nevertheless connected by a large number of intermediate-sized breeds.

Pre-Darwinian biologists tended to believe that each individual species was a separate creation; however, what was and was not a species was sometimes difficult to decide, as Darwin himself had noted. He pointed to such ambiguous species as evidence of evolution.

More recent creationists have attempted to get around that problem by supposing a "created kind" to be some larger grouping, but even sites on "baraminology" do not give a clear idea of what "created kinds" there are.


  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 3377 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 42 of 69 (37450)
04-21-2003 12:44 PM
Reply to: Message 39 by Budikka
04-20-2003 5:08 PM


in progress
On replacing the biological notion of homology with a new transfinite genetics or preliminary quotations in preperation to JUDGE the alternative of Collet apparently contrary Thom that either the continuum is not well-ordered OR the 3 infinite proper subsets and inversion of the natural ordering of two of these substets exist (aka can Lewontin's coupled differential equation be disqualified by an answer to inspection as Collet requested by an intergration in adjudication.). I will accomplish this by talking MORE than Bertrand Russel who in PRINCIPLES OF MATHEMATICS delimted the worked thru creation/evolution confusion to the harmonic tune of "The kind which belongs to the rational numbers, and consists in having a term between any two we have agreed to call compactness; and to avoid confusion, I shall never again speak of this kind of continuity."
but we shall code the polymorphous set whether encoded or incodingj to the sound of the compaction that definitionally is continuous in the application of nanotechnology to mole bio with RNA between any DNA
for we shall find while testing Wolfram's NEW KIND OF SCIENCE that biodiversity informatic IT and bioinfomatics platforms will more efficiently become integrable during this judgement. There will be also criticism independent of the length of prolonging beyond Russel due to concommittant Macrothermodynamcis or better statistical mechanics of the dual translation and transcription into adherence, coherence and inherence classes for Haldanes putting of Wright use of geometric progreesion witll not be discarded apriror nor out of hand. This will become increasinlgy apparent in the lower limit of biological discouse as it will be herein stipulated that Kervran's potentially weak force biological transmutations will not be considered real in the sense of Cantor wanted religously or not to distinguish real and reel numbers no matter whehter one agrees with me or GOuld on Mayr etc as we mrshall with Cantor and Russell but agaisnt Dauben and others the non-existence of the infintiesmals as far as Wolfram's analgogy of natural selection and engineering goes (Immunology has the competence to make it practical as to the extent of LOGICal disagreement IN BIOLOGY) with linear numbers (no matter the "fractal" but with WOODGERS logic of the bauplan) learning to seperate and keep seperate IN COMPUTERS geometric and arithmetic statistics (of biometry)

Huxley-Evolution:The Modern Synthesis Chp3 Mendelism and Evolution 1. Mutation and Selection "The essence of Mendelian heredity is that it is particulate. The genetic constitution is composed of discrete units. Each kind of unit can exist in a number of discrete forms. The hereditary transmission of any one kind o funit is more or less independent being a partial one, concerned with the phenomenon oflinkage." p47

Dauben-p293 "Cantor had never been content with a purely mechanical physics. Above all else, it seemed destined to promote materialism which he attributed in large measure to Issac Newton and to Newton's faulty metaphyiscs.74 As an antidote, Cantor sought what he called an organic theory of nature determined with the same mathematical precision as Newton had brought to his materialistic, mechanical philosophy. The key to this new organic approach was to be found, Cantor believed, in his transfinite numbers:
The elements of the set M in question are to be thought of as seperate; in the intellectual copy of M^_, which I call its order type, the units are nevertheless joined into an organism. In a certain sense these order types may be regarded as a composite of matter and form; the conceptually distinct units contained therein comprise the matter, while the order of these elements corresponds to their form.75"

Quantity
Mendelp8 "Henceforth in this paper those characters which are transmitted entire, or almost unchanged in the hybridization, and therefore in themselves consitute the characters of the hybrid, are termed dominant, and those which become latent in the process recessive. The expression "recessive" has been chosen because the characters thereby designated withdraw or entirely disappear in the hybrids, but nevertheless reappear unchanged in the their progeny, as wioll be demonstrated later on."

This reappearence may be signaled by the collection of ordinals forming a cardinal apparent in the progeny. However to be as fair as possible in the end to Fisher one must either actuall discount Huxley account of mendelizing gene diffences in the absolute (by failure ot analyize with the simply ordered sets?)or in particular some sematics lexically determinatble of his claim historically about the dropping of Medel's characters being false. This is a false fact in evolutionary law when not also simply the failure BOTH to have the French and recent Englsih translations of Cantor distinguish the real and reel numbers and the failure of geneticits to work the EXTERNAL variable no matter the approximation of the data to 3:1 to INFINITE I N I T E G E R S thus it may simply be that Huxley took Mendel's NOTION of REapperence of the recessive (defined and termed by Mendel) in the F2 as a PHSYICAL PRIOR disapperence WHERE if an infinite and not a finite integers rules the statical result is never THOUGHT as SPATIAL removal. This gets back to Russel notion that the SPACE would at least on Cantors notion be "religously" different and defendable with transfinites no matter the natura/naturatta distinction Dauben quite scholarly remanded BETWEEN philsophy and mathtmeatics so if molecualr biology can use continiuty of the rational power no matter the response to COllet with Thom or aginst Lewontins non-use of catastrophe theory in working in the EVOLUTION in topobiology then Huxley's HISTORICAL claim about genetics would be showable in a court of genetic paradigms to be the false fact I have already indicated it is.

A cardinal characterization of the hybrid thenleads to a search of the cardinals N0 , N1, N2,... to find an accessible one that the ordinals generated from this number created a numbering ( that is the difference of finite and infinite if you do not know this theology) thru the sexual union of ordinals that generates a next cardinal distributing simply ordered sets epigentically in the offspring as a form of the ordinals per ordertype.
As the sign Mendel used was A + 2Aa + a somehow the transfinite nimber in this taxa must have twice as much ordertype formation than the format of the cardinals and ordinals involved no matter the infinite symbol for the simply ordered sets involved in the well-ordering as expressed by the actually finite # reproductions per bio-change to some other well-ordering.

Quality

Mendel's Experiment with Hybrids of other Species of Platns @ "In Pisum it is known that the characters of the flower- and seed- colour present themselves unchanged in the first and further generations, and that the offspring of the hybrids display exclusively the one or the other of the characters of the original stocks. It iws otherwise in the experiment we are consdering" that this notion of Cantor's ASSUMPTION that every set could be well-ordered.
Is the difference of stress of cardinal numbers from the Grundlagen to the Beitrage and failure to

Magnitude

Mendel- "These two experiments are important for the determination of the average ratios, because with a smaller number of experimental plants they show that the very considerable fluctuations may occur. In counting the seeds, also, especially in Expt.2, some care is requisite, since in some of the seeds of many plants the green colour of the albumen is less developed, and at first may be easily overlooked. The cause of this partial disappearence of the gree colouring has not connection with the hybrid-character of the plants, as it likewise occurs in the parental variety. This peculiarity [bleaching] is also confined to the individual and is not inherited by the offspring. In luxuriant plants this appearance was frequently noted.
Dauben - "Again, since there was no largest element, one could imagine another number representing the entireity, in order, of numbers w+v. Denoting this entirety by 2w, it was possible to continue further:
2w, 2w+1,2w+2,...2w+v,...
In attempting ot characterize this mode of generation, Cantor allowed that w could be regarded as a limit which the natural numbers N (increasing monotonically) approcahed but never reached.^10 Lest the analogy seem entirely mistaken, he added that by this he meant only to emphasize the character of w taken as the first whole number following next after all the numbers nEN. The idea of w as a limit served to satisfy its role as an ordianl, the smallestg integer larger than any integer nEN.
This then was the second principle of generation. Whenever a set of numbers could be considered as limitless in extent, new transfinite numbers could always be generated by positing the existence of some least number larger than any in the given class. Cantor expressed the essential feature of this second principle of generation in terms of tis logical function:
I call it the second principle of generation of real [realen] whole numbers and define them more precisely: if any definite succession of defined whole real numbers exists, for which there is no largest, then a new number is created by means of the second principle of generation which is thought of as the limit of those numbers, i.e., it is defined the next larger of all of them.^11
By succesive application of the two principles it was always possible to produce new numbers and alsways in a completely determined succession in their most general formulation, such numbers could be wrtten as follows:^12
5.1) vow^u + v1w^(u-1)+...+vu."

Towards use of this transfinite presentation to better the goal of electronic species publishing by incorporting mutiatonal taxonomy phentically into classificatory biology
Huxley - "The particulate nature of inheritance enables calcualtions to be made as to the proportions of offspirng of didfernt types in different generations afters a xross. Like the atomic theory in chemisty, it si the basis of qunatiative treatment."
Mendelp34 It is otherwise with the exceptional cases cited. Gartner confesses even that the exact determination whether a form bears a greater resemblance to one or the other of the two upon the subjective point of view of the observer. Another circumstance could, however, contribute to render the results fluctuating and uncertain, despite the most careful observation and differentiation. For the experiments, plants were mostly used which rank good species and are differentiated by a large number of characters. for the experiments, plants were mostly used which rank as good species and are differentiated by a large number of characters. In addition to the sharply defined characters, where it is a question of greater or lesser similarity, those characters must also be taken into account which are often difficult to define in words, but yet suffice, as every plant specialist knows, to give the forms a peculiar appearance."
Dauben 132 Cantor reinforced his study of the philosophical status of his new numbers with a simple analysis of the familiar and accepted natural whole numbers. For both finite and infinite integers, they could be considered in essentially two ways. Insofar as they were well-defined in the mind, distinct and different from all other components of thought, they served "in a connectional or relational sense to modify the substance of thoughjt itself This reality which the whole numbers as expressions or images of processes in the world of physical phenopmena. This aspect of the whole numbers, be they finite or infinite, he termed transsubjective or tansient.
Cantor asseerted the reality of both the phyeical and ideal aspects of the number concept. These dual realityes, in fact, were always found in a joined sense, insofar as a concept possessing any immanent reality always had a transient reality as well. It is one of the most difficult problems of metaphysics to determine the nature of the connection between the two.

Recapitualtion--Huxley-"For ordinary natrual selection involving a simple dominant with a selective advantage of 1 in 1,000 (i.e. where the ratio of dominant to recessive changes from 1 to 1.001 in each generation) it will take nearly 5,000 generations to increase the proportion of the dominant from 1 to 50 percent, and nearly 12,000 more to raise it to 99 percent. For the early stages of selection of a single mutation which constant effects, when the tgeen is still very rare, dominants can spread much more rapidly than pure recessives, unless a certain degree of inbreeding occurs."

Andthus we have explained why Provine thought that no frcitional light between Fisher and Wright resulted in the kind of advance in thinking Mayr thought would have to occurr if the bag of beans meant anything for Boston Tea Party and as I had analyzed this situation before I had:Toward saving web generations my first analysis of this synthesis was without Corinthians: Acts:1-2; JOEL
Mendel*should* (no)(sic!) have expected 1:2 ratios with a chi square p=.99993 but rUther ("farther", further, futher) some deviation/clinamen addition due to small number of seeds, chance chromosome events and yet what Mendel said, was; "The dominant character can have here a double signification vz. that of a parental character, or hybrid-character. In which of the two significations it appears in each seperate case can only be determined by the following generation." (The translation^* said "determined" not "obtained" and is thus in fidelity to any conception of induction Mendel may have possessed) that when generalizing the computation to maximal universality no matter the equivalent sophistication this signification is dissolved (by so-called Provine "continuous diffusive effects")

The faliure of the mathematics of biology seems to have accurred wholy beacuse Fisher sided with Mendel's choice of the Cardinal while It increasingly looks to me like the more coordinated view of Wright (shifting balance) is likely to come out on top when the evolution not development aspects of topobiology are squared with development not evolution view of Mendel. There still is the reveresiblity when BOTH reverse lexicographic encoded polymorphic traits and entropy per any 2nd law of therm acutality in Macrothermodynacis is dynamized IN THE SYMBOLS (extra Gibbs term etc) outstanding in the grammer which either indicates an grammetological error on Mendel's part with USE of double signification, time for more use beyond Faraday's "bipolarization" of cause electronically and electrically flexible with Newton's "spirit" else any metrics involved in Einstein's rod and clock communityis acutlly compassed at least biologically.
- - - - - - - - - = = = - - - - - - - -- ---
But this only seems to establish that Collet's discrete correction by Thom if it exists in more truth is only that panthesism rules the continuum NOT (so) well-ordered no matter the application in biology.

Species' relation to the Ecosystem by answer to the above question prior to masters' review.

Cardinal + 4(1/2 ordertype) + ordinal= Mendel hybrid (baramincally or not?)

I use 4(1/2)=2 because Mendel noted spotting in progeny absent in progenitoprs and sister outp group compared IN COLOR.

Daubenp220 "Neither artithemetic nor the concept of number should be tied to any narrow domain of particulars - point sets,for example.

I assert that even if there were two reversed lexicograpic molecular biological ordering of the gene code available these would not even be constitutive in these point sets. Is not a point set of the collection localities of the hybrids' geographic distribution beyond the garden but a matter merely of the finite number of 1/2ed ordertypes between the distance isolation by distance (Wright) created multiplied by an integer (such as those Weyl asserts for aij; p100 between latice bases multipole Four in the same question Edelman opens both his own book TOPOBIOLOGY and Shcrodinger's WHAT IS LIFE??

Is this not a genetic basis fot the deductive biogeography Croizat sought for Panbioegoraphy but is yet to show expression with the Fourier Math of Cantor's ascending P SYMBOLS interms of Croizat "topography" but made metric in Wright's isolation by distnace reactived in transfinite terms?

References
Collet, F. What is the missing axiom in our trying of a well-ordering on the Continuum? in Bio-Math Bio- Mathematique & Bio-Theorique Tome XXXVIII 3`eme trimestre 2001 (N^o 151)
Dauben, Joseph Warren 1990 Georg Cantor His Mathematics and Philosophy of the Infinite Princeton University Press, Princeton New Jersey
Gould, Stephen Jay, 2002 The Structure of Evolutionary Theory The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press Cambridge Massachusetts
Huxley, Julian 1964 Evolution: The Modern Synthesis John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York
Lewontin, Richard 2000 The Triple Helix Gene, Organism and Environment Harvard University Press Cambridge, Massachusetts
Mendel, Gregor 1965 Experiments in Plant Hybridisation Harvard University Press Cambridge
Russel, Bertrand 1903? Principles of Mathematics W.W. Norton & Company INC, New York
Weyl,Herman 1952 Symmetry Princeton Univeristy Press, Princeton New Jersey
Wolfram Stephen 2002 A New Kind of Science Wolfram Media, Inc. Champaign Ill.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by Budikka, posted 04-20-2003 5:08 PM Budikka has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by Budikka, posted 04-22-2003 9:13 PM Brad McFall has not yet responded

  
booboocruise
Inactive Member


Message 43 of 69 (37503)
04-22-2003 12:21 AM
Reply to: Message 20 by NosyNed
04-14-2003 11:16 AM


Re: Cats and?
Interesting enough, there is a little disagreement between some of the creationists on the 'kind' debate. i personally believe that there was more than one single cat on the ark (maybe two or three 'kinds' that have branched out between the larger and smaller species and subspecies). Well, Dr. Kent Hovind (i know a lot of people disagree with him on some things but he is a very educated man) seems to put one single dog as the ancestor for all the dog species. Dr. Ken Ham has EACH species on the ark (maybe some species branched off, like between the white tiger of India and the Siberian orange tiger). Well, i would tend to say that maybe all the larger dogs (huskies, retrievers, labs, german sheppards...) probably have been cross-bred and varied from one or two ancestral 'kinds' as found on the ark. Then the smaller ones (terriers and poodles) adapted and bred from a different pair of dogs found on the ark, but certainly the chua'a and the st. bernard are not of common descent, as indicated by evolution theory.
I'm not saying that this theory is 100% provable, and I'm not saying that I AM right, but I think that this aspect should be looked into by some of the creationists out there.

In Christ,
Booboo


This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by NosyNed, posted 04-14-2003 11:16 AM NosyNed has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by NosyNed, posted 04-22-2003 12:51 AM booboocruise has not yet responded
 Message 45 by crashfrog, posted 04-22-2003 1:46 AM booboocruise has not yet responded
 Message 48 by Brad McFall, posted 04-22-2003 12:36 PM booboocruise has not yet responded
 Message 53 by Budikka, posted 04-22-2003 9:24 PM booboocruise has not yet responded

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8868
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003
Member Rating: 7.2


Message 44 of 69 (37507)
04-22-2003 12:51 AM
Reply to: Message 43 by booboocruise
04-22-2003 12:21 AM


Making it up.
Ok, you've made up your own idea. Which none of the creation "scientists" have published anything in agreement with. You've given some rough examples which is a beginning. However, you have yet to define "kind".

It is, afterall, supposed to be some kind of hard and fast, immutable thing with hard and fast boundaries that can not be crossed. What you've posted sounds pretty fuzzy around the edges so it doesn't appear to meet the criteria that the creationist kind would have to have.

Try again.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by booboocruise, posted 04-22-2003 12:21 AM booboocruise has not yet responded

  
crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 45 of 69 (37511)
04-22-2003 1:46 AM
Reply to: Message 43 by booboocruise
04-22-2003 12:21 AM


Re: Cats and?
Then the smaller ones (terriers and poodles) adapted and bred from a different pair of dogs found on the ark, but certainly the chua'a and the st. bernard are not of common descent, as indicated by evolution theory.

Are you aware that, given reprductive "help" (artifical insemination techniques) those two dogs are interfertile? I think somewhere you may have asserted that "kinds" can't reproduce with each other. (Forgive me if you made no such statement, but it's a common definition of kinds which I would be suprised if you disagreed with. Please tell me if you do.)

So let me ask you, with what evidence do you suggest they are not of common decent?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by booboocruise, posted 04-22-2003 12:21 AM booboocruise has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 46 by NosyNed, posted 04-22-2003 11:28 AM crashfrog has responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019