Destroying Darwinism

And the recent chapter in WHEN CELLS DIE p19 ( I will write a book review when I am finished with the "eye" chapter) confirms S's position in general though I have to meet this position effectually e-e Y?, "Natural selection does not act directly on genes, but on the phenotypes they achieve...Natural selection sanctioned by death is a process of competition...This paradox, as previously mentioned, renders difficult (and counterintuitive) any reasoning on programmed cell death in single-celled organisms in terms of natural selection."Wiley-Liss 19998 more later.

S, do you take "competition" then to the refractance of light itself which might as well be thought of in Newton's terms in terms of biology which I can discuss further in terms of death WITHOUT competition due to the INTERVAL of tansient fits ONCE ACTUAL INFINTIY be provided for for NS could by CELL DEATH summed (in theory) even extend to the QM level but like the others I have summarily confused precisely what distance this is you wish the board to run with.Darwin's view seems to me to be wholly/largely interms of competition on the individual organism level but the catastrophically seems to me that by working on the molecules from the phenomenology of the cell the juggernaout of Gould and Dawkins changed issue of individuals by extremes of selection levels for any heirarchy MAY indeed result purely from the physical which Gould mistook, in my view, for "physics" envy regardless with SLOW time the neo-Darwinian contingency can continue to enter into this discussion but unless you also specify WHY THE PHYSICAL IS PROBABLY not the biological in this case those of us with some real good grasp of the biology involved can continue to be confused even say if one wanted and does disagree with me for instance. Weinberg made it clear to me and so he would to others that physicsits have not as of yet had any interest in the path changes of elementary particles prior to Wolfram and have a position that BOTH uses Darwinian Contingency and any Node for the space of what I referred to under word "interval" above is actually making an evolutionary position that not only is more unassiable than a belief in GOD makes creationism look VERY good. Which is good in my book and I would hope the life of others but I KNOW that my position is not the norm. Maybe times will change.

My guess is that S, thinks that variation implies at worst heterogenity and at best some solid (i.e. impenetribility) and because it will be a rare Kervran biogist to propose that organisms can split the atom better than WWwildman he simply reverts to saying this "description" has low relative frequency but as you noted YOu had said NS "without variation". It IS true that we ACTUALLY artifically select IN THE PLENIC CONTINUUM and never in ONLY a man-made isolated set of nature. But it would be time not to speak of S's posts but the post itself that is in THIS sod to remain true to a material that may be fluid rather as I suspect it will even be genetically found to be but that indeed is more guess than science.I have not seen really any really good assement of even IF we need use effective population size as it seemed to me to be but two LETTERS that Wright used (nandM?) and the point with or without Syam...appears NOT as you noted in terms of populations to not depend but on what I am thinking of calling the geoartihemetic confused psychology for simply parsing ones words with a veiw on STASIS etc will not avail the continued probe of the existence of the non-political BECAUSE non-economic direction that conservation for instance needs even if not a part of some "sustainable" movement.Richard Lewotin "miss" diagnosed to Soctish Economics in my opninion the lack of development of topobiology precisely because CELL DEATH itself was not SELECTED in some as yet to be revealed if not concealed S-sense. But what are my two buff nicks worth anyway?

Now you say "also" but also to what? that we do not yet have any data to support that Peter said "one". I agree correctly without need to correct him but you -S- seem to miss cashfrog's point for a "pressure" as Maxwell understood it need not apriori be any choice but rather the physico-chemistry of repulsions and attractions. I had sent a packet to Will Provine to hope to clear up this kind of a conflicted attidute that probabilism leads in ANY first instance (why is the 2nd law a probablistic study and not based on Hamiltonians etc etc) that DID NOT seperated reversible from nonreversible processes. Cantor's notion of a reveresed fundamental series provides something other than the mathematical challeges to evolution thought in terms of "paramters" as it has NOT been instantiated in any population and yet You S could readJust had a thought on some of Syamsu's misunderstandings.'Survival of the fittest' (excuse the ancient and inaccurate
term) does not mean 'there can be only one'.Take ten populations in the same ecosystem where all have traits
that help them survive, but within each population some are
better adapted than others. Each species will be predominated
by those best fit critters ... but not to the complete exclusion
of the not-so-fit (not at first anyhow).All the different populations survive (some using photosynthesis
some not for example) because of their individual relaitonships
with the ecosystem in which they all reside. Some of those
relationships may be with one another (e.g. predator-prey,
parasitic, saprophitic), but there are also any number of other
factors invovled in the daily grind to survive.to indicate that Gould's reliance IN ANY PROBALISM(S) on the light of Fuytuma's Light to extend the thought in bio-change is NOT correct but that Peter is...This would on my understanding me Wright's not Fisher's insistence of a active gobal trial and error process and beyond Peter I can EASILY read historically but not yet scientifically Boscovich's "dead forces" in a physical but not necessarily biological PRESSURE of Maxwell as part of Fisher's notion of THE SEWELL WRIGHT EFFECT and that would be biology that apart from the data you await IS comprehensible perhaps if only I try again in my less than perspicuous courseness.

{Duplicate of previous message - Content deleted - Adminnemooseus}[This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 05-30-2003]

Will you please NAME these "biologists"? or is that proprietary in the sense that Lewontin did not blush in using a PseudoNHIM when writing to the Times Book Review?of NY??? Sure one can take Eddintion's PHILOSOPHY but who are the BIOLOGISTS?

Thank you, I will think about this.

Would that not depend on a DIFFERENCE Faraday and Physical LInes of force of Muller clumped morphospace for any difference of mere and thermal contact which formally can do with or without variation as to a RESOLVED tension between Fisher and Wright. Then both could be correct, YES? COUNTING ions or photons in an electromagentic correlation with mutation would materially differ not at all as regarding your criticism of the current employment of the bIOLOGy (aka Popper) of natural selection for angular MOMENTum is still available for incidental work should the statistic bear more to the right or left in the distribution interpreted as a "variant" or not.

S's link refers to "what is generally the case" and yet I have never been aware such is a reliable in claim in any biology, the best is to say that evolution is generally the case...but that is what in and of it self that Creationists themselves can and do challenge. There is a physical effect in the literature of Faraday ONLY finding "bipolarity" which can be reified to any geography and my guess is that this is at fault in any confusion instead.

I am going to "duck' duck goose Out of this thread because I, BSM, doubt the actually thinking with BOTH phenotypes and genotypes for an absolute thought that would have potentially answered the same. My guess is that molecular discussions have broadend the type of statistics that are needed for any view to take the cake but elaborating either the symbols of segegation or substantial numerical taxonomy in terms of the clinamen implict deviantly would be circularly difficult as has been percieved inter alia herein.

Richard Kline never hooked me into Derrida's circle that begged off science any way and what was done in Ithaca was unspeakable for in this biology never used topology. On second wave- bye. This is not a text message