I'm heading for Robin's post rather than yours here of specifically
physical differences no matter the amount of information fed into the gene pool. Perhaps I just misunderstand your notion of "transition" or how we define "species" but I nearly have my whole poisiton worked out below. Polishing to follow.
warning=scroll down at your own risk. if for some reason you all only want the finished, and not the preview ok, cut it out.
Is there any resemblance between creationism and evolutionism? Everyone has heard of the joke of someone being a monkey’s uncle. Is there any truth to that quip or is it simply light made of our nation’s founding fathers’ desire to escape religious persecution? Does one side of the issue posses only a distinct concept while the other a complete one? Is similarity here of any consequence or is it but an unapproachable standard marred with prejudice, corrupting rather than progressing each others’ proper domains? In the realm of pedagogy evolutionists do not have the pedants right of thoroughness because their own teaching is subject to human law but conversely creationists must permit philosophical theologians aesthetic access to any reasonable force of law whether natural or juridical such that error possibly interpolated from either position in the contribution of death to life sides with neither but elevates the ratiocinium hybridum of logic to the instructress of the missing organon popularization has provided as either a distinct torchbearer or a complete trainbearer and thus the first figure of the common contrast is without suspicion despite the usual suspects.
Although there are many sources of creationism in America, ICR stands out beyond most. It ”s “The Modern Creation Trilogy” by father and son team , Henry M. and John D. Morris contains a fairly broad overview of creation science and its attendants(reword). One of its founders is Henry Morris who with ?? Whitcomb published “The Genesis Flood” is widely touted as creating a revival in creationism in the USA since the 60s. The Institute of Creation Research is the only accredited institution offering advanced scientific creationism(word?) degrees. Larson’s recent review of the history of evolution as a scientific theory contextually reflects this otherwise creationistic interpretation of resent changes in creationism by ending his chapter titled “America’s Anti-Evolution Crusade”
. after the Tennessee Supreme Court reversed Scope’s conviction on a technicality in 1927, and when no state or locality brought any other prosecutions under their anti-evolution laws, courts did not have another opportunity to review the meaning and validity of those restrictions until the 1960s. By then, the scientific and religious landscape in America had changed in two key respects. On the one hand, opinion among biologists on how evolution operated coalesced around the starkly Darwinian modern synthesis. On the other hand, conservative Christians hardened in its fidelity to the biblical account of creation. These developments took decades to unfold however. For the time being, America’s anti-evolution crusade had run its course.
The NCSE is not an overtly named “anti-creationism” organization but for all intents and purposes it is. It is helping represent the currently on-going plaintiffs before the federal bench in in Harrisburg PA over the teaching of intelligent desing in Dover Schools. It ”s director(?) Eugnie C.Scott has recently put out an introduction to the controversy under the title “Evolution vs. Creation”. Before the publication of this title books tended to be one sided only. This book makes an attempt to be fair but decidedly falls into the evolutionist’s ”camp.’ Hierarchicalization of the formal differences represented in these two books does not remand sufficient knowledge as to what higher classifications dominate over prior ones less structured. Creation biology will have to fill the shoe worn by the biophysict of the shifting balance no matter whether life originated on Earth or off it. No one can know if the trainbearer wears these shoes or instead uses them as fodder for the torch the train carries as neither second guessing God nor spending what one does not have is possible, regardless, the footprints do make an impression.
C)Qualifies ideas stated by the other author:
Creos-qualify evolution to Babylon of Genesis not Nebecannzer
Evos-qualify ID as to being only from prior issues , not new
In the third volume of “The Modern Creation Trilogy” chapter two essentially qualifies the notion of evolution oft associated with the atheistic possibility of Charles Darwin, all the way back through Greek history and beyond, “We have thus shown that the evolutionary philosophy is not modern at all, but rather traces back through all the history of mankind, right back to Babylon, - not the Babylon of Nebuchadnezzar (though it was prominent there), but to the original Babel founded by Nimrod(Genesis 10: 8-10). Evolutionists might resist this linkage to pantheistic polytheism philosophically but for their part as revealed by Niles Eldredge in Foreward to Scott’s book the creationist’s new conceptual wrinkle called “intelligent design” is relegated to a footnote of old ideas. Niles said, “What do creationists have to refute the very idea of evolution? They trot out a mishmash of objections to specific scientific claims; to the extent that they are testable, creationists’ ideas have long been refuted. More recently, they have reverted to notions of “irreducible complexity” and “intelligent design” - ideas presented as new but actually part of the creationist war chest before Darwin ever published the Origin. The fact that organisms frequently display intricate anatomies and behaviors to perform certain functions - such as flying - has inspired the claim that there must be some Intellignet Designer behind it all, that a natural process like natural selection would be inadequate to construct such exquisite complexity.”pagexii
Eldredge makes his qualification clear by making his cognition of design complete. He distinctly said, “We can, however, ask whether patterns of history in systems that we know are intelligently designed - like cars, computers, or musical instruments - resemble those of biological history. I have actually done some work along these lines - and the answer, predictably and unsurprisingly, is that the evolutionary trees of my trilobites (the fossils I study) do not resemble the trees generated by the same program for my favorite man-made objects - the musical instruments known as cornets. The reason in a nutshell is obvious: the information in biological systems is transferred almost entirely “vertically” from parent to offspring via the DNA in sperm and egg; in man-made systems, like cornets, the information is spread as much “horizontally” (as when people copy other people’s ideas) as it is vertically from old master to pupil . I think the hypothesis of intelligent design, in this sense, is indeed falsifiable - and I think we have falsified it already.”pxii
Although creationists who have qualified evolution do not expose a positive attribute by which we could/can understand a thing, they have sent the message negatively to keep humanity from erring by showing the form any evolutionarily attributable trait may be expressed in. In relating philosophical and biblical theology the third volume entitled SOCIETY & CREATION said, “The complicated battles of the gods and goddesses seem to portray the struggling forces of nature, as they labor to bring forth an orderly world. Or perhaps, they may rather represent actual warfare in the heavens, such as the Bible describes, between Satan and his angels and Michael and his angels. Or possibly both.
Identify points where one source author:
A)Agrees or disagrees with the other author:
Creos-neither creation nor evolution can be proven (there were no witness at the poof origin) 2ND BOOK OF THE TRILOGY??Larson page 258 In effect the case for teaching creation science . yet one of the two accounts must . for life’s diversity.”
Evos-religion underlies creationismScott said, “The topic of religion constitutes chapter 3, and creationism is a religious concept. Religion will be defined as a set of idea concerning a nonmaterial reality; thus it would appear that - given science’s concern for material explanations -science and creationism would have little in common. Yet the controversy that his book considers, the creationism/evolution controversy, includes the claim made by some that creationism is scientific, or can be made scientific, or has scientific elements. The question naturally arises, then, “Is creationism testable?” and Eldredge said, “If it is the case that the majority of practitioners of the mainstream Judaeo-Christian religions have had little problem concluding that it is the job of science to explain the material contents of the universe and how it works, and the task of religion to explore the spiritual and moral side of human existence, it nonetheless remains as true today as it was in the nineteenth century that a literal reading of Genesis (with its two and half non-identical accounts of the origin of the earth, life and human beings) does not readily match up with the scientific account. There was a conflict then, and there remains a conflict today, between the scientific account of the history of earth and the evolution of life, on the one hand , and received interpretations of the same in some of the more hard-core Judaeo-Christian sects. Darwin remains unmetabolized - the very reason that his name is still so readily invoked so long after he died in 1882.
Thus it is not an intellectual issue- try as creationists will to make it seem so. Science - as many of the writings in this book makes clear - cannot deal with the supernatural. Its rules of evidence require any statement about the nature of the world to be testable - to be subjected to further testing by asking the following: If this statement is true about the world, what would I expect to observe? If the predictions are borne out by experimentation or further observation, the idea is confirmed or corroborated - but never in the final analysis actually “proven”. If on the other hand, our predictions are not realized, we must conclude that our statement is in fact wrong: we have falsified it.”pxxi
Larson put it, p262 “By 2000, books by Johnson condemning naturalism in all its forms had become best sellers within the conservative Christian community and he had attracted a core following within academia. Biochemist Michael J. Behe and philosopher William A. Dembski stood near the core’s center. Unlike Johnson, Behe did not deny the evolutionary concept of common descent, but he did assert that some biochemical processes (such as the cascade of multiple proteins required for blood clotting) are too irreducibly complex to have originated in the step-by-step fashion envisioned by the modern synthesis.^41 Recalling, in its way, the nineteenth-century claim that the eye could not have evolved piecemeal because it only functions as a whole, Behe maintained that an intelligence must have designed certain functional systems basic to life. This is an old argument, but Behe revived it with modern examples . Seeking to break the stalemate in God’s favor, Dembski invoked probability filters . to suggest that life’s complexity is more likely the product of design than chance . These perceived social effects of the scientific theory ensured that the popular controversy over creation and evolution would continue. Indeed, late-twentieth-century developments in evolutionary biology made them loom larger than they had since the heyday of Social Darwinism.
(----Two propositions in space, one in time and one in population---)
A modern apprehension of this dilitantistic change in the popular culture of e/c was given in the Scott text on Fig 3.1
“Figure 3.1 presents a continuum of religious views with creationism at one end and evolution at the other. The most extreme views are, of course, at the ends of the continuum. The creation/evolution continuum reflects the degree to which the Bible is interpreted to be literally true; with the greatest degree of literalism at the top Although it is a continuum of religious and philosophical beliefs, it inversely reflects how much modern science is accepted by holders of these different views
This figure however shows in perspective----Two propositions in space, one in time and one in population--- whether one agrees with the qualification that ID is old (evo side)or that atomic evolution is nothing new(creo side). The two in space are the earth or the geological layer, the one in time and population depends on how the “atoms” (undividable matter with impenetrability) build up the predicates of the various study groups by physics type definitions of the poulations that can reproduce in them self similarly.
This is a comprehension of
RATIONAL AND EMPRICAL vs TELEOLGICAL divided by earth based guesses. Intelligent design is not just old ideas unless the IQ =Size. There is no evidence that the space the causal graph of the brain takes up = the ordinal number that any evolution of the brain in the past or eternal future MIGHT adapt/make Thus insofar as this is nOT possible ID is not necessarily only an old idea. The id event probablism must be more than defined by filters however. It must be positively reclaimed from the psychology of economic prescriptions.
B)Says something relevant about the topic that the other author has neglected to
Kant”With respect to the sciences, there are two ways in which the prevailing taste may be corrupted, pedantry and dilettantism[Galanterie]. The one pursues the sciences for the school, and thereby limits them in respect of their use; the other pursues them merely for the sake of social intercourse, and thereby limits them with respect to their content . A fitting accuracy in matters of form is throughness (scholastic perfection). Pedantry, then, is an affectation of thoroughness, just as dilettantism, being a mere suitor for the applause of fashion, is nothing but an affectation of popularity; for it only seeks to recommend itself to the reader, and therefore not to offend him even by a single hard word.”p37
say:
Evos- difference of horizontal and vertical speciation can both be continued Continualy I n evotutin
Lucretious- Trilogy p 44 “Two levels of evolutionary beliefs need to be recognized. At the intellectual level, Greek atomistic philosophies , such as those worked out by Democritus and Leucippus, were highly developed and were accepted my many scholars. The pagan mystery religions were understood and practiced by many initiates on a considerably higher plan of sophistication than the popular idol worship of the masses. The Stoic and Epicurean philosophers, the best known of whom is probably Lucretius, were essentially either atheists or evolutionary pantheists. None of the pagan religions or philosophies held any real belief in a personal, omnipotent, eternal Creator, who created all things ex nihlio by His omnipotent Word.”
Dawkins”Gould fears that many evolutionists lose sight of development, and this leads them into error. There is firstly the error of genetic atomism, the fallacious belief in a one-to-one mapping between singles genes and bits of body. Embryonic development doesn’t work like that. The genome is not a ”blueprint’. Gould regards me as an arch genetic atomist, wrongly, as I have explained at length elsewhere.^117 It is one of those cases where you will misunderstand an author unless you interpret his words in the context of the position he was arguing against. Consider the following from Gould himself:
“Evolution is mosaic in character, proceeding at different rates in different structures. An animal’s parts are largely dissociable, thus permitting historical change to occur.”
This appears to be rampant, and very un-Gouldian, atomism! Until you realize what Gould was arguing against: Cuvier’s belief that evolution is impossible because the change in any part is useless unless immediately accompanied by change in all other parts. (a doctrine recently revived as ”irreducible complexity’ under the mistaken impression that it is new.) p 201Devils Chaplin
We must get beyond persuasion to conviction for as Kant said, “Of many cognitions we are conscious only in such a manner as not to be able to judge whether the grounds of assent are objective or subjective.”p63
This is more a problem for the creationist but plaques the evolutionist in the extent to which atomism is in the community of thought.
Creos- there is no continuum here but instead an even larger bifurcation than evos expect
Namely baramins
Use of HYBIRDS to define coded info baramins
binding perversions and voltaic piles through sets of 1-d logics shifted among group fitness measures macrothermodyanmicaly (NO NEED for species selection a prirori)
Gishlick figure IMPLIES FOUR DIFFERENT PROPOSITIONS (two for earth, one for any designed time and one for decomposition into “populations” of at least intelligent designer s of each category when if not wholly naturalistic methodologically composed (Scott page 57 ).
D)Extends a proposition made by the other author
Creos- that macro evolution can not be extrapolated from the given evos microevolution(species selection issue of neotological scaling in the prior uniformatiaristic premised past)
Getting thE FACT straight - Russell on limits and Math vs Instructed no teleonomic biology
RNA origin of life vs non-language role for relation of DNA-Protein- suggestions that thermal current, voltaic contact, quantum photon effects and thermodynamics rule motion (repulsion) back to origin not nonlinear science and nonequilibrium approaches to form (patterns) Biology afraid of its deterministic past and creationist not using continuum science in its own claim that goes from creation science to scientific creationism to the the dispute over whether an id event occurred without Wolfram’s science or Dawkins’ gene pool Maxwell demonized by changes in information technology analogies and DnA computers possibly even curing some diseases (regimen vs placebo)
Dawkins said, “The statistical nature of the argument points up an irony in the claim , frequently made by lay opponents of evolution, that the theory of evolution violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics, the law of increasing entropy or chaos(chaos here has its original and still colloquial meaning, not the technical meaning which it has recently acquired) within any closed system. The truth is opposite. If anything appeared to violate the law(nothing really does), tit would be the facts(About life’s functional complexity or high ”information content’),not any particular explanation of those facts!p84DevilChap
Evos- design are not of horizontal transfers but is only culturally related such that
Design are not horizontal transfer
Is only cultural
Larson-
And not barminologically reflected in the
Gene and gene dissections? Where is the real baramin science??
Kant said “Now when a ratiocination takes place by means of three propositions only; according to the rules which have just been stated for all ratiocination, I call this a pure ratiocination (ratiocinium purum); if however, it is only possible by a combination of more than three judgments it is a mixed ratiocination (ratiocinium hybridum) . Suppose, namely, that between the trhee main propositions there must be interposed an immediate inference from one of them, so that there is a proposition more than a pure ratiocination admits, then we have a ratiocinium hybridum. For example, suppose one should argue thus:
Nothing that is corruptible is simple;
Hence, nothing is simple is corruptible;
The soul of man is simple,
Therefore the soul of man is not corruptible,
Lowercasewe would not, indeed, be employing a compound ratiocination properly so-called, since this would consist of several ratiocinations; whereas this contains, in addition to what is required in a single ratiocination, one more immediate inference by contraposition, thus containing four propositions.
Even if, however, only three judgments are expressed, yet if the sequence of the conclusion from these judgments be possible only by the help of a legitimate conversion, contraposition, or some other logical alteration of one of these judgments, the ratiocination would still be a ratio hybridum; for the question is not what is said, but what it is indispensably necessary to think, in order that there may be a valid sequence.p82-3
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3)Subsume similarities and differences between the sources under subordinate categories
Categories of time ONLY as ordertypes no matter how the organon is philosophically motivated.
Kant-“As there are so many and varied branches of knowledge, it is well to make a plan for ourselves according to which we may arrange the sciences in the manner best adapted for our purposes. All departments of knowledge stand in a certain natural relation to one another. Now if in endeavouring to enlarge our knowledge we neglect this natural connexion, all our manifold knowledge will result in nothing but mere rhapsody. But if we make some ones science our end, and consider all other parts of knowledge only as means to it, then we impart to our knowledge a systematic character. And in order to be able to proceed in the enlargement of our knowledge on such a well-ordered and appropriate plan, we must try to discover that mutual connexion of different branches of knowledge. In this we are guided by the Architectonic of the sciences, which is a system in which the sciences are considered with respect o their relationship and systematic combination into a whole comprising the knowledge interesting humanity.” P39
Larson on Wright p228-231 ending Fisher objected to Wright’s reliance on nonadaptive mechanisms in evolution. Wright countered that Fisher “overlooks the role of inbreeding as a factor leading to nonadaptive differentiation of local strains, through selection of which, adaptive evolution of the species as a whole may be brought about more effectively than through mass selection of individuals.”^10 They agreed that mass selection pushes large population toward adaptive peaks, but Wright believed the process would stagnate under static conditions. Fisher shot back, “Static conditions in the evolutionary sense certainly do not occur, for . the evolutionary progress of associated organisms ensures that the organic environment shall be continentally changing.”^11 It came down to opposing examples of inbred shorthorn cattle versus environmentally adapted peppered moths. The ongoing dispute helped to supply population genetics with the rich diversity of mathematical models and mechanical metaphors needed to finally displace Lamarkian and other vitalist concepts from biology.”p231 Kant- . As Klaus Reich point out, however, Kant’s ironic closing remarks suggest another area in which philosophy and medicine could come into conflict, although here the philosophical viewpoint is to be distinguished no only from the “empirical” viewpoint in medicine, but also from the “rational” teaching on “the art of prolonging human life.” As Kant notes in one of his reflections:
The conformity to law of an organic being by which it maintains itself in the same form while continuously sloughingoff and restoring its parts is health. As far as the whole organic nature as such is concerned, this conformity to law of an organic being and alteration of the vital force imply that the creature, after it has produced offspring like itself, mingles as an individual with unorganized matter and only the species endures. Growing old and death. This is not a disease, but consummation of the vital force. (Reflection # 1538, XV2, 964-65) in Conflict of the Falculties pxxiii
The theme of discontinuity and continuity of heritable information may be resolved as to law and thus answering Reich in the difference between Fisher and Wright should the Provine “incomprehensible””does not even being to work” was simply before the apprehension called for with Macrothermodyanmics that it be “Darwin/Lamarkized” being that the dimensionality explicit in Wright but not Fisher is simply that gene frequency displays are related to macrokinetic substance stability effects and gene combination axes are multiple chromatographic columns instantiations.
Discontinutiy by analogy computer programs object oriented in parallel environments not to simple differences of levels of organization vs levels of selection bookkeeping
Does the ratiocinium hybridum apply to latent recessivity (as per Larson above and his example from Lewontin 60s “At the most elementary level, the discovery that all species(even the most primitive unicellular ones) shared a common genetic code suggested that they have a common ancestry. In turn, the comparative study of DNA from various organisms elucidated their evolutionary relationships. In one spectacular example of this from the 1960s, Dobzhansky’s protégé Richard C. Lewontin used a technique called “gel electrophoresis” to measure genetic variation among individuals of the same species. This analysis tested his mentor’s hypothesis that enough latent variability exists in recessive alleles to feed the evolutionary process in response to changed environmental conditions without added mutations. Lewontin found what he was looking for - indeed, he found so much genetic variability within species that much of it must have little or no effect on individuals.^6 Taking the position that all the variation may be meaningless, diehard opponents of Dobshansky’s hypothesis clung to the classical view (historically associated with Thomas Hunt Morgan and Hermann Muller) that mutations feed evolution.”p269-70) or is it simply a linguistic indication of an algebracism of some geometrically refined split of the relation of tangent form morphometrically and metric philosophy of math? That depends on if Lyell was correct with Gray against Agassiz in complaint to Hooker to diss Agassiz’s statics dynamically considered and instead he retrofit the “ice age” back to . and the coining of the term “missing link”.
Browne “In return, Darwin admired Lyell’s courage - he recognized that what had been relatively easy for him to accept wa wrech for the older man. “Considering his age, his former views, and position in society, I think his conduct has been heroic on this subject.”^49..Lyell’s title was blunt: The Geological Evidences of the Antiquity of Man with Remarks on Theories of the Origin of Species by Variation . In this book Lyell pulled back the curtain on civilization to reveal the world of human geological history. Until then, the paucity of human fossil remains had suggested that mankind was fairly recent in geological terms, a view that accorded well with the idea that humanity appeared only when the earth reached its modern state after the glacial period, or - for those who believed in the biblical flood - at the point when the waters receded. Lyell pushed the origin of human beings much farther back than this watery dividing line, into the geological deep past. His writing, as always, was vivid..his use of the expression “missing links” in the fossil record lodged permanently in the public mind.^50p218Browne
Regardless there is still some shifting balance whether or not it is data to look for a transitional or not. Thus the baramin is a wider use of the sign of language lexically from which to reflect.
Are the missing links merely abstract object programs that remove a link from a linkedlist as Lyell retrofitted the flood beyond the ice age or rather is the failure to find the interpolated coordinate not data itself but substance of the relation of algebra to geometry to population WEIGHT vs Size in the form of such that illegalities as to matter have been substituted for newly thought data where only legalities of the form were in consequential a verdict of the first form not recognized by Lyell because of Gray’s resentment of Aggaissz and American Southern attraction to the false comparison of Aggaisz’s species to Native Negro rights (Gould on native plant rights in t I have landed) - the term “transitional” just clouds the globe of any continental continuation that Aggaisz rejected until one could think god’s thoughts AFTER HIM as fecundity AFTER its kind.
Of course as soon as determinant information is retained and thus gained then one can choose further. Dawkins however insists on thinking any grammar of lexicology as if it was already possibly known but he makes the instance that the information is developed massively by a virus that used frame shifting like the computer program “stuffit”.. Thus he says “If natural selection feeds information into gene pools, what is the information about?”p103 The Develis chaplin. Dawkins made the valid point that Williams“Can we measure the information capacity of that portion of the genome which is actually used? We can at least estimate it. In the case of the human genome it is about 2 per cent - considerably less than the proportion of my hard disk that I have used since I bought it. Presumably the equivalent figure for the crested newt is even smaller, but I don’t know if it is has been measured. In any case, we mustn’t run away with a chauvinistic idea that the human genome somehow ought to have the largest DNA database because we are so wonderful. The great evolutionary biologist George C. Williams has pointed out that animals with complicated life cycles need to code for the development of all stages in the life cycle, but they only have one genome with which to do so. A butterfly’s genome has to hold the complete information needed for building a catepiller as well as a butterfly.”p99 made p99 that “animals with complicated life cycles need to code for development of all stages in the life cycle, but only have one genome with which to do so.” The baramin concept might instead deny this lack of irreducible complexity of computational complexity and isteand remand the largest possible separation already on the largest causal level the population classes.Dawkins even admitted, “Once again, creationists might spend some earnest time speculating why the Creator should bother to litter genomes with untranslated pseudogenes and junk tandem repeat DNA. P99 Regardless, Gladyshev’s macrothermodyanmics (showing how there is not this correct use of information in the biophysics itself) provides a continua from which any former pluviocity might be univocalized solving Dakwins position on information and concomitant anti-creationsim and TEST the best in creation science. Pure Fisherites or Fisherists cum Hamiltonian Dakwinists might reject the test but the testimony must be accepted as it depends not on faith but ELEMENTS of scienitific deviation from the current gradual replacments being succeed by the evoultiinary sytheiss to whole life cycles or reengineered environments of ecosystem nich contructions. The only change is that rather than hold to cross level effects as determinants(Gould struxture of evolutiona) the cross level affect is one of potential by law.
This is not a fundament of analogy as Fisher did to the 2nd law or Darwin did with (Larson p87”Clinging to his Lyellian intellectural heritage,however, Darwin always saw evolution as a gradual adaptive process. “As modern geology has almost banished such views as the excavation of a great valley by a single diluvial wave,” he wrote in Origin of Species,”so will natural selection, if it be a true principle, banish the belief of the continued creation of new organic beings, or of any great and sudden modifications in their structure.”^13p87)
Creationists may not have noticed they could embrace this natural product would give them a more complete elemental fundament but the eduction is certainly not only of the cybnetic feed through kind but rather only AFTER the kind despite evolution having a clearly more distinct concept. It is simply a matter of creating the baramin definitions to be dynamic where Wright asserted contra Fisher some static situation. Given the Diferenential eqauations of Gladyshev’s phenomenological thermodynamics, which as a discipline , is not under dispute as part of science the “static” sense of Wright was made dynamic by Gladyshev. It is evolutionists not creationists who continue to assert nonexistence by dynamic control of any historical sense of a “free” will. There is good will. That is we need. We do need to show how Croizat’s method and Wright’s can be combined without necessitating particular statistical standards for causal analysis within the slowing down of evolution macrokinetics provides. Wright was showing that SIZE unlike IQ can be pathed in but out this comparision short of the economy responding to the idea requires the causal analysis to be built where current levels of selection DO NOT exist and only level of organization vary. If it so happens that Biblical Creationist motiveated baramin definitions of DNA inputted differences span the possibilities these collections of material groupings conglomerate then it will only be the fault of the evolutionist for not having thought as broadly as the creationists for a given comparable time of intellectual development once these details become common currency .
4)Create hierarchies of importance among ideas that are similar or different.
Similar- levels of what can be proved, history and relations of philosophical and methodological naturalism in kants subtility of the four figures (fish, amphibian, reptile (mammal or bird) vs materialism (any discussion of post atomic physics biochemically)
Different
Is there a consequence to the arrangement of science of is more than reflection required? Arrangement works for FOUR figures not Aggassiz’s one fishy one IN THE HORIZON the Gishlick figure replays for the Scott tex(“Figure 3.1 presents a continuum of religious views with creationism at one end and evolution at the other. The most extreme views are, of course, at the ends of the continuum. The creation/evolution continuum reflects the degree to which the Bible is interpreted to be literally true; with the greatest degree of literalism at the top Although it is a continuum of religious and philosophical beliefs, it inversely reflects how much modern science is accepted by holders of these different views”p57-8t. How is the interest of Humanity to be squared/made continuous with the law- - by force of natural law in evolution macrothermodynamically etc or educational regimen to prevent heterogenous error where homogeneity was.
5)Make judgments about the relevance of one author’s view in relation to the other’s view. Kant”Judgement is the comparison of a thing with some mark [or attribute]. The thing itself is the Subject, the mark[attribute] is the Predicate. The comparison is expressed by the word “is,” which when used alone indicates that the predicate is a mark [or attribute] of the subject, but when combined with the sign of negation states that the predicate is a mark opposed to the subject. In the former case the judgement is affirmative, in the latter negative. It is readily understood that in calling the predicate a mark [or attribute] we do not thereby say that it is a mark of the subject, for this is the case only in affirmative judgements, but that it is regarded as a mark [or attribute] of something, although in a negative judgment it contradicts the subject. Thus let “a spirit” be the thing of which I think; “compounded” an attribute of something; the judgement “ a spirit is not compounded,” represents this attribute as inconsistent with the thing.”p79
Dillitantism vs pendatry and judging history rather than changes as to dilltanism and pedantry.
2.)Validate author’s assertion with information provided by the other author
evos validate paley agasint aggassiz(The ice age vs radioactive decay)
creos validate croizat vs Gould in the coarse vs rough width of the places origins track through
Larson in trying to show the specious error of Gould, on false Markist equality{p280 } and Browne on associating Aggaisz with Southern slave desires ratially For example. Mathematics is an excellent organon , being a science which contains the principles of extension of our knowledge in respect of special use of reason. Logic, on the contrary, being the general propaedutic of every use of the understanding and of the reason, cannot meddle with the sciences, and anticipate their matter . ”p3
In general it is not illegal but if populations of humans continue to have differential economic access to THE MATERIAL of the change and some parties in the name of the impenetrability any truth of atomism could bring anyone INCLINE to BRIBE(by income transfers) or THREATEN(by religiously motived terror) it is.
Today it not simply a friendly pedagogical decision of what to teach or not, nor is it a calculated tolerance of the “less bad”. It is certainly not the wholesale ground of allowed disadvantages enmass but the tug of a generation against another in its no longer mental but physical struggle for existence as one generation takes advantage of another. The comparison of creation and evolution certainly has shown a discursive cognition of mankind but logic continues to get in the way of the intutitve cognition necessary to resolve the most recent continutation of the debate on the details of form involved in the contrast of both (mark of negation). The recent war on terror is an example of using any organon to instruct a logic via discursed rather than intuitive consequences. Let’s hope there is some resolution before the genetic load is too much for even our genes to bear. Who is the oldest? Logic reveals evolution is older. The common view is the reverse. The only question is do we have the good will to fulfill the duty to not let the conflict of the falculties get the upper gene as popularization of the debate goes on?
This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 10-10-2005 09:31 PM
™ Version 4.2
