Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   My Understanding (hypothetically)
Brian
Member (Idle past 4958 days)
Posts: 4659
From: Scotland
Joined: 10-22-2002


Message 16 of 69 (187022)
02-20-2005 3:28 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by derwood
02-20-2005 3:06 PM


Re: You've reproduced????
Hey SLPx
Just for you:
Get your head out your ass.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by derwood, posted 02-20-2005 3:06 PM derwood has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 46 by derwood, posted 02-22-2005 4:05 PM Brian has not replied

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5032 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 17 of 69 (187028)
02-20-2005 3:42 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by derwood
02-20-2005 3:06 PM


Re: You've reproduced????
exactly- That was one of the first questions I asked as a freshman- how to count in biology?
I never recieved a direct answer from any teacher and I asked a lot.
So after I TOLD Stu Kaufman that I was thinking of using actual infinity to count critters he said something like, "whatever floats your boat".
In the Sequence book, in the part I questioned, you see where there is not a weight being supplied to "elements". To count anything, atoms, pigs, states, you have to decide what these are. Morgen genetics helped us figure out what we were counting when the ratio was some number disputed between the Mendelians and Biometricians as to what elements to divide the continuum of data with.
I simply suggested a differnt division of this continuum, namely one based on SEQUENCES. The reason I had not said it before was because I am interested in INVESTING the entire current molecular biology into discussions of traslation in space and form making. I know you are being sarcastic so my suggestion would be to save your breath until or unless ICR picks up on my ideas. You can be certain that as long as I am just the thorn of the side of EVC it matters not much in the whole scheme of things. I did send ICR this post about the universal bound. I dont know how they will take it.
What doesnt make sense is how EXACTLY to relate the taxonomists subjecitivity as expressed by Mendel in pea characters and species classifications (and color in other plants) to the NONINFINITE decomposition on this suggestion. You need only try to figure out what use Gould had intended for Galton's polygon and you willsee that I suggested nothing particularly ugly and if you want to dismantle the creationist angle simply try to think about Fibonanci series in terms of Croizat's notion of how the cell cuts. For you could probably use the infinity in Kolmogrov's sense as well without the use of whole numbers here where Mendel used a divisible number. I made this new post only using addition and not multiplication nor division but I might have made subtraction a part of addition. So it was not based on angular momentum unless you are still refering to the first post in this thread.
You are having a hard time accepting what it took me a long time to, namely that I am not going to be a classic evolutionist in this lifetime unless I move creationism on a bit. If EVC really did seem like reality I would take your criticism more to heart but in fact once you communicate with Holmes the depth of field decreases , well , exponentially.
I dont have a copy of MATHEMATICAL PHYSICS but in it explains how phsycists use only ONE REAL NUMBER SYSTEM when consider issues of any dimensional analysis, including quantum systems, but this suggestion of mine would require mutiple theoretical real number classes being USED inscience. It doesnt so no, not even your reference to the science that matters to me matters and thus even your personal remarks about me don apply.
I am sorry that my raw thought is so offensive to you but I am not the bottom of the barrel.
This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 02-20-2005 15:43 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by derwood, posted 02-20-2005 3:06 PM derwood has not replied

  
Snikwad
Inactive Member


Message 18 of 69 (187106)
02-20-2005 11:31 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by derwood
02-20-2005 3:06 PM


Re: You've reproduced????
Uncalled for. No one is forcing you to read or respond to Brad’s posts, so why on earth are you going out of your way to simply go down the ad hominem road? Remember that time when Dan jokingly implied that you were stalking Salty? Remember how you didn’t like it, calling it an unsavory implication? If you thought that was offensive, why on earth are you offending Brad? Hell, your comments are several times worse than the unsavory implication that you’re a stalker. What do you hope to get out of this?
I suggest you take Brian’s advice.

"Chance is a minor ingredient in the Darwinian recipe, but the most important ingredient is cumulative selection which is quintessentially nonrandom."
--Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by derwood, posted 02-20-2005 3:06 PM derwood has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by contracycle, posted 02-21-2005 8:57 AM Snikwad has not replied

  
contracycle
Inactive Member


Message 19 of 69 (187160)
02-21-2005 8:57 AM
Reply to: Message 18 by Snikwad
02-20-2005 11:31 PM


Re: You've reproduced????
quote:
Uncalled for. No one is forcing you to read or respond to Brad’s posts, so why on earth are you going out of your way to simply go down the ad hominem road?
How about "because cluttering up the forum with with unintelligible gibberish is itself bad form"?
As has been asked for above, if anyone can translate, please feel free to do so.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by Snikwad, posted 02-20-2005 11:31 PM Snikwad has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by Brad McFall, posted 02-21-2005 9:28 AM contracycle has not replied
 Message 21 by berberry, posted 02-21-2005 10:50 AM contracycle has replied

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5032 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 20 of 69 (187173)
02-21-2005 9:28 AM
Reply to: Message 19 by contracycle
02-21-2005 8:57 AM


Re: You've reproduced????
I made that post contra, when I was tying just to give you all EVERYTHING I had so that you all would notice. I WILL go back and re-explain that one. I have a couple of prongs in the evc fire if you will so please be patient.
It is no longer the case that I need nor necessarily should I have posted like that in the past but not until Lam and then Tony came around I still felt like a fish out in the water. The thread on Croizatrack and Wright isolation would be fine for I link up to 3 years back to date in that one, more or less seamlessly.
I started posting at EVC in the book nook and Is it science? but because I wasnt finding people seeing what I was doing AS science I started to post in many places just to try to figure out where "the board" was. This is why Moose listed all of the posts I started and wants all this brad all the time stuff to stay within certain bounds. That is just fine.
The reason it is taking me so much time to get back and reexplain this particular post is that AFTER i posted it I noticed a use of the same words "Ecosystem Engineering" in ways that "rip off" the sense I used them here. So it is taking me a lot of work just to see how wrong this
use of the term CAN BE (as was puclicized in the book NICHE CONSTRUCTION) because I am not sure which is worse, the false idea about a niche or the inventive understanding of the engineering where tracing nature is more biological.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by contracycle, posted 02-21-2005 8:57 AM contracycle has not replied

  
berberry
Inactive Member


Message 21 of 69 (187195)
02-21-2005 10:50 AM
Reply to: Message 19 by contracycle
02-21-2005 8:57 AM


the glaring hypocrisy of contracycle
contracycle writes:
quote:
How about "because cluttering up the forum with with unintelligible gibberish is itself bad form"?
And this hurts you how? And justifies ad hominem attacks against Brad how?
I always knew you were a fraud. No one can crack the slightest joke about any minority group at any time without you labelling them a hate monger, but you see it as okay to make vicious attacks against an individual with communications difficulties?
What a piece of work you are, contracycle.
EDITED to change subtitle.
This message has been edited by berberry, 02-21-2005 09:53 AM

Keep America Safe AND Free!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by contracycle, posted 02-21-2005 8:57 AM contracycle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by contracycle, posted 02-22-2005 5:51 AM berberry has replied

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12995
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 22 of 69 (187213)
02-21-2005 12:52 PM


Forum Guidelines Advisory
We all have our limitations. I know I have a few. Some of us have limitations that are more externally apparent than others. Brad is often difficult to understand, but it is the judgment of most moderators that Brad has been making a sincere effort in all his time here.
Over the last year or so Brad has made much progress, or so it appears to me, and I think his improved clarity is actually making things more difficult for him. His posts used to be so cryptic that few took the trouble to respond, but these days an increasing number of his posts make decipherable points and invite responses.
I periodically mount a defense of Brad, often in terms that I'm sure he doesn't feel comfortable with, but I feel I have to be fair to our other members, too. We all have our own demons to deal with, and Brad's are a bit more determined than most. Please bear with him because, at least in my judgment, he is doing excellently well under what are for him very difficult circumstances.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by Brad McFall, posted 02-21-2005 10:49 PM Admin has not replied

  
Snikwad
Inactive Member


Message 23 of 69 (187274)
02-21-2005 5:39 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by Brad McFall
02-19-2005 1:55 PM


Brad, I think I may be starting to understand what you’re saying. You write:
I will use the equivocalness of Mendel’s use of words parent and hybrid to EXIST in this set (by definition) and I find the baramin (that kind which can only exist to itself) to BE Mendel’s developmental binomial as van de Waerden decomposition of the natural numbers in to a finite number of classes as divided by the subsets of natural numbers on finding the granted arbitrarily long arithemetic progression. In other words what makes it necessary that kinds can only reproduce AFteR their kind is a result of the causality of the aribitrarily long arithemetic progression on the other number of finite subsets of the classed total list of natural numbers.
I think you may be trying to develop some sort of analogy between mathematics and evolutionary theory in order to sidestep the question of, what is the mechanism that prevents microevolution from accumulating and becoming macroevolution? that creationists have yet to address.
A similar concept to what you may be propounding might be that a closed set, i.e. (1, 2) can be defined to be a kind which allows for infinite variation given that the numbers that fall between 1 and 2 are infinite. Yet this set does not include members of another kind i.e. (3, 4).
This allows for infinite variation within a kind, which therefore allows you to claim that this is why there is no indication that there exists any limit on how much the genome can mutate. But then this begs the question as to why you arbitrarily draw a line at kinds. More importantly, what is a kind? If a kind allows for infinite variation, why can’t we assume that the closed set we’re looking at is all of the life that exists on earth? Why would we suggest that we should subdivide groups of organisms into multiple "kinds" given that the evidence for common descent of all organisms on earth is so overwhelming?

"Chance is a minor ingredient in the Darwinian recipe, but the most important ingredient is cumulative selection which is quintessentially nonrandom."
--Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by Brad McFall, posted 02-19-2005 1:55 PM Brad McFall has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by Brad McFall, posted 02-21-2005 7:32 PM Snikwad has not replied
 Message 25 by mick, posted 02-21-2005 7:58 PM Snikwad has replied
 Message 37 by berberry, posted 02-21-2005 10:51 PM Snikwad has not replied

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5032 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 24 of 69 (187305)
02-21-2005 7:32 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by Snikwad
02-21-2005 5:39 PM


YipEEEEEEEEEE
Yes, yes Snikwad I think indeed you have grasped it!!!!!!!! This is great. I know I am not quite in your frame of mind so if you give it another go I might be able to affirm your reasoning a bit better after I let out my own (hot)air‘. I got my smile ON.
There still is a slight difference in how you and I approached the cognition. I am not sure I can completely reconstruct how you arrived at the notion so I might be a little off in trying to show you exactly how I thought about it. Keep at it. We are very close to agreeing to agree or agreeing to disagree. At this point I am very happy about which ever way it goes.
The linguistic feature that enabled me to go forward with it was Mendels apparent double signed use of parent and hybrid. (Mendel web link)
AND to use this to address the creationist issue of what would count for after the kinds.
It is possible because of the significance that I started to attribute to these two facts that we might have deviated in approaching the same limit figure nonetheless, where you triumphantly and rightly concluded
quote:
allows you to claim that this is why there is no indication that there exists any limit on how much the genome can mutate
despite any deservatations (to you) I might have ,about how the means dont quite match the ends I thought on your version. It is true that I can conclude that there might be infinite mutational capacity on this reservation that I also said what was objectively lacking that SPLX got so worked up intoK You deserve some real credit there.
As for where to stop drawing the line. I would not want to evolve it faster than I can verify that it not just a baroque ornamentation . I would like to be able to relate any notion of kind thus before me with the use of the word by Agassiz AND Huxleys use of the word grade thus the materiality involved might show not only that I had suggested a creationist advance but also a clear evolutionary thought as well. So if by macroevolution you had meant the popular notion that rates of flesh distortion have changed since the Cambrian then you are dead on as to what I intended. Since seeing the use of the word MESO evolution and Goulds failure to point out but errors in Dobshankys use of Wrights landscape and mammal classifications I have NOT found any evolutionary literature that just assumes what Simpson triplicated to, no matter the fact of evolution exist beyond any theory of what Simpson ALSO determinately meant by (gosh I forgot the exact word)(it was related to word kinesis)(any way MACRO evolution), && still explains the simple creationist claim, more or less as you had it
quote:
what is the mechanism that prevents microevolution from accumulating
.
Again I probably would not have used prevent but that is immaterial I think.
So not being sure of that I start from my perspective rather than trying to write mine wholly in yours. Feel free to get any adjustment needed in what follows. I am still reading the book(SEQUENCES) so I have not solidified my thought completely.
Noticing that the DECOMPOSITION would contain{(arbitrarily long arithmetic progression), (finite set of natural numbers) (another set)..} I wondered if Mendel got itwrong to feel free to use either parent OR hybrid in the statistical data that resulted but I wondered if Mendels clearly NOT USED concept of a developmental binomial (we dont use it because we prefer the more determinant knowledge of DNA structure) develops by growth or a law of growth FROM the aribitrary progression (thus it isnot clear on my analysis at first pass if the environment or the mutations deteminantly MUST contribute in the unending parts K) UP TO THE LIMITS OF THE OTHER SETS and this brings up your ALSO correct next.
quote:
A similar concept to what you may be propounding might be that a closed set, i.e. (1, 2) can be defined to be a kind which allows for infinite variation given that the numbers that fall between 1 and 2 are infinite. Yet this set does not include members of another kind i.e. (3, 4).
Now here is the critical part to see if we understand each other:
What you analyzed with the immediately above I did in the other sets of the decomposition but I held that nondevelopmentalphenotypes lead to recessive or not visible mutations (Mendels difference of F1 and Filial generationsK) so that the NUMBER that Mendel MUST have been thinking on, being an integer or actually existing number (Cantor distinguished real and reale numbers but Dauben noticed the French translations first missed the difference) and thus a part of the set of natural numbers subject to decomposition by van de Weraden. This was necessary because development is something that can happen independent of what mutations are concurrent but what was confused in the creationist notion of if the after denoted God or the Creature was the PHENOTYPIC relation of different kinds IN YOUR SENSE as PARTS of the SAME GENOME that would have limits to the sets divided if the thing actually worked. So I had a strong claim about the structure of the genome that might indeed falsify the entire idea that you did not have, if I understood you correctly, about 1-2,3-4.
It is possible that a more nuanced appreciation of the argument will fall more on your side and show that I might still have found some genetic truth but just not one that would enable me to assert this changes how we THINK about the evolution of dominance. It was a fresh thought of last week and I have other errands on my mind so I havent had all the leisure needed to stop thinking about it.
Regardless you got quite a bit considering that I didnt explain myself so well as I started to post it outside the message to berberry more from being annoyed than settled reason.
So the reason that history would have missed this apperception was that after the kind really applies to REPRODUCTION or multiplication of the bounds of the sets much in the same way that Cantor thought about the realtion of cardinality and ordinality BETWEEN two DIFFERENT number classes. You organize one cardinal in any and all ordinal ways and you get the next.
This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 02-21-2005 19:44 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by Snikwad, posted 02-21-2005 5:39 PM Snikwad has not replied

  
mick
Member (Idle past 4985 days)
Posts: 913
Joined: 02-17-2005


Message 25 of 69 (187318)
02-21-2005 7:58 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by Snikwad
02-21-2005 5:39 PM


Snikwas, you say
"a closed set, i.e. (1, 2) can be defined to be a kind which allows for infinite variation given that the numbers that fall between 1 and 2 are infinite."
This is nonsense. Please explain how any member of the (1,2) set is distinguished from the (2,3) set
Mick
This message has been edited by mick, 02-21-2005 19:58 AM
This message has been edited by mick, 02-21-2005 20:00 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by Snikwad, posted 02-21-2005 5:39 PM Snikwad has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by Snikwad, posted 02-21-2005 8:06 PM mick has replied
 Message 28 by Brad McFall, posted 02-21-2005 8:15 PM mick has replied

  
Snikwad
Inactive Member


Message 26 of 69 (187325)
02-21-2005 8:06 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by mick
02-21-2005 7:58 PM


This is nonsense. Please explain how any member of the (1,2) set is distinguished from the (2,3) set, if they have "value" between 1 and 3.
I don't understand your question. If something has "value" between 1 and 3, like 1.5, it only belongs to one of those closed sets: (1,2) and not (2,3). That was my only point. Did I mess up somewhere?
Edited to add:
Dude, you edited your post, and now I'm even more confused. What?
This message has been edited by Snikwad, 02-21-2005 20:08 AM
Edited [again] to add:
Ok, now you say:
Please explain how any member of the (1,2) set is distinguished from the (2,3) set
I'm not sure how to explain it to you. You distinguish them by checking in which set they belong, I guess. A value that belongs in one set doesn't belong in the other. I think your question may make sense if you were wondering how I would distinguish any member of the set (1,2) from the (1,3) set, if the number chosen were, let's say, less than 2. But that's not what I said. I don't understand your objection. Please clarify.
This message has been edited by Snikwad, 02-21-2005 20:18 AM

"Chance is a minor ingredient in the Darwinian recipe, but the most important ingredient is cumulative selection which is quintessentially nonrandom."
--Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by mick, posted 02-21-2005 7:58 PM mick has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by Brad McFall, posted 02-21-2005 8:14 PM Snikwad has not replied
 Message 29 by mick, posted 02-21-2005 8:22 PM Snikwad has not replied

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5032 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 27 of 69 (187328)
02-21-2005 8:14 PM
Reply to: Message 26 by Snikwad
02-21-2005 8:06 PM


You had it right. Mick is probably using some notion like a Plantonic form rather than being in Mendel's cave. It would help if he clarified to you however.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by Snikwad, posted 02-21-2005 8:06 PM Snikwad has not replied

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5032 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 28 of 69 (187329)
02-21-2005 8:15 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by mick
02-21-2005 7:58 PM


Mick try to imagine what FUNCTION it takes to map"" the line into the plane. Does that help?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by mick, posted 02-21-2005 7:58 PM mick has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by mick, posted 02-21-2005 8:26 PM Brad McFall has replied

  
mick
Member (Idle past 4985 days)
Posts: 913
Joined: 02-17-2005


Message 29 of 69 (187332)
02-21-2005 8:22 PM
Reply to: Message 26 by Snikwad
02-21-2005 8:06 PM


1.5s aren't allowed
Brad has already stated (in previous posts) that 1.5s aren't allowed. He is talking modular arithmetic; it's either in the set or it isn't.
I'm afraid Brad has learned a few cool buzzwords in mathematical biology (that were fashionable in the 70s) but doesn't really understand how mathematical biology works. I have a fair amount of experience in mathematical biology. I'm not a very good mathematician, but I know bullshit when I see it. I will repeat a challenge I made in a different post, and request that Brad give a worked example.
Giving a coherent worked example is considered that basic minimum of proof in mathematical biology. Giving a load of pseudo-mathematical waffle definitely isn't helping debate. I am willing to challenge Brad on the basis of mathematics, but I only request that he is able to provide a worked numerical example of his thesis.
mick

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by Snikwad, posted 02-21-2005 8:06 PM Snikwad has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by Brad McFall, posted 02-21-2005 8:28 PM mick has replied

  
mick
Member (Idle past 4985 days)
Posts: 913
Joined: 02-17-2005


Message 30 of 69 (187334)
02-21-2005 8:26 PM
Reply to: Message 28 by Brad McFall
02-21-2005 8:15 PM


statistics
Hi Brad,
I'm sorry if I appear to be picking on you! I'm only entering this forum in a spirit of argument and learning. But I am trained as a statistician, and I find your comments controversial!
Best wishes and regards,
Mick

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by Brad McFall, posted 02-21-2005 8:15 PM Brad McFall has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by Brad McFall, posted 02-21-2005 8:30 PM mick has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024