The NUMBERS are either in the set or not but the flesh need not match. That is a STATISTICAL issue as to how ALL the difference of phenotype and genotype gets divided. 1.5s divide BEFORE AND AFTER but as to which filial generations they come out in depends on more than the simple idea but the discussion of this that.
This is not the example Mick. These are not buz words. I am asking for admin help here. I will GIVE YOU MICK MORE when it is available Snik and I were discussing the idea not the idea of the idea - It doesnt mean you can stalk me around evc to shut me up!!
Work inprogres is just that. "Mathematical Physics" Jeffreys Cambridge 1950p5
quote: The last alternative is the one that has been universally adpoted by the admission to arithmetic of irrational numbers.
this thread I said that the developmental binomial is decomposable into genomically correlated fundamental units in some sense grasped by Snik in terms of all the information a life might express. But you were unable to parse, nor I have constructed the needed statistics AFTER the gene frequency dissectability be capably proposed where
quote: We might say that x/y can be exact
BOTH in the modulo paritioins AND Mendel's DIFFERENCE of dominance and recessive AND at the convergence limits of the soma bearing on
quote:Since an infinite number of pairs of integers x, y can be found such that
Measurement in terms of a unit is too usefule a procedure to be lightly abandoned
Indeed but if I am correct abandonment in the restriction of elites to a different probability space is not. This last might be wrong but it also might be what is hindering the developement of the use of language I "experiment" with by the new electronic means that were only just becoming existant when I left high school. But to assert that I am somewhat not much of a thinker is hard to bear out with this posting ability. I understand you were new and perhaps I overreacted not realizing that it does take time to figure out how to talk here. Lord knows I have learned even more over the past few days...Sorry.
This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 02-23-2005 13:08 AM
So WHAT PRECISELY THEN is your issue or understanding with Gould's use or potential use of Galton's polygon?(facet flipping?) As for mathematical biology - well I sat in Simon Levin's office many an Ithaca day and I talked with even the current evoltuionary modlers at CU where day in and day out seeing how thaey really did apply numbers to biology THEY NEVER were able 1) to answer a simple biological qeustion- what is a gene 2) nor did they have a ROOM for this advance i am making in extending into the small theoretical space Gould opened for a use of pure math where THESE PRACTICAL NUMBER CRUNCHERS only used what LEvin admitted to me MORE THAN ONCE ADMITTED!!!!!!! was only applied math. So get off the buz and smell the timbre before its too late.
YOu didnt see it. So who are you really then? and given your comments I can fairly reasonably surmise that you think the division of life into phenotype and geneotype is just fine even though Will Provine REFUSED to recognize Wright's COMPLAINT that PHENOTYPE needed to be undestood in a different way in the 80s. I dont know what 70s you are talking about. Simply reading DUNN history of genetics is ALL one needs to see not only that what I am saying need not be BS but infact can fit in the future of biology quite nicely- the word is nice- but not how Mayr said it to me.
As a statistician YOU MUST know that a statistical REFORMULATION is allways possible on any given group of data. What you are having difficulty grasping is how I might have used the SENSE OF INTEGER in terms of an organic whole. Most likely some kind of reductionism got in your way. If you use a modulo and get the remainder why not think of these as convergence limits that Mayr denied to me-- oh right, you were probably not in the audience when I asked Mayr to use irrationals and he demurred incomprehensibly-
OK dont look at it as a debate anymore- it will help. I showed in the other thread what phsyical appartus I NEEDE
Before I could give you what you asked. I know what I agreed to offer you. I AMNOT A UNIVERSITY.
If you dont have a biologists sense of a whole but a statiticians then I do understand how you might have found it controversial but I can not quite understand why you dont have a more nuanced notion of causality and statistics as Wright needed to come up with path analysis- Provine at least was not making that kind of mistake.
This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 02-21-2005 20:54 AM
I'm sorry you don't like my tone. I honestly didn't mean it to be offensive. I am definitely not trying to "stalk you around evc to shut you up". I have clearly caused offense (though I think I have only asked perfectly reasonable questions). But I am new here and don't want to upset anybody, and will leave you to your ranting without challenge from now on.
I dont know what flaming is nor do iknow a rant about that. You can ignore my intial feelings of apphrension. What I am upset about is JUST when I am starting to communicate my REAL idea withsome one here, there is a spoiler. That has been my life. Youcan take an apology from me as well. Please dont tell other people bad things about me if you think I am not willing to rationally discuss things with you.
I have never on the web anywhere stopped talking with people. It has always been them that stoped with me. If you want a dissection of gene frequencies you will have to wait or help me figure out how this idea might amelioriate Provine's issue with Wright's TWO DIFFERENT WAYS OF DISPLAYING the adaptive landscape else think it a rat with red eyes for again if you dont appreciate the NEED to reintroduce nonadpative traits into the dissucsion of chance in biology you will not see that GOuld's orthogonality might displace Provine's phase transition. Now that is starting to sound less like an candle and more like the mouse...
Again, what 70s, what buzz words, and what is YOUR speciality?
YOU DID NOT ANswer MY GALTON QUESTION.You think you are debating fairly then?
I have camled down but these questions remain uncontroversial. Oh also I dont have to have the last word. I just dont know if you dont want to talk about other things than what came down after I decided to respond tp YOUR post in another thread. You are correct I could have found the older thread where I was talking about Meyer too.
This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 02-21-2005 21:27 AM
Percy does there exist software that might enable a poster to hold posts during an active discussion so as to "edit" in 'debate' time? That was the impression I got tonight. Also is there some reason that the hand is pointing down in the topic list but UP in the point where I entered it. Unlike the time when TC and I simultaneously posted- somewhat amazingly here tonite where the semantics of statistics came up, the order of posts does not LOOK like the way the conversation went, and I specificaly tried to help Snik out by editing a post showing the difference of the ordinal and cardinal number two, but my edit disappeared and then the flurry with Mick ensued. Is there such a thing as sliping an electronic "micky" or am I just imagining things and overreactin a bit?
This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 02-21-2005 22:51 AM
I notice that no one - other than Brad of course - has yet thanked you for this, Snikwad. You've been able to make sense of what has had the rest of us baffled. Now that you explain it and Brad agrees that you at least have the gist of his meaning, it's like that proverbial light has finally been flicked ON.
Some of us do understand Brad quite well when he talks about things that don't directly relate to his scientific / creationist ideas. Most of us like Brad and we want to understand him better. You've helped us greatly and I can't thank you enough.
Brad seems to be ecstatic about it; I feel terrific for him. For my part I'm just glad to see that he finally got through to someone, and I hope you'll stick around and continue this dialogue with him. I'll be following along, I promise.
... none of which has anything to do with anything, as far as I can see, Brad. It seems to be complete non sequitur with this thread or any other. I do not know what you are saying, or trying to say, or want to say.
During the time of cool heads were revealing or was revealed, I find that this thread does MEAN something.
My best guess so far is that of responding with a gene frequency dissection Mick might have been having issue with SEQUENCES p 191 "We add some further remarks regarding teh historical background of the Brun-Selberg methods. THe sieve of Eraosthenes, with its large error term, is almost useless; and at one time seemed likely to reamin so. It was a great achievement when Brun, in 1920, devised his method and applied it successfully to several difficult and important problems. The method (as improved by Selberg) still represents an indispensible tool in number theory. The two famous conjectures in number thoery are: (a) there exists an infinty of prime twinse p, p+2; (b) every large+ even integer n is the sum of two primes. ...can be obtained by sieve methods." ------------------------------------------------------------- I have no problem being corrected on mathamtical issues but statistical biology is not pure math. Probablistically inhibited ID is not either but can exist in places stastical biology cannot especially if the change suggested in the book SEQUENCES actually happened in a paradigmatic way. A statistician or mathmatician could verify that better than I can. I am trying to show how pure math IS related to Croizat's form - making and translation in space (...). ############################################################### not my understanding of how flesh differnetially might sort or sieve the data underreconsideration. The issue of thinking in terms of an historical "sieve" IS how Gould left us who disagree with Dawkins to disassemble the nonsequitemeem.
This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 02-22-2005 10:42 AM
quote: And this hurts you how? And justifies ad hominem attacks against Brad how?
It hurst me becuase its unintelligible gibberish cluttering up a forum. It is noise, not signal.
quote: 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?
Well, I don't know he has communication difficulties; all I know is that this gibberish appears. Furthermore, your "logic" here is simply absurd - racism is not about "minorities", but about groups, and secondly my concerns are not based on "nice"ness.
Where is the collectuive responsibility? Where is the stereotype? Quite obviously, this is nothing like hate speech whatsoever, and no form of hypocrisy whatsoever.
What we see here rather is the sublime arrogance of berberry, who quite clearly has never bothered to engage with anything I had to say on the topic of hate-speech at all.
This message has been edited by contracycle, 02-22-2005 05:52 AM
I believe the topic here is MY Brad's UNDESTANDING I dont see "hate speech" in the title. Thanks for confidence in ability to communicate but to say what shows up as "gibberish" (whether berberry's or mine)(I know he was talking about me berberry)cant help me IN THIS THREAD.
You musnt be saying that for the greater evc conversation BECAUSE say MICK, or R'ATHOR put up a question or challenge and I said I was not ready to respond to one of those that I must NOT enage in conversation with some one else or even try to develop a thought challenged in another thread. I guess I see some kind of duplicity in that if IT WAS c vs e but if you look very very closely at the gibberish it has always been my claim that the polaization THAT APPEARS on evC i BELIEVE TO BE FALSE. That doesnt seem to change things and as Long as I was ignored no one seemed to care about my opninion. So I really do have use for cheerleading TO me when I confronted say what happened last nite.
If you really want to change and say something worse to bad about berberry I cant see why THAT has to occurr in THIS thread? Maybee there is some active topic of "hate-speech" so link here and do it there I would say or suggest. But I have no such thing in my understanding nor the more recent sense of it of late.
The statement that if 1.5s are or are not allowed IS relevant to this thread but i cant see how your last post is.
This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 02-22-2005 06:24 AM
There have been such threads, and it would not be appropriate to link them here IMO as that would only take things even more off track. You are quite right to say that post is off topic, I was just responding to the stupidity of berberry's argument.
Ok, ( I might personally choose to disagree), but I dont understand why you had "draw attention" to Berberry anyway as I cant fathom a nondeterminate notion of what is "on" track and what is "off". Why would you want me aware of "such threads". We all know ( i think that is a neutral enough modifier) there is more here than any one person can digest and incorporate completely and fully.
Your comment doesnt derail me anymore. I know you want me to refer better to you most recent post in this thread. I will as time goes by. I am what I read unfortunately more than what I eat I guess.
No it doesn't. It hurts you in no way whatsoever. Stop lying. What you see as "noise" others enjoy reading. Get over it.
quote:Furthermore, your "logic" here is simply absurd - racism is not about "minorities", but about groups...
Who said anything about racism for crying out loud? I said that you try to paint anyone who tells a joke as an intolerant hate-monger, yet you defend someone for making unprovoked personal attacks against a member of this forum. You're a hypocrite and a fraud.
quote:...my concerns are not based on "nice"ness.
quote:What we see here rather is the sublime arrogance of berberry, who quite clearly has never bothered to engage with anything I had to say on the topic of hate-speech at all.
No, I didn't engage your nonsense about hate-speech. I read it, though. It was worthless drivel.
Brad, contracycle was defending SLPx's attack against you upthread. That was hypocritical of contracycle because in an earlier thread he took issue with innocuous jokes, calling them hate-speech. I was angry that he would defend SLPx's attack and I called him on it. I'm sorry it's off-topic, but the original offense took place in this thread so this is the thread where I responded.Keep America Safe AND Free!