|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Why Darwinism is wrong | |||||||||||||||||||
Brad McFall Member (Idle past 5032 days) Posts: 3428 From: Ithaca,NY, USA Joined: |
I have a history there as well.
me on Ggroups It looked like Zhang ran into the same ""David Jensen two years later. It only reaffirms why I dont post there any more. Writing in black and white is clearer. Z says that adaptation never creates a new species but no matter what NS keeps the thing fit. I'll have to read a little more. That is a perspective I have not seen before in print. This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 04-26-2005 02:49 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Brad McFall Member (Idle past 5032 days) Posts: 3428 From: Ithaca,NY, USA Joined: |
http://chickensfirst.net/model.htm
quote:Could/would you please Sir indicate how this vision is any shorter, different, or better than quote:Mendel's Paper (English-Collaborative) If I am not mistaken your notion would divide the dashed line above EITHER vertically OR horizontally and yet I see no mathematical incorporation of the two different kinds of 1-D symmetry Weyl distinguised in SYMMETRY(book). The two eves idea no matter about the initial diversity of genetic variance across the line a progeniture motion crosses seems to give SHAPE to the dashed line. I had not seen your proposal before because *this* is not supported by anymath or any metric application I am aware of. I cant see how all species that would be comparable to paleontologically names ones MUST have identical structure. There surely is some variation in individual traits and yet the recursion your work remands seems to fly the middle without any slight variation on either side except size between the eves. Something other than magnitude is needed to composite morphospace it seems to me. How would you get 1:3 traits in the generations rather than the simple bifurcation your work seems to ply again. I suspect that the "similarity" is at alevel of physics below"" the language model of DNA-RNA-PROTEIN but that is unsubstantiated and is my own reading. You had it askedquote:but as i continue to read it you could theoretically get two identical mutations by TWO different physical chemical paths if 1-D symmetry was a adapted continuum and not a chance junkyard art display. This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 04-26-2005 05:05 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Brad McFall Member (Idle past 5032 days) Posts: 3428 From: Ithaca,NY, USA Joined: |
Thnaks for your response. I hope you continue...
The "unsolved myth" that your assumption solves is simply the extrapolation of Ian Stewarts statement quote:p66(Life's Other Secrect) scaled into population thinking and yet your website seems to read red as if this is done contra Stewarts position on the FUTURE of math and biology, namlely that it is closer to my own approach than that of Stewart's (page243) What we have here is mostly a challenge, and only occasionally an answer. Whatever that challenge may be, it is not simply a question of writing down an equation of life and solving it. I doubt very much that any such thing exists. Finding exact solutions to ultimate laws is not a sensible role for mathematics. It's not math's role in physics, and it certainly should not be math's role in biology. But I have another thread working where contra Holmes a bit I will show that the two step(inbreeding and mutation are not a unified stepper no matter how linked the ladder chains the being to it) is not what is dancing here. I dont have any more time this week. I will agree with ONE but yours is not this uno or moko. Your reply still seems more complicated than Mendel to me. Even granting no god or more genetics I cant find on the web site how I am supposed to add up the mutations gross or otherwise. Perhaps I just missed that. If so, my bad esle back to Homes.la la le la la la. Anyway I will try to show how the bacterial flagellum is not IC(suffiently) to the inversion metrically of the TB virus(structure) and point out how there are two chemical paths in the same population by use of phase reasons. But more later. God might still be and genetics, well, again, where is that ? it still didnt take shape. If I cant write down the illustration, delimit the equation and solve for space time and form I am no longer interested in science. But hey, that's just me. By the way, one such equation, IS is likely refering to was Murray's approach to leopard spots and it is because the equations they wrote down at Oxford were not general to say your notion that I DID NOT go that way for grad work. That thing exists.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Brad McFall Member (Idle past 5032 days) Posts: 3428 From: Ithaca,NY, USA Joined: |
Your notion seems to be some cutting between these two charts of Wallace formerly at Cornell published from a talk in Syracuse in the late 60s edited by Richard Lewontin "Population Biology and Evolution".
but I really only see sprial possibility(below) not an indeterminately bifurcating one which is the one I think if I understand your work correctly is what you would have to remand if prooved true in a future. If all you are trying to do is set up a structure for evolutionary theory and await proof as Gould luckily did finish before he passed then I can have no more critical comment but I think this way of proceeding in biology is going away not towards what society outside the small groups otherwise pursuing thier own research do do.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Brad McFall Member (Idle past 5032 days) Posts: 3428 From: Ithaca,NY, USA Joined: |
The charts relate micro and possibly macro levels of phenomena and given your notion it would relate to density dependence as exampled by the graph together. If there is structure there other than simple spliting of information your view might fail in the future just as Gould's would but for opposite reasons, Gould's because it insists on constraints from the right (as I displayed it) and your notion from the left.
I copyed this work so as to get your relations to populations. I saw your predictions. Good luck. Wallace writes in his discussion quote: If there are more deaths your notions of species change must meet evidence in the first paragraph of Wallace's
quote:while Gould's need not necessarily if cell death is not the then sought for culprit etc. You might be correct about the egg however. I will expand on this as I promised in a thread Wounded King participated in on plant mutations across a generation by suggesting how both pollen selection and RNA editing can be universally considered (possibly) with such graphs but without apriori invariants from either side later ie dependent on the recursive nature of strucutre itself and not on the division of labor of biological deparments' research. This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 05-04-2005 10:13 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Brad McFall Member (Idle past 5032 days) Posts: 3428 From: Ithaca,NY, USA Joined: |
Double post sorry.
This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 05-04-2005 09:48 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Brad McFall Member (Idle past 5032 days) Posts: 3428 From: Ithaca,NY, USA Joined: |
I was intially put on edge, with the "ama" applelation but then I quickly recalled, that this IS Croizat's attitude towards Darwin(that Charles was a great observer but poor theorizer etc) as well as JZ's as he represents homogenously thoughout this threadheaded thread and presents in his book. Percy had warned us-all before.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024