Although representing biological change as motoring along through mutations is not extremely descriptive while explanatory it was the final means used by my Grandfather while teaching evolution in 50s prior to the creationist revival.
quote: Willard F. Stanley Lecture Notes at SUNY Fredonia
By the 60s this and perhaps due to an emphasis from Russia or Christian (probably both) biologists began to fall in love more along the lines WK is advocating as the words â€œusually DNA or RNAâ€ in the definition above is made clear by Bruce Wallace by this time.
The â€˜rubâ€™ comes from deciding where phenotypically-genotypically the â€œpre-existingâ€ PIECE is. In my Grandfatherâ€™s intuition from the 30s this would be NAMED â€“ sport , and indeed that is HOW I saw it at Cornell. Gouldâ€™s work tries to correct this slightly deviate vision that holds a bit more German influence than French for and English but that is no reason to go all the way and feel offended for my grandfather linked his notion of â€œfeelingâ€ with Linneaus rather than on the hand I do with Kant. I have always assumed that Pope JPaulsâ€™ use of term â€œpre-existingâ€ translated into American comes from a signal related to Wallacesâ€™ disuse here(p66) above. The part exists and it really is only demonstrable as the â€œ/â€ figure in Mendel. This is why evos in an end stick with statistics.
In here "Perfectly Reasonable Deviations" there is a 1985 letter from Feynman to Wolfram wherein Feynman is saying that it is "not" his "opinion" that there is a hostile environment to complexity studies. Feynman then ACTUALLY tells Wolfram that he is not going to be able to work IN (really!!!!!!) this environment anyway because the best he will be able to do is to MANAGE or be an ADMINSTRATOR of the environs.
The authors of the collection of letters felt it incumbent to inform the reader that Feynman was incorrect and in truth Wolfram has made out the environs for himself and his complex of ideas saying that Wolfram has EVEN been CEO for years now.
This was Feynman's point, he economically created the environment he intends complexity information to dominate and take over organismic simplisty or any complex of ideas Feynman may have had correctly orderable.
It is still a good question how to measure genetic "information." There would have to be limits to form-making for this to be better demonstrable and perhaps only with certain symmetry replacing the difference of stochiometric and methodolical LOGIC is this possible.
Yeah, that was my "slip up." You see Kant said,"stoichology" not "stoichiometric" as I did. I made a short cut across geometry and algebra that way and Einstein's use of Reimann etc.
The defintions of Shannon information probably are not good enough for biological form-making at the point that MJ is differentitating "organ" and body(Bauplane)plan. Yes there is "mature" discussion in addition to the simple placing of information in a header sent out on the internet.
------------------------------- I am interested in a field of perfect form-making by artifical selection helped along technically to be ADDED to natural selection and the Darwinian algorithm no matter the narrowed Fisher focus which is only a property but not the whole continuum but I am not really fully there as of yet.
Ok, I didnt know you were going to go straight to HOXOLOGY.
Now I understand why you were disagreeing with MJ.
This will work as long as the clump in morphospace underconsideration (my idea will artifically and possibly emprically with niche and non-neutral biogoegraphy disjunt this)is rotund or at worst elliptic (self-similarly) but if the dimensions really are like organs rather than body plans MJ simply has to hold contra Gould that linear hox relations do not stump Mayr's earlier complaints through his term "genetic revolution" that Gould felt confident will propel evolutioanary structure through his phases and onto all three legs of his tripod.
It seems simply the lack of the genetic measure of the general science information collected from various divisions possible of "mutations" in the QUALITATIVE nature of the mutations (?qualia?)
(which also according to Kant can not have an intuition (as read by me)(hence why I considered it more probable to have a intution of body plans rather than organs interthread alia)) is responsible (Gould supplied a conceptual nexus to think this)because it is hard to find the inutition for adventious tissue between two nodes on a stem for instance (cellulose just in case
I understand some of your frustration for Darwin could be wrong if it is not "right" that the example I gave was not a chimera nor a "delusion" of my own thought. But the defense of the mutation as the correct benefit (in whatever sense this may be recieved) does then (from the time of this quote) depend on the difference in BIOLOGY between Darwin and DeVries which WAS the time of my Grandfather. In order to communicate with evos I have to remain mentally in the information gained from my Grandfather to me during the 70s and this forces me to sustain a highly scientific direction in the perspective I present, lest I loose whatever standing I probably do not even have here that I would hope did come across.
So for instance one would have to guess about the notion of a piece or a part variable that might be thought as single. If the evolutionary biologist is not a determinist and insists that whatever the solitary nature here is, that it is an event, probablistically speaking, there is room to disagree in the most expansive terms with (any) notion if constricting other areas of humanistic terms, such as ethics and a broad anthropology etc, but to do so DOES seem to constrict concurrently the freedom to speak of physics as sci fi enthusiasts often overload enginearing discussions and TV programs with.
What would be instructive is if someone can trace the creationist emphasis on "beneficial mutations" to this use of de Vries. Gould's positioning of de Vries' work in general does not seem to preclude this research from prima facie being presented on EVC it seems to me.
Perhaps I shall find some time to do some preliminary searching of available (to me)literature. Evos probably just don't find this to be their "duty" (see also Kant below). This is how it would be that the probablism of ID must differ from EVOTHEORY but I do not find anyone trying to approximate this, as of yet,here on EVC or elsewhere. They simply fail to conserve what is actually save-able.
All I need to observe is that when I present the science or possible science, rarely is this followed up. I felt that Jazzns went too far. Luckly I had just signed off and NWR noticed before he continued. There seems to be the non-consensus of a maxim to will ones' action universally as law that is at fault here. This is hard to seperate clearly from artifical selection (from which some of the ideas of whatever single variation could mean does mean).
then what might only be approximated (maxiumum likelihood)biologically with econometric adavances to the questionable path no matter the reproduction (as in Shipley above) the caveat *may* be needed if the latency therethrough resovled (understand this is hypothetical, it has not occurred to my knowledge) can be yoked to artifical advances that natural selection isnot known at that time to be able to accomplish. In which case NWR observation about â€œbenefitsâ€ would indicate that
has already been bettered even if we have not really been able to communicate on EVC why, very well. Working the "latency" out of the possibly random slopes in the data seems to be why we would also then be stuck in a concurrent thread at the "trap" of the meaning of "kind."
Now if one felt against Gould that no-heirarchy is HERE then this synthesis I suggest is possible theoretcially need not support an (occult-Aristotelian) analysis valid nonethemore but if one feels with Gould that some hierarchicalization is needed, more, in biology but disagrees that species effects can be normalized logically(only piece meal advances possible) this commensuration by intention would not even post hoc benefit the furtherance of biology.
The â€œcaveatâ€ may apply to some other part of evolutionary theory then the effect of mutation directly. There are multi-generation views of mechanisms. But if Gould is wrong then a benfitâ€™s worth might actually have De Vriesâ€™ connotation singly and soley but only Huxley was wrong globally as such to separate modification and mutation. A prejudice then when not an error was and an actual â€œnatural purposeâ€ (Kant) would be productively delimitable. This would permit one to approach a notion of kind from within evo-devo but the a simple outline is not the mutation. WK does not think we have enough to say why this must be so. I only say it may be.
One of the problems with the statistical nature of biology is that one DOES need some terms to refer to statistical results, so if, benefit"" is simply the post-hoc label of the process it need not affect the pattern the logic still needs to dogmatize.
I am pretty much in agreement with your first three paragraphs. The fault is probably mine in trying to communicate.
It is my hunch that expansion of evolutionary theory into a hierarchical empircism LEADS to the kind of "mind" accepted by this author but is really probably a "creature". Thus you, me and WK may allow a creature of lower form where mind is denoted in this literature.
My feeling is that if this is the case then there are logical junctions the hierarchical view can scientifically associate but presently result in claims of what counts for science and what does not. I linked to Shipley's work to indicate how the research might be furthered to find these nodes of propostional conflict so as to remove any idea that they might be in a "mind" but are rather simple things like WK saying the the term "benefit" is post-hoc.
It is my reading of Kant that before one can say really anything about "final purposes" anyway, one needs to see some subset of ecological interactions on the one hand as possibly due to future recoverable artifical selections rather than for instance, cows being for the purpose of man eating hamburgers, as you point to in the fourth paragraph.
I simply tried to show how hierarchically extended evolutionary theory may faciliate the sorting of ecological moments into various causal paths that either ARE "primitive mind" or the future science of this to be named post-hocness. The internal mechanisms become enlarged in a future science like this, rather than being DETERMINATIVELY judged as ultimately not a part of biology/evolution itself.
The place of the reflexion will always be with the human researcher as the lower-form-creatures do not have cognition as we do. I do not consider making a carbon-silicon organ translator as anything but science fiction in my projection.
The Purpose"of evoltuion" becomes then for me a simple writing of human economics (well beyond Keynsian changes) that does not hold necessarily the Mathlus influence as inherent but is plyed between future artifical selection advances and past understanding of natural selections in territories or on terranes (not necessarily on Earth). If this has to be a "benefit" or an intention then I so it so. I think Erhlich to have been too conservative about conservation when it comes to technological harnessing of organic knowledge.