A barrier to macroevolution & objections to it

You managed to everyway say,

quote:

---

Anyway, do you have any evidence for a barrier to speciation/limit to mutation?

---

I take it you meant actually and not conceptually. If not, I sit corrected.
Let’s make sure however that in our collective EvC “limits to knowledge” that we all know how to CONCEPTUALLY retain a potential limit via mutation to form-making and translation in space for the full gamut of biological change.
To me it is not difficult to conceive where a stumbling block exists. I started to respond in fleshy detail how forms could be made reproductively and I introduced Gould’s notion of a DIFFERENCE between “franklins” and “miltons”
http://EvC Forum: Reality is not based upon our perception. -->EvC Forum: Reality is not based upon our perception.

quote:

---

---

while as you will read I think he should have stuck with a turn on a Mecury Head(old US coinage) instead(I think he sold out “the American School of Ontogeny” to cheaply for CONTINUOUS Russian tastes).I will link some dozen or so other pages of Gould if necessary to make the following clear:
Gould admits that potential dime turning phrases biologically ARE a valid way to conceptualize cross-level biology only that he had thought about “spandrels” before working harder to structuralize hierarchical relations among levels spanning gene to species or clade. For myself I think the pre-franklinian Gould is more obviously mistaken. There has to be *some* reason that Dawkins disagrees with him. I had thought about potential cross-level effects %without% the notion of spandrels and was actually enrolled at Cornell(in it’s cream de crme “college scholar program”) TO PROVIDE a thesis in this effect(As an aside, interestingly, if there is any VALID cross-level affect, and Gould admits this even better in his most advanced understanding of “evolvability”, then there must be historically traceable apologies agasint vitalism in the literature. There are none and I was failed(by Will Provine) for pointing this out from the “level” of the ”cell.’)Since this time Wolfram has postulated “ a new kind of science.” Gould’s divisions and interest in objects/things that would be Milton’s and Wolfram’s insistence on rule-based cellular automata denote roughly the same region of science that can be known except that for Wolfram to be UNIVERSALLY correct Gould must be actually correct that franklins are demotable by the various formations of Miltons. I personally disagree at this point. That is me.Conceptually now, the limits that mutations induce somatically retains at and primarily is within Gould’s reflection on “Miltons” because it is the potentiation that can extend NS beyond any adherent limit a Milton destructs a Franklin for. But if Franklins are better linguistic phraseology for understanding how “cascades” from the lowest level are really extant (given some causality to “downward causation” nonetheless, then no matter what mutation, its limitation, and Gould’s spandrelized Miltonic spacing was, the continuation, NO MATTER THE RULE, can still ordinally be divided and statistically separated at the joints of coherence even if perfection is ruled out of order. This can not be the case if these are things. Thus I think it is better for Gould to have coined the cross-level discussion of evolvablilty and exaptive pool as Mercury Head Dimes rather than a drink of a screwdriver which is what we at EVC will have with our Beer until we rachet to the “next” level of conversation.Thus it is practically important to distinguish if one is trying to conceptualize the limits to species change and mutation a posterioriness in terms of objects or possibly objectifable entities or rather if one is sloshing around and through a matrix of potential functions that format the same shapes. It is the shapes that tell us if the limit is crossed. But with different theoretical architecture tools across researchers we can not find the coherent limit that is cognizable mathematically and demonstrably divisionable Miltonically.Of course, if you intended "actual" evidence, like we ask for of ID on EVC then no, I have none as of yet. But look I was "killed off" of Cornell before I could gather it. Many biologists have little "intuition" in this 'area' even though there really is no "objection."Edited by Brad McFall, : superflous word