By ME at least getting something out of the interaction. Indeed you came up againt the whole weave, and I dont mean the blond! I have had to do BACK the the library and doe some digging but I was not disappointed. You will have some just deserts as soon as I get my wits end. I am not Anthony Hopkins.
As for Shraf, well, I liked her picture but I have never had any really extended conversation with her. Maybe someday. I have glanced over at her posts, now and then, to see if I might join her jumping competition but still I have not found the best looked hook.
So NO, you were actually perferctly guided by her. and i would like to give her the shout out from here.
If you took Descarte's wax for the metric in morphospace rather than Faraday's candle you can err UNLESS you had under this belt the entire modern biophilosophy of biology. Notice I did not say that you Aximill did (but I learned something nonetheless) as I wouldnt recommend that diet to anyone ( I often spit out much of it before it is abstractly digested and who knows how many ulcers I have had to spleen for the hair as a cyberfiber) but if you are up for the phenomenona, go for it.
IF ONE THINKS MORPHOSPACE IS A METRIC OF DESCARTE’S WAX yOu ERR SHORT OF ACCEPTING THE ENTIRE CURENT PARADIGM OF BIOPHILOSOPHY BUT YOU NEED NOT READ THIS LITERATURE IF onE SIMPLY T00K THE MALLEABILITY TO BE FARADY’S CANDLE INSTEAD. Softness vs lightness were dealt with by Maxwell. There was such a thing as electrical images in science before technology. There was an objection to the used final cause but not even the psychiatrist can be said today to have heard it. Instead they try new drugs and ask if you ever thought you were a fictional Messiah. You could try to sense that the objection does not get us closer to the transitive asymmetrical relationship that have been part of the tradition in creationism but if you only found that being objected the subject of clade logic was not furthered you would not be far from truth. It is possible for evolutionary theory to gain say this but with the objection we get the subject and that DOES depend on what comparisons are being dissected. There are even alternatives if one discounted Gould. That would not be advised even if before his last book it might have been the temptation.
Lead us not into temptation but deliver from evilModern Psychiatry illegally took time from biologists in order to gain time to test drugs on patient patients experiementally. Time is not on our side.
P195 In the Blind Watchmaker 1986 Richard Dawkins had next to an illustration for Chapter 8 Explosions and Spirals Shortly, after my first book, ‘The Selfish Gene’, was published, I was independently approached by two clergymen, who had both arrived at the same analogy between ideas in the book and the doctrine of original sin. Darwin applied the idea of evolution in a discriminating way to living organisms changing in body form over many generations. His successors have been tempted to see evolution in everything;
So EVC could all know from Patterson 1978 So, at present, we are left with neo-Darwinism theory: that evolution has occurred, and has been directed mainly by natural selection, with random contributions from genetic drift, and perhaps the occasional hopeful monster. In this form, the theory is not scientific by Popper’s standards. Indeed Popper calls the theory of evolution not a scientific theory but a metaphysical research programme. He means that though the theory is closer to metaphysics than to science, accepting it as true gives us a research programme, a new way of looking at and investigating the world. And through this research programme we can make progress in Science. Popper offers this; ‘If the progress is significant, then the new problems will differ from the old problems: the new problems will be on a radically different level of depth: It is surely true that the problems which occupy today’s workers in molecular evolution are on a radically different level, of depth from those which interested mid-Victorian evolutionists.
Gavin De Beer introduced in 1973 Darwin’s bombshell of evolution, which burst in 1859, had a profound effect on the concept of the explanation of homology, but without touching the criteria by which it is established. At one stroke, it was obvious that metaphysical ‘archetypes’ do not exist, and that homology between organs is based on their correspondence with representatives in a common ancestor of the organisms being compared, from which they were descended in evolution.quote Sir William Flower: We may call this conformity to type, without getting nearer to an explanation of the phenomenon, but is it not powerfully suggestive of true relationship, of inheritance from a common ancestor?
But because Carter had said, This being so, we cannot expect any large discussion of evolution by eighteenth-century biologists. The subject is mentioned by many but usually only as an aside; it was not a subject in which they were greatly interested. It was also a dangerous subject, for even in the eighteenth century the power of the Church was considerable in many countries, and not to be lightly opposed. Buffon, for instance, finds it necessary to mention the possibility that one species may be derived from another, though he finds great difficulties in that view. He also says of quadrupeds that they may perhaps be reducted to a few families from which all the rest may be derived. After a supposition that all the species in these families may be derived from one, he adds the doubtfully sincere sentence — ‘But no, it is certain, by revelation, that all animals have equally enjoyed the grace of creation’. He was forced in 1751 by the Sorbonne to recant on the possibility of the derivation of one species from another.p30-1 a hundred years of evolution by GSCarter.
And Sheppard thought p173Natural Selection and Heredity Two diverging populations may, however, have reached a stage at which they are sufficiently distinct for the hybrids between them to be a great disadvantage, but not sufficiently distinct for no hybridiszation to occur. In these circumstances the two forms will probably evolve into full species, as pointed out by Dobshansky.
While Dunn historicized, nevertheless he made no broad claim of application beyond the actual experimental data. He always referred to the law formulated for Pisum[/i].
Dawkins fails to get that even the newcomer Zimmer AT THE WATER’s EDGE could attain what he only tainted.them mathematically impossible to evolve.
Analogy IS based on formal internet fact correspondence newly. There has never been a hardening within.
I think we have reached the much of the time of Sheppard (The final answer to the problem of how the recessiveness of deleterious mutants usually arises is only likely to be reached when we know more about how genes exert their effects. The data now available show that many genes are not active for much of the time but only when their products are required and are switched off when there is an excess of them) but only time will tell if Syamsu takes this to heart shape rather than the singularity and begins to investigate what the mathematical as opposed to the probabilistic laws (arthimetically at least) yield the shape of the close linkage between separate loci or else he would not have asked me
(EVC GEORGIS PATER or mine) (ref Ford Evoltuion of dominance It is important to remember that each single gene has numerous effects. These all reappear togther whenever it arises by recurrent mutation, which they cannot do when the apparently multiple action is in reality due to close linkage between sepearte loci.). I differ from Gould on cross level infinity but I agree that this time is nothing so far than then an accounting problem. If someone thinks that cybernetics implies otherwise I would be as glad to notice this as Einstein was of Elassaser’s Earth. No syamsu sue me if you really think I am wrong. It is not a legislative problem as you should? Know.
I hope you all keep good books for multiple biological activity can be better datawarehoused oop wise than procedurally. There is nothing psychological nor largely social in all this. Nor is it especially new.
So, should all the allotertraplodis establish itselffrom the area.
From the area of this LARGE WEB DISCUSSION OF EVOLUTION devolve DeBerr’s
Darwin who showed that design has no part to play in adaptation or evolution, never formulated his views in a general principle; this was done by a great but forgotten Englishman: William Kingdom Clifford, in 1875.
Change font
the word
purpose has been used to which it is, perhaps, worth while to call attention. Adaptation of means to an end may be provided in two ways that we ar present know of: by processes of natural selection, and by the agency of an intelligence in which an image or idea of the end preceeded the use of the means. In both cases the existence of the adaptation is accounted for by the necessity or utility of the end. It seems to me convenient to use the word purpose as meaning generally the end to which certain means are adapted, both in these cases and in any other that may hereafter become known, provided only that the adaptation is accounted for by the necessity or utility of the end. And there seems no objection to the use of the phrase ‘final cause’ in this wider senseimage or idea..Here it must suffice to porint out that it was only after the evolution of man, with his memory, experience m and language
Gould knewwithout this language there would be questions but in the joke about age and error croiat also knowe that no desing of a methdolgoy did not cease on purpose if onlyt atht the provision supramoleuclar chemistry and the image of postFaraday VOlatnism beyonds Ptolemaic biogeographcy. Do I still have to show that Ruse’s use fo the ID Boolean leas to futerher quotes rather than actual functions?
Obviously I am not logner first answering with a yes or a no. I alredy did and I had to serve that time involutanrily and with four false battery State charges. No my grey matter is not silicon but neither do I know how noncarbon life IS NOT petrulium. Energy yes but entropy wellwe are working.. we need to get paid!
This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 02-07-2005 18:12 AM
™ Version 4.2
