All about Brad McFall.

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’sDarwin 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 languageGould 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

yes-
hey did you just hear NPR on Kanasas and Harvard?
Gingrich is not this forthcoming in answering yes or no. ID is JUST as philosophical as evolution is not scientific. I wish he would have said what it is rather than what he feels. That makes it very clear that Harvard does not recognize that there WAS an objection to final cause. I just dont think id is the final answer. ICR is better.

It is a figure of speech by me. Carl Zimmer uses the word 'hook' when describing Alberch's salamander hand work which I didnt get all of the quote typed in above. I decided to refer to my generation since the adult biologists and Harvard teachers just seem to be deaf to it. but no I dont ride horses and it was somewhat just a phrase except that i use in my tv show the work 'hook' with respect to molecular evolution and I show many pictures from my grandfather's museum of claws and bird talons and bat nails. No i dont ride horses. I know schrafinator referred to upstate. That was all. Best, brad.

Design NOte#1 not Gingrich'sNPRChristianity(i dont know if they edited it or if that is really how he felt)(see ref above)).By using Cassidy's ADSORPTION AND CHORMATOGRAPHY in HOMOLOGY
(Technique of Organic Chemistry Volume V interscience 195ONE.)page57
"There may be some question in certain cases about the other boundary of the adsorbed layer, bu at least the one boundary of the interfactr is reasonable definite. All nonmobile interfaces have this simplfying feature, and the mobile interfaces between insoluable monolayers and the liquid substrates usually also show a clear boundary to the adsorbed film."The whole final effect debate amounts to this sufficiency of superfluidity not being accepted so to leave that aside: if Croizat observed Gladyshev's LAw; can track--width contain a metric as well as a measure,does Earth's motion affect organization of genetic sex etc...I,BSM, simply instantiate perhaps more user control of cross level utility than may be actual but not impossible; outside: the virtual environment the user is haptically reFused in. Re,gardless- there will always be some hardware short of DNA computers substituting for the code following, so there is still plenty of time to investigate haptic engineering mistakes at MIT etc... and newer psychological designs in temperature feedback door knobs etc etc etc before we reach the limit of social tolerance for misapplied funds in bioethics.So, we ahve analogously then, page 56 OPCIT, "At the vapor-solid interface there is usually little doubt about the location of at least one of the boundaries of the interface. If the adsorptive is insoluable in the solid, the adsorbtion occurrs on the surface of the solid."I will substitute a cylinder heat shock protein graphic that functions by small molecule contact on one side and DNA abutment on the other as a fake kinetics for whatever we continue to discuss this object to be, have been, will nouemneically taste.

http://www.tilgher.it/...lati/upload/doc/riv_t4a4f12o830.pdf
I had not seen this before.

quote:

---

This is an operational method
by which geographic distribution maps can be analyzed, reduced
to a graphical form and then statistically evaluated for congruence

---

This is backward and why Panbiog has not been extended in biology.This synthesis requied this

quote:

---

Having rejected species fixity and multiple creations Darwin at-
tempted to demonstrate that the distribution patterns of life could
be explained by species origin in single centres of origin, descent
with modification, subsequent migration out of the centre across
barriers and colonization.

---

to be reanalyzed given what Carter said, a hundred years of evolutionThis message has been edited by Brad McFall, 02-09-2005 20:53 AM

Para kindly responded in another thread
EvC Forum: evolution calculations

quote:

---

Brad, monsieur Derrida would be spinning in his fresh grave if he heard his name mentioned in connection with that piece of prose, especially when, in the last paragraph of this post, I will 'deconstruct' it for you, or rather, give you the rough recipe for its reconstruction - perhaps much to the chagrin of Robin, for it removes the poetic quality entirely.

​

But first let me tell you my reason for posting it in the first place. I have noticed that whenever somebody feeds you something intelligible, you come back with a dissemination of ideas (another Derridian favourite!) that even Jacques lui-mme would have had great trouble deconstructing in any meaningful way. So I thought: maybe it works the other way around as well. Feed Brad complete gibberish, and who knows...? And it seems to have worked: I could actually follow what you wrote back. And I liked it, it read like a scene from a Charlie Kaufman film.

​

And how perceptive you were in that last remark! For here's how I produced the gibberish: I took two words from your post, 'biophysics' and 'orang' (which I extended to 'orangutan') and googled them. The second hit was a PubMed text, the abstract of which I ran through an automatic translator, converting it to Japanese. Then I converted it back to English, then to Russian, then back to English again. I believe French and Portugese were also involved, I don't quite remember. The resulting text I introduced to you with a sentence that began in an inconspicuously normal way.

​

"Therefore we will be incoherent, but without systematically resigning ourselves to incoherence" - Jacques Derrida.

---

contra JD we DO have a culture of blinking on the net for Derrida said, "The foliation is here considered in itself, as object and not as accessory. If it does without signification and representation, this is no longer at all like the frame. The frame does not signify anything, and that's that, Kant seems to think."Truth inPatinting but he ALSO allowed himself to write as if it were possible, "After having proposed " a more discriminating vocabulary" - here the word "isomorphism" - he reorients in a manner that I find very lucid and very sound teh very premise of his choice toward another logic or toward another structure that of the "metaphorical catastrophe," which changes the whole scene and forces a ...I also wonder, without at all making an objection,how to determine the "outside" of science that Johnson talk about..."it was not a sematic issue we recently got to at evc but an issue about how if at all the niche is passed in human generations should the biology have been specified it was not but the inversion appeared nontheless. Its hard to see. Having said that I will probably not be able to recall this particular use. It was there nontheless. If one is to make anything bioloigcal into or out of Derrida's book I quoted one must respect the word perversion no matter that Ampere used it first in this sense I think. Gould thought this was outside the kind of Agassiz. It cant be even if Derrida rasied or thought no objection. He can turn in his cartouche all he wants and the pieces wont fall out his quadrate.I am going to double check But I believe the reason that your destruction of the method of your post did not paint a dissemination is because the reason the niche might have been misthouht by is that Sheppard in NATURAL SELECTION misspoke when he wrote, "Haldane points out that, in fact, in such species dominance seems to be at least as common as in outbreeding forms, which is contrary to expectation on Fisher's hypothesis. It must be remembered, however, that inbreeding species must have evolved from outbreeding ones and the dominance, therefore, may have been evolved in their outbreeding ancestors." for I continue to doubt this applies, where the logic needs, to "These more active genes will not produce a different character and therefore will not be at a disadvantage. However, if the amount of enzyme is reduced by the presence of a less active alleomorph, by environmental influences, or by both, the more active form will be at an advantage as the loss of activity will not result...will be a saftey factor of 2...will result."You wont be able to google up a non-incoherent post-reply no matter how many Klingon lingos you translate through. It should be verifiable nonetheless. Energy of destruction and entropy are not the same in this placed space.This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 02-10-2005 18:38 AM

IT IS NOT OFF TOPIC- there were two physical things that happened, more than that happens every time you log on. Cloning resutlsI said depended on one of the four things in that thread but it was not ID that got me removed it was one of the four cloning ideas that people who expreess the ID is but philosophy. SO NO - you went off the topic. If I had double removed you you might not have been able to notice what I am saying just like you cant tell the difference betweem nmn and mnm. I cant! from disseminations I CAN UNDERSTND ID in ways were mispresented by GREENE but not the interview on NPR.WHAT YOU SAID was that preblastulas arent technically different than the use of topology in topobiolog and this CAN have ID effects. It is not your fault that physicists are pretensious about evolution, that's just the way they are taught.Of course there was something more than a mere mistake. An attorney in Albany told me I have a case against Cornell. But just as Bill's finger made it mine would not and not becuase I dont have a case but because I dont have money. Just look at the issue over judges in the supreme court. Rather than talk about people we are talking about how long ALL HUMANS live and that that makes judges living too long!The mistake that was made is a prelude to some future disaster in nanecology. It will be too late after that. What happened to me is personally worse but not for society. It is hard when I am up agasint a lover, a family and a school and still it have to be NOT MY mistake. My creature comforts were taken care of, but that is not who I am.This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 02-11-2005 15:09 AM

nope. I just wonder if the Egyptians might not have understood and/or still do understand snake color patterns BETTER than western science.please dont cut the head off.In the text at the top I speculate that snake skin might be as good for "vision" as the eyes. If snakes can hear with their jaw bone why cant they use the refractive powers of light on their skin via melanin to qunatum mechanically sense (as in Comptons(wrong name)? spinning black and white panes are molecularly moved)?? where the melanic cell can "gaurd" against thermal motion of molecules against such a "demon". Could all the talk about Maxwell demons be bunk for a renewed interest in hieroglyphics??If so the blue color would not be suspect to Ooook's cells(base color issue) and narrative continuity would reign where we have questioned the use of equations in evolution. And yes I have a lot of BSM text investigating this. All that is required is the existence of an isothermal in the body. I am certain of that now after thinking with Gladyshev for a year. The rest is falsifiable.This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 02-11-2005 17:30 AM

This is just great. I think we have finally arrived at the same page.

that might have been what it "looked" like on my b-day.

but in the many stamps of my grandfather's this is the only one where the color actually shewed.

I guess I have appreciated your recent comments but I was still being annoyed by
EvC Forum: All about Brad McFall. IN THIS THREAD

quote:

---

That's a strange question. Monod's death? No one is accusing your grandfather of being the cause of Monod's death. What I was asking is why is Monod's idea not attributed to your grandfather, as previously you claimed you could abstract that idea from your grandfather's work? It was as if you were accusing Monod of stealing your grandfather's idea. But now you're saying that you're not even sure that Monod even read your grandfather's work.

---

ONLY
but really this must be just my instinctive tendency for really I am trying to stop posting not continuing to do so.
So here is some of Stan's "work"

just for fun-the color yellow - and some of Stan's mail.One stamp has too many things in it.

Kant wrote80 Critique of Judgement here it is permissible for the archeologist of nature to derive from the surviving traces of its oldest revolutions,according to all its mechanism known supposed by him, that great family of creatures (for so we must represent them if the said throughgoing relationship is to have any ground). He can suppose the bosom of mother earth, as she passed out of her chaotic state (like a great animals), to have given birth in the beginning to creatures OF LESS PURPOSIVE FORM(CAPS ADDEDBY BSM).Agassiz was about establishing As far as the primary divisions of animals are concerned and the nature of the medium to which they are adapted does not interfere, representatives of the four great branches of the animal kingdom are everywhere found together. Essay on Classification

​

If this picture contains a view of this bosom in the same truth it can not be that Mayr’s reference to Kant’s purposiveness in the grass near this ground is univocal. The translator of Kant noticed that Kant’s notion went back to his paper that had actually really influenced me scientifically

This principle, that for our intellect the conception of an organized body is impossible except by the aid of the idea of design, is frequently insisted on by Kant. Professor Wallace points out(Kant, p110) that, as far back as 1755, in his General Physiogony and Theory of the Heavens, Kant classed the origin of aninmals and plants with the secrets of Providence and the mystical number 666 as one of the topics on which ingenuity and thought are occasionally wasted.

and thus some how in the past few hundred years of discovery we have reduced the solar system thickness to the place of less than a cubic centimeter for the direction to the LESS PURPOSIVE FORM.

​

It will not be until we succeed in showing how to extract information from DNA sequences to the same effect that the time shall come that we can put Mayr’s review behind us. It may be that we already DID know that macrothermodyanmics was the teleomatic behind the failure to appreciate the Newtonian in Kant but conceptually it appears to be caused by a failure to have a human science of the MORE PURPOSIVE FORMATIONS. This would be ecosystem engineering of increases in biomass productivity REPLACING agriculture as man’s primary means of survival in which Mother’s bosom either that shown or some other, is now ALL OF MOTHER earth for any teleology.

​

Mayr thought of Kant like this 1968.

quote:

---

Yet, as in so many other cases, Kant was more perceptive than his critics. He clearly saw two points; first, that no explanation of nature is complete that cannot account for the seeming purposiveness of much of the development and behavior of living organisms and second, the purely mechanical explanations available at his time were quite insufficient to explain teleological phenomena. Unfortunately, he subscribed to prevailing dogma of his period that the only legitimate explanations are purely mechanical (Newtonian) ones which left him without any explanation for all teleological phenomena. He therefore concluded that the true explanation was out of reach and that the most practical approach to the study of organisms was to deal with them as if they were designed.

---

​

What Mayr failed to notice was that the 2nd law thermo in macrothermodyanmics can meld the program’ and Kantian mechanical nonalternative such that the variance of his idea of the relation of teleology and teleonomics as to De Beer’s need not exist.

​

DeBeer wrote in 1972 Colin S. Pittendrigh to facilitate discussion of this all important topic reserving the word teleological for cases involving final causes, where the idea of the end preceded the use of the means, and the world teleonomic for cases where the results of blind chance produce a structure or a function which perform some purpose useful to their possessor, but was never forseen

​

The exemplar that can distance the reading of Mayr’s Kant beyond his Darwin removed the roadblock of design, and modern genetics introducd the concept of the genetic program. Between these two major advances teleology has now acquired an entirely new face. Is the programmatic extension of the suboptimal program extension of optimal programs optimal matching not of ONE base pair but by a whole volume under Gibb’s minimization obeying Gladyshev’s law.
in Biological Sequence Analysis page 276 by Durbin et al Suboptimal RNA folding The original Zucker algorithm finds only the optimal structure. The biologically correct strucutre is often not the calculated optima strucuture...One matrix (exactly the the CYK algorithm) finds the deltaG...then traces back in both the inside and outside matrices to find..The rest of the structure is the optimal structure given that base pair. SCFG versions of RNA folding algorithms can also sample structures according to their likelhood by a probabilistic traceback of the inside matrix, analogous to the way in which suboptimal profile HMM alignments were sampled from a forward matrix in Chapter 6."

​

Regardless, Macrothermodyanimcs if it itself WORKS by thermal contact CAN GIVE comfort to vitalists contra Mayr’s scholarship so if that was the reason he decided to differ from De Beer of De Beer from him it is irrelevant in the case of the impossibility OF DESIGN from educating a man into the Newton of a blade of grass. The again, WHY this happened in biology in the late 60s and early 70s appears possibly due to Waddington’s relation of language to theoretical biology on the study of RNA etc AND the growing body of linguistics of Chomsky’s hierarchy under definition of Woodger’s phenotype and environmental sets. The NEW’’ face was actually BIBLICAL CREATIONISM but it will take some time reading Kant into EVC discussions to make this clear. Mayr had concluded his scholarship in 9 points

quote:

---

1)The use of so-called teleological language by biologists is legitimate ; it implies neither a rejection of physciochemcial explanation nor a noncausal explanation.
2) The terms teleology and teleological have been applied to highly diverse phenomena. I have made an attempt to group these phenomena into more or less homongenous classes.
3)It is illegitimate to describe evolutionary processes or trends as goal directed(teleological). Selection rewards past phenomena(mutation, recombination, etc) but does not plan for the future, at least not in any specific way.
4)Processes(behavior) whose goal directedness is controlled by a program may be referred to as teleonomic.
5)Processes that reach an end state caused by natural laws (e.g. gravity, second law of thermodynamics) but not by a program may be designated teleomatic
6)Programs are in part or entirely the product of natural selection.
7)The question of the legitimacy of applying the term teleological to stationary functional or adaptive systems requires further analysis.
8)Teleonomic(i.e. programmed) behavior occurs only in organisms(and man made machines) and constitutes a clear-cut difference between the levels of complexity in living and in inanimate nature.
9)Teleonomic explanations are strictly causal and mechanistic. They gie no comfort to adherents of vitalistic concepts.

---

From pages 402 etc of Teleological and Teleonomic:A New Analysis written in ‘68 by EMayr reproduced in Evolution and the Diversity of Life Selected Essays 1976 Harvard Press.

​

All that is required is a clearer rewriting of Gladyshev’s work in terms of an intellectual taste in Kant’s The analogy of forms, which with all hteir differences seem to have been produced according to a common original type, strengthens our suspicions else consult the original. I already KNOW by personal experience with the decessed that he was overly sensitive to call ANY maths typological even WHILE the population thinking was not included!!!! What was illegit were my children not any representation of their biology! Mayr made the mistake of refusing to the genetic program analyticity BEHID directions for students of biological teleology for man’s benefit. It may be because elite philosophers rejected Kant’s synthetic apirori or it might be and/or due to emphasis on functionalisms as it obvious that Mayr was working in categories , sturcutrefunction and behavior. Some historical things can be more easily determined by asking the participants than attempting an independent reproduction of the events.

​

​

Enough mutations uttered without performative?

​

This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 03-09-2005 20:53 AM

Yes indeed, you are correct.I wrote that when I didnt know the difference between an abstract class and an interface. Object Oriented Programming is not much of a mystery for me any more.I agree it would be helpful and it would also enable me to start to collect my scattered remarks that are just as misplaced in my apartment as they are on the web.Ill see what I might do but my brother wants me to set up a half dozen links to web sites for each subchapter heading in a college biology text WITH QUESTIONS, so I will be busy through the summer on that. Maybe after this, I can start to use some of my time on my own stuff.This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 04-14-2005 05:54 AM

On a first pass it seems that P might be referring to(Newton's OPTICKS)

quote:

---

These things I consider, not as occult Qualitites supposed to result from specifick Forms of Things, but as general Laws of Nature, by which...And the Aristotelians gave the Name...To tell us that every Species of Things is endow'd with an occult specifik Quality by which it acts and produces manifest Effects, is to tell us nothing: But to derive two or three general Principles of Motion from Phaenomena, and afterwards to tell us how the Properties and Actions of all corporeal Things follow...Now by the help of these Principles, all material Things sem to have been composed of the hard and solid Particles above-mentioned, variously associated in the first Creation by the Counsel of an intelligent Agent. For it became him who created them to set them in order...And so must the Uniformity in the Bodies of Animals, they having generally a right and a left side shaped alike, and on either side of their Bodies two legs behind,...it may be allowed that God is able to create Particles of Matter of several Sizes and Figures, and in serveral Proportions to Space, and perhaps of different Densities and Forces, and thereby to vary the Laws of Nature, and make Worlds of several sorts in several Parts of the Universe. At least, I see nothing of Contradiction in all this.

---

Book Three Part 1If I have a few free moments to test this idea in Pto's post from Kant's reference to PRIOR Greek thought, I might pull out from the sheath later my electronic pen again.

Not only was he a collector, his collection was everything to him. He had thousands of them. His main focus was to ensure that the species were correctly id'd and because of that ( he had Ernst Mayr ID some bird stamps from Paupa New Guinea etc) he had to move them around a bitand never cared much that he had hindged their backs,so after his death the family not appreciating WHAT AND WHY he did this all the time, thought they were worth more. He was the main guy for
index
for many years. Here is an original preprint copy of a biophilately page before it became electronic as available above. After he retired from being this main man he started to build a museum with actual specimens rather than just stamps. This he did as I became a teenager and I was able to see clearly the difference of this fish tail and snake tails

from his work. But the depth of this vision only goes so far as comparing that sheep overprint above to this AZTEC statue I have not become much of a collector. I ran a 4-H stamp club as a teenager as well as the herpetology club. I have been intending to pick up on the last stamp I collected as I wrote to ICR claming that the placement of stamps on pages amounted to the identification of a baramin but I havent foudn the time to do it. Here are some stamps that came on the outside from the SOVIET PHILATELIC ASSOCATION in the30s.
yes B, that IS the stamp that had too much figure for the ground!!!!!!!!!!!!!This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 04-15-2005 05:39 PM