the phylogeographic challenge to creationism

In
http://EvC Forum: What to do with Brad? (Yet another Brad McFall topic) -->EvC Forum: What to do with Brad? (Yet another Brad McFall topic)
the NPR Science Friday
Page not found - Science Friday
Flatow brought up this issue with respect to the bird flu. Eldredge said that creationists will concede that bird flu might some time "evolve" into a human strain. Niles said we would not even think this if evolution did not occur BUT and here it comes, Flatow THEN said, something like, "but IDers will make a difference between micro and macro evolution". What was the evo, response - well, Niles said what you did. He asserted that evolution was like "ripples on a pond" it goes in circles and never stops. The implication was that there is no stoping micro into macro evolution. Niels Eldredge used the word "break". He said evolution has no breaks.After thinking about this I thought this morning that in truth these evos had not thought about the process hard enough. I can write a sentence next which might be a true "law of nature." If it is then it would enable one to show determinant breaks.The sentence is, Brad said, "There is a direct correlation between causal acyclic graph representations of macrothremodynamic thermostats and parent to offspring ratios per clade."Now if this is true it would also have something to say about spatial patterns of speciation statistically. I am not prepared to engage Mick on this, so I hope my interjection is not taken badly.From this perspective I can see indeed that a creationism reply is suffiently outside Alvin and his yellow submarine band, but to be fair, I would have to engage Mick not at my hyper velocity but his more paced and deligthful posts.This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 11-22-2005 09:50 PM

Sorry, that's all I got (now).

I guess you are correct he could have meant "brakes" but then we would be in an even greater and worse yet "tail spin." If it has no brakes (a la aJacob junk yard random city in Jersey built comparison)it must at least ideally have had a break where ever said"brakes" were meant to "De"ripple the moving water, hypothetically.You are correct I only heard it over the air, Vowels are hard to keep down during Thanksgiving!!Thinking in terms of "breaks" is a lot easier given alltalk about gaps,links and transitions etc.Anyway,the water analogy is not a soliton.This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 11-27-2005 08:08 PM

Sorry, I missed this. Given me a day or so to read through the whole thread point by point. The substantive issue for me is if Provine can really be correct that drift does not exist. If it does not then my sentence would have to have been false.
I will express the second 1/2 graph displayed in terms of the first one. This is from Shipley's "Cause and Correlation in Biology" but what is "continuous" will always be in question given the updatable nature of tests for correct causality. This IS how I seperate biology and physics but whether genetic divergent diversity is seperated by the discrete difference in the graph that either comes around or not will not be possible as long as I continue to read the difference of Fisher and Wright from terms out of the graphs. Will has absolutely sided with Fisher. I am leaving that up to a posteriori data. I could make guesses as I go, but I prefer to try to stay a bit on the more rational side than Will Provine.I will also answer your post more directly where you responded to me later. The part about being correlated to parent/offspring ratios is pure me.This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 11-30-2005 03:47 PM

Howarth & Marino Lab Group: Data

quote:

---

Provine, W. B. 1971. The origins of theoretical population genetics. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
Mayr, E. and W. B. Provine, eds. 1980. The evolutionary synthesis. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.

​

Provine, W. B. 1986. Sewall Wright and evolutionary biology. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.

​

Provine, W. B., ed. 1986. Evolution: Selected papers by Sewall Wright. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.

​

Provine, W. B. 1986. Geneticists and race. American Zoologist 26:857-887.

​

Provine, W. B. 1989. Progress in evolution and meaning in life. Pp. 49-74, In: M. Nitecki, ed., Evolutionary Progress. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.

---

He wrote, "Sewall Wright and evolutionary biology" when he was supposed to have been my Cornell apointed "mentor" for the College Scholar Program at CU where a select number of undergrads graduate without a major writing a thesis instead. I was writing a thesis on the evolution of worm snakes. He failed to come through. He still did not two decades later either. This year he said that he is writing a book on drift claiming to show that it does not occur in the Wrightian, "or any other sense." He said he aired the idea, I guess at Harvard, already, where Richard Lewontin "defended" Will (Will was Richard's grad student in the 60s) during the approach of those dreaded 'post-docs' during some kind of Q&A.If you read the 86 book and Shipley's "Cause and Correlation in Biology"
http://www.callisto.si.usherb.ca:8080/bshipley/my%20book.htm
(the whole thing is free online(ok it looks like opportunity cost is $5)
you will understand completely where/what I am trying to say, unless there are a few asides about Gould's ideas, as the only real issue that instead got me hospitalized in the 80s was the lack of the applicability of econometric structure equations to biological praxis Shipley transferred in 2000 from work in the late 80s and early 90s in the US. I need to know if Will continues to discount this angle and it is easy enough to see how he might in his philosophical approach to Wright in SWEB1986 else the problem is with the so-called "adaptive hardening" post synthesis. I stress adaptibility while others seem to find competition more compelling. This can also re-frame the Wright-Fisher difference but let me not go when I am not ready. Later...This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 12-01-2005 08:16 AM

If one can confine a thought phylogeography to the darkest line then 1-D genotypic ramifiablity might increase concavity per deme.
http://img.photobucket.com/.../v623/BradMcFall/Levinsone.jpghttp://img.photobucket.com/.../v623/BradMcFall/Levinstwo.jpghttp://img.photobucket.com/...623/BradMcFall/Levinsthree.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/...v623/BradMcFall/Levinsfour.jpg

quote:

---

Population Biology and Evolution Edited by Richard C. Lewontin 1968 Syracuse University Press

---

The curious situation that Will Provine got himself into is some kind of position with respect to Levins' ASSERTION II. I offered a paper on how to think about these things in terms of Rene Thom's vision of morphogenesis but Will only could give me a C- grade for the effort to take apart these convexities and concavities. What is very odd is how I was not permitted to go further with my study despite my intent and interest in the subject. I have now developed that thought from the 80s into the one hinted at in the margins of the paper above where I find that the distinction of phenotype and genotype is only a crutch of an older generation of biologists yet I retain the full diagrammatic capability the conceptual divisions succeeded in idealizing.Click on the links to read the Levins article and my s(n)ide remarks.A developing implementation of my thought can be found at
http://www.students.tc3.edu/bmcfall/fripge.htmThis message has been edited by Brad McFall, 12-02-2005 08:23 AMThis message has been edited by Brad McFall, 12-02-2005 08:36 AM

Point(s) per thumb will be nailed in later. Woodger, J.H. Biology and Language. Cambridge Univ.Press 1952 Dorwart, H.L. The Geometry of Incidence Prentice-Hall 1966 This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 12-04-2005 03:20 PMThis message has been edited by Brad McFall, 12-04-2005 03:24 PM