Mimicry and neodarwinism

Well, it is certainly more nuanced than that!Gould for one, does not "blame" (in "I Have Landed"("No Science Without Fancy, No Art Without Facts" p17 below) Nabokov but rather chalks it up "when Nabokov wrote his technical papers in the 1940s, the modern Darwinian orthodoxy had not yet congealed, and a Nabokovian style of doubt remained quite common among evolutionary biologists, particularly among taxonomist immersed in the sudy of anatomical detal and geographic variation).If you are going to disparage the potential incidence geometry of 'Nabokov doubting style' then you ought to decline based on the rare case rather than standard interpretation if you are trying to make a comment about today rather than yesterday.I for one still retain this "doubt" but it was passed on to me from this time frame.Take just Gould's position. Gould THEN went on to explain, that this perspective was "LINKED" ("more to earlier consensuses about non-Darwinian evolution than to legitimate modern challenges").One has to accept his and Will Provine's notion of the history of biology to understand just what this kind of retro-explanation entails. This would take us far off the topic of this thread.Suffice this to say, that I for one hold a modern challenge, only you might simply disagree that it is legit. I know some here think my ideas are not legitimate. Ok, but then you would have been inclined to debate against the rare instance than the major collateral lingo.Now, it may be that Gould is also very wrong in trying to define a core Darwinism between the genic selectionism of Dawkins and Williams and still retain a hierarchal inclination should Williams be correct that organisms no matter the mimic become PRIMARY mechanical engineering OF the genic level but are not vehicles. It would be hard for me to write simply what that would be. I will post over in another thread what my most controversial idea would then be, is. Gould's entire long argument to punctuated equilibrium relies on using Darwin's idea of mimicry for the selection of an eye that Martin V queries and questions to support his acceptance of Provine's historicism of biology but this seems to differ depending on the tone of Dawkins vs. Williams to me. I think non-Anglo-Saxon readers would be hard pressed to notice this difference.

quote:

---

---

Basis of Brad's contention that Gould's stair step solution is a tired tire.
=======================================================
The future of Gould's view will not accept this move IN HERE divided sexually @ This will be explained in another thread. I could be wrong but I think I have all the pieces to write A DEFENSE.

It gets a little cumbersome for me when/if I think I have finally understood how to relate purpose and biology. This is a large avenue of biophilosophy and I would like to make a general survey as well.One issue I still have is the possible difference of natural vs artifical purpose Kantian wise vs what needs to be changed in evolutionary theory to accomadate a seperation of teleology and final cause via a FALSE topography of relations of current thought back to Roman vs Greek speculations but because this bears on the ideas of life off Earth it is hard for me to discount in that bearing Gould's notion of promixate and ultimate cause IN USING to explain Darwin's idea of an eye via a Darwinian notion of mimicry.There is no doubt that field is larger but whether the explanation remands a adaptive fitness approach or simply a better understood analysis depends on cashing out the vechile of this approach and THAT I have not completed.I will give your link a little better reading, please hold on.

Thanks so much for the compliment. THAT is the best thing I can recieve and IS the reason I am on EvC and the web. Thanks.I think can get an idea of what you are thinking about. I will need to read Kant's Critique of Pure Reason some more (I have not read more in to it at all this fall).I had not ever really tried to think about a synthetic apriori "likeness" in a predator before. It is obvious that it can be thought about in "terms" of architectural metaphors etc and given that Gould was taken with them as to his narrative junctures with Creationism I see NOW, now that you mentioned it, that indeed the "growth" of biological thought can be thought retrodictively to the issue of "mimic" predators of such likeness(es).That is less obvious but extremely interesting to my intuition. I will try to find mental space for the thought.I have a page from Woodger's "Biology and Language" copied at
http://axiompanbiog.com/releases.aspx
subtitled, "Phenotypes and Environmental Sets" which is an obvious or clear junction for me as I try to see just what a synthetic mimic predator likeness may or may not be, is. This is where Woodger defines the word "FUNCTOR" and it depends on the "parental environment" and may likely bear on Kant's use of "parent" being different than a filial generation in that "the environment" is common across the generation where in Mendel there is a difference between "in the country" and "in the garden" divided by the difference of dominant and recessive. Needless to say, whether Woodger's semantics will work or if a deviation from a return to Russell's ideas on a line in the history of logic, one of the two, the "likness" as it is synthetic and a priori should exist seems to me to be constructable and thus at Kant's difference of math and philosophy. For instance Henderson in panbiogeography restricts issues of "common environment" to only spatial parameters, thus disregarding strictly thermodynamic contributions say. I am not certain if this would be a variation or a variable at this time.Gould simply tried to make much MORE adoo about Bauplane"" than the form no matter the reduction, seems to make a (silver) likeness, to.Edited by Brad McFall, : some spelling

If the future is beckoning one to a "clear idea" which alone logical rules apply as Kant suggested (page 25 below) then Gould is helpful because through his attempts to popularize evolution he (h)as falsely enabled ignorance to acend where thought it self returns EITHER in mind the concept + intuition or intuition itself.
This applies to a judgement of beauty if that was required.Gould was careful to suggest more often concepts than intuitions. The intuition will 'move up' to the future of Natural History before the concept itself becomes contingent (when empirically verified).So as to attempting to make an expanded theoretical SPACE for evolution IF GOULD'S concepts work, then the places can be more than simple infinite regressions to a mean unconditioned. There is ONE concept of his that seems suspect to me however. This seems to underpin his view towards a "preCambrian" world and I cannot be sure if it's possible lack of truth might not be causing some ignorance among otherwise well-meaning horizontally scientifically minded individuals.In my post on color in snakes and birds here on EVC I make ONLY a relative relationship morphologically of the notion of “proximal-distal” while Gould seems to systematically visualize when scaling into geological time a TRIPLE ANATOMY of ventral-dorsal, anterior-posterior, & proximal-distal PER CLUMPED “Morphospace.”. These serve where “aesthetic” judgments of form in the general sense are made by him. Insofar as “proximal-distal” junctions are tied to homological points Cartesiastically deformable (a la D’ Arcy Thompson etc) that remand a clean ecological foreground backed by a particular biogeographic tracing of contingent events my intuition seems to trump any unrecognized conceptual attempts by others that rather are ignorant or simply have used less knowledge from which to judge. Gould is probably the best standard of how much knowledge much be appreciated to not depreciate intutions of evolution even if it slows down. If one does not wish to use asthetic sensibilities than perhaps Gould's work outside his specific claims can be ignored but of all the recent evolutionists he seemes one of the best who tried to support the humanities as well. Compare Carl Sagan for instance.Dr. Gladyshev kindly sent me more information after you posted this and I have been able to visualize on vacation after the New Year (using Bernoulli's principle
http://home.earthlink.net/~mmc1919/venturi.html
) the actual error that Gould may be causing others to ignore by an invertebrate (molluscan) subjectivity ,preferring (for particular allometric data reasons) the notion of “proximal-distal” on par with other divisions of whole organisms. The divisions are not as subtle as those requested by taste and beauty if applied in the same logic of the form no matter the matter.The error itself may indeed become a realization of multiple chromatographic columns MATERIAL following a persistant force of Gladyshev’s law when kept with in an ecological range chemically rather than with Gould and some wide-ranging evc discussions out into cut ups of actual geography as hierarchies are graded. Taking steps up the stairs need to be smaller than the standard Gould sets conceptually for sensical intuition at least for that that I posses but the logic that Gould presents seems to provide the relationship where the relation currently is.Kant's earlier distinction of popularity and scholasticism are important where Gould wants to retain "core Darwinian logic" that for example Gladshev retained between the individual and the column(in another new article).I will specify more details of the visualization later in a thread on Gladyshev’s work.Here are my new year’s notes and Dr.G Gladyshev’s new material abstract: The objective nature of this object may show that though Gould’s logic is good his method may cause ignorance (unintended no doub, but probably documentable with some social historic account of EVC).

quote:

---

Introduction to Logic by IMKANT

---

The point is HERE: Gould was trying to decide if the changes since the 50s, 60s or 70s (we are discussing from the 80s and beyond as far as I know) in thought about evolution does or does not require a DIFFERENT name than “Darwinism.” I name is not the same as the popularity of the idea itself. The changes into our current panorama seem to yield whether with core Darwinism or out that GLACIAL ASSOCIATIONS are not the newer relation of ecology to the changes no matter how the scale will continue to grade the rough vs smooth difference. This CAN be a matter of taste and creationists should not be hindered in creating divisions that while they should be intricate ought not be too subtle as to pervert the transitions from beauty through the sublime should that help in ordinating the form GIVEN the matter.I have divided the single line in my above post into two pictures of labeled entropy below: So that you might see WHERE (the point (in first thumbnail above) amongst the lines resides. Sorry (about the last post where) the second word “much” was to have been ”must’ but that still seems to translate back to me equivalently.I think the only problem with too much knowledge is that one can replace the semblance of truth with a failure to NOT worry about retractions. If you have a problem reading Gould’s presentation of formalism short of the Kaufmanns and Godwins of the world as too much Darwinian then only look to his conceptual nexus and theoretical placements as to rationality and THEN on to forms (whether with the one eye or the eyeless post 50s philosophy of biology etc) and NOW USE whatever “intuition comes to mind.” This may indeed contain synthetic past thoughts that some may call “a priori.” Gould uses this word when making general reference to larger issues “of life.” He only thought mankind would not make progress by having the kind of conversation we DO have on EvC. I know this has not happened. I have progressed and this is NOT due (solely) to me but to the distributed science and nature of the internet.The photo I sent you on Kant is part of his thought process that excludes anything but the logical in the thought. It is quite obvious to me that Bertrand Russel’s book “Principles of Mathematics” can be read as involuting the first few pages I did not send. The current knowledge in biology, including Gould’s does not explicitly attempt to reread form-making and translation in space given the distinction of history and rationality yet he HAS the concepts needed to bring the 80s and 90s into step with us globally today.Dawkins however failed to see the extension that Gould’s geological conjunctions necessitate for what MATH IS NOT available. That is where biophilosophy and the possibility of the predator as a synthetic apriori enters.Here is one way that frogs may be this. Don’t worry about being honest. I will explain it until we disagree or agree to agree.
I was assuming that it did not escape your attention. Perhaps I am wrong.Perhaps this information ; From

quote:

---

Panbiogeography-Tracking the History of Life

---

will be of some help. I have linked google's on-line scans here;
http://axiompanbiog.com/panbioglnks.aspxGladyshev also has a new Wiki page:
Georgi Gladyshev - WikipediaEdited by Brad McFall, : title correctionEdited by Brad McFall, : quali- and justi- fication added

Yes, I can make the ideas more accessible and cognizable. I will and have already started up a couple a pages of details. Feel free to visualize the "column" as orthoganal to the leaf surface below rather than the overlap geologically if that is not an "abuse" of science.You will need to be open to read Kitcher’s notion of “novelty creationism” (page 17) in terms of future humanity dealing with its population increases and NOT as disjunctions from only the past or antiquity.

quote:

---

---

In my “live” science example and recognition of Gladsyshev’s law, I will show that unlike ID perhaps ,the division of the lines I indicated in the post above (after the initial line posted was) surfaces in the picture below: And can be “extended” if the electricity experiment were applied to this PlantL.obscurum (I found during holiday). I will explain all this in the sequel but this is just to indicate that this is “live” science not “dead” as Kitcher argues against ID post Dover ( as his concern is if the extension can be brought into the biology classroom) (That is a different question than explaining how “chromatographic columns” are better than analogues to the truth via particulate nature of different colors of light).The answer is yes, but how to keep the ignorance out is considerable. Four bodies of evolutionary syllogism are not perturbed in the least test.I am still working on your reply.
By the time I am done you should be in a position to identify if the ”red’ or the ”blue’,for example, goes up or simply “over” as per

quote:

---

---

The rough draft reply is on The Trainer's product page
http://aexion.org/product.aspx
in the file "MV.doc"Edited by Brad McFall, : progess reportEdited by Brad McFall, : link to preview

I can extend the example of Gould's description where motion was back to Gould's use of Lamarck , in the sense that I think Georgi Gladyshev intends his law to materialize (with "words" rather than pictures), and working on the notes I posted in MV.doc, it may be possible to reread that back to the general issue of language as you suspect but this is a bit beyond my target as this kind of thing just happens in the process of working up the content. I do "use" English to some extent. Gladyshev was ambivalent as to which, Darwin or Lamarck, is to be recessed towards. My internalization tends at least on the surface to neither but howfar the externals must retain some elliptic in those names historically is probably unavoidable to an extent..Given the recent post by Percy:
http://EvC Forum: Science Programs on Radio, TV and Internet -->EvC Forum: Science Programs on Radio, TV and Internet

quote:

---

The talk finishes with a segment he calls "Naming Rights" that is beyond belief

---

where the speaker spoke of Arabian *star names leads me to suspect you may be onto something with "arabic digits its hardly conceivable to define or invent Fourier sequels etc (using Romans digits)."
but I need to verify that this is different than where Kant referred to using a telescope to see stars vs the" white stripe" in the sky. Regardless it does enter where grammer may or may not be of use (utility).
========================
For the reader;here is another link to the page with "MV.doc" on it.
http://aexion.org/product.aspxI will upload changes there but will still post another response in this thread.
*****************************************************************
I will be imperative for me to relate this diagram of pure biogeometry to niche constructors notion of culturally derived "genophenotypes" when more than one Gladyshev monohierchy is monophyletic. This picture resolves to my satisfaction different uses of "adaptive landscapes" and makes "Wright's incomprehensibility" through use of either individual gene combinations or gene frequencies in a population into relations of the geometry to algebra but functional and approximating it to fourier series seems to be the thing then to doEdited by Brad McFall, : picture

quote:

---

First of all it seems to me that your concept is still referring to some unknown force which is material even if complicated and dynamicaly complex (sorry if I am wrong here). Yet that's something I am not looking for - as you can imagine I am still looking for spiritual essence or let say transcedentalism. I am a kind of creationist even though I accept evolution as the fact - Davison's views supported by ideas of former Russian religious philosophers like V.Solovjov and S.Bulgakov are my favourite.

---

All of this is well and good but try to broaden your perspective a bit IN YOUR INTUTION. There are international aspects that we may be able to address because of your non-anglo philosophical background.I have no problem with the notion of forms "predictated" in some sense where say the "God" of Newton may raise the pitch in the conversation of and I have posted on Boscovich here on EvC before, but before you are going to convince "scientists" if you can sediment your transcendental or spiritual notion into a "PHSICAL LINE OF FORCE etc." you would be better than 1/2 way towards convincing others. To try to convince many of the science minds on EVC of a pure belief is like trying to dig a hole to China. It will never happen, not in the best of all possible peace we wish we had here, speaking for myself as a US citizen.If you are interested in pressing the issue of "arabic" numbers and the global society pre vs post 9-11 then OK but listen to this:I just finished listening to the panel discussion
EvC Forum: Darwin Day 2007
on "eugenics" as part of the Cornell and PRI Darwin Day Celebration.
Just a moment...
The "scientists" wanted to make it very clear that ethical, moral, and obviously by extension (and within the subtext of the words used) "transcendentalism" are over and a part different from the empirical mindset of the scientist. At least that is the ideal. It was admitted by Will Provine that some scientists have used their standing as a scientist to "shield" themselves from others while speaking on non-science things. This was not good, the panel agreed. And the best "the scientists" could say was there was no bright clear line between Darwinism as being “bad” for society as they discussed eugencis a very “bad” thing while the comparison was made to physicists and the atomic bomb (other scientists). This of course is useless as a means of dealing with effective PR for Darwin. But why was THIS the message?Well, in the course of discussing Eugenics (Will Spoke on the history of Eugenics in the US, a Palentotolgist spoke on Osborn’s “outdated” ideas of trends and nazi biology, a student spoke on how close Davenport came to making Cornell form a “eugenics department” out of the plant breeding dept, and a biologist spoke about HALDANE AND FISHER being eugencists and his recent genetic counciling advice he received on the probability of his to be born son to have cystic fibrousus) and yet I really understood what WAS NOT being said.In the question and answer session the question was posed, which was missed by Will at first, as to what kind of “eugencis” programs were there, if any, in other countries like Russia immediately after WWII. The panel had already tried to make it clear that the US eugenic program became “not science” immediately after the war. But because the language used to discuss the entire subject “hinged” on the canonical place of the “evolutionary synthesis” there was NO ANSWER to this question EXCEPT about what was occurring in Russia BEFORE 1924. No one ever spoke of Lysenko and the notion of internal drive or some physical force the likes I had tried to describe to you never even showed itself in the body motion of the gathering.So I can easily conclude that there may be room for a physical force the likes of which you do not need but if it exists would make the position you seem to affect much more likely to be classified as flying on the radar screen rather than being “below” it.I appreciate the attention you have given to me and it has helped me to focus on my own ideas so thnaks and good luck with your own efforts. Somewhere in the Critique of Pure Reason Kant refers to the "mental image" of artists and "savants?" but dismisses it as useful for a trascendental deduction. As for me I sometimes fear if this is ALL that Croizat's Panbiogeography has going for it. The reflection necessary to find out IS however broader than the mere "physical" force, if not simply probabilistic, itself and for this I DO NEED the correspondence with faithful believers who extend the discussion beyond and into the spiritual.If you have no need for an actual physical something then my posts in this thread are not going to be very useful to you and what I said should be read accordingly.Best, Brad.

Martin;
I have responded to you here:
http://EvC Forum: All about Brad McFall II. -->EvC Forum: All about Brad McFall II.as I am not sure that I can maintain dicussing Mimicry and neodarwinism as you want. If you think that my response continues to be relevant to in this thread direct me back and I will post back here again. I do no think that the notion of the "niche" really is where the logic of the difference applies but it does enable one to format the shape of the difference itself, it seems to me.