|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,916 Year: 4,173/9,624 Month: 1,044/974 Week: 3/368 Day: 3/11 Hour: 0/2 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Stanley Miller debunked? | |||||||||||||||||||
Brad McFall Member (Idle past 5063 days) Posts: 3428 From: Ithaca,NY, USA Joined: |
Yep(with some reservations about wording in the last line), and that is why I criticized Dembski in your link in another thread. All parties seem to have some interest in the Determinate Point of origin or origins. That is why Gould's material probablism avoids this stumbling block. I think he did so at the loss of further seperating out vertebrate morphology by attempting to "historicize" it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Brad McFall Member (Idle past 5063 days) Posts: 3428 From: Ithaca,NY, USA Joined: |
That a given cybernetic abstraction is MORE abstract than the subjetive form-making distinctions collected in nature and abstracted in the concept "phenotype". I dont think this is ordered correctly but that is the evidence in lack of information about the small scale directions of changes.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Brad McFall Member (Idle past 5063 days) Posts: 3428 From: Ithaca,NY, USA Joined: |
I dont see why
quote:is "better" phrased with Without direction is better phrased as "without direct supernatural influence."
as autocatalysis and replication need not but could be the same thing. I think it is unhealthy biologically to try to THINK about abstract regulations without the population size already monoplyticized beyond some general statement about plasticity( or distributed regeneration etc) but I would never assume that any or all rates are thought available to the thought process enabled regardless. The following can be without direction in highlander sense I would survive. quote:Adaptation and Natural Selection A Critique of Some Current Evolutionary Thought by George C. Williams p. 135 Princeton New Jersey Princeton Univerity Press 1966 Point(continued coincident ignorance) paraphyly is directionless. It does not contain access to Newton's term "directum". I think it really does.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Brad McFall Member (Idle past 5063 days) Posts: 3428 From: Ithaca,NY, USA Joined: |
Yes. Although I dont agree really that there are two "sides" to c/e I recognize the thought patterns that can lead to writing different responses in some topics. I know very little geology for instance so I can not get into much in those cases. The "gene" can be likened to a cybernetic "abstraction" that is regulated through population genetics but this biological imagination ( I am willing to assert can also be an intuition) ever more detailed since molecular biology grew sets itself within the range of somatic shapes. One can try (sic!) to contemplate the chance random stochastic non-phlytic life that is not the organism, in so many directions; and especially as information technology has garnered economic allegience that the writing of ones' thoughts on this often extripate the simple systematists subjective domain of classification categories. I feel that Wolfram's "new science" is case in point where the function that is in nature that relates this domain and range being both one to one and onto is often writ out of existence by nature of our visual alphabet rather than what would have been the case if our phonic invariances were constraining the cuts and pastes that furthermore permit post-modern writers the instrumental freedom to violate what I consider a basic biological sufficency (to not write thoughts that end up with texts that do not refer to actual groups of living thiings (viruses would be living mind you). This ends up with writings that look more like science fiction than science but certainly not religious. So I try to maintain some rigor when crossing to biological areas of polyphyly BECAUSE we dont know the lines that lead where out lineage is. Speculation about alien life without evidence only causes the single or multiple origins of life to be rubed in the writ without the right to but by dint of lingos to do so. The real issue is the coded content of DNA vs protein at present. I think there is another level of analyticity here. Others simply dont understand what I am writing.
So the "evidence" that chance randomness existed in however long or short the period was before a baramin was pluralized in any thought is merely that cynetics might provide an intellectual environment and technical community to communicate information tranfer IN LIFE no matter what the phenotype is dissected as but given that there IS a difference of genotype and phenoptype. Many students use this kind of thought process but I know how difficult it is to use and try to express myself otherwise. I had wanted to support you most basic contention that early life is without direction but I did not want to see other posters insisting that just because there was *some* deterministic cross over point functionally, IN SOME SENSE, that this meant %anything^ could be written as a response provided the "tone" was scientific "". It can not in all honesty. This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 08-13-2005 08:08 AM
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Brad McFall Member (Idle past 5063 days) Posts: 3428 From: Ithaca,NY, USA Joined: |
It would be belief or faith rather than an application of a catalytic cycle of prior replications IF the following blaming of Christianity in the non-plyetism WERE true.(from Williams op cit p266)
quote:I think not. I think it is not. I think some posters dont parse the obligatory group this fine. It is basically fine with me what you said. I just tried to qualify it with what does count. It is not circular as you suggested but broadening where value does and did matter. Evolutionists who object simply do because either they have this older criticism misapplied to current understanding or else they are NOT defending man's interest in the asthetic point of view contained. It would be a difficult thing to discuss this in terms of what it is like to be a bat but an evo might. This however is about the life that IS NOT an organism(but is a "group") (thus reference to humans is out of place as well) Soooo, if it is only because of reference to the Christian Environment causing biology to go backwards I would agree with you and disagree with all other sayers else there is a more particular point being brought out in the power of the people participating in this thread obligatoryily. There is a facultative teleology that connects with a physical teleology that teleonmy of natural as opposed to artifical selection CAN NOT SORT. The origins of life might contain such value and IS evaluated but not if the determinstic point is truely stohastic. I doubt it is. Others might disagree. 911 showed the plurivocal of this 66 published system of religousness was not as broad as the science fiction that otherwise results from current science failing to grasp the synthetic a priori already present in thought. One can decide without judging in this subject in this thread, thus other aspects of Matt P's post still stand.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Brad McFall Member (Idle past 5063 days) Posts: 3428 From: Ithaca,NY, USA Joined: |
OP was
quote: You substantially said, quote: Are there really only two possibilities here? What if proteins add different "weight" to the symmetrical distribution of form in a GALTON POLYGONEvolution by Jumps: Francis Galton and William Bateson and the Mechanism of Evolutionary Change | Genetics | Oxford Academic tipped during biological change by the 50-50 perversion of DNA? The only reason Kant introduces final causes determinately is to show how effective causes might preceed in thought thought of final purposes. Adults are arguing WHERE Kant said, "specially the supreme condition under which a final purpose (i.e. the determining ground of a supreme understanding for the production of beings of the world) can be allowed)"p294 Critique of Judgement(bold added) yet in a regulative either reflectively or determintively of this thought process he asked, if it was not such that tape worms were "set-offs" to human vitality. In a reflection printed in the Translator's Introduction to the Conflict of the Faculties Kant skected in this vitalism.
quote: Now with Crick and Provine etc we tend not to doubt as we might be a critic at Kant for today and that which is routinely done here in EVC speak etc, but look, if the 49/51 question as REPRESENTED in the OP IS the offset of Kant is as MOVED FROM his use of analogon of life RATHER than analogon of art, a set in the death margin kinematically no matter the full dynamics might simply give death by tapeworms NOT to a Mathusian effective cause no matter how ecosystems might be engineered, but to causality ONLY with respect to man(by using economic equations finally while dissecting plant growth etc) that is unrecorded in biology because germs and bacteria (viruses etc) are seen as diseases rather than simply tippings of the Galton polygon. This is the form of the argument. Restricting the discussion BACK to DNA when both DNA and proteins are involved fails to notice that Croizat's method provides if not a priority itself, the motivation to think like physicist's did parabolas on the place of unusally symmetrical shapes in endemic places little habitable but using artifical selection to rationalize natural selection makes an error Kant had already corrected by a taste for an analogy NOT to art he solved "dialectically". I assume you are STILL a "happy" atheist. This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 10-30-2005 08:25 AM
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Brad McFall Member (Idle past 5063 days) Posts: 3428 From: Ithaca,NY, USA Joined: |
I think there IS a missing one. I have not been able to write it down determinatively as of yet. I need a little more time. I am writing a primer on Malthus first so that how I have a problem with the specific endpoints you quite clearly reflected on comes even clearer and cleaner. The process before and after homochirality could be different in different parts of the universe or slightly deviant within the solar system, I am tempted to think... This thought is somewhat like that as to if the matter in a pendulum affects its rate of swing. There was some discussion of a 5th force but that has not been supported. I do not want to be lead INTO temptation however.
It is not that I can not follow your logic but that the FUTURE possibility of an intlligent being (either alien or idolic) differentiates a different EFFECT in the process you named IN Life for me while it does not at present indicate any possible deviation in death currently in my mind. I have to check out that possibility before I can uncategorically respond. That is why I am investigating Malthus and Pearson's reference to Malthus through Darwin where Malthus talks about the size of a Cabbage head. The issue specifically could be then the relation of homochirality to protein differences across selectable changes in cabbages. I do not want to get ahead of myself, I just wanted you to know I was still thinking of your question AND answer. I have cited Gladyshev on chirality before and this would apply http://www.endeav.org/evolut/text/ohfrmab/ohfrmab.htmto both proteins and nucleic acids but it seems slightly possible that there is a distributive effect when one considers motion of Earth Vs motion of chemcials rotating on other planets that is NOT contained in the endpoints being two in your end. Yes they might be two "fundamentally" or "elementally" but for the biology involved it might matter INITIALLY (to be defined later) any slight difference in the PROPORTION of the left and right sided ones DEPENDENT on monohierarchy reverse information flow (given life) from one side than the other of a later fit survivability. I think I can express the retrodiction a bit better later. Thanks for the reply. One needs to account for symmetry FACTORS in the DIFFERENCE of Earth and other Planet trajectories. I will be working out most of the issues that are not directly chemical hereEvC Forum: "CLIMBING MOUNT IMPROBABLE" - Critique and then I will post back here on the specific issues in chemistry(biochemistry). This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 11-06-2005 07:18 AM
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024