Geological Origin of Life

This response probably DOES NOT belong in this thread, so if the ad mins want it moved, please do so for I do not comment in reply as to the "geological" 'orign' orign of LIFE any more here which the thread remands...Now as to your "two" senetences in your third paragraph... What I had said or meant to say was that dialetical materialism SHOULD have been able to apply topobiology and as the a recent search in a NATURE abstract database shows that terminal keratocytes imply out of French research the cell death "capsase pathway' there IS NOT ANY MORE ANY doubt in my mind that I was correct about this. Death of cells needs to be accounted for in Gould's and not Dawkins' notion of time and then checked for reality before teaching this to students...(death can certainly be used to find a continuum between an orbit and trajectory which is matterially missing in the differential approach to DESCRIBING biological change. Topobiology asserts mechanical consequences. These need to be tested or in the case of the evidence cited updated such that maybe the original Edleman thought is no longer even called topobiology just as Gould thought the Darwininan unit may imply that what the theory of change connotes is no longer "darwinism". I certianly see the original sense of Mendel(ism) replaceing the "neo" part...The "strategy or scheme" that I used was to ALLOW any EVOLUTIONARY CONSEQUENCE of topobiology TO STAND physically and be taught as "science" so that one could get an answer to the question of the horzion of embryogeny that moleuclar embryology would no longer be merely topo wise introduced as and as you say that you know some materialism dialectically then answer why Gould thought it OK to use Hegel when Hedigerr would or could of told his Kantian side otherwise? Simply deal with Derrida's reading of Husserl and try to think of Cantor at the same institution at the same near time frame... My bet is that gain say or use of Contradiction a la Russel will not on a philosophy of invariance to which any kind of materialism must essentailly entail to some contraint will not give the current version of taught evolutionary thought though it is possible this non-evolutionist c/e slanted critical work may indeed have so already contributed to funding directions in the substance of the work that it would be ludicrious not to inform students of the social when not psychological effects of the non-mainstream thinking that is going on contra ANY chomsky believe about the language being used in the process of the denotation. So I dont care that I give evolution the better angle here for if for instance the BIOLOGY of Croizat was hyperlinked into any next drawing of a Russel line then I feel fairly confident that any temporary relief that a historian like Provine might have already felt in the past few decades will be as fleeting as Newton's transient fit is to electrons(not photons) let passed and thenSTOPED in the experimental philsophy that can not be denied to any so doing creationist authors to say nothing of the strict application that topobiology will provide to the conditions of the topology itself of the same topography and this still will be able to "bubble" thru the Chicago school ideas of ecosystem to which would be of USE in dialetical materialism when not actually done so Platonically at least already.I have NO idea what the phrase "are on about" means. I used to be asked if I was "on" drugs and this is the only thing these words can literally mean and yet you ought to know the answer to this question for it is almost the same as declining to interest an intelligent creationist desgining a debate....
I meant what I said, indeed it may have been more poorly expressed for it is an open question if transfinite genetics done in celll death will not show FIRST that some compact classes Russel logically had no information beyond the logical existence of do materially exist but then some linguistic work for art would likely still be part of the conversation and yet that would indeed be Less intelligent and more instinctual. I can deal with the word "evolution" directly for I still need to see some discussion of biological change rather than evolution as reference to Fuytuma will not be where I would show more results for any applied dialectical materialism as there need not be an equlibria of his sort when the orders FROM a shape from infinty be available to mathematical analysis but to say if I will die with a better proposal than Wolfram's at the present time, I, for one, can not gain say though I might with a beer tell you so over the phone.Still this MIGHT have relevance to the use of sequence straigraphy say in thinking about what to do with claims in the field of origins but this as I said in the beginning Iw as not longer saying in this thread.

OK I'm going to try again.Brad - please be aware that I am not aware of any existing dialogue that you may or may not have in regards cell embryology or topobiology. I am not able to understand your point in that direction.All I wondered about was what it was that you wanted DM to do, or not do.

quote:

---

and as you say that you know some materialism dialectically then answer why Gould thought it OK to use Hegel when Hedigerr would or could of told his Kantian side otherwise? Simply deal with Derrida's reading of Husserl and try to think of Cantor at the same institution at the same near time frame...

---

Hegels work is under-valued IMO. Now it should also be noted that my strand of DM is the Marxian inversion of Hegel rather than Hegel pure and proper.

quote:

---

I can deal with the word "evolution" directly for I still need to see some discussion of biological change rather than evolution as reference to Fuytuma will not be where I would show more results for any applied dialectical materialism as there need not be an equlibria of his sort when the orders

---

Is your question: "How does DM address/explain the physical process of evolution?"Roughly speaking, by pre-empting probablistic analysis and asserting that the actual physical manifestation observed will be a probabalistic outcome of several conflicting potentialities.

I was disappointed with what Richard C. Lewontin of Harvard University wrote in IT ANIN'T NECESSARILY SO THE DREAM OF THE HUMAN GENOME AND OTHER ILLUSIONS for while I would side with Kitcher (position paper, book- on sociobiology)as to trying to any behavorially interpret pharse of Dakwins as part or not of pop sociobiology ("born selfish") and hence with Lewontin I lost my own attention on this rightly smart guy when in the aforesaid he wrote (he also wrote with Levin "Dialectical Biologist" or some such from which I thought up a question I had asked him over lunch at the Statler on CU Campus..)p.125... NY REVIEW OF BOOKS NY "Edelman's statement of the problem of development as one of dimension does not quite epitomize either the difficulty or his solution to it." "The invisible hand of development is the very one that the Scotish economists extended to Darwin." "In some instances, at least, the imprecision of high-flown vocabulary seems designed to substitute for a precision of ideas. If so, it is too bad, because..." TOPOBIOLOYis
a hard book to read,even for a professional biologist." "The problem is that no one has been able to make these metaphors work, or to give them a material molecular basis. That is the task that Edelman sets for himself." "All that is left is teh collection of local processes that give the APPEARENCE of overall coordination becuase they work." "The remainder of development is.." "The problem is not simply that we do not have single coherent stories to tell about these processes, but that we do not know how to produce well-framed questions of whose relevance we are sure."And that last is what i had hoped if there was any massive medium to every dialectical biology program it would have in the "five- or ten-year intervals, driven largely by changes in available technology" at least framed such questions (see my own for comparison) when not also pragonalized answers to them. that is all.You will have to excuse me to sticking to my own lingo, I do not know what "IMO" stands for. I am no longer interested in how any DM as you say may ADDress Evo-devo etc since I did not find interesting the language of evolution meaning involution and since Lewontin asserts that not even QUESTIONS could be found to have known relevance then it can not be the claim that my PAYED ACCEPTED TUITION AND A+s @ CU were of LESS substance then any philosophical hope that I may disagree with Kitcher when not Lewontin to as to the math of, for instance Gould on stablizing selection....And as for Marx I was reading his geometric mind for a while until I read Pascal then there was no comparision as to defintion s vs propostions when it comes to techonology vs science to any H guy. I am also not much hay for NOT looking for deductive approahes in thermodynamics but to each the probable possible when the impossible was not a mission....I understand the probablistic appraoch but I doubt it applies to continuity FROM TIMEs of CELL DEATH. Lewontin had already made a division of developement that may be EITHER his inability to gain say topo biology or else is a presumption about how to think of the materiality in some Dialetical process. I hope I made myself clear enough. I can say little better about this to which I disagree....

I still doubt we are communicating meaningfully, but anyway:IMO = In My OpinionIf your interest is in the philosophy of science and biology, I could point you in the direction of, say, Engels work "The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State", which necessarily advances a materialist argument as to the origin of life and humanity. Granted, there are more recent reworkings with up to date science, but its worth a read.It's worth noting, of course, that Marx declared criticism of religion pretty much complete by the end of the century, so did no write greatly on those topics after leaving university. One doc that might be worth a read is his early critique of Hegel:
http://www.marxists.org/.../works/1844/manuscripts/hegel.htm

In the finite-teleological position is to be found the correct premise that nature does not contain within itself the absolute purpose. [245].If it hasnt been meaningful for you that is because it is you not I that is not communicating. Please bring this or anything else up perhaps UNDER a thread I, for instance started and I will be happy , in time, the exhaust my trahcheal lunged o2...but I do not see in a simple finite scan of the link you provided or any question to me as to GEOLOGY as this thread head remands. Sure any one reacing back as far as you do historically could provide SOME kind of narrative that realates a horizon to this story but unless you do you simply in my web etiqutte fail to utlize the net advantage that is available by continuuing to post WITHIN the characterizatins provided by the URL you post out and into...Personally i would no matter the H, be arguing for an acutal purpopse and leave Biblical Creationism to Sunday but that is me and again said nothing about geology. But we would have a inifinte teleomatic position instead in that case. Hence there would not be a polarity between the socialty of creations and evolution but alas this is not likely the anthropology we would on fumes agree to disagree about in the end. Please start a new thread or relate Hegel by some sholarship to some geology reference here the title of Engels' work only makes me wonder about Malthus and to this I for one COULD relate to the stratigraphy of tiantotheres and not Lewontin's triceratops. I think that too was ploy with language for any math he may have matterial also understood. But this for a third time is still coming from me and not you.

sorry duplicate[This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 06-20-2003]

Well, I can't even say whether or not we are communicating I'm not following your angle anyway. I was only curious about yourt interest in DM, I am not a geologist or have any knowledge of specifically geology-realetd applications of DM. I am sorry we appear to be talking past each other. Never mind.

That's fine but unless you post as a response to my post(s) I will be less likely to read your reply. All the best. Brad. I had bought a book on DM in biology and the two Ls book to which I "screwed" up by herpetology to ask a question to Dick only to find he followed the wrong creature and not even the creator either so although I found the existence of such books interesting I could not find the science entailed and when I found that no attempt has been made but to criticize Topobiology as a REDUCTIONISM (to which it need not be if for instance Lamarks chemisry exists to which Gould reads history diffently...) by Richard whom Gould thinks is smartest I lost even any culutral interest I may have had with the naturalism as to any natural history so biological involved materially. Gould's work will not correctly philosophize because he too easily points agaisnt creationsim. Lewontin doesnt do this but he needs to get the soft parts correct as Gould has before he can garner better theoretical assent among the subjective taxa specialists to say nothing about his attempts likely actually correct anti-socociobiologically and yet there is still more biology than this which need not only be Cricks relation to the vital force. The field is just not materially deep enuogh as Croizat took and undertook retirement in SA instead. I may be mildly incorrect about the increased confidence I leak post-Wolfram but I am tired of being benched for all the economics involved to which I take it Gould's investment in Smith economics DOES pertain but to which I find less interest likely if, I would have tested anthropologically and not psychologically(logicallY) as Gould did. But then the dawkins stuff would have to be meat and not milk.