Re: * makes hubey

H. M. Hubey (
27 Nov 1995 02:04:28 -0500

Ralph L Holloway <> writes:

>None of this evolution, Hubey, it is simply change, and it remains to see

Where did I say that it was genetic evolution. Or do you want to
expropriate words like evolution, determinism and complexity
only for biology?

Then I suggest that you and your cronies leave the word plan
for economists, Ockham's razor of philosophers, goal for
psychologists, and stick to making up new Latin words so you
can play more word games.

>where it goes over any span of time with evolutionary significance. You
>really got the hots for the human species, right? Providing its in the
>right political system, right?

What? Does this happen to all biologists eventually? YOu can't
even use any words in the English language in any sense
except in the biological PC sense?

>Aw, shucks, Hubey, I was hoping you would read something, not necessarily
>mine, but something...>

Great, Holloway. Maybe you should pause a little and think
about what it is that you've been doing all time.

>Oh, I know a fair amount about my ignorance, Hubey, but its yours that
>I'm questioning. You've got the Scalae Natura so rattling in your brain

Don't worry about my ignorance Holloway. I know how little I know
and it is because of the simple fact that I've seen real science done
that I can spot floundering around when I see it. Compared to what
can be done what's been done in biology (and life sciences) is
so pitiful that it will take 150-200 years before people in the
field are even able to realize the immensity of their ignorance. Until
then pompousness will reign supreme. Where there are no horses,
donkeys are racers.

IF we wanted to be able to precisely and accurately describe
the operation of a single cell it would require the solution
of about 3,000-5,000 nonlinear differential equations. Now the
pompous asses are claiming to understand the operation of
100 billion neurons and how everything happened after gazing
at some bones dug up over years.

It's pitiful.

>you can't even begin to understand the dynamism of interactions during
>biological evolution of the plant and animal worlds, without pissing in
>the wind.

Holloway, there's only so much verbiage that anyone can take. THere's
a limit. That's why it's such a fertile ground for con-artists.
That's why philosophers never solved a damn problem. They wasted
their centuries arguing about the same garbage they argue about

>I didn't fly in from nowhere, Hubey, I've been reading your crapo
>pseudoscience all along, and no, you haven't stepped on my toes, because
>thank Christ you haven't read or understood anything I've ever said.

This part is easy to believe. Is the bonehead one of your students
too :-).. He seems to have problems with his reading comprehension.

>post something useful for a change, instead of a mishmash of very old
>ideas about intelligence and evolution?

LIke what?

OK, here is a very simple idea. Look at Roughgarden's book (or
Kojima's). In the population genetics sections, there are DE's
for geneflows. Most of what you see is one-dimensional because
it's easier (i.e. it's for a single gene). The equations are
DE's and therefore have derivatives. They are hence velocities.
Now for the whole organism there are many genes. That means
that the complete equations have many dimensions. That means
that in this n-dimensional space (where n is really large)
the motion of a many many points is something like the flow
of a fluid (don't forget that this is a stochastic problem).
You can think of a representative point, maybe something
like an average and follow its motion in this space. This
motion (in this space is evolution).

Now I said that these particles (or the representative
point) moves and hence posseses a well-defined velocity
in this space. Velocity in n-space has a direction.

That is the direction of evolution.

1) Do you have a problem with this like the others who've been
pestering me for the past month of two?

2) Not knowing which way something moves is not the same
thing as saying that it doesn't have a direction.

3) If you still have a problem with the above you are
not fighting against me, but your own colleagues going
back decades (Haldane, Kimura, Wright, Karlin, etc).

Now, what exactly is all this shit about evolution not
having a direction?

I want a public apology from all those who've been pestering
me over this and an admission that they do not or did not
understand what evolution is about. I think their diplomas
should be taken away for incompetence.

PS. ONce this phase is over we can discuss determinism.
That sounds fair to me. How about my pesterers?


Regards, Mark