Re: * makes hubey

Bill Burnett (
Tue, 28 Nov 1995 09:39:58

I wrote a complete paragraph which ended with...

>>single randomly reproducing group of life forms with no barriers to the
>>transmission of genetic material between them) in every kingdom? (can I have

And H.M. Hubey replies...

>That's the next step. Obviously this flow in this space is not
>homogeneous either in density or in direction, if we did have
>mind to model "ALL" living things in the same set of equations which
>we are imagining.

Which is my whole point, thank you.

>Any problems so far?

No, on the contrary.

>If we did want to model "ALL" living things in this space, obviously
>the flow is going to look like it's clumped or clustered.

I'm sorry, I would have thought it was obvious from my arguments (which have
included man, leeches, bacteria, viruses, cows, bats and others) that I *am*
talking about the evolution of all living things.

>Guess what these clusters represent :-)..

Thank you, I'm aware of the applications for population genetics and

I said (flippantly but to illustrate a point)...

>>If so, how did we get here so much faster than the slugs? I know,
>>it's because they move so slowly :).

Which you were meant to interpret as "we didn't, they went in a different
direction from us a long time ago." I'm sorry if the irony was too much for
you. I thought it was fairly obvious.

And then...
>>Does this mean you admit you don't know what the direction of evolution is?
>>I'm so disappointed. What happened to our rocket ships?

>Cheap shots again? Why?

Because you claimed to know where we were headed. You claimed we were the
most complex by *your* criterion and that your criterion is the only one
worth looking at. Now you appear to be admitting (my interpretation) that
there might be more to it.

>Where did I say that I was not aware of the random/stochastic
>component? Where did I give any hint that I was not aware of
>the environmental effects.?

>Where did I even give a hint that I knew exactly what these
>equations were or that I solved them? Where?

Where did I say any of this?

>Why are you imagining things?

See above!

>Is there a straw-man in your fortune cookie today?

No. What's *your* hidden agenda?


>Read above and tell me which of the dead ones are spinning in
>which direction :-)...

Why don't you do the DE's and tell me? Or (gird yourself for another cheap
shot) we could dig them up and gaze at them. That would tell us, wouldn't
it, with some degree of reliability.

>I find the models of Kimura a match for the earlier results. YOu can
>find it in Kojima's book (maybe even in Roughgarden's book). I don't
>have them with me and I have better things to do then to read them
>over and over again.

>Which part is it of those results derived by those people in
>the books that I mentioned do you have problems with? I'll
>be happy to look at the sections to see if I've misrepresented
>them. Now, that sounds fair to me.

None of it, as far as I'm aware, seeing as you haven't quoted the page number
where it says evolution has one direction and man is the most advanced because
he has the potential to build rocket ships.


Bill Burnett -
Scottish Association for Marine Science
P.O. Box 3, Oban, Argyll PA34 4AD, UK