Re: * makes hubey
H. M. Hubey (hubey@pegasus.montclair.edu)
28 Nov 1995 13:39:10 -0500
Ralph L Holloway <rlh2@columbia.edu> writes:
>> Where did I say that it was genetic evolution. Or do you want to
>> expropriate words like evolution, determinism and complexity
>> only for biology?
>I guess I missed something in all these threads. I thought we were
>talking about biological evolution. Its the only evolution I know about.
Excuse me, but you shouldn't talk about this kind of stuff.
First, the reasoning is almost analogical. Even the bone-gazing
is analogical. But the analogies with math (called mathemetical
modeling) are frowned upon. Then analogies to other areas are
also frowned upon. So then what is left? Obviously, only the
analogies which were introduced into the field by some people
some years ago and are still around by convention are the only
ones allowed. I made an analogy like others do all the time.
If you don't allow discussion of mathematical models of evolution
or even descriptive models of such models in discussions then
the game is up; it can never be anything other than what is allowed
by the unwritten rules to be what it was, and it will remain
stagnant.
>Here you go again complaining about word games. You are the proverbial
>kettle calling the pot black, my friend. Most of your posts are word
>games, and only that. I am impressed with your vocabularly, OK?
Sheeesh...
The fact that I'm not a narrowminded bone-gazers is no reason
to complain. At least I don't make up latin words only to
sound as if there's some knowledge there when it's only
covering up ignorance.
>What's been done in biology is pitiful, huh? The immensity of our
>ignorance, huh?> Weren't you chastising me a while back for taking too
>dim a view on the human species' stupidity and possible contribution to
>the death of all of life on this planet? You still think we have 150-200
>years?
You must have been talking about your own :-).. And it won't change
for a long time if you persist in your ways.
>Do you really believe we know enough about the cell to apply 3000-5000
>nonlinear differential equations? How did you arrive at that number, and
I read it somewhere. It may have been in Forrest's book. Don't worry
I don't make up latin phrases or numbers as I feel fit to cover
ignorance.
>just what question(s) would the simultaneous solution of these equations
>answer, Hubey? Nobody that I've read claims to know what the hell is
It would tell you exactly how it operates. Don't you think it's
a worthy piece of knowledge. Look at those amazing machines
around you. A few hundred years ago Emperor's couldn't have them.
That's all due to understanding the precise mechanism of operation
of the fundamentals behind what goes on. Surely not even you can
deny that such knowledge would be of immense importance.
>Yes, but Hubey, how long are these microdirections lasting, and for how
>long in what direction? And how short a time is there for some of them to
>reverse? You still believe your gorramn equations are going to
All of it proceeds from these equations as a model of comprehension.
If nothing else, it will teach people not to use words like "goal",
"plan", "purpose"... which are totally inappropriate
anthropomorphizations which impede comprehension of the fundamentals.
If nothing else the pesterers would not have continued to have
monologues pretending to be having dialogues and grandstanding
with Latin peppered phrases which pass for comprehension when
it's obvious that real understanding is missing totally.
Or are you one of those romantics that thinks that mathematics
is good for everything except your field.
PS. don't fly into a rage. I'm not a mathematician.
>characterize evolution at all levels, macro, micro, and molecular. Some
>of the stuff will not be recursive and one might as well be talking
>markov chains. The rest is simply indeterminate without knowing the
>values of epigenetic interactions.
So what? That's the whole point. If you get one thing modeled correctly
then at least you're on the way to comprehending how more complex things
might work. Do you believe that Mendel's work (and its probabilistic
modeling) was a total waste of time?
PS. It doesn't have to be recursive (whatever you mean). And the
fact that there's randomness is obvious. But there's also determinism
buried in randomness and that's the whole point of it; that's what
we are looking for. How do you propose to be able to do the job
without the proper tools? Can you repair cars with only a hammer?
>OK, Hubey, I apologise. I don't really know what evolution is all about.
>I'm still trying to learn. Now why don't you apologize for being such a
>damn poor teacher...?
I apologize for insulting people. And you're not such a bad guy
after all, despite your back-handed apology :-)..
PS. There's something buried in the last few pages of my paper
which is about a result due to Van Kampen about averaging and
so on and its importance for genetic models. I haven't had time
to add more. And there's more: nobody has yet found (to my
knowledge) a way to combine catastrophe theory and these
equations for the densities but the key to speciation is obviously
there. Maybe someone has already done it, but I haven't read it
anywhere.
--
Regards, Mark
http://www.smns.montclair.edu/~hubey
|