All about Brad McFall.

Shrodinger said "according to modern views, a gas must not be regarded as consisting of n indentical systems in loose-energy contact, since the energy...Brief reflexion will show that this produces an entirely different sum over-states for the gas a whole." I am not idol H.Americanus inthe lobster eaten Russel segment or not. I will explain this in more detail later the point would be if I get this far is to PROOVE with CANTOR the limit not just discuss from a circle the (IF) a limit then the sum to the limit becuse of the assignment etc etc. Sorry that is a little bleen.

CiTe Ev&luTion as an iion and see what happens to involution.Sometime people get away without saying the right thing.

Yep, I agree. One of my favorite McFall quotations of all time has got to be: Pretty much sums up what being in the "McFall Zone" is like.

---

"Chance is a minor ingredient in the Darwinian recipe, but the most important ingredient is cumulative selection which is quintessentially nonrandom."
--Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker

Ned I think you need to TRY again, to gain something by trying with THE GENERAL to RE-ADad some of my posts. I have respect for you but I can only carry it s0 far.

Brad,Do you understand why everyone can't make head nor tail of your posts?Mark

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't

NO-because I was about to launch into a COMPLETE DESCRIPTIVE STRUCTURE of (my) view from the heat shock protein perspective that EXPANDS *ANY* Monod politicization due to alleostery and SHOW that it is contiguous to the NUMBER (not mere letters as I have done in the past) (going to double the number of 50degrees to 100 with the germs)that was PURPOSIVE for Kant to the segements of strong Gladyshevian inequalities. To do this I DO suppose contra Crick $1970$ that reverse Gladyshev info flow can be solidified in only part of the triangle that CRICK DID NOT fill in. But seeing as you are the only one asking I'll give you all a few days to step of the Statue of Liberty PLAY. THEPROBLEM seems to have kept kreeping in AFTER it became more or less mantra that the INFO was only in the DNA where BEFOREmutation scientists might indeed have had a larger field of thought on what that might be phenotypically. I think it logically between a strech and a distance and I have renewed interest in Wright's DIVISION of change in terms of mutation, selection and migration to which I merely add the supramolecalar manifestations of folding and unfolding but as this DOES NOT result for Jacob's inaccessible cardinal THE SAME (to the person) result of Monod's consequnece (in regulation etc) as to INSTITUTIONAL CHANGES the C/E extension IN THE DEBATE seems not ripe for harvesting to the extent I can relate (it) too.Thanks for asking. I having been toying with using the MARK models of recombination in some discussino just to up your interest but thank GOD I dont have to. Thanks again. (and for those who want to pull my tongue, the neat thing is that heat shocks have a barrel shape where one side could be allostery (unfolding) and the other for (my logic) FOLDING in GGs work by committing (narrowly and possibly fatally)thermal contacts (to any alternative coding ideas (comma free, quad etc), Nonetheless my prelimiary reading of THE EIGHT DAY has me thinking I can keep all of this to where that text stops in the limit. I'm still working on the history but the future seems as open as the crown in a hand.

I still see duck weeds

my past discussion over estimated any size difference of paramagneic and diamagnetic biomatter- but it seems no one cares. Thanks for ALL the nice pop out thoughts in this thread. It is much appreciated.

ROFL. Oh - I get it now. So I guess that answers Mark's question. Hey - no response needed to me Brad, I wouldn't want to everload your probability matrix. Could I suggest you answer this not in omniscient mode;Are you young earth creo or old?Here's the answers you can use;Yes I am and old-earther Mike orYes I am a young-earther Mike. Then proceed to use only 3 4 or 5 letter words.

If I was wrong It wouldnt be fair for me to fall back on a "prescient" mood either. So far, I have not had to worry (about this) but this time I would be actually expanding macrothermodynamic theory (as to ionic bonding organizations) that it could be very slippery indeed. The Library here is about to close, for the nite and I dont want to use that(%%) as an excuse, so, I will CHOOSE one of your options next time. The think to thing about is ABABABCBAABBAA=={++,>>} where distance is either ABC or CBA!

quote:

---

Oh - I get it now. So I guess that answers Mark's question.

---

We see it did not.

quote:

---

Are you young earth creo or old?

​

Yes I am a young-earther Mike. Then proceed to use only 3 4 or 5 letter words.

---

.Yes, I am a young-earther Mike. Most of the Christians I "hang" round with are old in both senses of the word. Gladyshev's claim via macrothermodynamics (sorry a large word) that DNA can remain stable for millions of years does not mean that it did last that long, but if I can use his biology to KNOW how long biological change changes then I could overnight be persuaded to "change" my mind. I DO want to understand if by pursing a resarch program that predicts slowing down of change changes theory and theorists or if it really means that the duration of all the changes really has been as long as geologists are want to say. I had no sense of the truth of creationism as a high school student. But by way of comparision, Carl Zimmer who has written "narratives" on change, a close friend of mine WAS writing editorials for our school newspaper against "creationists." I was too busy collecting Frogs in Western Hunterdon County etc etc etc to be bothered with a'politics' of it all but since I could not get educated by Will Provine I have had to invert my time commitment the other way around. I do understand how Monod "thought" that his ideas on allosteroy opened up a cultural IMPLICATION. I think he was wrong. But not just for the idea or reason of it BUT BECAUSE IT WAS A MAXIST REALIST PHILOSOPHER'S WIFE WHO WAS A PSYCHOLOGIST WHOM INFORMED THE TEACHER WHO CALLED MY PARENTS AND TOLD THEM I WAS INSANE that prevented me from erasing ONE telephone call from life which Monod's ideas arose out of the 60s which my Grandfather WAS NOT A PART OF and had warned me AGAINST as a teen. I learned my lesson well from my relations but relations relied on society and not the parent. John and Henry Morris have been "friends" to me when all this was failing. I cant forget that!This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 08-04-2004 03:54 PM

Brad, Evidently not. The reason is at least twofold.1/ "I having been toying with using the MARK models of recombination". "Wright's DIVISION of change ". "Monod politicization" (for fucks sake!). "strong Gladyshevian inequalities". "Jacob's inaccessible cardinal", good grief, Brad, gooood grief.............Means absolutely NOTHING to anyone. Who is MARK? (other than that cheeky handsome chap sitting at this keyboard), who is Wright? Monod? Jacob & his cardinal, accessible or otherwise? Any point you may be making is lost at the point you name drop some impenetrable process. This is fine in a close knit group where your intended audience knows the personalities & their work, but your intended audience most definately does not.2/ Punctuation. Appalling to the point of childishness. Count the commas in the following paragraph. I didn't get to "one". It's utterly unreadable. Infantile.There is simply no excuse. It has been pointed out to you a thousand times. I assume you CAN read. I guarantee that you don't proof read your own text, if you did you would at least give us a smattering of commas. Why not? What's the bloody point in writing a paragraph that no-one can read?For your next post indulge me, & try an experiment. Write what you have to say in a WORD, or .txt document, & not straight into an EvC text box. REREAD what you have written. Go & get a cup of tea/coffee. REREAD it again, this time slowly. Read the text out loud, where you naturally pause for breath, insert a comma. Where you drop a name connected to a process, delete it & describe the process instead (see above for examples).Mark

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't

Mark I dont know how to subtract electron densities from iron diameters and you would be correct that I perhaps demand a lot from you chaps but needles to say I am not miffed. I will be as clear as mud next time.

Brad, you're a fuckwit.

Hey Mark, don't be too harsh on Brad. It might be that his ability is hindered. He might not be able to articulate what he is thinking. There are many disorders people have remember. Not that I am saying it is that - but still, I'll open a can of whoop ass on yo baba if you bring evil on Brad baba. I mean, his probability matrix might only contain omniscient potential. It may just be that he "assumes" you have the information because you people act like you know it all. ROFL

I'll have to re-read my bible concerning this issue. But if you are omniscient, then what t-shirt am I wearing? If not - oh well, I think you have a hard time explaining and so - take your time with the options, cos Lam says I'm a creo/evo hybrid. Where is his evidence!!!!!!!!!!!!!