Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Creationist Fruit by Strict Readings
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5033 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 1 of 1 (40505)
05-17-2003 12:20 PM


PROOF OF CONCEPT detractors failed to even see the thread for.
JCMAXWELL"Thus molecular science sets us face to face with physiological theories. It forbids the physiologist from imagining that structural details of infinitely small dimensions can furnish an explanation of infinite variety which exists in the properties and functions of the most minute organisms."
sYDNEY Brenner- "Nobody publishes theory in biology- with few exceptions. Instead they get out the strucuture of still another protein. I'm not saying it it's mindless. But the mind only acts on the day-to-day" "Molecular biology has been terribly mechanism oriented."
tHIS IS ONLY STRICTLY TRUE FOR THE "SPACE" OF pv(PRESSURE X VOLUME) AND paticularly only for some 'homogenous' "space" of the organism. It is still possible to "imagine" infinite
divisibility within LOCALIZABLE PLaces relative to cell collectives. Maxwell had showed by the stadard "gas" that "attractions" rule IN THE CALCULATION OF MOLECULAR VOLUMES but as S Brenner has remarked Mole Bio may be better off going after OBJECTS such as the splicesomes rather than enunmerations of base pairs and independently expressed genes/proteins. Multiplyig pressue and volume may be only a PHENOMENOLOGY of compenetration and it is entriely possible if I am correct that Boscovichian impenetribility of Mendel's witness rather rules in organic tissue as the repulsion that Maxwell only excluded by using gases but we all know that even a yeast is not a gas. It is true that mole science is face to face with physiology but it is also possible contra Mayr that Bohrs aquousity exists. My prediction is that in living organisms the VIRIAL depends more on repulsions than the attractions it does in gases. If this is true we need to USE different calculations of moleuclar motion in life than in death. As far as I can tell this is only about when two CHEMCIAL equilibria are under investigation in the same process as to the angle the represeNTAtion between the two "=" made into "--><---" with respect to Boscovihc's X axis. I presume given the claim to common descent (which may be false) that the line mark length in both before andafter in the history of chemistry signs is alinged with the absiscea and not across it(apparently what the psychiatrist did wrong in my case). My feeling is that topobiology could be found emprically to "twist" in answer to both the developemtnal and evolutioanry questions the line the kinematics of the equilibria give, but that is only a guess it may be linear numbers nonethelss some infinite divisibility but not infitintesimal does still not be excluded as Maxwell claimed. This was due to his faulty Greek Scholarship that COMAPARED Anaxagoras to Boscovich. There seems to me to be sense that these two authors are not polarized "opposites" but that is also a guess and requires a knoweldge of Greek I do not have. It also in addition does not seem to inidicate a contradtiction with quatum mechanics but I am far from haveing thought even once thru all of the physical details only once that this claim of repulsion in life (but)(aka Maxwell) material localization in DNA and groups of mole bio aggregations etc. per atomic calculations exist but perhaps someone esle can understand what I am thinking so that I do not have to do all of this work alone geographicaly.
Thus if "programmed" cell death exists it may be due to attractions in death OR a prior death of repulsions. We do not even have a theory as of yet to choose and this is enough to restrain Mayr's critique of Bohr's physiology but I have no reason why the Genesis of this thought was subjeted to involutanry electroshock non Aristotleisan justice. There are also other possibilities even if somatic programs do not exist.
Henry Morris in The Biblical Basis for Modern Science quotes Maxwell to the tune of "So far as we know, the result is still the same as Maxwell inferred....We should expect a suffiently sophisticated theory to tell us why this is so." from "In the heavens we discover by their light...stars so distant that no material thing can ever have passed from one to another, and yet this light... tells us that each of them is built up of molecules of the same kinds that we find on earth... No theory of evolution can be formed to account fo rthe similarity of the molecules..."and I Believe I have shown how one can "think aournd" the dispostion of Maxwell.. Einstein was obviously had accesss to this thought as well. I have not carrried out the reading to the equivlanece of mass and energy as it is not clear to me if a complex plane or tensors are involved in the details of if any perversions are material to the work. SO LETS HAVE A PARTY AND SHOW WHY THIS IS NOT SO but is equivlanetly sophisticated preciesely and recognizablly as Morris indicated. Maxwell did not exclude infinite divisiblity by modern atomic science as we do not know how point sets affect the left hand side of the equation even though Kervran in France thought life altered the right hand side with every leavened bread baked. It is entirely possible that the group of eternal and self-existent molular enumerations are determined WITHIN baramins but to this probablity evolutionists will be less likely to trod but there should be no tort here. I still use mechanism but I also use population thinking. The war on cancer may yield in the current bioterrist state to this same conseqence and become achieved.

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024