Darwin in the Genome

My views on the evolution of immunity may be even more cryptic and perhaps the following info should make up its own thread-- this is just the "teaser":Using this towards "cracking" the code:Immunology as a generalization of Helmholtz's position @Faraday "shoulder" on 'chemcial quantivalence' is the macromolecular response of life-cycles where different gravity gradients are circumstpected and is but the scoped(out) tract of already changing base-pair transient (binomial expandable) strength communities.Health may be improved if the entropy characteristics (Mendel on character OR factor) nonetheless (in being) irreversible) {in the process} are engineered into the organismic cycle between any point mutation possible in this particular phenomena of disease and THROUGH the chemical bond to physical (action at a distance) to any contact (visual or otherwise) and all reproduction not counterindicating orthogenesis however onto the macro-molecular--post-ribosome expression. These new entropy measures (from immunology) must occurr spatially (hence Helmholtz conception of the motion involved in the electrotonic state is too local a concept) both BEFORE the expression (in the nature of the gene) and after the-nature-of-the-genes-participating-UNIFORMLY.1)Associate a singularity (electrotonic affordance) electrotonically {by an as of yet newly possible technological advane} of parallel computation connecting genome database and form-making made by (here is where the proprietary info goes)of every base pair of all organisms in the phenomena
2)By smaller scaling circles decrease the engieered sigularity perimeter into correspondence with biological reality and acutal macrothermodynamics of imunological aggregates
3)build scalable nano-structures of the space so involved to search/sort based on the above equality made between DNA (NOT AN A PERIODIC CRYSTAL)and form and BODY-ANTIBODY.I assert that the two different scaled phenomena stem from the same cause but becuse we only tend to analyze levels of organization with the microscopic vs macroscopic distintion what Gladyshev divided and then asked for a Darwinization of may be one and the same thing but over a few more orders of magnitude one then we tend to find the words supporting.

Do you have any information on the "small diffusive effects" that are involved with your note?It is also important to understand that Galton was able to possibly see what Darwin did not and short such diffusion being THE ANSWER can see many other possibilites for continutiy that must be required on this view. Correct me if I am wrong but I have always tended to feel that the continumm hypothesis in Math is something that goes hand and/in foot with your noted reasoning but because some physicists disgree fundamentally about/on the spatial *topology* of the universe there tends to occur a disconnect before biologists get to address this outside of particular sub(specialized) disciplines??

It must also be recalled that this point is not mutually exclusive. And that I think is the NEW criticism from creationism. I simply refer to thermodectetion mutations in the antennae of Drosophila and the temperature vestigial wing mutants my gradfather got his Phd in in the 30s.The problem really does not exist for the existence of this variation but for assumed CONTINUTIY to the strata differences even while we continue to debate the internal (chemical) heirarchies involved which may or MAY NOT need natural selection. It is entirely possible that heiracrhies of levels of organization trump considerations of levels of selection diverse. To say that one "fancies" these 'mechanisms' is one thing but to argue just becasue one can be imagined that this is the first prioty of testing with regard to genes in nature is another.So while for instance Calculus could or was applied to show that some mutations could be more likely than others if Wolfram has his insistence it is possible that simple programs rather govern the faculty able to better the MENDELISM no matter the darwin(wallace)ism.

iT COULD strengthen it, but if my suggestion that DNA is the strongest CONTACT in Faraday's pair wise listing of metals later updated to liquids then it may be MENDELISMS that garner the larger pie of molecular biology than any recursion to Gould's Structure say to argue against Mayr as Croizat stewed the bag lunch (for)...

Shouldnt the mutations that DO happen as correlated or not with those that "might" (by whatever reasoning) first be identified not biologically but physcio-chemically (if possible) by design invariances say??? It seems that Synthesists because they want this unit all to "whomselves" do not try to find a protocol that realtes the biochemisty and biophysics involved to the genetics iteself. This may be done for some limited set of genes but I see nothing on this on the whole. I would try first with behavioral genetics of thermoregulation. Certainly if other "one way" functions than mutations are supramolecularly important it is important to know this BEFORE searching for mutations and what if classes of mutations were predicatble based on the actual one vs the potenial form ones (say by some theory of the evolution of dominance) (but again it need not only be used to support a FISHER-FORD natural selection first especially if these "random" mutations have different statistical distributions offering the relation of the acutual and possible more than a corelation but a calculus instead when nothing elese emprical arises?

Use a "relic"; what's the problem here?? you all think it is but a tease?

Cap, I was refering to Will Provine's understanding of population genetics. Do these links mean that you feel free enough to ignore my question about diffusion? I can see how one may think Bayesianism plus variable RATES covers the geometry but my guess is that rigorously when one must JUSTIFY to the Haldanes of the world IN Fisher's position on Wright that such covering (function) no matter how the integration was to work (or not) is not sufficent to diminish the possibility of even arguing for orthogeneis AGAINST wrights best intentions. Dont tell me this is "incomprehensible" for IF I WAS teaching this stuff it would be known in short order but for now I must deal with my own short hand that came from having to FIRST contend with WIll PROVINE's notion of "free will" which is false and all the while KNOWING the of and now the actual acutal genetics my grandfather was familiar with in the same LAB as Wright was once.If I can seperate birds and turtles this way its not my burden but the cladists who want to further divide crocs, squamates and and turtles without even LISTENING to what I and other herpetologists have or could have said.

Obviously, this would have to "nonrandom" with respect to *something*. I was trying to MAKE that something out to be a more unified herpetology BEFORE cladistics became popular.Let me explain. As a Freshman at Cornell in the Into Bio Lab we were assigned a paper on "thermoregulation in the honey bee". I was somewhat acquainted with thoughts on thermoregulation in herps and I even tried as a teen ager to build and test if frogs actively thermorulate by variable behavior in response to substrate temps. In the class we measured hive temps and rate of wing beating but we did not attempt to figure out how many bees were coming and going during the time of the expt. As students were were expected to write on REGULATION of the temperature merely because there appeared a correlation with increased wing motion but I pointed out that we can not CONCLUDE that this is thermoregulation because we only know about temperature changes and behavior changes we do not know this this CAUSES the regulation. For this I was told that I was not properly interpreting the expt and was not permitted to indicate this source of error. But indeed I was correct as other work in lizard thermoregulators have expressed that one needs a standard of STABILITY from which the "regulation" can be compared. This is possible to get from bees but our "simple" expt did not provide enough data for us to categoricaly support regualtion of the heat transfer relations about the organism.The same *kind* of reasoning applies for nonrandom mutations. We need to know nonrandom with respect to what STANDARD. I propose one. You are correct the direction does not seem to be going in the way needed to relate the answer to the question.Going a step futhter I would be interested in any homology in Dimetron (permian reptile) PERPENDICULAR vertebrae bone extension morphogeny in the "thermoregulatory" 'sail' as to this as a variance in histogeny such showing againt that Owen's homology is not a dead concept but the use of cladistic programming that does not loop back to a phenetic data warehousing (something panbiogeography could provide if it caught on) seems to inhibit this kind of work and thought that this thread is headed for could so be done AND THEN correlated with stratigraphy... But once again this web site shows that the steps needed to acutally work out a problem from the c/e area to acutal science IS MUCH TOO LONG for the economics of science as it is acutally practiced today.May the c/e sites continue to exist to show the rest of us the extent the work must progress before results begin to show.

My guess is that any "adherence" that you wish to refer to can be modeled from heirarchies in Gladyshev's MAcrothermodyanmics and yet you reason FROM a dynamics of surface variation. How do you account for the purely arithimetic consequences of reproducation (let us say a by out Muslim participant) and have this IN GENERAL differntiated from a position on orthogenesis. Obvously by using ACTUAL examples there is no doubt that some such reference to PROPRIETARY DATA BASE can be made but the general problem from the c/e design point (even from biodiverisity informatic points) is that the research ought to be based on accesible data to all. You are not differentiating rotational limits from rotational contrainsts between the boundary and intital conditions. Maybe with more detail about the microbiology one could but then this would probably not refer to the actual dissucussion going on here.I had suggested something else for the relation of immune body-antibody knoweldge and base PAIRING.The particular argument works from this point set to molecular adaptations to somatic programming but that requires some significant interaction with my quantity of posting to continue to discuss however consider this:THE IMPORTANCE OF HYDROPHOBIC SIDES CHAINED MAY BE N O T FIT IN THE ACTUAL INCREASE IN IMMISIBILITY WITH WATER BUT PROVIDE A MEANS FOR THE THEORETICAL PHYSICAL LINES AND FARADAY LINES OF FORCE PENETRANCE CLOSER TO THE ORGANISM (BACTERIA OR OTHERWISE). SINCE HYDROGEN BONDS AND IONICS BONDS ARE STONGER THAN THIS PROPOSED TENSE PRESSURE THE FUNCTIONAL GROUPS SUCH ARE FOUND MORE INTERNAL TO THE PROTEIN 'ANATOMY' BUT THIS DOES NOT DEPRECIATE THE PROTEINS' EFFECT (?) AS THE sIze OF THE PROTEIN COULD GET 'FAT' NONTHELESS BY MUTATIONS THAT AFFECT ONLY THE HYDROPHOBIC SIDE CHAINS.The standard would be made not to the genomic homeostasis but to the gene pool as a vapor model where repulsions as well as attractions are considered and dependent not on the proximate molecular biology but by the actual selection (not genetically engineerred kind possible by selecting homozygotic lines with hydrophic side chain breeding) that occurs in nature of the amino acid content of proteins no matter how bacteria interact with the immune system.Again what you say IS POSSIBLE but by "THUS," you reason in a way that another logic carrier could supply. I think "emergence" is a false realistic philosophy influenced by the ideology of post-Communist Marxists in actual infinity. Not all problems in genetic engineering are reducible to issues with Kuhn over gravity.What if instead the centromere acutally obeyed Newton's bucket expt for absolute force to a T?? The notion of "slip" would then confuse Maxwell's term of bodies brittle, mild and hard.Slipperly ness cognitively is a tactile notion and yet tempertature still could be more important for the uniform association you PRESUME in the repeat. Repeats may not only be about MORE Gene expression but could be entropic teleomatic program fragements for bioentropisms as adapations. Also maybe even the mean free path motions can be altered if the Dieledtric around the protein is by Newton's third law reacting. Why do you refuse to post under any of my comments??? Do you jsut think I am "reactionary"? I can accept an YES. I would disagree then.

Thanks, Indeed this (is) the BOOK NOOK. I was hoping you would be interested in threading some of "our" site specific inductions in addition to promoting your own contribution. But if not, thanks again for the interaction. THAT is all I was looking for!

If baranmins still have not been adequetly (to any sociological same institutionalizable notion of consensus etc) defined then what while one whishes this TO BE DEFINED to have been wHILe there "was no evidence of anything else" duration that going up this "hill" of thought a gradient nonetheless *could* become apparent and show in the "noise" a non-random directum...That way, Chance randomness but not random chance would not need to be essential or key and yet quite utilitarian thus "refuting' your conclusion PaulK? Did I get that right PauloK? Obviously "could" is not "ought" nor should it substitue for "would" even if I scold next if misapprehended.

Dawkins is STILL the default *only* becasue there is some truth in my, BSM, opinion as to Gould's claim of the "hardening" of the synthesis. I had judged with correction if any from Marjorie Green that this WAS NOT as Will Provine attempted to natural language that it was only a "constriction" (on the list of approved reading materials) but in conversation with Simon Levin know the "band wagon" has not even been mildly circled...Problem that faults Dawkins is only that with all of goulds legs aside the evo-devos are only hardening this thing if c/e talk is any indication than finding *any* solution. That creationists KNOW that none exists IS true.We need a different ability to talk crtically than that the "adapt(ive) landscape" between a meso and macro word else Johson would not be cold but not even lukewarm to have said he made a joke as to who had what quash creaton macros on computers... That is past. Next..WE DO NOT HAVE A WAY becasue the change is OUTSIDE the math to say even in this comp sci as to if geographic variation gives us more adapations or more evolution as it was rather than the c/e known knowing as is... Gould is dead on about this and Provine Living OFF its Lamb....and will to sacrifice its solution to an arrest vs phase transition for and info transfer invovlved.

Is not the *issue* whether one's "internal" 'map' that would hold the map idea TO the chromosome to be faulty because the linear nature of any and all gene expression is not the difference that one can "navigate" with a map but one can not navigate an organism??I see this as a difference of issues dense in intelf that Piget held to be logical with the notion of space which is got from "reading" a map that IS NOT applicable to genomics + protenomics but need not follow Crick's criticism of Polyani either.The last clause of mine causes the problem for INTERPRETATION but the observation that a chromosome may be better if NEVER thought of as a map is preferable.The directum of mutations depends on the Neighboorhodd when not the Image as to what is "nonrandom" about it. We may be mislead genetically by thinking it interms of genomic mapping for any nautre of gene expression?