Data, Information, and all that....

quote:

---

Adding or removing a base changes the data, it may or may not
changed the information.

​

That is an unsubstantiated assumption

---

Yep for for me the substantive may be the reverse "adding or removing a base" may change the information but it might NOT change the data. In 1992 I was doing research in the ANIMAL SCIENCE DEPT at Cornell and I speculated that it might be that Guanosine changes (in the base) could change the way the centriolar cycle cycles across generations (AND HENCE ACROSS THE CELL BLOCK CLONING PROBLEM , I had been hired to solve, If...)but this would NOT CHANGE ANY DATA, only how time IS SIMULATING THE electronic option to visualize the data.- J got that yellow read right and writed. Sorry for not seperating the quotes. I think we all "know" who said what.

Sorry Pete,
I had fallen into my own personal aplogetic but for this I am not so sorry nor sore. I was thinking that I NEED a way determine if a given BASE CHANGE could not be EQUIVALENT from the prespective of selection due to recombination vs recombinations that put physical forces in "impossible" arrangements from the current adaptive fitness of the given taxogeny said "changes" are concurrently "within". Yes, I would need to have it understood how Provine thought that Wright's "landscape" IS NOT incomprehensible which I more or less passed over in my mind when posting as I have not had this kind of trouble but I did not or should not have expected you to think the LINE OF FORCE horizontally from and during any base-pair copying or change MUST be different than that along the form of the helix for that may not be true but is something I am generally entertaining as a desire to do with the information in moleuclar biology.You are correct their SHOULD be a single traceable mapping I only maybe have a few more requiements (what is the relation of a polybaramin and programmened cell deaths that may have not so far been attributed to natural selection) than any common whim this trajectory would find a content similar inertia of we both may agree to in some to be made prelimiary simulation of the thing.In addition to this I HAVE been thinking about information flow contrary to the CENTRAL DOGMA. Specifically this came up with MAMMY on methlyation but for me was a little more determinate when I think of guanophore cell physiology as opposed to any old mitoses that may not be age but only the appearence of such in the need to do away with ecology first instead of "ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny" when dealing with any relation of physics to metrics that may be symmetrical ONLY IN 1-D (looks like a difference ONLY of >--->--->--->etc OR ++---++---++---++---.ALL ELSE WOULD BE THE biophysical (not currently scripted metaphysical) "matrix of minor polarites". Gould for one HAS rejected this approach even though I can agree with him that NO amount of addinging information on the CHANGE from an amphibian brain to a reptile IS CORRECT. We both UNDERSTAND THIS PICTURE to be incorrect yet we differ when approaching an issue of perfection (or in Darwinian terms adaptive fitness optimization) as to HOW Wolfram's NEW CLAIM will pan out the golden monster etc. etc. Since Wolfram's holds to both- equivalent sophistication and universality unreduction
1)the metaphysics is still philosophically miswrit
2)the argument from major polarities failed to empircally locate the polarity no matter the duality (which is WHY I am DOING baraminology...)
3)I am incorrect in THEORY about the NODE that arises humanly between psychic and non-psychic in Matchette's rejection of the EASTERN answer.This does not mean my deductions from within panbiogeography are wrong as to the same data nor that I have used inappropirate information only that I give more value to finding said MATIRX in the "TENSION" of WrightvsFisher as say PRICEVSDSTARJORDAN than some other still equally writiable PERVERSION. NOT "Version".SO Wolfram's STILL UP TO DATE NOT****** being able to get much more than 2-D in his "new science" continues to support doing all the rotation and revolution within the 1-D symmetry that would be any new or old kind of base changes.Thanks for the opp to clarify. I dont know if this will help you in any way or not. The issue of good and evil is altogher something else for me but may not be for Gould if he really was a "materialistic nihilist" as Rupert Sheldrake said he was. Of course Gould had a more robust view than Sheldrake continued to maintain. But Gould did not take full advantage of lexic possiblites rather most only grammetological ones. Discovery is not fact finding...true enough.

And so I guess neither have I. Gould in Chapter 10 of his legless"structure" book suggested that NO ONE would presume to argue that a classic convergence would be asserted a parallel SIMPLY because the two organics had DNA and yet he raised the issue if hoxology which sounded like doxology could yet surpass his reading of GENESIS by pitting Mayr against Dobshanksy without thinking if baraminology of the SHAPES of frogs=turtles, snakes=apodans, lizards=salamanders remands the difference of interphylum comparisons of death tiggers,engulmentviamolecular action and coded degradation(is apoptosis an extension of the digestive system and is not the liver but a terminal (in Gould's sense of heterochrony)conserved apoptotic regime??) Let me not get started just yet. I will need traveling mercies. I can answer from the creationist's position and if the evolutionist details of topobioloigcal reality hold I will also be able to show that the flip occurred IN THE PHYLETIC LINEAGE which Gould missed because he did not seperate forms by phylogenetic disconinuties (which the molecular data will vote yeah or neigh on..)but rejected both Dobshanksy and Mayr IN THE SAME HISTORICAL SENSE of Goethe and Geoffroy while attempting to answer Darwin's eye for Croizat's map. Oh well. I hate it when I can read that others will likely not. Ill explain later. The issue of DNA and INFORMATION as is often discussed c/e wise is WHO Gould's "no one would argue" ARE. So there are some ones...Whether there are only psychologies of this illusion I doubt but I will need to double the pagination of Gould's Chapter 10 to do so and the O-RingATANG did not find it as a past time.

we are talking a matter of degrees? and not absolute's then???????I am begining to notice AND take note that the JACOB mentality of evo as a tinkering is becoming the NOrm? in the web cheapened discussion of evolution before creation. This may be the consensus but then if that is what evo means today I know a herp differntly as I ALWAYS have.I also think I am near to conceive or simply have percieved that one can RETURN to Wright's first and more general use of chance randomness that he later discounted(made cheaper as well?) to get the point over to FIsher. Fisher never accepted his brain. Others know better but then a data division becomes necessary which it may not.

Peter indeed it is a "far cry" but if one were able to use vicariant species distributions and DNA alingement gaps to PREDICT differential distributions of procaryotes in the solar system then I think we have to ADMIT the idea of information IN there those genes etc. If it takes another 20yrs just to get the database I will indeed have lived before my time for I can indeed imagine that this is not a fig but meant to be known for real. You have to guess two openings on the first try. This is hard to do.

Yes butNO ONE is putting out these predictions today. So you like me would have expected that you could go to Cornell and become an academic to actually try if not actually make such not retrodictions about physical artifical life but nautral chemical streches that match up Russel's word "disjunct" with a color of Nelson's fish map of Africa for an explation not only of HOW but WHY (Catholicism and Panbiogeography) Croizat was not on any LUNATIC fringe in Caracass and rejected such "lights"first as MAYR, THEN NELSON OR GOULD (but both). A job in the Bufflo Museum of Science is NOT the proper result for the work that these thoughts could do if given the degree a chance. The issue comes in when one tries to use distance as measured as the crow flies without interacting with a physical intution of the interval that SEPERTED the material work of such a generation as LORENZ, EINSTEIN, and POINCARE.

They may if Wolfram's PDE is a better model of the epidermis than Murray's rxn diffusion equations but all bets are off for me if the node IS a croizatian skyhook reducible amorally. The last few words are like Chomsky's greenly sleeping hierarchy.