All about Brad McFall.

I wanst sure it was possible to post onto this. LAM please keep your pants on. Let me write a prediction and the result (which I have been able to MAKE due to talking to all the good people here at evc). In reading (and writing to some extent) this summer I predicted that it would be possible to find a invertebrate that lays eggs in fossils. Yesterday on my third attempt since June (where in both earlier cases I had looked UNDER WATER) I looked on land. AND I FOUND A MITE THAT DOES JUST THIS!! Now please, please please dont shoot the messenger with a message. I You are getting the CONCLUSIONS OF MY WORK not the whole process as systematically as I can present it. Chill my friend. I have enjoyed your company!!

Yep, and KANT was full of THEM in his notion of "dominion"! Great to see you have come round.

Looks like you needed before a history of mole bio something from "Everything and More - A compact history of "&(potential infinity) by Wallace in 2003 with a jacket read of "Wallace+infinity: wonderful pairing! This is most exquistely (and hilariously) original science writing. Wallace embraces the incompatibility of mathematics and prose and makes art from it. And it's a great story, too." Commented by James Glieck whom I guess you must know. The story can be read from Russel's perspective with the word COMPACT set in bold etc etc. But I would have started without the repdem slogan for you with 5 paragraphs on page 8 @1b.-"Chesterton above is wrong in one re...trying to talk about is one of logic's main characteristics-and mathematics'. Abstractness. Abstraction.It is worth getting straight...Here...Something they can touch and hold. Are asked to count them...Sometimes a kind will have trouble....The point:The basic def. of 'abstract' for our purposes is going to be somewhat concatenated 'removed from or transcending concrete particularity, senous experience.' Used in this way, 'abstract' is a term from metaphysics. Implicit in all mathematical theories, in fact, is some sort of metaphysical position. The father of abstraction in mathematicsythagoras. The father of abstraction in metaphysicslato."I am guilty of this abstraction but note in this book FYI becam IFI "for" then was IF YOUR ARE INTERESTED!! The spelling errors are allmine not a bot about it. I am not comma happy or rather I am as Mark saw. I need to slow down and explain myself now that the REST is not longer resting. I find a need to ABSTRACT FROM genetic KNOWLEDGE you may not, hence my need to explain or the um(p)teenth time but this time for the cardinal good.

That's what was "left behind"

It might be possible to geneticize macrothermodyanmics at
the Fisher-Wright correspondence (see Provine p270 "I think Fisher had in fact changed his mind as a result of thinking about "fission" while writing THE GENTETICAL THEORY OF NATURAL SELECTION...") when analogy to the 2nd law of themo croped up in their letters. If one could find a way to relate both recurrent mutations and reverse information flow by strong macrothermodynamic time scaled inequalities abstracted TO a selectED (artificial) environment it would be possible to advance biological change beyond Gould's Rooselvelt or Franklin. So, if Gibbs' (need to distinguish two voices here) minimization were itself selected the empirical experimental philosophy would exist to motivate further math on these lines. Gladyshev doubts such is possible but he also knows that there is not a number of correlations between entropy and order but if as I write that thermal currents are the environment IS THE TRUTH (if) IN the difference of Wright and Fisher (major factors in adaptive modification(s)) formalizations to quantitative cases the existence of a Darwininan individual might suggest IT****SELF without contributing to creationist criticism by ding of DIFFERNT KINDS OF DISNTANCES as to an ADVANCE BOTH SIDES GAVE (thus if) to science.It would be very interesting to correlate meiosis, inbreeding, state folding (no matter the orientation to gravity) and Gladyshev's rejuvenation Kant's judgement provided. Russel did not try to DITCH Deedikind. Futher floushies might arrive tecnicaly as torision free groups show that inbreeding and meiosis are both rejuvenated by the principle of substance stability and the end of the discussion of graph theory in biogoegraphy.This is alot of ground to cover but Ihave.This seems to be the missing point that Wright simply mis read in Fisher but becuse of different numerical approaches the differences morphologically of geometry --> algebra and algebra-->geometry remained for only Wolfram to properly critcize. I disagree with that philosophy of math even if I might add a little stochasticism in my own idea of Pascal math induction determinisms.

Yes it is. I wanted to up the ante but alas I might have to try again.

Dont feel any the lessOR. Your avatar reminds of the platypus skull I saw in the Smithsonian and gave me much room to anatomical draw out a diagram in Faraday. I think that by trying to understand the simple physics behind macrothermodynamics I have been able to read a difference between the USE of the 1932 meeting in ITHACA where Wright was able to step beyond the dominance of Fisher once and for good and goodness sake we can ask Mammuthus in Germany if this is any larger but I will have to relate the difference of teaching genetics in the eary 60s (due to my memory from the early 70s of my gradfather) WITHIN A DIFFERENCE of Muller and Plunkett without getting into NEwNGLAND. But his even strips all the caffine off the blackness that is but a Catherdral in New Orleans.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.