All about Brad McFall.

here's the scholarship given out that was made possible by Stan's death.
Page Not Found | Fredonia.edu
and here is his Museum which he built while I was growing up & I got my interest in biology there during the summers.
Page Not Found | Fredonia.eduThis message has been edited by Brad McFall, 08-09-2004 11:39 AM

Can anyone (even you, Brad) tell me what Brad does for a living?

---

The Laminator
For goodness's sake, please vote Democrat this November!

Well apparently he's some sort of biologist. Post 75 I think it was seems to indicate that he actually doesn't mean to speak like he does. This really is quite interesting...Perhaps you can get somebody to type out a message for you to put on here Brad? That would be really cool, and maybe then we could understand why you are the way you are a little better? Just a thought. Either way, it's kinda fun to read through your posts. They're a definite break from the endless rambling that you usually read here.This message has been edited by Glordag, 08-09-2004 07:15 PM

No problem, Brad. I’m going to assume that you’re not being sarcastic--it’s pretty difficult to tell. Then may I ask why it is not attributed to your grandfather? This is what your problem is, isn’t it? You want your father to get the credit for Monod’s idea, right? This is what I’ve gotten from your posts: Monod derived his idea from your grandfather’s work. You claim that your grandfather said the exact same thing, but that it required a bit of abstraction in order to get. If your grandfather’s work was as clear, if not clearer, than Monod’s, why doesn’t your grandfather get the credit? Furthermore, why does the idea need to be abstracted from your grandfather’s work if it is clearer?But you still haven’t answered the most important question. This is the only one I really want answered: why do you write posts that are so difficult to decipher, and do you honestly attempt to make sense?I’ll make it even easier: do you actually put in effort into making sense when you write your posts? Just that simple question. Answer it yes or no. I don’t need any other commentary--just yes or no. I have absolutely no clue what you’re talking about here. You seem to be trying to emphasize the importance of taking physics into consideration when discussing genetics. Then you proceed to name drop Feynman, and I am officially lost. You tell me to wait, but don’t bother, you’re referring to mathematics that I’m not familiar with (I have no clue what set theory is) , so the knowledge you would attempt to impart to me would surely be lost. Brad, seriously, enough with the name dropping. I don’t see how Schrodinger is relevant to Monod’s work. Perhaps if you clarified, I’d understand. And what the heck is superabundantaddendus? Ok Brad, I get it. Relax, or you’ll have an aneurysm. I am not familiar with Gladyshev’s work, although I believe that you have mentioned that it has to do with macrothermodynamics. This is what we’re talking about with respect to the name-dropping, You can’t just reference Gladyshev’s work and assume that I’m going to know what you’re talking about. What about Gladyshev’s work are you referring to, specifically? A concise description would be nice. Heh, if you’re a math fly guy you’re going to have to dumb things down for me or omit them entirely--the only mathematics I know is up to, and including, calculus. Heheh, I predict the existence of McFall’s Last Theorem, which will require mathematics that has not been developed yet in order to prove. Good luck with that.

---

"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

Lam,
My personal story is long and bothersome. I'll be happy to fill you in if you e-mail hotmailme.

Well I guess the thread
EvC Forum: Thread Reopen Requests
is my problem.I wrote up two and half pages of 8point print in response to you last night but I see that this is not yet required. So I will leave the bulk of that/this thought for redistribution among possibly other threads if this one peter's out and I will respond to you rather directly.I am sorry that it is "difficult" to tell. I was not being sarcastic. I really did and still do appreciate that you responded.You'll see that it was thanks to you I can bring this thread back to how I opened it with Lam, as to quoting, David Foster Wallace's "Everything and More A Compact History of (potential infinity)" where abstraction aside, I would call any readers attention to, page 91, where I read last nite(in preparing to respond to you) "It becomes appropriate at this point to bag all pretense to narrative continuity and to whip through several centuries schematically in a kind of time line that goes let's say 476CE(fall of Rome) to the 1660s(foreplay to calculus)." That really is kind of a joke though. Thanks for asking!!What I wanted to compare was what MONOD DID do and what Stan DID NOT!The short hand is that Granddad warned me about molecular biologists before the commercial success of Genetech. Feel free to ask anything you want and I will try not go beyond this qutation following from the primary literature (The Operon by Miller and Reznikoff Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory 1980 page 35(please ignore the spanning notes for now)(Now as to any trait of temperature there lac gene work was making some work UNNECESSAY by finding that thermolability could be circumvented in the attainment of kinetic information but IN SO DOING THE WORK Monod's Functionaries made the approach of Gladyshev WHICH DOES NOT PLUARALIZE the Stanely thermodstat innaccessible BY DEFIITION of nonequilirbriated starting of the kinetcs totally ALREADY KNOWN.)note
"Even in the absense of inducer, beta-galactosidase synthesis starts immediately, gradually falling to the basal rate after 1 hour. The maximal rate can be restored by the addition of IPTG. This experiment had been interpreted to demonstrate the dominance of I^+ over I^-, the lag time in the establishment of repression reflecting the requirement to build up a sufficient level of a cytoplasmic product in order to convert the i^- cell to the i^+ (inducible) state. Taken by itself, however, it does not strcitly prove this, since one is not necessarily observing complementation in TRANS(caps added). In the absense of independent evidence (which was the situation at the time the experiment was published) showing that an i^-z^+ cell is converted to the i^+ state by the introduction of I^+ genetic material, modles involving a CIS(caps added) effect can still be entertained.^2(For instance, a CIS(Caps added)-acting protein or even an RNA molecule which forms a loop strucutre and binds to the DNA just prior to the beginning of the Z gene, thus blocking transcription.) Although this could be achieved by the appropriate use of thermolabile i^- or z^- derivatives fo teh F^-, the availability of stable merodiploids made this unnecessary. Experiments with the appropriate F' factors (jacob and Monod 1961) did establish a proper TRANS(caps added) effect (see below) strenghting the interpretation of teh kinetic effect^3(Unfortunately, the apparent inability of the protein synthesis inhibitor 5-methytryptophan to prevent this accumulation led to the incorrect conclusion that the repressor was not a protein.).More recently, versions of this experiment have been repeated using a mutation...The higher rate of repressor synthesis elimiates the lag time in the establishement of repression."(This is not to say that Monod did not help but the reifiication to any physiological funtioning is BLOCKING THE LOGICAL EXTENSION OF OTHER BIOLOGICAL RESEARCH, mine, my grandfather's and georgi's not to mention Croizat's which I could with Kant's sphere work in as well. This was clear in the HISTORY of mole bio as to the psychic element and competition Ptashne and others noted.)noteI have NO PROOF that Monod even read my grandfather's work. I do not know know if the content of the thesis was not "general knoweldge" of the extended Morgan school nor do I know that Monond more than implicitly extended the "double bluff" or only stuck to the kinetic perspective.What I do know is that Gladyshev's approach challenges the simple readings of the significance of Monod's contribution.Let me make this very clear. My grandfather was not a very great biologist but he was clearly able to motivate students to be interested in biology. James Loyd who studies fire flies was one of his "best" students but I found out that Stan was well aware of the Oriental symbolism of fire fly light before Jim ever left Cornell for Fredonia (or the other way around). Dr. Loyd still visits my Gradmother. I do know that Stan proposed that the mutation of vesitigal was a different kind of process than that of bar eye in the flys and this has always bothered me that other general science writers dont maintain this diversity of perspective. The Luce's (a flyguy of bar eye) descendents still keep in touch with my grandmother and I know (from pictures) that both sides of a Luce canoe is not TWO flies!!! Funny but when I approache Richard Lewontin on his notion of Coupled Differential Equations in evolutionary theory and asked him about the tail of sea-snakes like this kind of indiana switch of conception he had me thinking of Stan's fish and NOT birds nor the herps I was asking about. There are just some things one knows to be true.now for some of the meat.The quote most relevant to logic underconsideration is Cohn's "In his Nobel lecture, Monod muses about this: "I had learned like any schoolboy that two negatives are equivalent to a positive...my doubts about the "the theory of the double bluff" were removed"". (I will draw this out later if you want).But for me it is not about the logic of Russel @Russel wrote, "When Kant argued that "7+5=12" is synthetic, he was using the subject-predicate defintion, as his argument shows. But when we define an analytic proposition as one which can be deduced from logic alone, then "7+5=12" is analytic."
One can do less but this is not more then.
Russel also wrote, "I come now to the question of inferences, which has already been touched on. As we have seen, there is a purely phsiologcal form of inference which belongs to an earlier stage than explict inference, though it persists in the habits of even the most sophisticated philosopher, such as Hume. The next stage is where there is an acutal passage from one belief to another but the passage is a mere occurance, not a transition motivated by an argument. In this case, the transition is usually caused by a physiological inference. Then there is inference based upon some belief; but even then the belief may be whooly irrational, or it may not logically warrant the inference, which is teh case of fallacious reasoning. Lastly, there is valid inference by means of a true principle - but this I cannot give an indubiable instance."Hence my own extension of this thought via heat shock proteins might be called for. Monod seems to have had this thought becuase he was trying to draw out THE LIMIT of use of allostery. But if the supramolecular strech nanowise can occur to any Remianin localization differntly from two different directions there is not a need to find the linear representation of equilibria as consequentially NECESSARILY as to the full effect of selection FOR allostery. This is where some work on Russell on physics can be extended to biology without necessarily having to use some of the physcial restrictions I apply to my own ideas.Instead I am interested in Michael Grosses LIFE ON THE EDGE discussion of heat shock proteins in Russel's context"Professor Eddington, after expounding Weyl's theory, proceeds to generalize it, and some of his accompanying elucidations are relevant to our present difficulties. Thus he says (p217):"In Weyl's theory, a gauge-system is partly physical and partly conventional; lengths in different directions but at the same point are supposed to be compared by experimental(optical) methods; but lengths at different points are not supposed to be comparable by physical methods (transfer of clocks and rods), and the unit of length at each point is laid down by a convention. I think this hybrid defintion of length is undesirable, and that the length should be treated as purely conventional or else a purely physical conception."A coluumn closes this geometry just fine. And if this is a "barrel" heat shock transmisison protein I will have had to have diss the "ED"ington himself. Russel sort of does this but uses the word "definition". I dont think I have lexically gotten past that yet.

Wow. Why would you spend so much time writing that much? I told you that all I really wanted answered was one question. It didn’t require much thought. It was a yes or no answer. You successfully managed to evade my question. Nowhere in your post do you answer it. Let me repeat it in the hope that in your next post you will answer it. Just that, Brad. I really don’t even care if you answer any of the other questions in this post. This one is the most important one. Do not neglect answering it! Ok, great. Foreplay to calculus. I laughed for like ten minutes after I read that, but I have no clue what you’re talking about. Seriously.Your entire seventh paragraph makes no sense to me. I tried, Brad. Really, I did. I’m no expert in molecular biology, so that makes it even more difficult for me to even try to comprehend. Ok, then what is your gripe with Monod? I think I’m lost again. Again, simply name-dropping Gladyshev isn’t going to make your point clear. What is Gladyshev’s approach? I know the type, my former biology teacher was the same way. He’s why I got into the evolution versus creationism debate, incidentally. Oh, no. From this point onward, your post is basically indecipherable. I really tried. Sorry. Somewhere in there you reiterated the importance of incorporating physical principles into biology. I don’t know what you’re getting at. Do you see the sciences as being too compartmentalized, so to speak?

---

"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

Let`s not forget Brad`s gentler side. AFAIK, this is the sole contribution to our poetry page.HESTER WAS AHIPPO WITH A FIGURE MOST CONVENTIONAL,
BUT HER CONVENTIONALITY WAS PURELY UNINTENTIONAL.
SHE LONGED TO BE THE LOVELESIT OF ALL THE HIPPOPOTMI
FROM CENTRAL TANGANYIKA TO THE PLAINS OF OSSAWATOMIE.
SHE DREAMED OF CUTTING DOWN HER GIRTH TO FORM A FIGURE CLASSY,
THE ENVY OF THE HIPPO CLAN FROM MAINE TO TALLAHASSE.
HER SECRET DREAM, SHE WOULD ADMIT, IF ANYONE SHOULD ASK HER:
TO BE THE HIPPO BEAUTY QUEEN FROM SPAIN TO MADAGASCAR.
SHE SOAKED IN EVERY WATERHOLE FOR MILES IN EACH DIRECTION,
IN VAIN, FOR EVEN MUD-BATHS FAILED TO ALTER HER COMPELXION.
AND THOUGH SHE DIETED FOR MONTHS, HER SHAPE WAS SIMPLY FEARFUL,
SO HESTER'S DISPOSITION SOON WAS ANYTHING BUT CHEERFUL.
HER CORPULENCE PRODUCED A CHANGE IN HESTER'S PERSONALITY.
HER LONGING FOR A GREAT DEAL LESS EXCESS CORPOREALITY
LED TO A SENSITIVITY ABOUT HER ADIPOSITY
WHICH CAUSED AMONG HER FRIENDS NO END OF ANIMOSITY.
TO HASTEN THROUGH A STORY WHICH MIGHT THREATEN TO BE ENDLESS,
IT WASNT LONG TILL HESTER FOUND HERSELF COMPLETELY FREINDLESS,
TILL ONE DAY, IN A FIT OF MELANCHOLY INTROSPECTION
SHE FLOATED OVER STANLEY FALLS RIGHT IN THE HIGEST SECTION.
THE NEXT DAY, BITS OF HESTER FLOATED UP AND DOWN THE CONGO
FROM BONGA TO BASOKO AND FROM KINDU TO KASONGO.
THE MORAL SHOULD BE OBVIOUS TO ALL WHO WISH TO HEED IT.
IF YOU MISSED THE POINT, MAY I SUGGEST YOU RE-READ IT.
DO NOT COMPLAIN; BE SATISFIED WITH WHAT THE GOOD LORD GAVE YOU,
FOR WHEN YOU FEEL AS HESTER DID, THERE'S NOTHING THAT CAN SAVE YOU.
IF FROM THE FATE OF HESTER MET YOU WISH TO BE PROTECTED
DON'T LET YOUR THOUGHTS GET MORBID, OR YOU MAY BE VIVISECTED.
AND NOW, UPON THIS HAPPY NOTE POOR HESTER'S TALE IS ENDED.
IF YOU DON'T NEED THIS GOOD ADVISE, YOUR COMMON SENSE IS SPLENDID.

Whoa, I must have missed this the first time I read through this thread. I see what you’re saying. I think you should consider this, however: when the conversation gets to a point where you want to toss in some of your ideas, forget for a moment that the conversation will continue, and just focus on writing up your post. Don’t think about where the conversation might be going while you’re writing, do not check to see where it’s been going since you first started writing your post, and DO NOT try to change the content of your post accordingly. I think this may be the reason that your posts are so fractured. Just get your original idea down on paper, and then proceed to post it. It’s also important not to feel pressured to post it right away in order to feel that it will be considered. Trust me, if you suddenly began propounding your ideas in a clear manner, the people here at EvC would surely take notice.Brad, if you want people to consider your arguments for creationism, they actually have to make sense first. You admitted it yourself: sometimes you can’t even decipher some of your own posts! Why would you expect anyone else to?

---

"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

Yes, it has always been hard to bring my creationist foreground all the way through a thread with a series a posters until I, myself, am done talking but with the below I think I finally am. You still spoke a little too soon for me, but ah well that is the web, at least unlike regular conversations we have a net of links to refer back to if we really care. I posted yesterday to Moose becuase that was something I DID NOT BELIEVE but wanted to be fair to cover everything so that others whom do not think like me will have the place from which (if they choose) to disagree with ANYTHING I have said. I hope the following helps. You really need to see this within the "trunk" of this very thread and not any of the others here on EVC.Russel has provided the Einsteinequivalent credibility to start to show just what this logic beyond Monod's politics really is.We must not forget Kant, "In like manner, in transcendental logic, infinite must be distinguished from affirmative judgements, although in general logic they are rightly enough classed under affirmative. General logic abstracts all content from the predicate (though it be negative), and only considers whether the said predicate..."Russel (of) this generalization wrote, "We have, in fact, something more or less analogous to the arbitrariness of co-ordinates in the general theory of relativity. Provided our symbols have the same interpretation when they apply to percepts, their interpretation elsewhere is arbitrary, since so long as the formula remain the same, the structure asserted is the same whatever interpretation we give. Strucutre, and nothing else, is just what is asserted by formulae in which the meaning of the terms is unknown, but the purely logical symbols have definite meanings (see Chapter XVII.). Even the purely logical symbols are abitrary to a certain limited extent, as we saw in the above example of colours. But often, when facts from different regions have to be brought into connection, one interpretation is much simpler than another, and is therefore less likely to be wrong. These are the main notives governing any suggested interpretation of the symbols which occur in mathematical physics."/page288/Inparticular he /Russell page 287/said,
"There are certain purely logical principles which are useful in regard to structure. When we are dealing with inferred entities, as to which, as explained in Part II., we knos nothing beyond structure, we may be said to know the equations, but not what they mean: so long as they lead to the same results as regards percepts, all interpretations are equally legitimate. Let us take an example. Suppose we have a set of propositions about an electron which we call E. According to the subject-predicate logic, and according to the view that matter is a substance, there is a certain entity E which is mentioned in all statements about this electron. According to the veiw which resolves an electron into a series of events, the proposition in question will be differently analyzed. Assuming a certain schematic simplicity, we might set the matter out as follows: there is a certain relation R which sometimes holds between events, and when it holds between x and y, x and y are said to be events in the biography of the same electron. It x belongs to the field of R, "the electron to which xbelongs...we shall say"the event [ital]z[/i] happened to the electron E...or, more simply, "z belongs to theR-family of x."..Whenever we suggest a new view as to structure, we have to make sure that it does not falsify any old formulae, though it may give them a new interpretation."I suggest that it is possible to find this electron of Einstein by opening up a new physical theory of inonic suspetibilites on this status of predicate-subject, namely, "From the above theory it would be expected that the molecluar susceptibility of a diamagnetic compound would be equal to the sum of the atomic susceptibilities of the atoms of which it is constituted or
xM=SUMn1xA1,(8)
wherexA1 is the atomic susceptibility of the the n1 atoms of the same kind denoted by the suffix 1. As a particular case we may consider the molecular susepticbity xM of a diamagnetic compound as made up of the ionic susceptibilites of the anion and kation which it forms in solution, when
xM=xanion+xkation (9)
Equation (8) is but rarely obeyed and an extension series of experiments by Pascal has shown that it should in general be replaced by the equation..."/Bates page13/.I hope this gives enough of a clue( especially as to any Creaionist after the bleat of a lamb) for someone to figure out if this view requires one or the other statistics (bose-einstein, fermi-dirac)? or is indifferent?? Does any own know????The idea here is to incorporate the arrangement indicated Fig 110 / Suydam page274/ in Russel's electron families. Suydam had,"The Thompson Effect. - In 1851, Lord Kelvin, from theoretical considerations, predicted the existence of reversible heat effect in other parts of the thermocouple circuit than at the junctions. He...verified the effect by the arrangement indicated in Fig 110. Strips of iron were joined in a zigzag arrary, the free ends of the zigzag being connected through a battery...However, when a current (conventional) flowed in a direction from a to g though the zigzag the thermometer at cindicated a higher temperature, but when the current was reversed the thermometer at e indicated a higher temperature."One has to figure out how to represent these currents in Einstein's electron parts of Russel's family. I have thought to use the difference of commutative and noncommutatve algebra in rings but I do not know envough math and physics to know if this is feasible to the "mental copy" ("Hence a second point of veiw (or, rather, a different application of the same mathematical results), which we owe to Willard Gibbs, has been developed. It has a particular beauty of its own, is applicable quite generally to every phsysical system, and has some advantages to be mentioned forthwith. Hence the N identical systems are mental copies of the one system under consideration - of the one macroscopic device that is actually erected..." in \Shrodinger page3\) IN a skill(to be better defined) of PHENOMeNOLoGiCAL THERMODYANICMS as a disciplinary penality if this electron orbit was ONE MONOD SYSTEM ONLY.
______________________________________
no
matter
the
_______________________________________
((parentheTical...)
(And let me open up the possible use of post-modern thought in any real link between macrothermodyanmcs and macorkinetics by quiateing here,Lawlor, "Derrida andHusserl the Basic probelm of Phenomenolgy p91-2 Imgination produces two types of externalization : the symbol and the sign What characterizes the symbol - symbolic writing or hieroglyphics - is the resemblence between the present intuition and what is symbolized; they have something in common. As Hyppolite says, "Intelligence is still prisoner of what is given in the exterior" (LE36/30). A mediating step between the symbol and the sign is the enigma; what characterizes the enigma is the dissociation between the present intuition and that tho which it refers. "The pyramid", Hyppolite says, "has no relation to the dead pharaoh; it invites imagination to surpass itself toward some sort of secret, but there is no particular secret" (LE36-37/30). Although here, in the enigma, the sensible is not what it appears to be, in the pure sign- "in pronoucned words or in written words which are signs of signs"(LE37/30)- the sensible is reduced to the minimum. As such, the sensible counts for nothing. The representation bears no resmblence to its represented content; in the sign the sign as such and that which it represents, signifier and signified, in no way agree (LE 37/31). In short, the sign is arbitrary. Although it remains an exterior being, the sign is intelligence's creation(LE37/31). Therefore, with the creation of the sign, the opposite of being, sense, interiority, is in a being, the opposite of sense, exteriority, is meaningful. Intelligence has found the exteriority which is completely its own(LE37/31); the subjective becomes objective."p91-2)in Lawlor pages 91-92)
_____________________________________
statistical thermodynamics.References
Bates,L.F.; "Modern Magnetism" Cambridge At the University Press, 1961Lawlor, Leonard; "Derrida and Husserl The Basic Problem of Phenomenology" Indiana University Press Bloomington&Indianapolis 2002Russell, Bertrand; "The Analysis of Matter" Dover Publications, Inc., New York 1954Shrodinger, "Statistical Thermodynamics"Suydam, Vernon A.; "Fundamentals of Electricity and Electromagnetism" D.Van Nostrand Company, Inc. New York 1940please see email such like dated May, 4, 2004 3:42 AM EST "Dear Brad, The classical (equilibrium) thermodynamics has the same sense (as a rule) as the phenomenological thermodyanmics. Thus, the classical (equilibrium) thermodynmaics = the phenomenological thermodyanmics. Sincerely, Georgi PS Correct my English, please."{onmsnhotmail}
hold on while I fix(?ed) the bracket. There may still be some errors o ftype.This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 08-11-2004 11:37 AM

It is not shrimp, there is a difference of sign and symbol; PER PERCEPT.I punt not!
start here for any symbol if you will please
EvC Forum: GP Gladyshev's paper (s)or mine?This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 08-11-2004 11:08 AM

Thank you. Here are some links to Stan'sStudent in "your" part of the world
Page Not Found | Texas Electric Cooperatives
http://entnemdept.ifas.ufl.edu/lloyd.htm
http://website.lineone.net/~galaxypix/lloyd.html
I hope this will keep you interested in the different things we discuss here.And in keeping with snikwad's losing "the thread" on Monod, I willl take that break here by quoting out of "Life on the Edge Amazaing Creatures Thriving In Extreme Environments" byMichael Gross.The problem is that I can logically show, and it will take more time to do this than what I am approaching in the main trunk of this thread, the identity of GroEL and GroeES with Hsp60 and Hsp10 IS THE SAME SIGN (I do not know the symbol) that Russel used the RATIO "1"/"2" for. This takes a lot of discussion. Assuming THAT to be true I would then go on to make my gripe with Monod over the defintion Eddington thought Weyl COULD NOT make but I would on the basis of any ideas in "genetic code". This gets our conversation BACK into THE EIGHTH DAY OF CREATION book from which snikwad's interest I might ostensibly have associated derived. I dont know. And so, so as not to get into all of ANOTHER DISCUSSION WITH BRAD all that fast I will depart with the three links and Gross in his own words from page 67 "The three research areas started to converge at the end of the 1980s, when it was found that GroEL and GroES are in fact identical with bacterial heat shock proteins Hsp60 and Hsp10, respectively, and that they are involved in the folding of proteins and association of protein subunits in the cell. They were included in the newly discovered family of molecular chaperones."An extended discussion of Delbruk would have to follow. I am just one person not a whole university.Gross also said, "This was the state of knowledge in the mid-1980s: A whole bunch of shock-induced proteins had been identified, and the mechanisms of their genetic regulation were known in great detail. The problem was no one had the foggiest idea as to what the exact role of these proteins was in the cell and in which ways they help the cell to cope with stress."p65I do not yet have the techinal expertise to manipulte gague(variant)invariant theories. If Mark was inncorect and the audience was able to follow my lead I wouldnt have to figure this out. I think Mark25 might be correct, from afar, though and that I will have to figure this out on my own. I think these proteins help BY FOLDING what allostery UNFOLDS. IT IS ONLY A GUESS-TAKE IT OR LEAVE IT.I was sent to a hosptial because I tried to skip the SUNY FREDONIA STEP? going straight to CU out of high school?? I dont think Georgi thought so.This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 08-11-2004 11:31 AM

It's not that this is getting "too" compartmentalized but rather that I hadnt yet gotton to a statement that beyond inference might not have made "sense". I had posted the "poetry" largerl as an intermission waiting to arrive at a sentence or an inference in the past so now I can add what comes at an end of this long threaded discussion:I infer- from the family of electrons (as if) divided out of all our electricity - and so conceive a NOTION of additive vs nonadditive entropy measures in this division bearing on the truth of Gibb's paradox IN PHENOMENOLOGICAL THERMODYANMICS (ref from Shrodinger op.cit."It was a famous paradox pointed out for the first time by W. Gibbs, that the same increase of entropy msut not be taken into account, when the two molecules are of the same gas, although (according to naive gas-theoretical views) diffusion takes palce then too, but unnoticeably to us, because all particles are alike. The modern view solves this paradox by declaring that in the second case there is no real diffusion, because exchange between like particles is not a real event - it it were, we should have to take account of it statistically."and from there I state sensically or not, "Croizat minimal spanning trees pass through prior cell death space supramolecularly intepenetrated by 'Gibb's paradox'"I have done this in the past here on EVC but now we have more of the steps fleshed out. My point is that if one LOOKS at a sentence such from me or say from a creationist like "Creation Science goes around the Flood of Noah in 80 days" then I ask if we must necessarily KEEP THIS OUT OF THE PRIVATE SCHOOLS (as it was already IN the public ones) and risk (as with my life) a failure of mankind to have a better future by arbitrary exclusion of potentially true deductive reasonings? Since Georgi recalled my own observations of the negative influence of nonequilibrium preferences in science I have been able to consturct such a sentence by not using this science and keeping creationist thought within the words so I start personally to doubt that creationism is the trouble but instead it is entrenced science under economic development that was the culprit in the pit. There may be no real diffusion but there CAN be deduction.

I,m coming back to the material Loudmouth "put into evidence" &
this - is the point_
to which I am going to be going
In order to determine the "val_||_ley" of this too we will be able to pick up where RussHell left off, "Hence the question, whether to begin with order or with numbers, resolves itself into one of convience and simplicity; and from this point of view, the cardinal numbers seem naturally to precede the very difficult considerations as to series which have occupied the present Part.""Principles of Mathematics"We will have to compare two texts by Carter and the nicheConstructors. Yousall can go ahead but I am still tying down a few loose threads that have been generated so far.Old-"The concept of evolution derives from the truth that the whole world of nature is not in a state of equilibrium but is continually changing, and that the course of its change is directional - not haphazard but moving in a definite direction, towards conditions different from those at earlier stages. That there is continual change in nature on the small scale of our observations is immediately obvious to any observer, and its extension to the whole field of nature is easy. Its truth was in fact recognized very early by the Greek philosophers - Heraclitus, for instance, held that all nature was in a state of flux - and the conslusion that the change is in general direcional is accepted. Since the time of Greeks the concept of evolution has always played a part in the development of scientific thought, though it may have been consciously recognized in some periods than in others(p29.)"(GS Carterp6)New-"The principal problem here is the sheer improbability of living organisms. Not only are organisms complicated biological entites, but they are also "far-from-equilibrium" systems relative to their physical or abiotic surroundings. Superficially, organisms appear to violate the second law of thermodynamics merely by staying alive and reprducing, as this law dictates that net entropy always increases and that compex, concentrated stores of energy will inevitably break down. In fact, in the language of thermodynamics, organisms are open, dissipative systems that can onlyh maintain their far-from-equilibrium states relative to their environment by constantly exchanging energy and matter with their local environments (Prigogine and Stengers 1984; Eigen 1992)."p168 of the NicheConstruction ref. below
||||||||||||||||||||||||| 4;|||||||||||||||||||||||||� 124;|||||||||||||||||||||||||& #0124;||||||||||||||||||
Carter, G.S. 1957"a hundred years of evolution" The Macmillan Company, New York
Odling-Smee,F.J, Laland, K.N. and Feldman M.W. 2003 Niche Construction The Neglected Process in Evolution Princeton University Press Princeton and Oxford
||||||||||||||||||||||||| 4;|||||||||||||||||||||||||� 124;|||||||||||||||||||||||||& #0124;||||||||||||||||||||||||| ;|||||||
you might try to bridge the peak by considering from THE 8th Day of CREATION, this from Monod :"Chemical equilibrium means death" and wrote, "A living system is constantly fighting against, rather than relying upon, thermodynamic equilibration. The thermodyanmic significance of specific cellular control systems precisely is that they successfully circumvent thermodynami equilibration (until the organism dies, at least)..Still, the arbitrariness, chemically speaking, of certain allosteric effects appears almost shocking at first sight, but it is this very arbitrariness which confers upon them a unique..."The next writing will be compelete once we have worked this transit into Lerner's (Lerner had said both, "However, Wright's point of departure is only a theoretical concept or idealization because no actual population is ever likely to be free from disturbing pressures (the effects of restricted population size are discussed in section 17)" & "A familiar example of the balance of two opposing forces is the equilibrium between selection and recurrent mutation pressure, which has already been noted. It is a great oversimplification of the probable state of things. In fact it seems much more likely that nearly every population equlibrium is held at a particular configuration of allelic and genotypic frequencies (in Wright's term, an adaptive peak) by a complex interaction of opposing forces. When the impact of one of them is modified for some reason, either compensating adjustments occur in the responses of the population to the others, as has been suggested in the discussion of coadpatation, or the population moves from one equilibrium to another. It is entirely possible that the new adaptive peak consists of a radically different array of gene frequencies but preserves the identical means and variances for the metric properties that characterized the earlier equilibrium.") "The Genetic Basis of Selection".

What this thread is able "to think" is that Carter's predator IS NOT HIS "individual"(page 158 A ^H*undred Years of Evolution )"In all this evolution the deme is likely to diverge from similar demes in other environments. This will be partly because the changes in two environments are unlikely to be exactly the same, and partly because mutations which occurr in one deme do not ocurr in the another.Suppose now some major change occurs in the environment of our deme. Perhaps, it is invaded by a group of predators agaisnt which the animals of the deme must defend themselves, or, perhaps, their food supply fails and they are forced to resort to other food. The first and immediate response will be phenotypic modification of the animals' bodies in association with their changed habits. It the deme is one of horses or antelopes and a predator appears, legs will become longer and stronger and the animals will become more alert; if a change in food-supply is necessary, algernations in teh physiology of digestion may be required. These changes will happen during the individual's life, and will not be inherited. In the next generation recombination will start. Combinations of genes better suited to the new conditions will be favoured and their effects will supplement those of the phenotypic modifications."This ends at the Cornell Genetics281 class content which recently was just as confusing to students as it was when I took it even though I had a better imagination of phenotypic diversity than some graduate students.