When micro = macro ...

- BradImpressive study into genetic mutations, but not representitive of all mutations (not to belittle the study). Many other mutations are simply the re-arranging of extant genetic material, such as inversions or insertions. Still more involve deletations or repetations. For a brief elaboration on these processes, visit http://www.genetichealth.com/G101_Changes_in_DNA.shtml. The aforementioned mutations do not involve any physical change in any given allele. As such, they may remove themselves from the process described in Weyl's book as they would not be able to accomodate the spatial rearangement. However, they can still influence speciation and the more mundane and day-to-day levels of variable genetic inheritence.How can a macro-micro division of evolution be explained with these processes? And, more importantly, is macro-micro being viewed as two seperate processes, or as simply two opposed ends to a barrier? This dinstinction may bring this discussion in a more clear light.Do svidania,
TheusP.S. Annafan, totally with you on the human construct aspect of the macro-micro division. Our tendency to catagorize has outpaced our evidence.

---

Veri Omni Veritas

Ahhhhh, we are getting somewhere!I cited and quoted Weyl so that there was no mistake that one can find a physical connection to space mutations occurr in. It is rather trivial to name a species, for instance, instead. Further more the rest of his book enables one to rather easily, even to the issue of recursion, relate quantum physics to this place. I will elaborate that issue later.The answer to interpolating inside of this volume (indeed in cases of different "kinds" of mutations this physical telelogy so constructed might not pin point the happenstance and perhaps in the process we might be led to change our "language" of mutations ( I dont want to get that far a field before responding to Ben)) does not mean that incident points outside it will not be a part of the measure. In fact I FULLY expect the opposite. That is what makes the thought rather difficult. The notion of reverse information flow in macrothermodynamics is what is operating here IF( the biggy if) I am correct. The difficulty is that the probabilistic foundation of biometrics rather prevents researchers from noticing this rather continuous alternative synthesis which is completely found by simply reading and understanding the literature with no fancy lieing statistics applied.I have not taken on the quantum physics in Weyl's contribution except to indicate that the the shape of the electron orbitals is likely contributative. How the FORMATION of energy level differences are correlated with trait differences that might be systematically large enough to quallify as larger than micro changes (bacterial resistence etc) reamains for the biophysicst or as I suggested the regression of the collection of ordinations BETWEEN force fields and inertial strucutre contributions no matter the gravity. Personally I suspect that attempts to get at it with entropy approximations will proceed further apace than simply seeing if a distrbution of energly level ranges spatially explored suffices. More on that later with reference to tissue recursion.This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 09-08-2005 11:23 PM

Brad,Have you kept up on research? I went and looked Weyl up, the "Philosophy of Mathematics and Natural Science" was published in 1949, 6 years prior to his death. However brilliant a physics guru he was, he is no longer an authority on evolutionary biology. Quantum and Evolutionary theory have progressed much farther in the past fifty years, so I'm not sure your arguments are fully supported. (For a brief biography of Weyl, click here Hermann Weyl - Wikipedia)By implication, a large energy-level jump of an electron should only affect the distribution, and thus charge, of an electron. This would only allow for a single atom inside a nucleotide base pair to have any change. This would only affect what is known as an ionic bond, and a very weak on eat that, only if the electron is lost. Most of the atoms within DNA are held by single, double, or triple covalent bonds, an ionic bond would not overule these forces. Furthermore, DNA is negatively charged (putting the deoxy in Deoxyribo Nucleic Acid). So the electron would not have escaped in the first place past the electron levels of the atom due to the summation of it's surrounding charges.As to the shape of electron orbitals, there is simply no research within the past half-century to indicate that it affects in any way speciation processes of organisms. As such, the space-mutation argument does not work to explain anything other than point mutations, and that's if we have an incredibley lucky day to find such an atomic force in evolutionary behavior.As such, you'll need to refine your argument much more to support the macro-micro division, if there is one. I suspect that without discreet boundaries, these are nothing more than human-constructed road signs. Worse yet, very misleading road signs.Hola,
Theus

---

Veri Omni Veritas

Of course theusy.He is no authority on Evo. But Come ON. I had lunch with Lewontin in the Statler and he could mind the difference of a fish and a snake tail. I will have to respond to you with as I need to Tusko and spell in the n! vs the sphere. I had lunch with SJ Gould and he asked me if what my raw vegtables were. Will Provine IS STILL SAYING he can control free will willingly. A collegue of my Grandfather co-wrote the first FIELD BIOLOGY text. My Grandfather motivated a famous fire fly biologist, Jim Loyld and those the same flies Weyl referred to from Columbia.Weyl approach enables one to explain further why Gladshev's view AND Croizat's were not attended to as of yet. Besides it took Mary too many years to come clean after refusing to answer my question on the Arts Quad not where he spoke in the Physics' Building to more people. Von Weisacker could understand when I corrected him on his use of infinity in quantum mechanics by misattribution and Stu Kaufmann told me to keep thinking about this if I thought it useful.The issue is between the distribution of effects caused by electrons OR photons spatially. Futherthrough it details via the considerations of temperature whether or not thermal currents are consituative. If they are. Games is over. Every one hear can pack up and say I knew Brad when he was making less sense etc.What Weyl wrote back then was that there was an ANALOGY between force and inertia and issues in the 40s' understanding of biological change and form-making. I have these litterally today. That is not Weyl. That is me. People have a hard enough time understanding me. So it would be easier to understand Weyl first. I know I can explain my self from his wordings.Tusko understood what I recently wrote and it is true that where on thinks a perversion to operate mathematically is open to opinions. I have mine you seem too focused on DNA to notice that temperature matters as to what is attached to DNA as well as the molecule itself. Think about P bodies of RNA instead. I bet that macrothermodyamics might proffer further insistance on the mechanism of RNA Silenceing but that is just my way. If you can t follow me it would be easier to see why you disagree with weyls possition on MATH and then see why you would disagree with my position IN LOGIC on orangacism. This is new since the last twenty years. I disagree with it.So by "evidence" you are saying that because what I am saying is not in the literature it is not "evidence". What it shows me is what I suggested previously is that you are not trying to make judgements from the same theoretical level that I am. This does not mean that I dont have "evidence" for what I am saying. Does Robert's have evidence for not saying things to Shcummer? Is it all movies, of course not. Dr. Galdsyhev could read through my chatting and so can you. wHY DONT YOU?N! gives discrete boundaries . Gladsyhev already said that in his own words, not mine. The Sphere and ID RNA does not. I did not say that. I might if you keep provoking but that is the opposite of what you are asking . I am happy with the evo alternative of the present.

sorryThis message has been edited by Brad McFall, 09-15-2005 07:11 AM

quote:

---

Let's return to the basal definition of evolution in this post-modern synthesis age: Allelic variation over time. Speciation, variation, etc. are obviously implications of evolution, and the methods of these implications are what Darwin described in this THEORY of Evolution by means of NATURAL SELECTION. We know allelic variation happens over time, and we know that selection occurs. The theory connects these two dots.

---

Ok th, if your really mean it you got my attention. Let's see. I see that above is what you said coming in to this post. It is possible you and I are simply disagreeing over the lingo of "mutation". I certainly said, "not".Between your first and second sentences you already achieve the result you inquire. It is like the judge in San Fran saying that the Pledge of Allegence is A PRAYER without taking into consideration that the student who *might* have thought that, that that was what that early moringing saying was, was ALSO in thought that there was NOTHING really behind a proof in his geometry class he went to next (as if it was prooved (that)it already happened). The student just went through "the motions" of the proof or said a prayer. Look when I went to Zaiire, not knowing French or Zarwa very well, I had to get up early and go to the main science building where all the Africans doing research lined up in a circle around a flag and there was a series of "incantations" (for lack of a better word), which were said, by the head reasearcher (this is science research facility - studying weather in Africa, Green Monkeys etc)and were being REPEATED by the Staff. It was not looked on well if one did not repeat the sayings. I tried my best to mimic them.But Look, I have also heard actual PRAYERS being said in New Orleans while I was there in the early 90s that I never heard in Church nor among my more religous friends. You may disagree with me that the pledge is not prayer, but looking, unless you are able to have the notion of "mutation" in its DISTRIBUTIVE EFFECT on trait variation DEFINED, you can always use a statistical argument as the argument in question from which you pass from an arbitrary organization of phylectic connectivity to a theory of how that web or matrix looks different IN A DIFFERENT TIME. Because there is no general agreement about a "calculus" of allele changes particularly despite my general thinking that there IS a real "velocity" involved in translation in space and form making I can not "MAKE" another person take this view as I could if we were flying space craft to predicted locations of non-Earth life would retail.And in fact if you really think about the "THEORY" it does not connect the TWO dots bewteen alleles. It ordinates an alleomorphic SERIES. Bertrand Russell spent a lot of time dealing with how any old series is to be thought but there is no theory"" that shows how series and variations might be approved as differnt maths of the same organon. SOOOOOO, by "returning" to a "basal defintion" garners garnering already IS what you already thought and you restrict nonlinearities to a lack of catastrophe And though this can easily be supported by populationist arguments of central tendency one can rather say that the rupture of the change was already there before the variation itself.In that sense biology is unlike physics for physcists insist that differential connection(impenetrability of matter etc) exists prior to any seperation IN THE SAME. Biology exists because matter already does. But physics can be altered on evolutionary change. We have little evidence FOR THAT but that does not mean that creationist interest in the distinction of macro and micro is not substantial, both socially and mutationally. A species IS a class but this doesnot mean that indviduals in a population can not be defined.This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 09-15-2005 07:18 AM

I don't understand even 1/3 of what you say, but you have an original way of expressing yourself...puts me in mind of Dr. Suess (that's a compliment...I love how he handled language).Hope we get to say, one day, "I knew Brad when he was making less sense..."That gave me a good chuckle. --Jason

Thanks for the compliment.I suspected that Theus was thinking like Ernst Mayr when he wrote Essay Eight in 1988 (Toward a New Philosophy of Biology)(ADAPTATION AND SELECTION) but he has yet to give me any clues, only two points.Mayr had said this

quote:

---

IN THE first 80 years after the publication of Darwin's Origin of Species (1859) almost total disagreement prevailed among evolutionists concerning the causes of evolution. In the pre-Darwinian days of natural theology, adaptation was explained as the product of design by a benign and provident Creator. According to the Darwinians, however, natural selection in an infinitely variable world could achieve any observed adaptation. This explanation was unacceptatble to most early evolutionists, who considered it as inconceivable that such a mechanical process as selection could account for the beautiful harmony of nature with its admirable adaptations and co-adaptations. Some of these anti-Darwinians proposed therefore the existence of finalistic mechanisms in nature, such as orthogenesis, nomogenesis, or aristogenesis. Others, beginning with Darwin himself, believed that natural selection was supplemented by an inheritance of acquired characters ( "use and disuse"). Still others thought that all major evolutionary novelties owed their existence to macromutations (for example, de Vries, Goldschmidt, Schindewolf). The actual existence of all these postulated processes was thoroughly refuted in the first 40 years of the century and, as a result of the evolutionary synthesis of the 1930s and 40s, selection seemed to have the field all to itself.

​

Since about 1940 we have been very comfortable with the thought that all adaptation is the result of natural selection and that natural selection would prevent any maladaptive developments. There has been occasional dissent and endeavours to call attention to chance components in evolution, but these...

---

p133My grandfather was a active evolutionist in the first 40 years of said century and passed on visions of this period IN THE SHAPE of creatures. I was already adapted to this FIELD, just growing up in Jersey and traveling to western NY to run Illinosis' snakes through keys and catching salamanders before they landed in Lake Eire. The action of the synthesizers (not the MOOG) kicked me out of this coluum of water, depth of strata ,suffiently even though all my ducks , or in my case, sparrows , were in order. I dont know where in Mayr's period's theus goes off the US border but somewhere it seems he did. All I still find saying is that my grandad was wrong. He hasnt actually tried to find out what I was saying, really. I thought using Weyl would help.Weyl had said,Morphe and Evolution p297

quote:

---

Segregation and recombination account for the unceasing variety in nature, but they alone do not explain evolution if genes and gene structures were not allowed to mutate. It has previously been described (Appendix B) under what circumstances species (in a strict combinatorial sense) are conserved. Whenever these conditions are violated new species come into being. Among the structure mutations that alter the number of genes, the duplication of the entire chromosome outfit of the cell plays a particularly important role(polyploidy). Diploid zygotes will give rise to tetraploids, sometimes by hybridization (allopolploidy); sometimes when under the inluence of chemical agents, or thermic shock, or for some other reason maturating cells fail to carry out meiosis(autopolyploidy).

---

PHILOSOPHY OF MATHEMATICS AND NATURAL SCIENCE.I *KNOW* MAYR does not heed my use of macrothermodyanmics (simply because he tried to say a much more simplistic view of mine was typoological or essentialistic)(his problem was that he needed "species" to be classes as OPPOSED to some view IN GROUP SELECTION (where he needed individuals and populations to be absolutely and always "undefined". Absoulte space in the context of allele variation where inertia and force ARE PART is the only "undefined" in that sense in my field))))) and Theus did not give me the chance to extend the denotation of Weyl's term THERMIC SHOCK. Heck, one could probably carry out the entire difference between me and Theus discussing heat shock proteins. I hate to restrict my conversation to such easily errable particulars but if that is the only way TH can go the us of us might make THE word. I dont know. I am not at all interested in talking about toads just now.KEY-"among the strucutre mutations that alter the number of genes"- EVOS disagree how to count the INDIVIDUAL. This leaves the gene account definitely not a simple matter of currently understood bookkeping. I call this the perversion inversion version. Dobshanky made a visual point of the difference between auto and allo ploidy and he did it before the rise of cladistics and Croizat's contention that Hennig stole some geographic context of the Pacific OCean when writing about the forms of phylogenetic connections AND it was Dobshanky who proposed USE of the word MESO EVOLUTION. Will Provine who was my "teacher"&was the student of Richard Lewontin who was the STUDENT of Dobshanky. Only I was also the grandchild of a Student of Zeleny who was the teacher of Sewall WRIGHT. Instead of this different patrimony I was hospitalized INVOLUNARILY as if was "under the influence". Rather than prooving that I was a danger to myself or others the doctor tried to proove what behavior that looks drunken is viewed as. We)evcers( covered the tail end of this quote of Weyl, in part, when we talked about John Davison's view on meiosis.

My apologies for my absence in this debate, too much going on in my non-evc-life. I think it's more fundamental then that. Mutation is a specific term in biology, an alteration in the genetic code. We are disagreeing on a) the mechanisms of mutation and b) the larger principle of clarifying our positions.In reference to point a), I don't think that the phenomenon of mutations in the genetic code can be reduced to electron energy level changes. As I said in an earlier post, the evidence isn't there for it in both the biological and physical realms.With regard to point b), We have to be able to show a string of data to support our conclusions concerning concepts such as evolution. And that extends past this Science forum. The history of evolutionary thought from de Vries to Dobzhansky does show that the path of evolutionary change follows the person holding evidence, not the person holding arguments. The weak, terribly weak argument that de Vries had for saltationism did not stand up against the evidence supplied, while Dobzhansky's arguments included more genetic data. His arguments being so based have stood up longer.I'm putting my cards in the research bale. I don't mean to knock on the principles of debate, they are very, very critical measures of the intellectual abilities of the individual. But the winner is no longer the person with the best argument, it is the person with the best data set. This is for the good of all, look at how much longer life expectancy is for people fortunate enough to live in nations with a healthy respect for the biological sciences. I'm not entirely sure what you mean by this, is there a gravitational lens that appears in macro evolution but not in micro? Evolutionary change is contingent upon the laws of physics being repeatable. You need tremendous amounts of evidence in biology to make such a statement, but you need far more mathematical proof for the physics.The creationist interest does not amount to the scientific validity of the macro-micro question. We cannot wish that scientific principles be true and leave it at that - otherwise we'd still be using leeches. It is disturbing to see scientific theory compromised to socio-political desires. I don't mean to belittle the beliefs of others, but if one wishes to argue scientifically, one should know scientific methodology. My mother has an old saying regarding this:Don't wrestle with pigs. You get dirty, and the pig likes it.I don't think that manipulating scientific nomenclature justifies creationism any more than manipulating biblical texts justifies science. We each have different preferred puddles of mud.At any rate, we are digressing from the purpose of this thread. Fundamentally, do you have any specific biological evidence to offer that supports a division in evolutionary processes or evolutionary thresholds? This debate hasn't matured to the point where we can even label either as the primary reason for this discussion. I'm putting my sign right here in the ground.*grunt*There! Please answer this directly, as I have never heard a scientific defense for this division. Once again, sorry for this late reply,Do svidania,
Theus

---

Veri Omni Veritas

quote:

---

In reference to point a), I don't think that the phenomenon of mutations in the genetic code can be reduced to electron energy level changes. As I said in an earlier post, the evidence isn't there for it in both the biological and physical realms.

---

Well then!!!!!!!!
In that case the my response to you my friend is that the reason there is not evidence for it is simply that the current status quo moved to an aposteriori position such that the thought will even rarely cross the very bests minds. I assume there can be no disagreement about the cause of mutation. There can be plenty of disagreements about how the history of the thought plays into the curent strucutre of evoltionary theory but if were like Mayr and insisted that the Morgan School position(whatever that is) can be generalized in the argument against group selection because the cause of the mutations can not make a individual into a variable class population FROM the effects in community then really the onlyt difference between me and you is NOT in how we are working our or in our any more generalized view but simply because there was an error by these kinds of biologists not realizing that they were WRONGLY focused on the "phenotype". They have corrected it aposteriori but left the bauplan to wallow in its own piggly wigglys. At the place of this second period you will not think of looking for any evidence even if you thought there was such a thing as a priori. We have to believe our teachers at some point unless we got revelations. I think those are for religion instead.During sexual selection or say plant-insect interactions the paths that photons travel are alerted. Evolutionary change induces change in physics. I however suspect that these chnages are correlated with the connectivity of the voltaic pile supramolecularly if for no other reason than the history of chemistry not biology. If that is the case(and I have every atom of thought to think so), then only this latter is really as questionable as you lead your post on to write, but I'll bet even WOLFRAM SCIENCE missed it. I just think it was Bohr who was mistaken not Mayr. Anyway Niels did not want to publish for all the atoms anyway. Mayr has not problem writing for all the species. I wish he had stuck with his birds. Problem is, if I am really correct then much of technological prospecti will have to be reeconomized and we are just still getting beyond Marx's thought that the business cycle was the doom of capitalism. Changing biology on the basis of economic analogy is even harder than writing physics to reflect this thought evidentiarily.I do not hear you saying anything other than Crashfrog says over and over. Mark24 decided once reaching this point in the conversation with me it was better to agree to not cross posts.I have no problem if you want me to explain in more detail what I think but you assertions that I am out of the plausibilty is falling on my own deaf ear. You would be better served if you picked some of the more questionable things I write and demand I supply some more information on it. If it is my own idea that will always be no problem. Ben has admirably figured out how to ask hard questions to me at just the right time.Now as for the real changes in physics, well I would have to get back to a post I made somewhere about dimensionality as it is used in physics compared to what is really needed diversly in biology.There is really not dissagreement between us. I KNOW these to be my own (and it is a credit to evc to be able to sustain my posting such)but I dont see anyway that the causes and changes in the languages of mutation we might be able to discuss to be at all controversial. That would be an interesting historical exercise nonetheless. The rason why is that if the mutation was due to a chemical or an x-ray or an alien transmission my challenges to the status quo resolve on the geometry of the change in the realtio of DNA to its surroundings not what attributes of the subatomic world might make the account legible. The possiblity of thermal currents is already on a level of FUNCTIONALITY above the mere enumeration of quantum differences. I do not really know the exact effect this has on thinking about chemical bond quantum mechanically as I am not that proficient. The a posteriori move facilitates discontinuous thought but I am pushing for continua processes to be looked at. All I needed was that there was SOME LIMIT in the phsical cause. I do not need to look into the configuration of quarks to derive the orthogonalities compatible with my use of geometry in contructing classes of mutations no matter how the change of shape occurred. I DO often suspect that one must then get rid of the difference conceptually of phenotype and geneotype but that is a question in the use of the language of mutations NOT the causal diagram that gives rise to changes in its lingusitic sign.Oh, and never apologize for how long it takes one to respond. I enjoy this immensly any way it comes.This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 09-26-2005 05:08 PM

December 5, 2005"okay"

---

Veri Omni Veritas

btw. an irish setter, black lab, yellow lab, and golden retriever are all the same dog. two black labs can mate and throw a litter with any of the others in it as can the rest.

​

​

​