Mendel innocent, Darwin guilty

It is one thing to say that there is "feedback" from gene environments to the gene and another thing to suggest that Fisher's adaptive modification has been found and that we can now discuss some possibly? alternative expts in which natural selection may be expanded either in the lab or in nature. The problem here may be a simple ambiguity in use of word "nonadaptive" and neophenogenesis for it is less likely that ANY coaction exchange are occurring all over the place.If one for instance started with Wolfram's position that there is no equations and only interactive programs and tried to AVOID mathmatical genetics that had been told to Wright to be "simple" that would be on the road to some such alternative but I thought Wolfram was mistaken years ago in his universal claim (which like Feynman would speak of biology with systemtic subjectivity etc) and I still do today. A simple re-wording is not suitable at this point but equational translation must also be considered. For instance too I sat down one day and believed I had made an equals sign that developed beyond the benefical/deterimental C/E mutation discussion some dimension for protoplasm. Things like this can not use just a forma logic change but the material must be experimented in in different positions as well. The expense increases rather rapidly when the race is considered as well.

​

[This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 06-05-2002]

I am not sure that we are actually talking at cross purposes. If one reads a letter between Fisher and Wright about the difficulty of, as you say, formal, requirements to quantify reproduction under any, every and all conditions of restrictions to recombination it does not matter how formalized one gets with the issue of fitness the problem is recognizably difficult. I do not see why reptiles,birds and mammals but not dinos can not be seen as reproducing in such a way as to lessen this restriction I have qualitatiely described. The formalzation is harder than if one had to apply a catastrophe set to magic. I will need to read you thread a little more closely but all this seems possible and so far Percipient has not said anything that should lead you to not understand this.Take the varibility of whatever this restriction is formally in amphibians. Frogs, toads and tree-frogs can be visualized in this modeling as calling for less restrictions. Caeclians acutally begining to lessen the physiological hold on developemental genetics by begining to get a Ureter singular as in higher vertebrates and slamanders continuing to be restricted in recombination by out of clade parthenogenic hybridization. At this point even without talking about fish or the semming impossiblity of all this in tunicates I have not said anything that fall out of the Fisher/Wright tradition and THERE there should be plenty of material for any formal (even if one wants to go Mivart's way to an Owen against Darwin) implementation of selection. The problem is realy about understanding what the people meant when using the words and assuming a phylogenetic perspective when often a taxonomic one suffices. As for how long this would take?? ihavent the faintest

There is a problem if you/one wishes to trasform your symbolism into a chemical equilibrium no matter how you apportion the data hetergenously or homogenously BECAUSE the organic WHOLE (notice I did not spell o r g a n ism)is not the same as a solid as opposed to a synthesis of molecules. It is one thing to say that development is the expression of genes over time and another to inculde all of one's taxogenic experience in the same. The void/vacuum does not need to play out for the organicist (whom I am not) as for the physicist and it does seem possible to use the MATH of population genetics to assist if a third pascal division of the face is provided purely to give an unkown third way to figure molecular distributions. Problem is that Cornell teachs this is UNKOWN. IT is possible theoretically doable as to some apriori content and if granted the funding cycle may show that selection of the small diference in this idea whether or not Creation ex nihilo could a posteriori produce some magnitude. But again you should have known that a magnitude IS NOT an enumeration. I have contended elsewhere that it is possible that biologists are oberving something in the TWO points of disequilibrium something Bohr called to Mayr "aquosity" but which is something physics DOES NOT KNOW yet Mayr for Pasteur's students use of word "proximate" tried to wrest this interest to organicism which is acutally more reductionist if population genetic Data NO MATTER THE SYMBOLIZATION can be use as I begin to implement some of the "repulsions".Your responses to posts do not seem to show thre requiste creativity but then again perhaps I do not know enough about what fecundity or open habitat you are up to. Best. Brad.

Taz, I have always felt that the difference of replication and metabolism to be a false one even if protocol useful. Stu Kaufmann told me of the inspiration for some of his work was one up man-ship with Dyson and so again a Xerox is not a carbon copy yet the procedure could actually work yet it would take likely more than a lecture on physiological/transmission genetics to show this working in any way for everyone. I may be correct becasue the code can be better conscripted via Newton's laws with Maxwell "evolution: rather than the current expression of molecular diverification slotted biometrically.The problem here is that in aruging the C side of E one can not even permit one faux pau to be part of the sentence lest sin also be thatsame part which makes commuincatioon in C/E mode neigh impossible. If this was the result then why try to start with unless only negative social consequences are desired??There is DNA replication but diploid-haploids are not the same, not even by a sembelnce I should think. You did say that you may disagree with Dawkins generally and on this we may find the neutral evolution to not decieve each other with even without a seperated NOMA-NOva.

I have thought of the number of offspring as a trait as you point out but only in the context of variation divisions wider than current phenotype/genotype can turn. I do not see any formal use of numbers to organisms as that would be more the like I am not of Galileo which I am than the Kepler as it appears you could also have been in the corect by Pasteur but I have not read properly as per prior your "thesis".