Transistion from biology to machinery

Biologically it will depend on if your morphometric"gestallt" considers that there is as much 'functional' change as structural within an organ or given grouped anatomy say. I dont hold this view of grades but if one did of the clade, then it possible to think that machines might NOT be able to change as fast as life but this would require one to KNOW the difference of organic and inorganic hierarchies (in my own lingo, using Gladyshev('s),) down beyond the difference of protons and electrons (level). I have not seen any literature on this point as of yet. I think the science of it is bound with Kelvin's discussion of the age of the earth and if there was a change in form from two differnt times. Because Gould seperated hard and soft parts linguistically I dont think Gould had any evidence against what I think of this but he would be a place to start if one thought such existed.What is at issue is such like

quote:

---

Certainly, the results presented do not neglect the existence of dissipative structures and the effects of dynamic self-organization in natural systems (I.Prigogine), for instance, when such systems undergo "revolutionary changes" due to the influence of external factors, and their state is far from the equilibrium one.

---

from
http://www.endeav.org/evolut/age/dem/dem.htm
as to finding "inside" what today we only thought was out of shape.
see also
1360.pdf | jun102001 | currsci | Indian Academy of SciencesThe reason I, personally, do not think this possible to know at present is because my own knowledge of the difference between reptiles and amphibians is not enough of a stimulus in what I already know of this congruent incidence to logically abduct me to consider a discussion of bird feathers as Faraday insulators. I do not deny that such is possible. I just dont have enough information to warrent for any trait, I KNOW OF, that it(the trait), has functionally changed as much in biological-duration-as, as much as, I can imagine it haveing done so strucuturally! I do not know also if this is rather not due to the trajectory of my education as well. ?This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 08-13-2004 01:46 PM

My current understanding of nested things however seems to indicate that whatever the selfreproducable machine we could build to start today will only be of a relation of rationals to reals not reals to reals as I supposed if "selection" WERE "abstraction" (in the design). I dont know that that has been establised in logic anywhere. The form-making would then depend on this incidentally as a congruence I would guess.