Information and Genetics

I have not delved very deeply into this subject but in communicating with HM Morris he made it certain enough that any discussion of creation and biology or biology and creation that mathematics is seperate, should be seperated and must be from any biology that may appear, to be discussed.In thinking about what he wrote back to me... (title) of Lammert's Journal of Theoretical Biology paper on the seeming inability for translation and transcription to account for the diveristy of information that will be able to cross generations very nearly must too, be a part of this thread. I will work on this as well. My list of to-do-threads seems to be outpacing )my( time devoted to the illusory aspects of this sociological documnetation.

It would be quite interesting if we could come to some common understanding of how or if (meaning if how was not...)"natural selection" created new information that we become eventually informed about.I was quite puzzled to see that ICR had permitted some work in (title) with the word "orthogenesis" in it for if there is any possibility of NS getting society some NEW information then it seems most likely to be resovled once and for good the Fisher/Wright so-felt 'tension' where Wright makes refrence to this genesis which Croizat was specific enough to differntiate orthoselection from orthogeneis but not only would natural selection in wild populations first be shown but all these examples could then never contradict the state this new information would be in once it was "extracted".Einstein said that the scientist must first committ the crime before it can be solved. I am not uncertain that nano-ecology may not be this criminality that would obviously set a precendent if true.

Thanks Mr P. I needed that.

I think indeed you have reached a conclusion IMPLIED by the Pasteur Institute when it asserts that "we" unconsciously relate bases in a lline for if we HAD done this then I absolutely agree with you about the iron in the computer but of course I think the French have overpriveldged language than the topics or subjects in the various disciplines speaking a particular language can give us access to. International c/e is harder than international biology in my book.I learn from this NOT to associate "information" (to) random letters yet as to electronic transmission such is indeed pramatic when not even also uself in a utilitarian and hence beyond specific application sense by analogy at least.[This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 09-01-2003]

sorry duplicate-my bad.[This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 09-01-2003]

I didnt follow Searl's argumentation at Cornell in the 80s and for instance I was able to get an A in Sydney Shoemaker's PHIL of MINd class by repudiating CompSci DIVERISTY for BIOD- and if indeed Gittt did not remand a lack of mechanical semantic transfer indeed I could show aka Dillan how I think that this type of station is datrebuildable (we have the technology) by Nature's GOD but it will be a subset of c/e.I now have a plan (if it becomes more than one I will let you all know) for (a) use of Visual Baisc that outputs a BSML genomic viewer sucht athone c/e poster can not SLAM/fLAme/or Etrash/// another (no matter the sided retention due to different levels of being informed (what is one c/e data is another's information...)). If this idea ever gets implemented and used it may indeed be possible to screen the user from "complex defintions" while still being behind the stearing wheel but I have not thought thru some use of push technology which will be crucial if accepted to succes of c/e outside its own cadre user base.This way logic need not appear as MORE important than learning that IS occurring nonetheneverthe less. SO NO Z, I would disagree as to the "only way" (just walk thru Slidell) one could randomize the chance conclusion in the evolutionist's "tool" box even assuming that it is not found by the time one gets also on the drive into Metarie. Merely making the Mole Bio BUILDING (welcome to the "building"!) at Cornell does not mean that workshope workers in Ecology,Evolution, and Systematics will 'migrate' EVEN THOUGH THE EXIT DOOR IN THE FIRST IS NOW THE ENTRANCE OF THE OTHER. I hope this helps.

I didnt follow Searl's argumentation at Cornell in the 80s and for instance I was able to get an A in Sydney Shoemaker's PHIL of MINd class by repudiating CompSci DIVERISTY for BIOD- and if indeed Gittt did not remand a lack of mechanical semantic transfer indeed I could show aka Dillan how I think that this type of station is datrebuildable (we have the technology) by Nature's GOD but it will be a subset of c/e.I now have a plan (if it becomes more than one I will let you all know) for (a) use of Visual Baisc that outputs a BSML genomic viewer sucht athone c/e poster can not SLAM/fLAme/or Etrash/// another (no matter the sided retention due to different levels of being informed (what is one c/e data is another's information...)). If this idea ever gets implemented and used it may indeed be possible to screen the user from "complex defintions" while still being behind the stearing wheel but I have not thought thru some use of push technology which will be crucial if accepted to succes of c/e outside its own cadre user base.This way logic need not appear as MORE important than learning that IS occurring nonetheneverthe less. SO NO Z, I would disagree as to the "only way" (just walk thru Slidell) one could randomize the chance conclusion in the evolutionist's "tool" box even assuming that it is not found by the time one gets also on the drive into Metarie. Merely making the Mole Bio BUILDING (welcome to the "building"!) at Cornell does not mean that workshope workers in Ecology,Evolution, and Systematics will 'migrate' EVEN THOUGH THE EXIT DOOR IN THE FIRST IS NOW THE ENTRANCE OF THE OTHER. I hope this helps.I was unable to first post this as a reply to Zeph- getting an internal server error instead. All I did was to delete two of the periods in the subject line.and used a smile

Unfortuantely the "mental dimension" can not be avoided when one stops talking about one is going to do and one acutally does it. This mentality arises from the condition of systematics where subjective knowledge is what goes for professionalism provided such subjectiveity is measured but within the objectivity of this subject's subject the idea I admit of infomation BEING a "third" category may be (by some kind of statitical mechanics perhaps) enveloped in the two technical divisions the AIG Journal article opened with but then I also still only talk about it wihout the doing of the same. You may not have said it but as far as I read MENDEL one MUST include this in some kind of "literay criticism" of bio LOGOS. There seems no other commonsensiscal way to render Mendel's "double signification" from hybrid or parents. Indeed we have recieved a traditon, started event wise in Part to Bateson's promotions, where the base pairing HAS COME to present what was THEN represented whether by reality or mere paradigm only that the reality did not change in the reception , reading, and understanding of the symbols manipulable by the chemical bond that all talk of moleuclar biology somehow tends to return the force of back to.If you CHOOSE NOT to involve the whole tradition then the "science" that results may not "do everything" and I can only guess it wiLL not work when confronting a critical creation science that will "drill up" to any discrepency even to the point of possible making a transcendental error by dint of aposteriori tissue being an apriori issue. It would be easier to for me to respond and likely more informative if I did this next only on a line by line basis instead.

Yes atomic orbitals qualify as "nonbiological" etc but then I for one find they fail to sustain the burden of the generalization to this universal issue remarked in accepting the universe it self as a programming language I find that Peter Cochrane in the an essay entitled "Borg in the Mirror" precisely inverts the sense of my own, BSM, writing while he wrote as its last sentence "But the question that interests me is: Will machines understand and think as we do? Personally I hope not. We need to increase diversity, as well as the depth, of thinking and not constrain it by imposing the limited domain of biology."What I would have written was ..."not constrain biology by the ...limited domain of computer science." but the refernce to DNA in this post inverts even the INTERPRETATION of the writing of two authors. We are getting quite sophisticated in c/e speak.