Brad McFall

You all boosted my ego higher than is normal and did make me laugh. But aside for the issue of group selection for which I have not been working on yet again another criticism of Provine I hope you dont mind me passing that on to another time and before it really would have started to rain cats and dogs etc etc Let ME only say that I was quite suprised to read in B. Russel's ANALYSIS OF MATTER something Percipient may have given his name from. I do not know and this has caused a bit of a pause to my comprehension of this my favorite C/E site.I am starting to actually read PHYSICS now and this is also making it more difficult for me to put the posts together but I will try in the future to keep on trying to not make so many right or left turns. I want to get the point of looking at and criticizing equations as I do words but that is likely still only a dream of aformentioned mammals.I am a bit worried however that there was a scientific hiccup when we all seem to accept spin of electrons from a man-made magnetic field in a gas and then accept with Feyman that QED gives the biology with work. I am fairly certain that Maxwell had a better visualization of dynamcis as they actually exist in biology but let me not ramble on the trailings of mylobed brain and wait till the colloid gels a little more.I really did appreciate this retro or pro spective on me. Thank you all with all sincerity.

[QUOTE][B]the concept that Brad's posts should be ignored[/QUOTE][/B]There is a sense in which this, as concept, may be true, particulary as Pcy is nice to say of "remembering me". That is good. I did not want to be memberd in common sense but if somthing else should bring to mind something I wrote, what esle would one write for, the ego of an author? So Percy is able to ignore my posts if he wants to. This is very good.I have not continued with the folding proteins,not because I am not interested but becasue it would require some physical chemistry knowledge I do not posses and I am trying to work out a more physically and less chemically basis (of notion of density no matter the velocity) for my statements of what would count in energetically insignificant behavior that I feel Provine missed in trying to understand Wright's reference to orthogenesis yet the time I do this (neophenogenesis criticism?)in may be suspect and hence properly in a position to be ignored. Of course-I- can not, but you all are correct to do so, until I come clean and clear and in community without going straight to unless jail >200$.....The meaning should be clear. As this is a coffed spot and thus there is place and a time to relax and not feel that one's guts have to be opened to every German comment on ecology. Let me leave this inclination at that and try in time to address some of the details that were brought up in this thread. I just am not sure that some of them ought not to be moved to the more substantive lists.

This is a thought on the substance so treated;
I take my challege rather from Kant than Russel so I quote Kant together:
"I find myself, with my reviewer, in quite another position. He seems not to see at all the real matter of the investigation, with which (successfully or unsuccessfully) I habve been occupied. It is either impatience at thinking out a lengthy work, or vexation at a threatened reform of a science in which he believed he had brought everything to perfection long ago, or, what I am reluctant to suppose, real narrow-mindedness that prevents him from ever carrying his thoughts beyond his scholl metaphysics. In short, he passes impatiently in review a long series of propositions, of which, without knowing their premises, one can comprehend nothing, intersperses here and ther his censure, the reason of which the reader understands just as little as the propositions against which it is directed; and hence [his report] can neither serve the public nor damage me in the judgement of experts. I should, for these reasons, have passed over this judgement altogether, were it not that it may afford me occassion for some explainations which may in some cases save the readers these PROLEGOMENA from a misconception."I had not expected whatever thruth may be modeled from Maxwell's vorticies given some actuality fro my use of Pascal's triangle (Chinese, QM model used in histogeny, Croizat's central, centric, and internal for any intertia, mass, gravity sorts) that direct quantitative phenotypic measures would compass the actual opposition to another direction that quantum mechanical matter could be moving this orbit but while this may not be communicable at this time, I will attempt to specifiy what is required as it was so kindly expressed that I present my views ( in as little print as possible) rather than trying to turn the governor tighter for any visualization actually of Maxwell's idle wheels. It is entirely possibe that biology does not deserve the full extent of its current seperation from chemistry and physics that is presently being enjoyed.Right and left keeps Kant's space by three triangles that really could exist but can not as yet be niavely commtted while I prosecute this end of neophenogenesis.
Maxwell thought any conditions oppositie in terms of size this could be expressed as a trait becomes would be dependent on relations to rays of light along a magnetic line bound kinematics but instead of composing the variables this generally I will restrict myself to all external variables on Anuran taxa that are due or will be due to shear between a longitudinal and transverse of sound propagation in the media surrounding an environs of frog, toads and treefrog ribbits no matter the landscape with drawn from Wright's more popular 30's illustration assigned by CU. Some internal from that may affect typanum diameter, relative size to whole soma, time of growth realtive to bone, nervous system innervating structure may be missed in this preliminary green-print (blueprint).
These trajectories would be found to go through locations in population genetics whether falling more for instance to the sun or the earth for the metabolism being reproduced hence the use of group selection in this implementable metrics. Whether with Faraday or Pascal this line need not be a geodesic though the chemistry would still be less organized -genetic if term change in germ are also specifically; to become called for in the calltype boundary of "sonogram hedge hoge space" divisions of sound wave propogation differences in any matter no matter the center of gravity, shear pf Tree Frog on Toads, Toads on Frogs, effect of tadpole emergence of future fecundity, transverse matching of topography due to sound directums, occult limits of material contained ontogenically, for bounding any such conditioned to a south to north direction for reference to sister groups.The reason that the geodesic is not yet inthis ordered account is that I do not think if this is more or any other than the SIMILARITY (in yields not mere chemical isolatability) of media magnetic or electric or is a property unique to bioloy when when the metric space is topologized properly to any orthoselection for the intergroup/intragroup selection measn being herein proposed for undulations are not always needing to be geometrically Pauling's chemical bond.Becasue "there would be a loss of energy" by an activity on growth and development and speciation (where these actual shear forces from an external variable effect a norm of rxn genetically) that a tangent could be modelled between Anuran phenetic character geography. Tf there is an inrreversible relation in this physical timing of shear from tree frog to toads to frogs for instance then Gladyshev's Darwinization call in Macrothermodynamics (has angiosperm change been "macroevolution"?) would be bound by the categories of matter that genes could "sort" classifications (man-made) of matter sound propagates differently in. Whether call-types could be expLAINED (sister gourp difference) on this physico-chem b would be tried. thus one would have some measure of migration that magnitude may be be compared to empirical consulatation due to muation as Wright criticized Fisher.From p20-1 The History of Biology by Erik Nordenskiold
Materialistic theory of the universe
His teacher, Leucippus, seems to have based philosophy on Parmenides' theory of immutability of matter and to have come across....Out of nothing comes nothing; nothing which is can be reduced to nothing. All change is merely an aggregation or seperation of parts. THIS IS N O T THE SAME AS IMMUTABILITY (AN IDEA BEYOND NEWTON'S IMPENETRABILITY) BECASUSE IMMUTABILITY RELIES ON CARDINALS RATHER IN THIS IS THOUGHT SOME ORDINAL COORDINATION.

The idea in ecosystem engineering is to see if sustainable development is not potentially but absolutely possible to get energy from biomass by sophisticated sinks of electromotive sourced reproduced eddies/endemisms beyond fire and heat to where reformations are actually engaged.The principle of the conservation of energy and or e=mc^2 will be used throughout as species are migrated by ecological incentives (food etc) to form curves that would otherwise trun dissipatively only and yield at most heat that can sustain but not progress the sectors that as one revolve while speciation occurs (multiplication vs splitting).This is an entropy increase for the system into labs but is also used (to be usable in the enginerrable version) on large scales where ecologies become communities and where forces other than gravity are effective to circulate the matter involved specifically as repulsions as well as attractions bend in the distance economically approached man goes to attain this means of a possible natural science.Because biological determinism has been a scapegaot for the smartest biologists to date the analytic use of the entire analogy between attraction and heat problems has rather been divided than some quotient of sources and sinks displayed problematically for the student in the subject at school on topic and in passing the editoring duties around to do as list etc....Very practical what I am about but also very not superfluidity of sufficency.

I can understand this for I have no where shown in fact. What I am doing is reading science in such a way that things such as the behavior of electric fish can be understood on a physical but not reductionist basis. From that basis sometimes I do get beyond the common bounds in the sense I speak from what brains I know that IS NOT REDUCTIONIST sensu stricto. There is plenty of science to support the re-search on mechanisms but to only assume common sense is not enough even fro Kant's kind of "hybrid" which IS HISTORICAL and real yet if you have a narrow conception of evolution as WILL PROVINE in fact has it you may not realize that the evoution and creation i write can in reality be kept seperate. They were never together as Will takes them becasue of WHATEVER MOELECUOAR BIOLLOGY he may DIFF ER from Mayr on, but because this is such a fine point and not a pen etc mystic writing pad etc etc Will was willing to get away with MY MECANICAL REASONING committed to a mental hospital for the same reason that LYnee Abel refuses to speak of the current Dean's removal from office without the transitional time. When privy to inside NY State education information all can loose and I simply got it in NJ from my Grandfather in Fredonia but Will REFUSES to recognize that I had the very stuff he was talking about so he thougt I had to re-cognize what he thought. That was in fact not true. Iwas already a part of the work on evolution that emerges but I denied Boyd's philosophical concept of emergence for I to not hold organicism which Provine coming from the history dept did not have to be exposed in grading to having studied under Lewtonin and simply rather make a cork for biochemsity agrerement. And this is why Shraf may not find the slope to read my work beacue when it comes to Microscopuic opinonation we may in absolute disgaree but the conversation does get this far with Tranquilty and that we now have the haven Croizat doubted we even had the balcony for I think has passed and does exist so S- if you are reading good luck my friend and blessings to you.

In NEWS AND VIEWS of the current NATURE is an article by Michor and Nowak titled "The good, the bad and the lonely" with the SUBtitle-abstract "In game theory, 'loners' who choose not to participate in fact promote cooperation between players. The dynamics of the game show phase transitions reminiscent of statistical physics."First of all without even getting to 2nd base with the article it is not really PHYSICALLY possible to say that one has a "reminicence" of a 'phase transition" and have the TRANS anything kinematically be NOT a Part of Stat Phyiscs (if I am correct that Boltzmann NEVER had any idea of using infinite divisibility) provided I explain some thing in the history of science. Starting off a plauible assertion of any creationist this way is likely to have me bumped back to Kansas so rather lets say "dynamics" means "interactivity" and ask still if this still sounds like posting in c/e world whrils? I still think it does.On ICR's discussion forum board, when it came time for me to acutally say something I was trying to promote the dash in the idea of eco-justice for which this article is not irrelevant to and so from that web site I could likewise have begun to try to intice the other plausible players to promote the continuance of disscuion for any given individual "abduction" in the process but alas I seem to have even out grown this kind of communication.IT SEEMS TO ME THAT THE RESULT OF c/e INDUCTION is to be able to "switch" to the "best reply dynamics" and that would be true if I, BSM , thought that c/e analogical to game theory. I never did. I allways felt the polerization was a formal debating position (moot) and no more and unfortunately that I have spent the past few years trying to "game" my way through discussions to get people either to play (post) to some useful outcome whether one would recognize this in this article or not I feel I really have used up the kitty store of inductive transference and am moving on to a purely deductive mode. Anne's thinking that I was only speaking to myself pretty much made this to be this way for for the 1hour a day I spend to post in c/e mode is certainly NOT talking only to myself which I do much of the other 23 hours (whether this system is Babylonian or not...).I really doubt that "repoducing" with cellular automata has much to do with biology UNLESS Medel's Laws appear there phenomenologically as well (as any Darwinism) but THAT idea is pure speculation NO MATTER HOW PLAUSIBLE our little home grown c/e Quilt has become. There is something to be said about "memory" of c/e talk and no doubt I do feel "priveldged" to have a thread named on me but as for others catching on to the same kind of induction I did and still do to some extent before I start only posting out deductions seems unlikely.I am not sorry that I have moved on from trying to define a common abduction but I guess this is just the way it was (before computer assisted science outsourced any informatic approach to a mental notion between the physicality of science and the microminuturization per information connection existed).But if you meant me to pick something simple like what I am working on at HOME; that Garteh Nelson of AMNH may have been off the network to assert that Croizat's Tracks were simply uniformed area cladograms, then that at least for me would have been easier to say. (a simple denial would do (have done)).Dont know if I succeeded with this.

WJ- this is the YES one. Ha ah Haaa!In the review article titled Punctuated equilibrium comes of age NATURE Vol 366 18 Novemeber 1993 Gould and Eldridge authored a piece.In high school for me, 70-80s, I wrote a paper called "Evolution of evolution, in which I missed this explaination of scaling that not till the 90s did I learn was the economic basis in my own lingo I call g-commerce IS the GIS support software communities rasion de entre having nothing to do with criticizing Creationists for pointing to the TOO fluid use of space and time thought interchange. This was philosophy of science for me and not evolutionary theory but If my reading is correct and that some of Mayr's ideas WERE gained from a diagram of Wright's then in so far as it is permissible to scope out of time to larger numbers representing this time then indeed Gould and Eldgredge probably visualize correctly. I did not understand this in High School and I bet if you asked Carl Zimmer, for him this would simply be a prima facie rejection of any CREATIONSIM which in fact is still in hung jury as AMNH against NZ Panbiogeographers when it comes to figureing in stratigraphy relative (3d for any 1d-2d connection) to overlaps of geography and morphogeny (not geography and topography). Yet depending on if the network is more made of say pentagons than hexagons say again this certianly is criticizable by creationism and likely shows an evolutionist error in software constuction of using not a relative enough disciple and using TWOendemic areas no matter the common ancestral area biogeography for a not creationist idea. out of time more later.

The ban still had time. No I was never there WJ.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
[B]What could have been demonstrated without, let us say, a le sae par or two, is not without relevance or indeed precedence to the matter. As has been shown beyond doubt by Dirac,[/QUOTE][/B].Yes, yes there is undoubtly a picture standing of Dirac and Feynman but Wolfram in the diagram gives the wink to Fredkin and neither of which is my best guess on the continuity that is PRIOR to the transition where discontinuity with Wolfram or Feynman for and Dirac is involved IN THE MODEL. You and I do not know if some bacteria use quarks to change introns etc and such is better left to the flat land of c/e fiction/talk talking fiction rather than a-working within the contraints of some template for the matter of infinite comparisions; which has not achieved this grammetelogical turn of the lexos naturalistically despite the move to, an emprically a posterirori orgin(for) any DEVIATION from is (by science) a gravational curvature in the thought. [QUOTE][B]
and is discussed even on the elementary school playground, we could never doubt that A PRIORI [/QUOTE][/B]
iT SEEMS to me that use of any a priori philosophy is only needed in the random window from which the choice of a black or white grey level is first picked up on in the dynamics that would be modeled from any electron exvolved where there is a problem in discontinuity brought on and in not by nature but by the scientific tools used in the discovery process of seperation or sorting saying nothing of the literay tradition that enabled mankind to so kindly write back to one another a lone or at home alone. [QUOTE][B]the siliconized society has made its contribution to c/e. Regardless, number theory, modulo so-called "induction evidence" has never clarified the role of epsilon in the diffe[/QUOTE][/B][Fixed quoting. --Admin][This message has been edited by Admin, 10-29-2002]

OK, you win.

I am sorry. To be punctual they are not. I am attempting to read and write within the topic divisions that is all. If you think that web categories enable a non-confusing reading then I will have a non-confused writing but such especially in c/e context is not so. I will try to show you this by finding about what you posted and I will let you know me.

This is NOT "jargon" generation but continual disciplined reading on and off the web. The lastest instantiation of a confusion arose because it was desired to know without any evil if the two axes I had in mind did or did not take the same geometry. Biologically I KNEW this was misrepresented or confusing to students as Will Provine ONLY related any substance in this materially to Phase-Transitions. Wolfram's New Kind of Science offers a biological alternative. This said nothing of tiling to infinty. It was not meant to confuse. What IS confusing is using ONLY infinite componentability when infinite division is possible and for that I AM guilty of over wording something that *may* be much simpler. I prefer to see the "ugly all" before I narrow to a beautiful mind. I apologize that you do not hold necessarily the enthusiam and excitment I got from Humphreys apon seeing** his Starlight and Time VIDEO for it verily cleared up much of the reasons I started my first journal (not on the web) decades ago. I was concerned to know how an organism could grow bones in a space that BOTH was increasingly entropically & expanding post big bang. At that time all I imagined was the centrioles could sense gravity waves. But I certainly determined then( late 70s) that Dawkins memes and genes were NOT compared to GOD. Of course I have learned the hard way that not even this is allowable as a comparison so instead I stick to baramins vs common descent lineage for the 1/2 enternity I put science to task ...I know Wolfram does not hold to this first notion of entropy I had. The interesting thing that I am discovering is that my physical ideas may be all wrong which gives even potentially more explanatory power to biology than I had thought previously (for instance, aforesaid, I had thought that speed of light had to constrain location of places of organisms (precisely as Wolfram has (also) suggested) but now with FRENCH BIO-Math Collet infinity at least at the axiomatic level and the by proof and defintiion proposition contigent acceptance) working out WOlfram program it is possible to get results beyond WOlfram in the more traditional mode of doing science (by finding laws in math)).I never used the one-gene one-enzyme notion to read any biology. If you can not do this(,) don't try.

Ad, I[This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 12-31-2002]

"Thereafter Heaviside, Fitzgerald, Lodge and Hertz reduced the vector potential to a mathematical subsidiary variable by assuming what is known as the Lorentz condition. However, the A field still remained as a repository of energy in the electrotonic state."This may be the OBJECT of any mistakes Nordenstrom may have made with respect to creating BCEC's without considering if migration is not a heritble means to increase some mechanical governance of magentoelectric (not electomagnetic) via blood circulation onto a multigolgi target(THERE YOU CUT THE TAPE HERE FOR NOW) for I have only THOUGHT electricity to BE the disturbance and not produced disturbances as in thought in some virtual reality programming.I think Weyl mispoke when he said "our present physical knowledge leaves us even more uncertain about the equivalence or non-equivalence of positive and negative electricity. It seems difficult to devise physical laws in which they are not...alike; but the negarive counter part of the postively charged proton remains to be discoved." Weyl then went on to "argue" for the same in equilibria.BCEC-biologically closed electric circuit.I unlike Bill Clinton do not think about the irreversible finger of the poet. My mind however is another story.It seems possible that gap proteins and "multi-polar"vesicles (my own construct) could support claim against the current use of electromagnetic theory in computer science however one must first deal with Feynman's claim that EM equations only work in inertial reference frames
in biology
but because of pharmecetutical $, biology has not demanded this of its best theorists such as Lewontin etc.Rose thought it a tragedy if it only took dough to get people well, well instead they took the baby out with the bath and tried to involuntarily against will will people sick who were actually trying to do the work.Some how this will become a head line, how or when or even who if not me I do not know. Best BRad.

This is my final reply to Crashfrog who took issue with my use of an undiscussed quote of Matchette which I did not include yet yet types, "This very nodal point,and the associated mind activity enables us to enrich our conception of divergence, recursively, so to speak. For we may now order our differing divergences along the scale of the appearence, or emergence of mind as a realtive observable."

​

I will deal with the algorythmic reality of recursion at a latter date and in time,thread, and topic. The frog may be correct about LISP but I hop this frog doesnt give any more lip- tongue how(ever? To) watch a frog hop into glass is not pleasent ya know!

​

So let me say something that is SO clear any attempt to fain ignorance will be ignorance itself. If this is not satisfactory I suggest the FrOG and other knowsaywhaters watch Charlies Angels and wait till B.Mac Calls them.

​

I will claim, assert and insist that Mendels "element" (the English translation of a German word) IS IS IS IS IS IS (did I say "is"?Did Bill Clinton NOT say "is"?) Matchette's Zero-Atom Unit. No ifs and or buts about it but that ands Mayr's claim that it is close enough to our concept of the gene to be read as a gene IS NOT TRUE. That's it. That's the barrier. Break it all you like but (do) not say tis I who always comes back incomprehensible for there is nair clairty beyond Xis Y. I also say Y is not Z's context. There is plenty for a carrer here but this should not line the pockets of psyche studies BECAUSE THEY LET THESE KINDS OF LANGAUGE MACHINES OUT in the 60s or so the IT people think today on a bottom line. I was not one of those. So there is ONE more thing to get straightened out but this should NOT be taken as endorsing the "Brad is too hard to follow crowd" yet it is likely to posses some more outwork in the futurefeature. That is that, I think there was a conversion since Matchette's time or else he had (something in my case as if projections were really possibly) misunderstood when he wrote, " This alienation of the spirit from the guiding influence of the Absolute manifests itself in the organic and functional disorders of ill-health - the precursors of death n.b. Here, in fact, lie the roots of the newly discovered truths of psychosomatic medicine-...now are seen to be resident within states of the mind, rather than the introduction of chemical agents; what amounts to the decrease in the divergence of the ailing mind, as we have pointed out."

​

It is by thiniking of this rather than x,y,&z that Crashfrog and others commenting about me have erred on the mental side. That is sad. It is a waste of time, talent, and tension. What had happened was that the newly discoverd drug treatments in medicine were confused with my critique of Gould (in short) instead treatment of the "chemicals" ("dont worry 'they' are just chemicals and "they" are out of balance")occured but THERE WAS NOT as Matchette said "treatment" of the mind unless paying me off with disability $ is said (so)(NOT!).

​

The Matchette paragraphy immediately before the one I supplied to Crashfrog DOES however speak in a current voice, it said, "That the point of divergence in which mind first appears as an observable, the "nodal" point so to speak, divides the relative into two domains, continuous the one with the other nonetheless. These two are the 'psychic', in which Mind is observable; and the 'non psychic' in which Mind is not yet observable relative existence. It thus appears as a stage, a level in the development of realative existenets which begins with the intially divergent Zero-Atom unit."Lawdog was correct that the appearence of heel nipping is a bit much. I have been immune sans Randy because of the difficulty of my posts. That is all that had saved me from Lawdog's fate. Why Randy did not understand me still evades me but it is not my job to treat the chemicals in someone elses mind by balancing my own. It is however rather necessary to stop psychosomatic "warfare" if such occurs. Also evolutionists use of "emergence" may be found to be only ideological on this basis. I have not followed up that possiblity. You free to do so.