Abiogenisis by the Numbers

If you dont hold to physical teleolgy & any kind of telomatic theology without moral fanaticism, it is not necessarily a desperate step. But as the second part of the quote Wounded King showed, it TOO would reply WITHIN Darwin's MISTAKEN ATTRIBUTION of ICEAGELANDFORMchange with CORRELAT(ED) (assuming such, and THAT IS WHAT IS QUESIONABLE but Crick navigated the issue textually) organic form MODIFICATIONS in the same TIME by finding another projection from Kant's systematic constitution even if aliens were not causal in the same community of thought. In the whole I see it simply as the possiblity of extending Newton's "Earth as a point", reexplaining the point in terms of the history of logic. Crick had the force, or so he thought that coded DNA, but the place was still in question. The philosophical problem however is failing to understand that errors of physical teleology result rather from final effects being causal in the freedom to discuss effecient causation in any time period. Crick as I understood him (in the double M book etc) took RNA kinetics to REPLACE the NOTION of Vitalism & by so doing he must of thought he could avoid the placement of Biblical Creationism in the vertical that Scientific Creationism need fill should the purpose of man's USE of modern biological knowledge be fullfileed sans human-made catastrophe should nanoecology NOT be in the incident place AVOIDANCE textually teaches students today what IS NOT on Earth but biological.It would be better if we restricted our SENSE of the topography of life, to Earth, until futher issues of geometry were propositonally no longer objectionable but I am no "thought police". The problem was one of substituting INTO ONE SUBSTANCE or NOT THINKING OF GOD. Crick simply made a cake that he could eat also. He probably didnt care if an alien would learn the recipe. Gladyhev's classic formulation is not so loose and restricts even chemical chirality to the Earth's rotation and thus seems perferable to me, even if we dont understand topography AS CROIZAT already did! This way there IS NOT END RUN AROUND KANT. Simply an intution that Kant might be mistaken. That was Bertrand Russell's yard long length and might be yours. I dont know. Death on PLANET EARTH is not IMMEDIATELY transitable to Life OFF EARTH even assuming a perfect carrier of the information we DONT HAVE. How do we know that behavior is not the means to MOVE chemical heat sinks TOWARDS the SUN?? This can still be reductionistic and deny the arithemetic of any Crick coding trasfer for I said NOTHING of the location of said alienation modern biology has made ANTHROPOLGICIALLY but rahther relied on the physical junction of the hierachy no matter the highest level comprehended. Perhaps every plant is not alien to humanity but only in possesion of an isothermal not well defined but ordered nontheless. It took me many years to not "see" plants as "green things". And I now DO understand WHY Mayr attempted to replace teleology with teleomatics. I bet that one could find Fisher STILL in disagreement statstically but I have not tried that thought on for size of the Columbus's diameter dispute.

quote:

---

but was eaten by our ancestors.

---

This what I often think when I get P-Oed at SJgOULd. my position is that Crickian codisms, domagtically taken or no, is NOT A BROAD ENOUGH perspective, EVEN GIVEN A DIFFERENT LOCATION THAN EARTH, for any starts on life,only Kant's Hence physciotheology is a misundertstood physical teleology, only serviceable as a preperation (propaeduetic) for theology, and it is only adequate to this design by the aid of a foreign principle on which it can rely, and not in itself, as its name seems to indicate."will do, because as long as some alien can be the Kerrier(phonetic,);we would never choose to decide, as to the constiuent(elementarity) by means of taken evolutionary theory in its current probablism, so0- that only a '"rich bich"(elite)-error' of nanoecology oppressing a minority, will (then) open the universities to alternative notions of changesssssss whether religiously motivated (akaBIBLICAL CREATIONISM) or not (you pick your pet subject)! What is the motto? "Be prepared?". We were not, for 9/11, nor are we for this alteration of any said by-teacher-of-evolution-modification (BEFORE WE MODIFY it). Evos (Wilson say) have objected BECAUSE the broad view leans TO THE THEOLOGY but it is the intellectual space OPENED UP by the project in the future (not the 1st century question) that society needs more than denominational and faithful differences, for peace: to resume. Charmaine Neville talked with me on a stage across the street from here:: but hers's IS'-NOT- any such servicable name.

My guess is that if someone thinks there is NO MORE DECODING but only molecular biology left, to do, then one might think like Watson who said on Charlie Rose, "if I only had Bill Gates' $, I would solve all diseases in a couple of decades." Even the evo Richard Lewontin whom I think treads shallow water with his insistance that organisms CREATE their environments has NOT adapted his own thought to this simplistic relation of the phenomenon of sickness and the healthy cure. I have not seen what Richard Dakwins is going to say to someone in possesion of such an informed blueprint but it does matter IN GENERAL as to the Carrier and hence Source of the information, as far as I understand the judgement. And I think you were in your right mind to ask. I am slowly begining to suspect we need a new statistical distribution derivation, to satisfy the diversity of posters here at evc, on this issue. I have not made these calCUlations, although from said general to this in particular, I do agree, such, ought to be attempted.This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 11-15-2004 03:35 PM

-no layer of abstraction-
OK LM- now I understand, "where you are coming from". That is probably the same reason we did not see continent to river in the baraminology thread as well!! Thanks for your clarification!

I am not completely confident but all discussions I have been having here at EvC have been leading me to surmise that macromolecular aggreations display DIFFERENT categories of ELECTRON FAMILIES but can only be associated with biological function when many molecules are associated in vivo. The difficulty for me is to think how compute which electrons to classify and which to not but to have a means of correlating it objectively subsequently. Gladyshev's macrothermodynamics gives some index that might suggest an approach biophysically but I dont have the physics sophistication to follow through. Provided this be recieved, THEN becomes thinkable that DNA differences (coded) might reflect differences of that determination.Loudmouth writes across two problems here. One is what order of magnitude the information would not be available in but could nonetheless be exposed to natural selection and the other is any motivation to think that additional information might evetually be squeezed from the material itself. As Percy quoted...since Niche Constructors speak of "semantic information transfer" for abiotic information describable genetically, it becomes trasferable from the Shannon release of semantic necessity to biological increases of cross generational adaptive semantic instantiation but if some electron families DO NOT RELY on CODED INFORMATION it becomes incumbent to descript what identifiable molecular aggreagtes ARE involved. I have some ideas on how to approach this experimentally with electrolytic redox reactions but I have little notion of how generally this occurrs should it be natural as Percy indicated. My ability to think of these biochemical things has been made possible by cognitive excurisions beyond the purely nontranscendental however you divide the effect of creationist inductions on my thought which goes beyond that of Bertrand Russell if for only my ability to NOT RELY on French Philosophy of the Calculus and transitive readins of Kant's Critique of Reason but rather to afford the marginal scriblings of Cantor a bit more value than Russell received subtracted in Great Britain delievered, as to any continuity the electrons would likely correlations maintaining (if) naturally or artifically (matters not as to the purpose) photonically across some, if existant, supramoleuclar volume or mass.When I think of this fundamentally, I often cosider that DNA torque is involved but I havent been able to extrapolate any class of this kind of angular momentum to side chain categories in proteins. That I would think would be a first step in resovling the existence of any such "abstraction" between levels of organization and levels of selection that biologist might desire to dispute without knowing how to toss teleology into its own teleomatic mix or instructed mixture, I think you quite pointed re-cognized.

Although my attention in this thread is starting to divide I will attempt to weave it all (back) together.Yet again, we had two posters with a viable volley

quote:

---

To try to assign any numbers to these processes (or your 150 criteria) isn't possible.

...and then figure out how it transformed itself into modern life.

​

That's a problem of evolution, not abiogenesis, and shouldn't figure into abiogenesis calculations.

---

but another poster, Loudmouth, was able to reveal more to me this thread around so I WILL be attempting to gather all of the formulas I might think are necessary to compute life ASSUMING that the only Shannon Info involved is that from Classical Entropy. Loudmouth will still be in place to say this is not enough but...well lets wait for the stuffing and turkey as I really do want to try to get some numbers on this. In the mean time I was able to eliminate the possible confusion engengered in the exchange between pink and shorty I isolated.John Grehan had said,
In terms of the research program, panbiogeography as a methodology is
not testible. It is the program that determines how research is carried out.
However, that research is open to testing, not in terms of refutation, but
by corroboration. Track analysis by Croizat led to a number of
specific predictions about the geological structure of @
http://biodiversity.uno.edu/~gophtax/_gophtax/0829.html
but here one has one person not two saying the same KIND of thing for if abiogenesis INFORMS the track width then by comparing the Shannon info of biology to perhaps a larger amount in society the temporal transformation info might be intended by the spatial biogeography quantitiatvely. Given that probability it would not be necessary to know preciely the FIRST FORM, but only that stragly enough the conclusion humanity OVERVALUED life. It would be that subsequent economic claim, NOT the correlation of abiogensis and biological change that was in incident question. If all of this just seems like Brad-speak for needed translation"", please wait. I like Percy really do appreaciate the "mental copy" that EvC now affords the intelligent reader. Thanks to all participants in this weave.

I am not signing off this or any thread here at evc.Percy extracted,

quote:

---

"Frequently the messages have meaning; that is they refer to or are correlated according to some system with certain physical or conceptual entities. These semantic aspects

---

which has made the "engineering problem" that I at least can identify to Shrodinger's term "mental copy" as to STATISTICAL MECHANICS, thanks in part to your contribution here, larger than I or Loudmouth can apprehend at the present time. I speak approvingly of LM in that last sentence! We have made *some* progress in this thread, as it is not necessary to concieve any space for any time but just that information needed to create probabilites of life ON EARTH evolving OFF Earth. If we discover Life ON MARS, this makes all these speculations even more particularly difficult but as I at least will attempt to use ONLY CLASSICAL ENTROPY in the sense that Maxwell INSISTED BE TAUGHT, I think there is some reason to believe this is possible. What little I have read on Ross as to light etc, I have been MORE SKEPTICAL OF than $anythiing^ out of ICR. Just to let you know.Gladyshev is wont to stress that his work uses bioloigcal information as to classical entropy NOT to Progogine temperature incorporated layering nor Shannon measures BUT the calculation CAN be approached IN TERMS OF SHANNON defs within the INTERVALS of hierarchic thermodynamics
http://www.worldscinet.com/...18/1806/S0217979204023970.html
provided these would be THEN found embeded in a larger variation of the effect of entropy on THE COMMUNICATION of the same.This is not a trivial undertaking. I still dont have a noodle all the way around..
http://www.endeav.org/evolut/age/dem/dem.htm
but I am confident that I can use Shrodinger's BOOK
STATISTICAL
http://www.amazon.com/...il/-/0486661016/102-5696429-9052104
MECHANICS to find the crack in the Shannon scoped evaluations.Loudmouth seems to think that all of this is unnecssary but I know that it is needed to show in what ways THE CROIZAT METHOD is criticizable qualitatively in substantive (bettering its methodology) ways. LM may be satisfied with current biological neontology. I am not.The clue is to NOT USE any kind of elemental/funamental/pricipaled units but ONLY THOSE both withIN macrokinetics & having a probablity attached to some subset of DNA,RNA,proteinexpression apparatus within a panbiogeoraphic track. I just saw a note in SCIENCE MAGAZINE describing ribosomes and "entropy traps" so it is just a bit much to do all of this in one post. Whether or not any results I could come up with will match you ostensive "criteria", I have no idea. But if my approach will not permit any sociological information to be part of it unless the divide and rule is ALREADY found reductionnistically. Part of the justification to proceed where LM would rather not see the degrees of magnitude traversed come from some distillation of the counter view to the calc I am going to try from Wolfram but no matter the criteria difference equivalent sophistication MUST apply even if the criterial difference between us might amount to different realities of universal computational reducibility. That of course assumes what LM justly asserts does not exist. It doesnt exist for me as of yet either.This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 11-17-2004 12:31 PM

Here are some of the difficulties in the difference in mathematical maturity between physicists and biologists that I DOUBT, but do not know, if Ross, has or has had them 'under his belt'.In
http://www.amazon.com/...il/-/0486661016/102-5696429-9052104Schordiner narrates TWO ways to think up to quantum mechanically (most probable and average of large numbers) as to the VIRTUAL GIBBS ASSEMBLY under any thermal physics exploration and comes to a crucial cognition that Gibbs, so he thought, was correct to diss duplications in gas sums of a certain entropy INCREASE as being of NO REAL EVENT. If the reason that Fisher/Wright TENSION has not materialized into newer evolutionary theory theoretically (respite Gould's conceputual stepping)is that any math analytics of Fisher is COMPREHENDED QUANTUM MECHANICALLY in Schrodingers bifurcated grammetology then it seemed to me the equivalent theory biologically (with or without attitudes as to the INNERSIGHT(GERMAN WORD) of no-such-event are cellular physiologies (no matter the origin) with the same CODES (and small statistical variations mutationally possible). Thus variation in the criteria to generate these codes IS experimentally into entropy defs but Schrodinger dissing classical thinking worked on the propositional function vs object without the necessity of experimental philosophy of ACUTAL EXPERIMENTALLY DETERMINED EQUILIBRIA. This additional relation between expt and theory is necessary in adjudicating the criticism of evo theory whether coming from a philosophy and religion of creationists or a mistaken belief that only quantum mechanical physics need apply (Hoffman). I have never seen this finessed in the literature so I doubted that Ross had this criterially but I might be proved wrong by links to his literatuer. I doubt it. Of course Provine might have thought that Kantianism will never better itself this way into biology but the philosophical discussion really means that we have had a group of biologists/creationists on the mathematical level between say a Schrodiner and an Einstein but Will was doing nothin to help UWisconsinMadison bring this most likely sophistication into service for the students of biology in US and since I was also treated psychologically it is apparent that this faliure to provide room for release of this "tension" IS CULUTRALY and PEDAGOGICALLY being repressed by secular teachers being hostile to religion but not directly but rather insitutionally else the community of Kantian scholarship would already have provided at least academic space rather than internet bandwidth to the discussion. It is only becuase we allow religous perspective on-line that I have been able to synthesis so much of what must in the final word be the same analytic continuation. It is just that Shrodinger would have been wrong to have said for evo theory that a prior apriori probability was defined. That was how he could bridge the two ways and this indeed might be the only criticism of Wright's behind the writing of "envirnoment" degredation by Fisher (as to the material being other than gas -aka gene) and the consequent ugenic attachment socially past but if I am correct the maths only begin with this level of discussion.What had not occured in the publishing was a graph of energy level differences regressed on a "plane" of levels of organization and levels of selection. And as levels of selection will roughly scale atomic energy level seperations (whether in supramolecular assembly or less)(or more if you get daring) some guess on the general shape would be possible. Gould might have snuk an infinity in here notionally in his time but we need not make that mistake. First we will needed taxogenic categorizations of the inequalities that would not be but historically the same (no) "real event" that Schrodinger spoke of in this book.If it can be shown me that Ross had thought these "desgin constraints" into his relation of biology and physics for any biophysics of his nameable I will recant else I rest by Job. So you see THIS IS NOT just a simple difference of Young Earth vs Ross's Sun Creationism. It goes to the feet of the lack of mathematical sophistication needed in biology & I said nothing of the cantorian unicorn lurking in the foreground.

I could give a few pages-INSTEAD I WOULD RECOMMED ONE TRY TO FIGURE OUT in its stead HOW PHYSICAL I WOULD DISPUTE THESE TWO LINES OF TEXT rather than trying to pay for making EVC part of every school boys lunch box image. .The philosophy DOES MATTER. Where is any one teaching students what Kant thought of Leibniz AFTER viewing AN INSECT in the microscope? I will go kicking and screaming over the first sentence. While the second is a attempt to parly the creative reading necessary to write the first with a revisionist provision in the second. It matters a mite not if I might explain with programmed cell death how we ate the answer to the spirit needed to disscuss the different IDEAS on time mitocondira might afford the thought speculator but alas even creation science must get practical. Let us not tilt at the marketer's windmill if we insist on the philosophy else we must not dismiss the metaphyical repose that EVC already afFORDANCes society. IT DOES and did! Sure the transfinites in Robinsonian infintesimals might span the formed gap but who knows....Alos DO NOTE that JAD's TEACHER Crow did not eat this but said IN THES SAME

quote:

---

Wright’s intellectual life extended far beyond the normal range in both directions. He was also a precocious child.

---

For Will Provine who needed to scope the space of UChicago into a the door of the Jehova's Witness entrance this was just the difference of the Ag quad and the Engineering Quadrangle TIMED walk at Cornell WHICH USED TO BE A FARM before it was taken from the indians as a cornfield.
Info from
Page not found | Harvard Square Library
note to admins- that is my attempt to stop -off topic posting as it is not at all clear to me that a NUMBER will provide the SPIRIT of a difference between Kant and Newton as to the diffusion or electricity involved.This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 11-18-2004 11:22 AM