How many generations does speciation take?

Loudmouth's view is not anything like creationism, not even if we all sat with Queztal's dog looking for salamanders on islands in the middle of LAKE erie. Mine is.Since you moved on before I could even paste and click here's the raw- ill be editing in real time so dont expect this to be the final view.Lets look at it in terms #sequence genes copies before speciation duplication =gene duplication separations. And then see how many generations that was. Yes I did get it LM. In fact that was somewhat thepoint I was mak’n in thegrey alien thread when I synthesized some physics into my idea on how this thing works.
The definitions to use are Biological sequence analysis defs p 160
7.1 The tree of life
The similarity of molecular mechanisms of the organisms that have been studied strongly suggests that all organisms on Earth had a common ancestry. Thus any set of species is related, and this relationship is called a phylogeny. Usually the relationship can be represented by a phylogenetic tree. The task of phylogenetics is to infer this tree from observations upon the existing organisms.
Traditionally, morphological characters (both from living and fossilized organisms) have been used for inferring phylogenies. Zuckerandl and Pauling’s pioneering paper [1962] showed that molecular sequences provide sets of characters that can carry a large amount of information. If we have a set of sequences from different species, therefore, we may be able to use them to infer a likely phylogeny of the species in question. This assumes that the sequences have descended from some common ancestral gene in a common ancestral species.
The widespread occurrence of gene duplication means that the foregoing assumption needs to be checked carefully. The phlylogenetic tree of a group of sequences does not necessarily reflect the phyogenetic tree of the host species, because gene duplication is another mechanism, in addition to speciation, by which two sequences can be separated and diverge from a common ancestor. Genes which diverged because of speciation are called orthologues. Genes which diverged by gene duplication are called paralogues. If we are interested in inferring thephylogentic tree of the species carrying the genes, we mustuse orthologous sequences. But, of course, we might be interested in the phylogeny of duplication events, in which case we might construct a phlylogeny of paralogues, even the paralogues within a single species. The distinctionbetween paralogues and orhtologues is illustrated by Fig7.1Thus while it would predict a number of generations I think that better would be to do the maths with Wright’s diagram I will search out and extend this to my discussion of physics. Instead of getting that far into the actual work. It will be MUCH easier to use IN HOMOLOGY Loudmouths’ relation of analogue and digital to partition the variance in sequence Convergence per monoplyetic suspect. There are people here who wish to argue that in the end it is all digital. Let us please leave that till we come to terms about QM in the whole things, if you wish to address what I am saying specifically following up Loudmouth’s post.Looking at figure 7.1 lets assume the ortholgous tree was constructed by any systematic means, creationist or evolutionary and the paralgous one by any means of separating molecular differences. What I noticed was likely a mistake in science (you are free to argue the digital divide of what I am saying but I am not getting there yet) was that as QM took over the better philosophers of science the possibility of a simple Gibbs classical equilibrium binding the material particulate genetic reality seemed to be passed generation by generation of learning students by. Thus I am showing how to use an homologous series under Gladyshev’s law can bind the branching similarity in the trees as diagramed from information on two differenent levels (genes,species) and PREDICT the # of generations.We approach this from Russel’s viewpoint.Bertrand Russell The Analysis of Matter p 252

quote:

---

Take first the relation between the space of physics and the space of perception. Within the private space of one percipient, there is a distinction between perceived space-relations and inferred ones. There is a space into which all the percepts of one person fit, but this a constructed space, the construction being achieved during the first months of life. But there are also perceived space-relations, most obviously most obviously among visual percepts. These space-relations are not identical with those which physics assumes among the corresponding physical objects, but they have a certain kind of correspondence with those relations. If we represent the position, for physics, of visible objects by polar co-ordinates, taking the percipient as origin, the two angular co-ordinates correspond to perceived relations among visual percepts, while the radius vector (except possibly for very small distances) is inferred by means of causal laws. Let us confine ourselves to the angular co-ordinates. My point is that the relations which physics assumes in assigning angular co-ordinates are not identical with those which we perceive in the visual field, but merely correspond with them in a manner which preserves their logical (mathematical) properties.

---

The calculation proceed by using LONDON forces believed to be involved in adsorbtion and to vary with distance by the seventh power but a simple Bayesian probabilism is not suffient but to get some replication and reproduction. The whole randomized program must also work out in the vocabulary of Hilbert how Russel’s percipient center is but a point of a space curve as the plane of angularity is sphericalized. If the Baysian probabilities still work for the volume rather than the plane in uniting the form of the para and otho bushes an analogue view of speciation is retained no matter what the digitial information is carried by any other sophisticated decomposition of the sequence data.ADDTION VOCABULARY NEEDED from Geometry and the Imagination by D. HIlbert and S.Cohn-Vossen Chelsia Publishing Company New York.1952 page178-182 "Most of the discussion of the last section can be adapted to apply to curves in space (sometimes called twisted curves). To start with,...we shall try to find a plane lying as close to the curve as possible in the neightborhood of the point under consideration. To this end, we draw the plane...In this process the plane approaches a limiting position. The limiting plane satisfies our requirement; it is called an osculating plane of the cureve at the point under consideration..We shall next extend the concept of curvature to space cureves...called the polar axis of the curve at the point underconsideration."
The angular Russel "physics" gives the plane in various orientations. I asserted it will format a sphere with the same probability space. This is not a space of any digitality! There will be a group theory of the answer as well, mathematically. The "curve" is the point where 1-D symmetry (CODED) effects are confused in space. OK its better I stop explaining in my "future" lingo to try to get someone interested and just sit back and start to do more of the work myself.I had told Para that EVC must wait. I guess I prematurely started this one thinking that there would be a larger dynamic. I knew Loudmouth would come back and question me but seeing that it would just be one on one between us its not going to work any better for evc than what has gone on before between us. I have just started to build a working Java program. I do not need to divide where a biologist with QM training might refer. If the only point is to gain a streght of evoluionary mindset one does not need the detailed model. I will probably be arguing the whole history of physics but I see now in real time that its not time for this level of detail as of yet.What looks really exicting is that one is not limited to Lewontin's two evolutionary consequences depending on the "original genetic composotion" in terms OF TWO different molecular genetic approaches which will ALWAYS be the polar coordinates in this model and exist with a digitial approach only that I dont agree to work on. That is possible but if the LONDON force, the two types of 1-D symmetry and the 4 bases, lead to a predictable PRIOR POSTERIOR PROBABILITY it might be possible to affirm creationist claims that have most change on the order of only a few decades generations only.THE REASON it is exciting contra what else we hear here is that space drops off with r^2 but the bases quad to that atomically thus circumscribe confused relations in series beyond 7 bases which if molecualarly have electron phase harmonies in the same places could work purely by formal DECODING of a relation between ortho and para by a homo series obeying macrothermo as in the data in fig7.1 cited above. Sorry if you all dont think in the same words as I do.I dont have the actual number yet. I know how I want to approach one.
The hard deductive part is to reduce with actual sequence data and trees to find the places of 8 base sequence streches as the single point in Hilbert's sense divided by Russel between the perception and physics of the mutation itself. Quite a project. It should give some range on generations from the data (to be used) and from that a generatlization about generation time in general would be foolish to express but would be possible. USING THAT will not make ID be the response. It raises science as a whole and permits alternatives at the same synthesis. When the day comes I convert other evcers is this day that c/e is not political. Oh how I yearn for the months of my teenage youth.This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 03-03-2005 16:40 AM

I am using the standard 10^-5 muts per gen ordered by symmetrical affects subject to "If any two molecules approach each other, there comes into importance within certain distances the attractive interaction, which is designated by London as teh dispersion force. The motion of the electrons in one of these molecules modifies that of the electrons in the other, so that they tend on the average to move in phase. This produces an atractive force proportional to the inverse seventh power of the distance between the molecules. It has been suggested that this force may be agent in the process of adsorption. This interaction is additive, and of sufficient influence to account in part for the cohesive forces in liquids. The more unlike the molecules that are involved in this interaction the less likely are their electrons to move in phase. This may account for the "squeezing out" action of liquids for small amounts of second substances . If the dispersion forces were responsible fro the "structure" found in a liquid the exclusion of impurities which would distort this structure would be easily pictured. In any case, dispersioin forces between adsorptive and adsorbant favor adsorption." in Cassidy's Asorptio and Chromatography 1951 InterscienceThis is an analogue approach. one need only note that Newton perferred chemistry to explain cohesion than conspiring motions. The whole level of selection thing is framemable not factually as a conspiricy. Think of the small amount of substance as gene expressed >> codes compared to substance of original expression as ++ smmyetry. Photons might have some effect there however.

I am working on a DEDUCTIVE approach. I dont know that it exists in the literature. In the thread in response to Loudmouth. I indicated the need to work into Wright's equilibrium after this calculation will be performed. I did not even say how many base changes might go into a a part of a gene let alone a whole gene that is fixable.Sorry if I mislead you into thinking I had progressed in my work father than I actually am. The base substitutions COULD INDEED be cummulative within the binding of their contributions to formal ++ and >> transformative grammers but I dont even take that approach. Instead I am interesting in directly deducing from Glaydhsev's law.I am curious if it is possible to develop a "neutral" methodology so that assertions of creationists that Salmon only take 13 generations to speciate might be generalized. Maybe you should ask Mick how he thinks it. Deduction is itself a kind of "fixation" and so is minization. I was trying to discuss change ONLY in terms of gene caused and species caused sequence divergence. Population convergence may indeed have causes not even predictable in principle from what I was starting to propose. I am sorry that i started to post as I saw rather quickly the approach was going to get confused with the output. Again I apologize. I had seen you post when you first posted it but decided NOT to post until I might be in a position to state uncategorically. I can not. A mutation is not an electrotonic flow but flesh is possibly a conspircy of emotions.This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 03-03-2005 17:35 AM