Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Creaton Waves and Morphogenetic Fields
Quetzal
Member (Idle past 5872 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 1 of 16 (20939)
10-28-2002 8:31 AM


In a recent thread, Peter Borger revealed some of his theory concerning creatons/anti-creatons and morphogenetic fields. From what I can gather, the interaction of creaton particles with this field are what cause the de novo creation of new genes, speciation, subspecies variation, mass extinction, etc. Peter proposes that "waves" of creatons interact with living organisms once every 26 my.
I have opened this thread in the interests of getting further insights from Peter on the exact mechanisms, timing, action, and evidence for creatons, creaton waves, and morphogentic fields. Hopefully Peter will be able to use his theory to expound upon their effect in such areas as biogeography, mass extinction, population dynamics, speciation, etc, using concrete examples from nature.
Take it away, Peter B....

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by Brad McFall, posted 10-28-2002 1:30 PM Quetzal has not replied
 Message 3 by Mammuthus, posted 10-30-2002 10:49 AM Quetzal has not replied
 Message 4 by Mammuthus, posted 10-31-2002 4:52 AM Quetzal has not replied
 Message 5 by Mammuthus, posted 11-01-2002 2:47 PM Quetzal has not replied

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5033 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 2 of 16 (20946)
10-28-2002 1:30 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Quetzal
10-28-2002 8:31 AM


Does he distinguish an "undulation" from any 'steady motion' that would be more than mere "hand waving" if one was to be able to so, in time, 'extract' the kinematics. Seems this distinction would be necessary before a general DYnamics was supposed. I tend to doubt "morphogenetic fields" myself and prefer the idea of network space now that Wolfram has left the building. When Cornell kicked me out I went to this new facility that was not there when I was at that school and asked for someone who could stand on their legs and tell me what OFFICES had my files. SO that I could give the info to a laywer for a suit but instead once the meeting was arranged an UNDERCOVER cop from downtown escorted be back to CTB. Instead I saw Stephen Wolfram standing there.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Quetzal, posted 10-28-2002 8:31 AM Quetzal has not replied

  
Mammuthus
Member (Idle past 6475 days)
Posts: 3085
From: Munich, Germany
Joined: 08-09-2002


Message 3 of 16 (21114)
10-30-2002 10:49 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Quetzal
10-28-2002 8:31 AM


quote:
Originally posted by Quetzal:
In a recent thread, Peter Borger revealed some of his theory concerning creatons/anti-creatons and morphogenetic fields. From what I can gather, the interaction of creaton particles with this field are what cause the de novo creation of new genes, speciation, subspecies variation, mass extinction, etc. Peter proposes that "waves" of creatons interact with living organisms once every 26 my.
I have opened this thread in the interests of getting further insights from Peter on the exact mechanisms, timing, action, and evidence for creatons, creaton waves, and morphogentic fields. Hopefully Peter will be able to use his theory to expound upon their effect in such areas as biogeography, mass extinction, population dynamics, speciation, etc, using concrete examples from nature.
Take it away, Peter B....

************************************
Bump

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Quetzal, posted 10-28-2002 8:31 AM Quetzal has not replied

  
Mammuthus
Member (Idle past 6475 days)
Posts: 3085
From: Munich, Germany
Joined: 08-09-2002


Message 4 of 16 (21161)
10-31-2002 4:52 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Quetzal
10-28-2002 8:31 AM


quote:
Originally posted by Quetzal:
In a recent thread, Peter Borger revealed some of his theory concerning creatons/anti-creatons and morphogenetic fields. From what I can gather, the interaction of creaton particles with this field are what cause the de novo creation of new genes, speciation, subspecies variation, mass extinction, etc. Peter proposes that "waves" of creatons interact with living organisms once every 26 my.
I have opened this thread in the interests of getting further insights from Peter on the exact mechanisms, timing, action, and evidence for creatons, creaton waves, and morphogentic fields. Hopefully Peter will be able to use his theory to expound upon their effect in such areas as biogeography, mass extinction, population dynamics, speciation, etc, using concrete examples from nature.
Take it away, Peter B....

*****************
Bumpity bump

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Quetzal, posted 10-28-2002 8:31 AM Quetzal has not replied

  
Mammuthus
Member (Idle past 6475 days)
Posts: 3085
From: Munich, Germany
Joined: 08-09-2002


Message 5 of 16 (21276)
11-01-2002 2:47 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Quetzal
10-28-2002 8:31 AM


quote:
Originally posted by Quetzal:
In a recent thread, Peter Borger revealed some of his theory concerning creatons/anti-creatons and morphogenetic fields. From what I can gather, the interaction of creaton particles with this field are what cause the de novo creation of new genes, speciation, subspecies variation, mass extinction, etc. Peter proposes that "waves" of creatons interact with living organisms once every 26 my.
I have opened this thread in the interests of getting further insights from Peter on the exact mechanisms, timing, action, and evidence for creatons, creaton waves, and morphogentic fields. Hopefully Peter will be able to use his theory to expound upon their effect in such areas as biogeography, mass extinction, population dynamics, speciation, etc, using concrete examples from nature.
Take it away, Peter B....

********************************
Well, this is clearly unanswerable as the proponent of the hypothesis let it slide
Bump yet again

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Quetzal, posted 10-28-2002 8:31 AM Quetzal has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by John, posted 11-01-2002 2:56 PM Mammuthus has replied
 Message 8 by Mammuthus, posted 11-04-2002 3:34 AM Mammuthus has replied

  
John
Inactive Member


Message 6 of 16 (21277)
11-01-2002 2:56 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by Mammuthus
11-01-2002 2:47 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Mammuthus:
Well, this is clearly unanswerable as the proponent of the hypothesis let it slide
Bump yet again

Ya know.... I couldn't tell you how many times I read about 'creatons' before I realized that he was serious.
------------------
http://www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Mammuthus, posted 11-01-2002 2:47 PM Mammuthus has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by Mammuthus, posted 11-01-2002 3:12 PM John has not replied

  
Mammuthus
Member (Idle past 6475 days)
Posts: 3085
From: Munich, Germany
Joined: 08-09-2002


Message 7 of 16 (21280)
11-01-2002 3:12 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by John
11-01-2002 2:56 PM


[QUOTE]Originally posted by John:
[B]
quote:
Originally posted by Mammuthus:
Well, this is clearly unanswerable as the proponent of the hypothesis let it slide
Bump yet again

Ya know.... I couldn't tell you how many times I read about 'creatons' before I realized that he was serious.
++++++++++++++++
Maybe he meant croutons and he was just hungry

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by John, posted 11-01-2002 2:56 PM John has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by Dr_Tazimus_maximus, posted 11-13-2002 8:42 AM Mammuthus has replied

  
Mammuthus
Member (Idle past 6475 days)
Posts: 3085
From: Munich, Germany
Joined: 08-09-2002


Message 8 of 16 (21490)
11-04-2002 3:34 AM
Reply to: Message 5 by Mammuthus
11-01-2002 2:47 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Mammuthus:
quote:
Originally posted by Quetzal:
In a recent thread, Peter Borger revealed some of his theory concerning creatons/anti-creatons and morphogenetic fields. From what I can gather, the interaction of creaton particles with this field are what cause the de novo creation of new genes, speciation, subspecies variation, mass extinction, etc. Peter proposes that "waves" of creatons interact with living organisms once every 26 my.
I have opened this thread in the interests of getting further insights from Peter on the exact mechanisms, timing, action, and evidence for creatons, creaton waves, and morphogentic fields. Hopefully Peter will be able to use his theory to expound upon their effect in such areas as biogeography, mass extinction, population dynamics, speciation, etc, using concrete examples from nature.
Take it away, Peter B....

********************************
Well, this is clearly unanswerable as the proponent of the hypothesis let it slide
Bump yet again

*************************
And it is still unanswered...why am I not surprised?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Mammuthus, posted 11-01-2002 2:47 PM Mammuthus has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by Mammuthus, posted 11-12-2002 11:16 AM Mammuthus has not replied

  
Mammuthus
Member (Idle past 6475 days)
Posts: 3085
From: Munich, Germany
Joined: 08-09-2002


Message 9 of 16 (22354)
11-12-2002 11:16 AM
Reply to: Message 8 by Mammuthus
11-04-2002 3:34 AM


quote:
Originally posted by Mammuthus:
quote:
Originally posted by Mammuthus:
quote:
Originally posted by Quetzal:
In a recent thread, Peter Borger revealed some of his theory concerning creatons/anti-creatons and morphogenetic fields. From what I can gather, the interaction of creaton particles with this field are what cause the de novo creation of new genes, speciation, subspecies variation, mass extinction, etc. Peter proposes that "waves" of creatons interact with living organisms once every 26 my.
I have opened this thread in the interests of getting further insights from Peter on the exact mechanisms, timing, action, and evidence for creatons, creaton waves, and morphogentic fields. Hopefully Peter will be able to use his theory to expound upon their effect in such areas as biogeography, mass extinction, population dynamics, speciation, etc, using concrete examples from nature.
Take it away, Peter B....

********************************
Well, this is clearly unanswerable as the proponent of the hypothesis let it slide
Bump yet again

*************************
And it is still unanswered...why am I not surprised?

Bumpity bumpity.....and I am the one not answering posts Peter?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Mammuthus, posted 11-04-2002 3:34 AM Mammuthus has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by Brad McFall, posted 11-12-2002 12:11 PM Mammuthus has replied

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5033 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 10 of 16 (22357)
11-12-2002 12:11 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by Mammuthus
11-12-2002 11:16 AM


No this may be an alternative to morph fields however but relies on some notion of Particle Physics that may not be true.Think it is cheaper thang going to Harvard.
Stephen Wolfram on page 824 of ANEWKIND OF Science;2002: attempted to print IN FACT "almost no other" that can only be @ fact if this was wrote to motivate TO fact (getting across (outer totalistic code 204)) and not FROM the same on indexing genome vs genetic material with, "And as one might expect from the intuition in this book, even systems like the one below with remarkably simple rules can still manage to show self- reproduction-despite the fact that they bear almost no other resemblence to ordinary living systems." It seems hard for me to believe that it is only an inability to read and one writing teacher (Will Provine) produces such a senetence as authority but please re-read.
When "Wolfram"'self-reproduction' appears in the difference of Mendel's A/a OR a/A in the pollen/sperm or egg ~ no matter the "evolution of dominance (provine Etc.) ~ the EVEN (number of chromosome repetitive DNA...)seperating chromosome art parts of 3:1 truth in the body being transformed physically duing this odd process of the square root (possible? in some day-lily triploid clones) in A x (non-universal group theory)Aa x a at least for A/a=a/A as per Mendel that acquires Hemerocalis taxogeny by activity when not a law of growth, any other orthoselection etc.becasue of triploid gametes with a EVEN NUMBER OF SETS morphogenically may express using Wolfram's "204" code histogenically for instance if, let us say, "the pattern" is some reciprocally figured trait into (or out of?) Mendel's double (hybrid +- parent) signification signed "A" or "a" that is torqued onw way with respect to the fan from which a second spiral is associated with vascular metrics to flower-bud position{s} and by projection a distance of reciprocal trait seperates the A, a between but not among any symbolic computation 'not "among "(would be "spatial evolution else (while?~?)) of A/a (perverted or not) as Mendel asked the reader to adjudicate, then by radial statistics; one:: may with computer support categorize Flower Biometry such that different "patterns" (what Day-Lily enthusiasts look for in a plant (flower) or strictly Mendel's stem length ) could input become once again, against Mayr gaining Croizat etc to the generation experiment wihout the double by using a perversion of Pascal's triangle gearing up for Galton's difference of organic and molecular units in Cantor Domain etc that may not be the Chinese equivalent even if within Gladyshev's notion of Macrothermodynamics etc etc/ etc...eTc.
Other possibilites do exist, I guess. It seems prelimiarily that this is possible for squamates,day-lilys and echinoderms so why I was prevented data acess at Cornell remains a mystery.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Mammuthus, posted 11-12-2002 11:16 AM Mammuthus has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by Mammuthus, posted 11-13-2002 7:06 AM Brad McFall has replied

  
Mammuthus
Member (Idle past 6475 days)
Posts: 3085
From: Munich, Germany
Joined: 08-09-2002


Message 11 of 16 (22451)
11-13-2002 7:06 AM
Reply to: Message 10 by Brad McFall
11-12-2002 12:11 PM


BM:
Other possibilites do exist, I guess. It seems prelimiarily that this is possible for squamates,day-lilys and echinoderms so why I was prevented data acess at Cornell remains a mystery.
M: You were prevented from accessing data at Cornell? Did they give a reason why? Unless it was unpublished raw data, most researchers are required to provide data and materials upon request.
cheers,
M

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by Brad McFall, posted 11-12-2002 12:11 PM Brad McFall has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by Brad McFall, posted 11-13-2002 11:39 AM Mammuthus has not replied

  
Dr_Tazimus_maximus
Member (Idle past 3217 days)
Posts: 402
From: Gaithersburg, MD, USA
Joined: 03-19-2002


Message 12 of 16 (22457)
11-13-2002 8:42 AM
Reply to: Message 7 by Mammuthus
11-01-2002 3:12 PM


[QUOTE]Originally posted by Mammuthus:
quote:
Originally posted by John:
quote:
Originally posted by Mammuthus:
Well, this is clearly unanswerable as the proponent of the hypothesis let it slide
Bump yet again

Ya know.... I couldn't tell you how many times I read about 'creatons' before I realized that he was serious.
++++++++++++++++
Maybe he meant croutons and he was just hungry

Actually I thought that he meant "cretins" at first and that he was being facetious. I have been trying to keep up with the pile of dren from Peter, Ahmad and others recently generated on this board but I currently lack the time due to problems within my company. If they are resolved and the company survives I will try to focus more on the flaws within the biochemistry of Peter and others statements. Till then , good luck and happy hunting.
------------------
"Chance favors the prepared mind." L. Pasteur
Taz

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by Mammuthus, posted 11-01-2002 3:12 PM Mammuthus has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by Mammuthus, posted 11-13-2002 8:56 AM Dr_Tazimus_maximus has not replied
 Message 14 by Quetzal, posted 11-13-2002 9:16 AM Dr_Tazimus_maximus has not replied

  
Mammuthus
Member (Idle past 6475 days)
Posts: 3085
From: Munich, Germany
Joined: 08-09-2002


Message 13 of 16 (22458)
11-13-2002 8:56 AM
Reply to: Message 12 by Dr_Tazimus_maximus
11-13-2002 8:42 AM


[QUOTE]Originally posted by Dr_Tazimus_maximus:
[B][QUOTE]Originally posted by Mammuthus:
quote:
Originally posted by John:
quote:
Originally posted by Mammuthus:
Well, this is clearly unanswerable as the proponent of the hypothesis let it slide
Bump yet again

Ya know.... I couldn't tell you how many times I read about 'creatons' before I realized that he was serious.
++++++++++++++++
Maybe he meant croutons and he was just hungry

Actually I thought that he meant "cretins" at first and that he was being facetious. I have been trying to keep up with the pile of dren from Peter, Ahmad and others recently generated on this board but I currently lack the time due to problems within my company. If they are resolved and the company survives I will try to focus more on the flaws within the biochemistry of Peter and others statements. Till then , good luck and happy hunting.
[/B][/QUOTE]
*****************
Good luck with the company Taz...I hope you can join us here again soon.
Best wishes,
M

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by Dr_Tazimus_maximus, posted 11-13-2002 8:42 AM Dr_Tazimus_maximus has not replied

  
Quetzal
Member (Idle past 5872 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 14 of 16 (22463)
11-13-2002 9:16 AM
Reply to: Message 12 by Dr_Tazimus_maximus
11-13-2002 8:42 AM


Best of luck Taz. However, unless you can come back soon, I'm really afraid there won't be much left to chew on. Ya know, mammoths ate lots and lots...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by Dr_Tazimus_maximus, posted 11-13-2002 8:42 AM Dr_Tazimus_maximus has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by Mammuthus, posted 11-13-2002 9:19 AM Quetzal has not replied

  
Mammuthus
Member (Idle past 6475 days)
Posts: 3085
From: Munich, Germany
Joined: 08-09-2002


Message 15 of 16 (22464)
11-13-2002 9:19 AM
Reply to: Message 14 by Quetzal
11-13-2002 9:16 AM


quote:
Originally posted by Quetzal:
Best of luck Taz. However, unless you can come back soon, I'm really afraid there won't be much left to chew on. Ya know, mammoths ate lots and lots...
**********************
They also produced loads of feces ...but all the mammoths combined could not have produced as big a heap of crap as the morphogenetic/creaton particle/multipurpose genome hypothesis

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Quetzal, posted 11-13-2002 9:16 AM Quetzal has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024