The Flagellum Unspun

I'll try to target this means to the end of thread directly next time, meanwhile this was my answer on another board (NO ANSWERS IN GENESIS)As for the standard natural biology I was refering to COLLEGE ZOOLOGY by Robert Hegner ~1931p69 "Changes such as these, that are inherited, are required for the evolution of new species, and it seems probable that the investigators who have observed heritably diverse pure lines areise from a single pure line have actually followed a process that is in part responsible fro the origin of species." And I, BSM, was on my way to show you the visualization that may even help to determine if there is more friction on the inside or outside memebrane of bacteria flagella but instead you chose to think you could not understand what I said.Point start(see Wolfram NewKIndof Sciencep536to537only) ONe- "But so far as one can tell the details of thos do not work out" BECAUSE THERE IS A DIFFERNCE A LA HUXELY ETC GOULD ETC ETC OF PRE-MITOTIC, MITOTIC AND MEIOTIC (THE MATERIALISM FOR ANY NATURALISM INVOLVED)(UNLESS MY SPECULATION THAT WOULD BE IN THIS THREAD OTHER STUFF OF MINE AS PER MINED OTHER DUMP ETC ETC ETC)
tWO- "But why exactly does matter have to be introduced explicity at all? BECAUSE THE BIOLOGY OF SPECIAL RELATIVITY INTERPRETS UP TO CENTRIFUGAL FORCE SO!
three- "everything we call matter is actually made up of pure gravitational energy or of something" (me taking out comma) "like gravitational waves" This did not have all biology in mind while it could have all chemistry of the older Roland Hoffman type (Chemistry Imagined Reflections on Science (which may or may not have included a conversation I had with him or else he like Boyd talks to all students regardless of interest alike) where there is a continual thought to search the literature never finding the holy grail. The issue is how chemically the ionic vs temperature template topology to be coordinated (in terms of figures of centrifugality which are centripetal actually)(sorry the mistake in the second denotation of "centrifugal" should have been word 'centripetal' my mind had already left the board). I had this idea of gravity waves in high school. That is what I had been known by my brothers both physicists for. But as Wolfram points in that this reasoninig never worked in and one had to have matter already in but because the inorganic environs of bacteria have more information contnent than viruses if... more Brad stuff... (it may be that only viruses and gravity can be part of bent space...)Regardless this IS clear. I struggle only to express my self from this say Einstein "The principle of inertia, in particular, seems to compel us to ascribe physically objective protperties to the space-time continuum. I work with accelerations both in reprodution and locomotion of protozoans into a insecet food web GIVEN a Lotka-Voterra of bacteria-virus man-made stable (by hygiene) then this compulsion depends in part not only on physics 5th force but also on Mendel arthmetic no matter the mechanism.That is why there is NOT MECANISM in evolution thinking only MECHANICAL thought. Qutam theory makes this actually easier to understand but Hoffman refused to talk with me until I took a course in QM. WOlfram does not go this far he only speaks oF Quantum Field Theory for as Eisntein said in "What is the theory of relativty", "The special theory of relativity...pointed beyond itself, however." But not the general one. The proportionality from which the Albert spoke need not be the same for an Lotka-Volterra of fox and hares compared evolutionarily with bacteria-virus.I am no master. Yoda is not either. The force need not be with the Carteisnism EITHER for a techonology of thelogic involved etc-- stuff not put in.

I still do not know if it is necessary for me to go any deeper in the primary literature. I read a paper in NATURE about OCt 17, I think that spoke of ion channels in bacteria of the same "strong conservation" genetically (by base pair analysis) with ones found in NEURONS. Now we all know that bacteria are not neurons unless Margulis is going to tell me otherwise etc so re-use of systems IS an issue for me becuause while the science literature permits this to be writ up with 'phlylogenic' intentionality I have begun to make a circle around this kind of thinking that could show that it in physico-chemistry has nothing to with common or not descent. ( I have already said somewhere else on this board that I thought that NEURONS have been 'turned' in the imagination of scientists 90degrees or more from the representation that posses in the skin) and this article only confirms what I think the evidence will be on my visualzation of biology.I wanted to explain how the opposite directums of motion (baceterial cell turning vs appendge motion) could be A MECAHNICAL RESULT of bioentropisms but I am far from having the statistical mechincis of this worked in(out of Wolfram's "science"etc) such that If this workd I would have predicted which "ring" has more of the friction measurable in it. ( I am still wondering if this is a problem like Maxwell's on magentic inertia that science did not have even the equimpement to test until the 60s or not). But since I have not clicked on the link yet in this thread I do not know if my interest is commensurate with your "getting" what I say. Perhaps I move to another loom herein.

I have to bother with this beacuse I am not sure I am thinking about adapations on the base of free path length variance or if you maybe did not catch my intro to a my own concept of bioentropisms.What I am visualizing is a sphere that would underlay any network notion of space that Wolfram wishes to devolve (into you c or e?)that would be where PERVERSIONS which by Gibbs are turnings symmetrical but since I need to first make sure only symmetry phyiscs is what I would have isolated I can not be sure as to physico-chemical or chemical-physico.I am not saying the that "chanels" per say are evo or creatons etc but I am trying to keep solid the manipulation of any FARADY lines of force in the physical lines of force that you might be correct that I abadon since physicists have said thinking along these lines PHYSICALY made less than more sense. But I also know that reasoning from the limited matter that physics and chemistry deals with IS NOT THE SAME as thinking of nuclei and mitosis etc. I do need a materialism that is specific to reproduction even if this IS NOT (necessarily) the kind Wolfram visualized. What i gleaned from my grandfathers papers on classic genetics was about temperature and the turning of associationsand dissociations of ions on this sphere (the size of which if true would be between millions and billions)& I think this notion of science in terms of temperature templates CONSTRAINTIHNG this underlying gentetically expressed channelling of ions and all this is clearly readable by me with marginal notes of Fourier, Lavoiser and Faraday coming up to date.The reason I do not consider this of phylogenetic value is that this is the point or sphere from which I can fluidly explain why I differ from Dobshansky in visualizing the gene pool. It would be a "vapor" rather. The issue of logic is indeed materializing here but one needs the way out perspective of Wolfram to begin to grasp the more conservative position I expouse. I think that Mayr's notion of proximate and ulitmate was just an excuse to cover up his reluctance and you could include just about every biologist at Cornell at this,to enter the kind of deterimiate thoughts I have WITHOUT being a dialectica biologist of determist interpretor of the IQ controversy.I dont doubt you know more of the mole bio on this than me. I still am from the "old" school that is trying to talk or in my case not talk of PHENOTYPES. I did not know I had to already be speaking FROM einsteins experience of geometry and I fully expected natural history to not really be but history.Again, that would be saying the same thing but on the class and not individual level. There is philosophy for this but it gets tiring to remeber it all.It may be that words such eisode and exode (not anode and cathode) that Faraday was toying with are more important on the base you mention of common volatge-gated materiality but by then I would have as well explain an idea I have for using biology to extend ANALYTICAL CHEM for which I tried to not get into the psychology of all this yet remain purerely in the physical not mental area.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Nic Tamzek:
[B]Regarding the flagellum and the type III secretory system homology, my views on what it does and does not prove are here:Evolution of flagella - Wikipedia...there are two arguments:1) The flagellum descended from a basically modern type III secretion system [/QUOTE][/B]
Well, your "1)" made me think about some Cornell biologists who talk about a "circulation between the endoplas and goglgis" not any creationism as I was about to show how (trying to imagine what you materially denote by "secrection" but it seems that you say not to even bother with this thought which for me is MORE physical having to do with erogicity and the difference between weight and visocosity both in and out the (any)cell which IS NOT the issue I raise as to calculating which bacteria membrane has the most friction. [QUOTE][B]
2) The existence of the T3SS greatly weakens the argument for ID based on the theoretical ICness of the flagellum, and makes the hypothesis of an ancestral T3SS-like system ancestral to the flagellum a plausible idea (strengthened by various other points listed in the article).[/QUOTE][/B]
So I guess if I am "reading" you correctly, you are saying that by classing DNA base pairs IN GROUP that this in and of it self argues against some form of Dembski or Johnson supported Intelligent Design for any Paley? The problem I have is that we do not have a good idea BIOLOGICALLY of "homology" for the functioning physiology we do know let alone in that area where molecular motion and motion of molecules is part and parcel so I see no way to discrimate where GOD is or Was Not. This problem like the one Humphries experiences in Cosmology seems to be the assumption which the common descent seems to be implying (correct me if I read something into the words you did not say or imply or induce etc) a common homogenity of the natrualism for a variable material involved. If that IS what you think then you could know my position is that the homogenity and any future on-going regime of "ideology" used to continue funding this work is only about the nano to millions of meter divisions and does not cover everthing material let alone everything social. My work does not give the final psychological twist however. I was only looking for a principle vision from which to deduce correct biology. That was lacking execpt the mecahincal thought that gene frequencies change was sufficent. I did not think this when I first found Rene Thom's 1975 book on Catastrophe Theory and I continue to think this way since ~1982 I may have thought differetly a bit beofre but then again I also did not think my idea of gravity waves and the mind could acutally only be about the body. I did not and never have been able to support some notion of a dualism of mind and body. My brain and me are one and the same but I KNOW I am not a baceteria however I think Medicine is useless if it can only prescibe ANTI-bacterials and cut tissue. I do not have a better program for "disease" but I have some priciples that might devolve such.
[B][QUOTE] #1 is not supported by available data, #2 is, and they should not be confused although IDists usually argue against point #1 while failing to deal with point #2.[/B][/QUOTE]What I am indicating is that by using science to show where we are going to explore rather than where nature may have already come from is a better distribution of financial resources and that this may mean that pragmatically one can not afford evolution thinking and insistence on all teaching going into the CONCEPT of a common lineage because this is MORE mypoic requireing all the thinking to fall into one line biologically which with computation in parralell we may man-made do otherwise and I think indeed this is WISE.I am sorry my interest as TB warned me is not specifically with your use of the same evidence. i DO NOT know what I am doing diffently that prevents me from previewing correctly.