Evolution vs.PE

quote:

---

Even if stasis is activity in this sense as I said, it may indeed depend even actually on what DNA is used ( I have 'issues' with Methylation for instance) for Gould has quite adroitly read the conservation of Hox genes by coring out the left bacterial wall that only governs the claims to primativeness and says nothing of an unutilizaed ("unemployed") affect effecting a benefit etc...

---

I still maintain that the DNA of bacteria is in effect acting the same as in any other DNA based organism since the chemsitry is the same. There is nothing really that suggests that a strand of DNA in me is different qualitatively from that of bacteria. Having said that, you are correct that there are methylation differences that are important and bacteria do not have Hox genes. However, one can still observe morphological change in bacteria, yeast, you name it and observe the underlying genetic changes over time...in bacteria you can observe many many more generations than with any multicellular organism.Could you elaborate (not too long Brad! ) on what you mean by Hox genes segregating Darwinism from PE?cheers,
M

Just pointing our that there has been a substantial PE discussion also happening at the "Welcome, Visitors!" forum topic evidence?. The current most recent relevent message is the above cited.Adminnemooseus------------------
Comments on moderation procedures? - Go to
Change in Moderation?
or
too fast closure of threads

Wait for it......

I would use topobiology to get to the HOX but first the llenrocchemErnst Mayr wrote in Towards a New Philosophy of Biology 1988 — p405 Population genetics in making the silent assumption that all genes are equivalent, have so far failed to make a contribution to the resolution of this problem. By cleverly employing mathematics and making numerous arbitrary assumptions, one can develop macroevolutionary models based on bean bag genetics. However, there is no way to test these models for their validity. At the present moment, unfortunately the genetics of microevolutionary processes has been unable to provide a full explanation of macroevolution, nor has the analysis of macroevolutionary phenomena provided any answers as to the nature of the genetic processes characterizing macroevolutionary events. Some of the particularly puzzling macroevolutionary phenomena and processes that have not yet been satisfactorily interpreted in terms of known genetics are (1) what happens to a genotype during speciation? (2) what happens in the genotype during drastic (saltational) evolutionary innovations of the geneotype. (3) what structures of the geneotype are responsible for long-time stasis, including the preservation in ontogeny of ancestral developmental stages (such as gill arches in tetrapods and the extraordinary stability of the Bauplan of the major types of organisms?I propose to solve it by:
Committing precisely in Q&A — IS THE CHEMISTRY THE ??????SAME?- this is no mere the same and not the same VIDEO of R. Hoffman of CU.Out of deference to being regionally in brief loom I will simply register a likely difference from Matchette that does permit the asking of the question if the chemistry IS different for may tried to read it as the same in his Refernt-ref law where the departments not the levels refer to one another- there was just too much work for the student to beat the arakanas’ egg color when it was sunny side up. In the defense of cell death Ameisen implies anti-level any selected chemical basis underlying amino-acid differences in mitochondrial vs non motochondrial kinds and wonders if this applies as well to chloroplast differences as he disucsses colonism Gould managed to assert the ordinal but not the cardinal of for the arthropod segementation and phython form-making. For me this is the Arrenhius equation. My idea is that glycoproteins mark the area of a dielectric ether or Matchette’s infinte metric availabilities such that biology may indeed present new chemsity that will be uncovered from purely electromagnetic interactions that is ANALYTIC.I am not saying as Carnap rehearsed (in Philosophical Foundations of Physics) that biology HAS shown these to be multimodalpoled alternatives to space (say Newton’s different forces and shapes in different spaces) as Mayr be actually correct that there/here has not yet appeared in science Bohr’s aquosity instantiated but I am requiring biology and language to provide for the theoretical lexicology if such did and does exist perhaps via the pursuit of DNA computers. Analytical Chemsitry will be closed under this opening once again.I did not say that any willy nilly metric. Carnap id’d Helmhotlz’s contribution BEFORE Poincare. We still need the Lebesgue collection and not a fire fly Gus fUS.The recent biography of Linus Paluing missed this point entirely (Force of Nature by Thomas Hager 1995) In October, 1947 he told an audience at Yale University When it has become possible to determine in detail the molecular strucuture of the vectors of diseaseHe had found a way to explain the essence of life in the standard lexicon of chemistry. At a stroke, he provided a reasonable explanation for everything from enzyme action to genetic replication and eliminated the need to seek new physical laes to explain life.Syntheses do not equal analysis and comic relief is not a LUNATIC. So it is disturbing to find Gould in his final tome perpetuate this without showing that metaphysically Mendel’s double signification of hybrid or parent and Matchette’s double can be related via Derrida’s difference to the mere stroke of a pen which is less difficult than trying to follow up cabalistic meaning in Euclid’s elements. Still elite science is paying too much for its product. Best Brad.

Regarding your quote from Mayr, this is EXACTLY what Lenski tested in the bacterial model he used...what happens to the genome during a speciation, what genes are changing during statsis and what genes change during selective events.The chemistry is the same because a nucleotide in bacteria is the same chemically as a nucleotide in a sunflower. Replication, transcription, translation, and epigenetics differ but the DNA and the mutations that occur are the same.cheers,
M

I have definitely seen longer

Well, now you have"" forced me to look more than glancingly at the Lenski file for I am quite certain that when I asked E. Mayr to consider irrational numbers to tag out any** phenotype much as the pie is related to a circumference has got to apply to the appearence of baceterial form and he DENIED my question without even permitting me a follow up in terms of "exact" science of PE now (Lenskilike like phyiscs ""...) so unless you are just trying to foil by defense (which IS WHAT your communication seems but I always put that aside) (but Mayr was doing this too.I am just arguing for the degree..) but I doubt whatever the Lenski file provides the penski reader it will unlikely justify the need to calculate the WORK done by friction in the ancestral metabolism when not every molecular biology of the parent but not the hybrid from whatever water/lipid relations that Pauling summarily got printed in peer-review under the concept of "complementarity". My use of Croizat's track is bit wider than that.
We all know the thermodynamcis is wide open and not exact but then I second guess the length of another post rather than waiting for the time to complete it. I believe I have posed something on Maxwell's planimeter somewhere here. I doubt the traditional discussion of ontogeny will apply to bacteria without the construction of new terms and if Gould's new holotype be only retained then we would be discussing the weak and not the strong form.

Hi Brad,
I am not trying to "foil by defense" if I understand you correctly. I am just trying to establish whether you would accept that bacteria and more specifically, bacterial DNA can be used as a model to test the genetic consequences of speciation and to test PE versus gradualism. You seem to be arguing that the size of a bacteria somehow makes it's DNA non-representative of the DNA in other organisms.cheers,
M

I said I have to know if brownian motion effects bacteria without repsect to gravity or not. Of course bacteria could be used as a "model". I have no objective subjectivity on what counts as a "species" of bacteria but the whoel gram postitive, negative stuff leads me to believe that the different chemsitry will have different manifestations in different bacteria dependent on for starters in a gedanken expt on timed biological change across the sizes (but you had not indicated that you doubt or dont think what I said bout synthesis is true) that do have some dependence (at least morphically) on gravity (colonies of cells) per cell death essentiums per se (toxin-antidoe modules). But becuase population genetics has not treated but genes as the same across the question "what is a gene" or"is the nucleotides around introns" not genes in Mayr's bean bag?? the isse of SPEICATION and not simply TAXOGENY seems specious to me as I have not tried to think about epigentics-genetics in the context of virus-bacteria interaction and yet TAXOGENY could possible occur without speciation particularly should we be classfiying bacteria where new chemcial divisions of nanotechnology might appear.LOOK- I do not come to EvC to find out the latest info in the Journals. I could go to the library to do that. I come here to point out that evolutionists have slighted creationists to the extent there is a battele (the V) about all this that was for me committment to a mental hospital becuase I had my own ideas of what constituted gene flow arcoss the Mississipi in worm snakes. There was no reason that AFTER getting into Cornell that Adler should have sent me BACK to Rutgers to just becuase he had no sense if the MEANS to achieve a POTENTIALLY NEW COLUBRID TAXONOMY might end up falling thru. Adler was worried if I got 1 year into the research he might not be able to write a gradute degree recomendation for me. I did not ask for that. I simply wanted to do snake biology and constructed a plan which he initiatlly accepted in carrying it out. I never got the chance for reasons that were the professors and not mine. I askeD Mayr that question and so without even getting the chance to PAY TO DO THE WORK Mayr wihout a blink in this directin either wrote his ideas I quated above a year later. I was stuck defending my self from electoshock in astates' involuntary proceedings @ a place I had only visted. There is no question in my mind that I would have been better off if I had gone to Rugters in the first place. BUt that is NOT the case law in my case.I DID learn about Taxogeny at Cornell but I did not get any idea of what speciation acutally is. That is what I tried to find out. I tired to be brief here but instead you now bring up a page of analysis of Mayr's notion of Geographic Speication that I had written between Gould and Eldredes notions of Punc Eq but I cut it to make the message clear. I said the whole thing will be solved with a DIFFERENT CHEMSITRY not only a difference on chemicals of different species. YOu either missed this point and chose to be "kind" to me wrongly (I hold no water when truth is at stake) or got it and are waiting now for it to come up under speication but as I said I do not know from studies of larger organisms that there is any reason to believe that science has answered the issues of population genetics that differentiate WITHIN or topologically"" outside the gene (and I just looked this up for Lichens with the same indeterminate result) (you want a little expertise from me in bacteria-- I told you what I need to know about them) and I DO STILL have ideas that are quite extended from the Cornell YEars on how SCIENCE can itself do this in detail. If you are to tell me the Lenski work IS EXACT as to causality my guess is that it would deflate the entire ICR-CRS-AIG machine which still sends me e-mail, letters, and radio broadcasts so just like Provine who said to me since he never heard of Biological Transmutations they likely dont exist I say the same about your claims to the mathematical model that would result. If you wish to post the model and proove me otherwise go ahead but I have looked at this from vertebrate and fugi levels and got a sense of the arthropods as well from Gould which I havent done much to say on yet. I have pretty much lost patience with much of the boards this semester as I can clearly sent that it is MOSTLY (but not wholly I admit) a word upmanship game- something I have never played ever. I couldnt even find Christian space to dissuss religious differences with Vidi on the AIG garbage collection sys so I figure the cell smaller than 100microns here?

Hi Brad,
I get the impression I have offended you which was not my goal. I do have difficulty understanding some of what you post though recently I must say you have been much clearer and I thank you for the effort...I have slighted specific creationists but in this debate have not slighted you personally.

quote:

---

I could go to the library to do that. I come here to point out that evolutionists have slighted creationists to the extent there is a battele (the V) about all this that was for me committment to a mental hospital becuase I had my own ideas of what constituted gene flow arcoss the Mississipi in worm snakes

---

quote:

---

I have pretty much lost patience with much of the boards this semester as I can clearly sent that it is MOSTLY (but not wholly I admit) a word upmanship game- something I have never played ever. I couldnt even find Christian space to dissuss religious differences with Vidi on the AIG garbage collection sys so I figure the cell smaller than 100microns here?

---

I don't think this thread is about one upmanship. And I know you can go to the library and find articles and do not necessarily come here for journal updates. However, where you aware of Lenski's work before I posted it or not? PE has been one of the topics you have posted on the most frequently and I feel it does have relevance to the debate.You seem convinced that DNA and DNA mutations in bacteria are subject to unique chemistry relative to other organisms but I have no evidence for this. So just for the sake of argument, let's then just focus on bacterial evolution even if you feel the results of Lenski's work does not apply to other organisms (and I would also argue it should be tested in other systems besides bacteria in any case).He wanted to know, if you start with bacteria of a single genotype, apply selective pressure, let this go for thousands of generations, what happens genetically? Do the bacteria gradually adapt i.e. each time point mixed genotypes show up and then only slowly go to fixation? Is there no effect genetically? Is there rapid adaptation and fixation and then subsequent divergence? The end result suggests that natural selection for rare beneficial mutations causes those mutants to rapidly become fixed in the population followed by genetic stasis i.e. punctuated evolution. So this is a genetic example of PE. Does this apply to all organisms? Unknown. From the fossil record, Eldredge and Gould conclude yes. From a genetic perspective, the bacteria show that it can happen.

I'll address your whole post later by edit control rather than alt but in order to talk intelligently on this we must either agree to get Gould out of the way and thus the speicious issue in the HISTORY of BIOLOGY about non-adatation and adaptive which even Fisher spoke of as if US naturalists had any idea of "adaptive oversight" that Fisher's instantiation did not target to which Wright continued to assert was NOT STRAGGLING into existence (to which I will and can Second) and the French work also went to titer differently the clits and tits but... as I said I will edit this later to the evidentiary equivalent of Dyson's "Evidence" of his "double origin hypothesis". I am less funded to find a new chemistry than I am to found the word "double" misappropriated for deceptive reasons. The chemsitry if it exists would apply to any kind of form. The bacteria however would have died many times to this module compared to any other kind of reproduction of the biochemistry actually used. Let me just say that I would guess were I paid a year salary I may be able to project some appartus to see if rather contra Dyson nucleic acid brothers can not - which means that they can or we should say "might" to be right/correct left back to you...be discrimanable. But that is further OUT than I have ever said.If you cn give me a reasonable defended and not Pavlofian reactionary dissertation on how Gould's view and reasoned faculty of MALE tits and FEMALE clits applies to Dyson's ThOUGt PROCESS in Chapter 1 of ORIGINS OF LIFE SECOND EDICTION BY FREMMAN DYSON Cambridge 2000 where Freeman awards himself as he DESCRIBES and from a (any) DEscripTION (just think of anatomy as pure description) PREfERS to ==seperate== replication from metabolism and You 0 Large One C0ntinue the description (every any of all your choosing) in the bacterial genetics, I will be willing to forego the need to understand gravity first (which is necessary for my interactivity with Wolfram's views on mutation). If you can not pick up the challenge then I'll take it for some industryLESS reason for same cause as DJ Kennedy dissed Hukley's view from Darwinian Individuality which will then shall we say have cored my Green Peper but not the t0matO because for whatever potatos are going for in Snake River these days this was not a crazy idea but the fruit of the difference in the way my Grandfather looked at birds and I did at reptiles and amphibians. There was never an historical issue of "preference". We both always saw the SAME creatures and ran down the same classification lists from the same specimens. When/Once I got old enough and learned/polished/finished enough in Neo-Darwininsm to ask my Grandfather IN speciation WHAT seriously HE thought, it was already too late for he had started to sink in a senility (that before he told us he wanted to be put "out of this misery" if he should not be able to properly express himself (no one in the family ever did)) that he would turn to reminicing on females on the farm in the Dakotas while I had the HYLE open for discussion. The aporia was aporetic enough on this show rather.ANd even after the show on Pegysus in Ithaca Channel 13 non-private access where I presented my views on Sexual Dimorphism and Freud the Station Manager INSISTED after the show aired, and people actually called into it, what was my PREFERENCE nonetheless. No amount of preshow discussions could have stoped her from insisting that I was lacking some forthrightness. ALL on the contrary. She thought then title was a "tease". But how Gould has made this JJJ the fool.Why does it matter if I had read it BEFORE or not? I respect you and your use of it. I had said that it was not a good idea to DIVIDE biologists as is being attempted in this thread. I think a conversation would return more benefit for humanity if we discussed Weisacker's notin of disease as I think Pateur's real thoughts on assymetry have been vacuumed up long ago and put in a dump to no avail. I think the germ theory of disease is too primative and only served to clean up London. I do not think that Margulis' more recent is any better however. Wolfram speaking at Cornell brought Leibig's notion of the law of the minimum to mind. You also will have to respect that when it is easier to post here if one merely sticks to the status quo and just becuase I can recognize that you have not bad intents doesnt mean that I dont need to stick to the thread weave in each case I particularly started. Perhaps the more personal and more friendly things you can leave for the good humor truck instead. Post the MATH. I address THAT directly. LEt us see the symbols and what you think they mean for else I will on a close examination of Lenski simply need only repeat what Gould said as he HAD read it before you posted it here and HE made but a platitude of it out and I said to you earlier if you are only needing to "Seed" the discussion (as GOUld said BEOFRE) then we can already not this tread's camel hump bumped else the weak form WILL demur to the NUMBERS in the MATH- show us the math-- What sign am I looking at?? You may not make me look like a fool but if Gould could than some other c/e poster will not resist the temptation to call me one INFRONT of my back- I am sorry you should reach me via e-mail or phone if you need some other encourage ment. Imean it- I appreciate your interest but if I give in to one, well- every lurker will have my lunch and me too.Look- Francis Crick thought that RNA expts were evidence AGAINST vitalism. By that standard of thinking I can not distinguish your line of questions at the end of the post from EITHER Eigen's assertions or Dyson's "categorization" of biochemsitry hypothetically and yet DYSON disagrees with Eigen signficantly. My Solution is to pay NONE OF THESE GUYS ANY MIND- I dont care if you slight me or creationists really what we need is EITHER A DIFFERNTLY TAUGHT chemsityr, new facts,and/or stop thinking that the electronic media only allows the old notions of statistical significance to rule our disscussion of biology (think I meant- evolution). I UNDERSTAND Crick's point, I heard Eigen express himself in front of me, I bet Kaufman has done better than Dyson but when it comes to what counts as scholarship (and in my case simply what PAYS for a degree in evolutianry biology) only writing that tends to "blur" togther so that unless you are IN THE KNOW (read-paid for and agreed to the kind of education necessary to be simply told what language is supposed to do for humans) you dont know to NOT understand what was written IN THE JOURNALS and by reputible presses. I know the math of this stuff just makes these kinds of prelimiary words even MORE confusing. If you show me a mathematical biologist who is ctively doing otherwise I will convert on the spot. Rene Thom was the last one to attempt this as far as I know and I am quite technially acummulating enough computer skills to lessen the amount of words Croizat devoted on his part to the same targeted deduction that animates the "tension" between Wright and Fisher. - I just dont get paid to do it as I could not even pay to. Find me a sugar daddy and you can even call me all the names in the book. But until then it is best for the side with more posters to produce more product and not make us others with less deep backgrounds to sediment the phenmenology more often. You seem to simply be requiring that I accept evolution as I did on the summers I spent with my Grandfather- this much I accept but unless you explain how a bird and herp is the the bacteria's tit I can not help you becuase the big boys in academic chairs have put up a much higher stubling block to bettering the current generations biology as its own. But no- going to Rutgers or SUNY Binghamton would not have helped this- We need wit, $ and a few discoveries would not hurt....[This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 10-08-2003]

quote:

---

However, where you aware of Lenski's work before I posted it or not? PE has been one of the topics you have posted on the most frequently and I feel it does have relevance to the debate.

---

No-I have so far found in reading and trying to understand PE that Gould never showed how from the pheneomenolgy or PATTERN of punc eq (which I guess if I understand your reading and rendering of Lenski that this is what appears (in the data)) directly relates to neontological causation (for why else would he rule so much for Organicism in his STOET?) and against Goodwin (see ~pages1213) and yet the bacteria expts seemed to be evidence for just such. I have doubted this all along and that is perhaps why you may have wondered why or how I not seemed to have responded in kind. I have not drug a fine toothed comb thru the intended core extension implications so I have restrained from directly posting on this as long as possible. There is clearly the option just to go with Eldgridge or Williams but I am trying to finish off my reading of Gould just now. My resolution of this issue of identifying the ^surface^ from which stasis and rupture occurrs has led me from problems of affinity in chemical bonds to comptuer system analogies of open electrotonics as a definitive TEST of Gould's terminological assertions you noted he exapted from fossils. The bacteria would provide a test OF MY terminological position if I knew certain things about the bacteria (gravity, meaning of longitudianl dimensional analysis under different modes of DNA replication, if glycoproteins and prions are related etc etc etc). I have not tried to use MY own LINGO here since the admin thread that listed MY OWN posts as I have tried to stick to what others were interested in discussing.The issue seems to me to reduce to something like often crops up in the application of statistics to a problem. If you tell me which test (chi square, anova, etc) and we decide ahead of time on what value is to be considered *signficant* then we can do the data and come to an end result of a "debate" but correct me if I am wrong, it appears that the bacterial data will sufer the same, as if we agree that the fossil data DOES NOT reclaim the causality but merely "theoretical space" (GOULDS WORD) then the same statistical confidence (if such exists and as I have not read this before only you and not I would know this) (as if PE was true with Lenski's data)we could find ourselves with the weak form of PE and agreeing that the germs show the paleontologist the confirmation they wanted because we agreed on HOW TO LOOK AT THE DATA to begin with. Do you understand?This is why I have had started to define a restricted set of physical circumstances in which to test PE surfaces which may or may not apply to bacteria (and to be honest this is not well worked out-- it was merely cognized by me as possible one day while I was reading and would require less metaphyiscs and more rational emprics work on my part (but no one pays me , so...)). I was using this lexical "restriction " only in our "debate" as I was thinking that no matter the data the PE side would not last as I have indicated occult wise interthreadwise but that is guess.So assuming that we have a stasis some how defined in terms of a graph of generation time and relative amount of mutations the data represent a VOlUME not a Surface and the whole problem of cell division depends on having even the timing of this geometry worked out. I had given some thought to what to encode the clock of a comptuer with when simulating bovine cell divisions on a comptuer and I have no idea if cell cycle data would be used or not with the bacteria but the Winfree topologies of circadian rythms would need to be corrected for in terms of the relation between 3-D and 2-D else the entire discipline of punctuated equilibrium needs to be written in something like catastrophe theory and NOT EVEN Phenomenolgically tied to 3-space euclidean wise. The problem is not with the baceterial sex but with the Cartesianism implied in the way we look at the results. Thanks for giving me a little window onto the germs' themselves.So aside from my own interest and innovation to get a rebate for watching such a meandering debate objectively I need to look in the data for what statitical test were used AND WHAT THEY LOOK LIKE. The end may only be me ciricling a point and saying NOW THIS POINT I DONT THINK SHOULD BE COUNTED or some such. But still that itself may only say about the correlation and not the cause. And this is why I back a new chemsitry, DNA computer, design by trasfinites etctecetc.It is merely my same question about the strong and weak PE but asked in the context of the history of statistical testing( which would not come up in the casuality of weak vs strong only because Gould already indicated how he wants to deal with Fisher.) The longer prior post is necessary to take in effect Gould's "(In an odd sense, one might view this old issue of differences between parallelism and convergence as a grand foreshadowing for an important issue that evolutionary biologists have only recently clarified in their own minds - but that might have achieved earlier resolution had we all remembered this older discussion : the recognition that cladistic gene-trees do not correspond entirely with organism-trees)" This was the bone I was eating the cartilage off with Mark24 but Gould went on, " The capacity for parallelism rests upon organismal branching before gene branching. Continuing the argument, one might also view the first steps in the opposite mode of gene branching before organism branchigns as a molecular representation of Owen's old concept of serial homology." I do not think I want to follow Gould through this period logically but I dont have a good enough idea of bacteria as organisms (which is why if I was able to think of viruses on bacteria as bacteria on invertebrates maybe I could actually WRITE something about Gould's arthopod...) so I am not ready to say how this is even descriptively read. You should KNOW or please to learn it from me, that the lack of compatibility between gene-trees and organism trees surrounds the whole controversy with Croizat but by reading the molecular side as Gould did one can even find that the NEW ZEALAND Biologists have made contributions to biology that to this day (it has nothing to do with creationisms or isms of any kind really...) go unrecognized by British Museum, MCZ,AMNH, certainly Cornell Biologists etc (and yet Riddley wants to cite "talk" among Cornell biologists to show that Gould was already wrong! About what? - well in the case with the baceteria here it has to do with the MATH or as Gould wrote ~1079p in TSOET "One can only wonder then (THIS IS A AFTER THE PERIOD I HOLD FOR MYSELF IN QUESTION), why biologists ever bothered ot devise explict terms for geometric waystations in a continuum with no interesting causal distinctions." My insistence on electrotonics actually makes some very interesting Journeys distinquishable (but we MUST use the MAtchette MAP not the Croizat one) Of Hume's Mite Size available disectionally to the biologist and mathematician as one. But I must wait my turn. First let us attend to the older argument of homology and homoplasy unless you got the poop on the bacteria.[This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 10-09-2003]

Hi Brad,
your post was rather long and I have to admit, I did not really get what you were trying to say. I am still unclear as to what exactly you think is unique about bacteria? As to prions versus glycoproteins, prions are glycoproteins. As to causation in Lenski's data, he and several other groups have very nicely ruled out pre-adaptation or causation in adaptation of bacteria under natural selection though that is not what Lenski was testing for in the paper that I cited.In your second paragraph, if I am understanding you, you want to do a statistical test to support whether PE or gradualism is correct?

Mams,Thank You very MUch!! This story is getting even better than I thought so that while it was my 39 B-Day yesterday and my son an D still refuse to talk with me I had never looked up to see what prions were! Despite my infidelities or rather fidelity to truth the chips continue to fall this side of Niagra for me!!I had wanted to extend an "evolutionary thought experiment that Jean Claude Amesian presented on a genomic "biased" view of bacterial change but I have that chapter ripped out of the book and need to locate the "gedanken" presetned. I have read it numerous times and the length of the thought in this scenrio for extending the way that natural selection is understood UNDERCOMPETITION still (of bacteria rather than single cell kinds to Us is longer than I have ever read on any extended set of c/e postings so I dont expect any Creationism to get lost in discussing it ad nauseum to ad hominem ad infinitum. This woul have to have said something against Gould's correct position on the accounting nature of Dawkins+Williams - Eldgredge not sans Stasis but then I DO get to this adaptive "oversight" issue you said something factual about this time...I would like to see what evidence there is for no optimality of design form EITHER adapative or nonadaptive because if that *does* hold up then my little arithemeitc is more than a cute answer to some high school exam. The way Gould had the language strucutred I have always been able to find an exception once parralelism OR orthogonality was committed to memory in the case that either showed Provine mistaken on nonadaptation or Gould misreading Creationist literature for a somewhat constricted presentaion of what of adapation that can be derived from the forms in the equations that squares selection with chances of vector, tensor, simple program non-Euclidean presentations of the data but some notion of time must be added to the simple physical significance of mathematical subseting of any given collection locality datum and there I still do it theoretically and not by some routine algorithm or process. That makes me harder to understand than the truth my sentences relate.Bacteria may be unique in that the supply a "nature" (germ theory of disease) that (with or without Pastuer but without Weyl biologicism) is not Lamrkian to the process of colonization (by translation in space and form-making) which over time is a topological condition (not an "inside" as in endosymbiosis) that *may* present a currently only theoretically known "outsideNurture\naturalizedCellularly(lipid water eddie fractinglywiseper friction)" TO GOULD's double ledger account IN the bacterial gene expression of toxin-antidote modulizations that weould have to have Sequence ""Homology to other series of ON-Going gene regulations in the colony differentiation of cell $TYPES$. The embryology of these tissue slotings must also remand a better understading of right sided higher forms mitosis vs meiosis if rigorus and not merely hypothetically true which would retain in NS scholarship Ameisen's thought he "experimented" on with large mitchondrial sized protozoans suggests and yet this result DOES NOT return an ANTI-CREATIONIST form of form-making as long as the time is thought as I still do. If a correlation to stratigraphy say was REQURIED as this experimental philsophy finishes its job then indeed there may be some critical philosophy contra the idealized view of the difference of creation science and scientific creationism I try to represent but maybe, just may may be I wil never again read of biological change in terms of the "nature/nurture" idea in which it is possible to frame this thought experiment that substitues currently sister branch difference for directions in time (short vs long).Yes --to the statistical testing, My feeling is still always that even for example in Dunn's little book on the history of GENETICS we are really NOT getting the correct historizing of the biometric-mendelic difference. Gould's work does NOTHING to clear this up for me. I became aware that even where most of the work was done in English the historian still cant sequence the events species wise on reading a recent book on Morgan's "fly room" and Galton's corpus.I just extracted some reciprocal crosses in day lilyes and really do appreciate that any post modern sign of a change in our understand will rely wholly on what statistical DIVISIONS one makes from the SYMBOLS that Olby indicated were "developmental" for Mendel. Instead we have this traditional (US-Russia agriculture disagreement) Western slant to the whole denominator which is not a religous denomination nor a token of a global economy. This applies to claims however ONLY of if Mendel's suggestion of a difference in the stats, form of the ofspring or categories IS NOT LAMARKIAN influenced. I am increasingly finding this hard or harder to see even readable in the literature and as it is true I can read, it is not me that has this problem. I supect some of the bacteria statistics could have gone a long way to shortening my longwindedness should it be put into some kind of data exploration software so that TOPOLOGICAL primatives could be as easily manipulated as quantitative genetics RESECTS (does not "di"sect) the shape if not the 'phenotype' of the cell types I would have answer the "evolutionary"question posed in topobiology answered by some metadata instantation ON TOP of the statistical categories that are regressed or simply correlated for example.I dont know is this helps. Good Luck. And thanks for trying to read me I may not be transparent but I also am not opaque.[This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 10-12-2003]

For reasons of transcendental symmetry that may go negatively either to structure or genesis I reasoned the need for a new discipline of thought built on Croizat's METHOD perphaps induced in a volume bound by a title I would name "aXiO-Matic PANbioGEOgraphy" had I not suspect, suspects or suspected a breach by Gould of the logic involved in "But when we consider this finding in supraorganismal terms, with demes as Darwinian individuals, an evident and sensible interpretation immediately emerges. A temporally coherent population may adapt gradually and continually while tracking one of several paleoenvironments inhabited by a species. But how can these anagenetic changes spread adaptively through an entire species composed of several subpopulations, each adapted to (and tracking) its own paleoenvironments through time? No single morphology can represent a functional optimum for all habitats. In this common, and probably canonical, situation for speices in nature, stability emerges as a form of "compromise" in most circumstances, a norm among "competing" minor changes that are, themselves, probably distributed more or less at random around a standard configuration, with each particular solution generally incapable, in any case, of spreading thorugh all other demes of the species in the face of better locally adaptive configurations in most of these demes. Of course, one can think of serveral obvious alternative structures where gradual change might be..."which is WHY I have not taken up the bacterial data directly lately.