I know it was communicated that Margulis had an existant"" idea about mitochondria to be "endosymbiots" over long periods of time but I have begun to wonder if these organelles are not strucutres that set up electric BUT NOT MAGNETIC field lines that magnetactic bacteria not haveing these so-called point energy sources can develop without this momementum to the metabolism these placements within the cell provide transparently??
Comments? (I will not respond as I do and have done to other posts but I would like to see how you all carry out this threaded vortex (NSEW?).
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Brad McFall: [B]I know it was communicated that Margulis had an existant"" idea about mitochondria to be "endosymbiots" over long periods of time[/QUOTE]
[/B] In jANUARY, I had begun a thread on nano-ecology that was resting on a fairly weak support of any Darwinism needed for Gladyshev's call in macrothermodynamics but now that I see that Pascal's SECTIONS are not supported in the Chinese century earlier draft any British Field Lines report not included in the Chinese version needs either this time I had given or the form but not the space that any vortex aforementioned would direct to draw follwing an actual infinity. [Quote][b] but I have begun to wonder if these organelles are not strucutres that set up electric BUT NOT MAGNETIC field lines[/QUOTE]
[/B] Because the Chinese do not "score" the triangle it is possible that symmetry with respect to magnetism and electricity IS NOT BIOLOGICALLY derivable and contributes to any cancer or other "electropollution" since we have not the same infinity that Pascal doubled whether done likewise in the East or not. [QUOTE][B] that magnetactic bacteria not haveing these so-called point energy sources can develop without this momementum [/QUOTE]
Obviously this would be the ideal and you can find for Physics Von Weisakcer writing about the symbol DELTA on just such a supposition but it is my feeling and this only opnion that mathematical biology HAS NOT reached this "level" of sophistication and relies instead more on WORDS than on the symbolization itself despite the paramount importance for symbols when it comes to equations is concerned.
What had happened in "theoretical biology" that led to some insistance by S. Kaufmann was that his collegue Simon Levin got his "bath water" into a "next mutant" by suppressing for the sake of use of NEW NUMBER THEORETIC methods the symbol for density (dependence etc) but I have simply READ in Boscovich's theory that there WAS and IT REALLY APPEARS TO ME (that there is)an organismic effect WITHOUT DENSITY to which chemists contribute. MY reference to the possible advancement from China refers to the SCORING of the same MATHEMATICAL DIAGRAM in the WEST that may indeed scientifically have been "turned" in the EAST. I do not know. But to have said that I did indeed do much the same kind of thing with THOUGHTS that is more easily accesible with WORDS if you read the work of Kaufmann and Levin on the Wright Adapative Landscape. Wolfram's contribution of a tool for sybolic programming makes this kind of remarking even more possible to work on and with and out etc to which I had/have given some thought about somatic programs and the "symbols" one would use to model IF this phenomenan exists but I have become MORE focused on "programmed" cell death instead in terms of attempts to find a geographically indpendent symbolization system for biology IN WHICH I WILL BE USING such words of Croizat as baseline, masss, track in terms of the claimed origins in Fourier Analysis of orders of size that may have become what is called a "cardinal" in math. But Math IS NOT BIOLOGY and the symbol is merely a sign of such "linkage" that insofar as cohension IS NOT uniform for universality reductions BETWEEN chemsitry and biology the same Physics standard of symbolization may (I say "may" I do not "know") not apply. You are correct in your observation. I agree.
quote: The Gladyshev's monograph is short in length (100 pages), which should be the case with any outstanding discovery - in the reviewer's opinion. This reviewer feels that the book should enjoy a level of esteem in world scientific opinion equal to that enjoyed by the work of I.Prigogine, K.Denbigh and others. In summary, the approach to evolution proposed by Gladyshev is a new, outstanding and important theoretical model, which should have a major impact on the way people think about evolution