"Kind"ly Creationism

p233"Can probabalistic models of proteins and nucleic acid sequences be developed that allow for longer range interactions? Can we compute efficiently with such models? In this chapter we will step back from models of particular sequence problems and address these more theoretical issues."p311"Probabilistic models are the main focus of this book. A model can be anything from a simple distribution to a complex stochastic grammer with many implicit probability distributions."p161"The phylogenetic tree of a group of sequences does not necessarily reflect the the phylogenetic tree of their host species, because gene duplication is another mechanism, in addition to speciation, by which two sequences can be seperated 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 the phlogenetic tree of the species carrying genes, we must use orthologous sequences. But, of course, we might be interested in the phylogeny of duplication events, in which case we might construct a phylogeny of paralogues. even the paralogues within a single species."Light is related via the CHOICE IN study of para or otho descriptions per physical but not mathematical manipulations. An increase would remand the math as well. This reference finds this work in entropy which may not hold biologically but would work computationally. I can justify this explictly by a detailed discussion of the color red in Bridgmans book for any interested in how the connotation may differ from the denotation in the defintion given in the reference. Bifurcations and Frames of reference may be heterogeneous. Sure my ability to infer an interactin between Bridgman's photon and para duplications may seem remote to you but to me it brings Einstein's view to life in a clearer way than even Paulings use of the word perhaps coopted from Bohr of "complementarity". I think Bohr was wrong but the logics is tending to be post modern emphasized rather than the design it mUST nonetheless point Wolfram to.The reference was BIOLOGICAL SEQUENCE ANALYSIS by Cambridge University Press.

Gould wasnt clear on this point except for being anti-c so unless the data on the morphspace IS indeed robust enough to extend the the"hard" parts of organisms no matter the form/shape per form-making it seems unlikely his idea of hoxology will survive despite his good contra account to gene selfish perspectives. He knew this but I guess this is just the THING that Gould denied "potential" to.

If gene duplication PREVENTS speciation IN THE SAME PROBABLE 1-D sequence the 3-D relations of multiclocks to multirods could be upset such that there is a stop even if migration is larger than mutation or selection. I am holding out that Gould's physical manipulation will NOT describe this in the stats he could get even from a heirarchical PE BECUASE of Loudmouth's discontuity CHEMICALLY. But now that I useALL of science it gets hard to follow me for I could just as well ascend to the Mount of Olives as well. There is a path it is just very hard to discern in real time. I dont know if the primary"" sequence is to be understood in terms of primes or not.

quote:

---

If gene duplication PREVENTS speciation IN THE SAME PROBABLE 1-D sequence the 3-D relations of multiclocks to multirods could be upset such that there is a stop even if migration is larger than mutation or selection.

---

Any genetic change could lead to speciation, either by morphology or assortive mating. If the gene sequence goes on unaltered, then I would say that speciation is impossible.Just for an example, say a gene duplication causes darker feather patterns in some bird species. If I remember correctly, bird species are very adept at assortive mating, or pre-mating isolation. Such a cue, a difference in feather plumage, could cause pre-mating sorting in a parapatric or allopatric scheme. Duplications can cause speciation, at least in my opinion.There are also genes that are not functional, such as ERV's and pseudogenes, that can be traced due to their surrounding sequence. It is easy to pick out the duplications, since their position in the genome will be different than the parent sequence. This allows one to trace common ancestory, and also tie in neutral mutations in non-coding regions such as pseudogenes. Genetics is a strong tool, and ties species together outside of their current Kind baramin.Added in edit: Just for a little analogy. Baraminologists construct thier discontinous trees in a way that resembles a buried bush, with only the top branches sticking out. They might be surprised what happens when they start to dig a little deeper.[This message has been edited by Loudmouth, 03-23-2004]

the change needs to be spread into the base population before it can result in speciation - there needs to be breeding partners.While it is easy to see how island population isolation can lead to speciation, it is more difficult to see where mutation can lead to islands within an overal population. Not impossible, just more difficult.bower birds now imitate the rings of cell phones in their mating ensemble.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist

There is a general failure when trying to EXTRAPOLATE evolutionary connectivity from a training set of data (say proteins or whatever start sequences one has from the lab by cDNA etc etc) to REALIZE that unrelated changes IN A FAMILY (of sequences in our case)might be correlated between families but look like Goldschmidt's hopeful phenotypic monstor only being in our sample genotypic.Now, p109BIOLOGICAL SEQUENCE ANALYSIS2004"In either case, for practical purposes the result we want to consider hen evaluating potential matches is the log-odds ratio of the resulting probability to the probability of x given our standard random model." which I take rather from Wright's shifting balance prior trial and error process in process.tHE ERROR from using "entropy" not in the change to be from Bridgman/Croizat FROM Einstein NOT BOHR/SCHRODINGER et al is viewable on page 42 where the text is seperated with the TITLE "Dayhoff PAM matrices while the wend became p42, "This suggets that we should use scores that are matched to the expected divergence of the sequences we wish to compare." I am NOT suggesting this and I AM SUggesting that this suggestion is wrong. They assumed that protein "Families" cannot be sequence disimilar but time wise similarly in order. FYI "The basisof their apporach is to obtain substitution data from alignments between very similar proteins, allowing for evolutionary relationshipsThere is no doubt that one CAN find more similar sequences as one finds optically more similar bears but what goes "unaltered" is the correlation NOT as you inferred "gene sequence" else we do find these families and they will be familiar to you and me. What I am saying is that there IS no deeper than the PHYSCIAL MANIPULATION I obtain behind this my analysis. But my work then ends back where I started without a bang this year on the issue of the Galvani-VOlta dispute. That not aposteriori data from gene sequence experimental math is how I figured this out. We do not know if the danger of Einstein's optical solution will continue to hold or if c-symptoms will continue to recall other religous activity not familiar in US. If Gould had spent his energy on MATH and not small disptues about fish digits we might have been in a different place today. The issue of divergence however CAN be dealt with on the larger conceptual history but this I have not yet done.

Yes, and I hinted that the change in electrons and not photons is what is at issue here. There is the very eminent possibility that bios can adapt to photon velocity interms of momementum however. All that I inquire is about THERMAL changes in electron flow. I could be wrong of course.

quote:

---

Yes, and I hinted that the change in electrons and not photons is what is at issue here. There is the very eminent possibility that bios can adapt to photon velocity interms of momementum however. All that I inquire is about THERMAL changes in electron flow. I could be wrong of course.

---

Brad,
Forgive my ignorance but I am not following your posts. Would it be possible to re-explain in a way even an organismal biologist could understand? Thanks!

Welcome to the McFall Zone. It's much like O'Reilly's "No Spin Zone" in terms of how much actual sense is presented.

I think brad "sees" pages of text as whole words

Thanks Crash. I recognized the pop gen words, including Shifting Balance, and I recognized the particle physics terms. Putting it together seemed, well, incomprehensible and I wondered if it wasn't meant to be that way.

I may need to start my own web page just to deal with the interest my thought itself generates because I know that the following precise for orgo biologists will be inadequate to the level of discussion going on hear but I am confident that I have put P's free on board to some good use.1)CA$H in Einstein's visual aid of "traveling with light" with motion of an observer monkeyevolutionist with respect to gene flow.2)Find the answer to Bridgman's question p44 as a Tuatara's Third EyE.3)Create a graph of basline on the ordinate and Wgener's time at the line abcissa with Croizat's MASS(so defined) in "islands" of dATA:: which onto form a projection of imaginary planes ordertyped cardinally.4)Use the contained theoretical infinity to maintain as far as possible in principle of causality while adding age and area anti-selection conditions one to one to Gould's ding for thing by unschooling that which Bridgman doubted could be but miraculous if you or I learned it.5)Look into the existence of Nucleoli-ERreadthrough providing the operational forms that instrument the above interms of unique and not absolutely discriminated by two way velocities(The relation of the imaginary numbers to the track width will contain this blueprinted).6)Actually find creationism does not have anything to do with wrong thinking that herpetology is not a discipline in its own right.NOW we can talk about Baramins.For instance Ned starts to talk here AFTER this last sentence where we rarerly get to go back to 5 and if 6 only then there is judgement of me and not what I said yet I HAVE TO GO THROUGH STEPS 1---- in order to even type in my password!! I know this helps but little but it does sum up to date.

No it wasnt and insnt "meant" to be that way. The point list above prepares you or one to be able to add data on herpetology (under evo assumption of amphibians BEFORE reptiles)to Wright's shifiting balance updating the math to handle the explict implications of age and area in terms of EMMMSION (not reception) on gene flow in cold bloods. The barrier to do this was contained in Bridgman's work where he BOTH accepted biological process and Von Neuman's idea of computer memory functionally. The key will be knoweldge of differntial genetics of sound vs light propagation in the BEHAVIOR of these creatures per genes sequenced. I just am setting up the framework so that the work can go forward. It appears that one DOES NOT need to imagine HOW Einstein got his results if one uses the motion of the light beam aka Bridgman rather than Einstein's wonder of the magent but the hepetological distance also needs to be NOT isolated but part of a general trial and error process that simply rebalances by the one way velocity alone.

quote:

---

The key will be knoweldge of differntial genetics of sound vs light propagation in the BEHAVIOR of these creatures per genes sequenced.

---

Are you using sound and light as an analogy? Or are you using the properties of sound and light as direct evidence for the behavior of DNA?

Now it is clear to me, the photons interract with the GATTC sequence of the amphibial segment-A47 to produce anti-quarks. This only if we modify the forward deflector shields to emmit a steady stream of anti-logitrons.Back to kinds. I agree that functionally the Xian definition of kind adheres to species and roughly to genus. But I would argue that the definition shifts in creatioist lingo. It's very simple when refering to mammals (although this fails too) but becomes impossible with invertebrates. Is a "worm" a kind? Is a "crab" a kind? My argument is that if you were to somehow restrain a creationist and force them to see a presentation on the evolution of birds from maniraptids, they would walk away saying "Birds and reptiles are a kind, you have only shown microevolution"