The Recurrent Problem of Chirality

I am working on putting these four sided figures (Statistically) within para's figure ONE by being composed of Weyl's differences of 1-D symmetry types such that there would exist an explanation of Parasomonium's figure 2 interms of a closed topological space dependent on different 1-D symmetry components. If this works then the two added figures will still not decide if the difference of left and right is due to God's existence or simply the tracing of the curve on shapes of bilateral symmetry. I do not know if the form is valid itself yet, but if I can verify that I suspect the pure math will have something to indicate relative to proposals on chirality.
(also):
I havent listened to
http://EvC Forum: Post your short questions here. No need to start a thread everytime. -->EvC Forum: Post your short questions here. No need to start a thread everytime.
(it is much too loud in the Coffe shop just now and I did not bring head phones (sorry Moose I missed the post))
on structuralism but a while ago I had to think a bit about LACAN
Page Not Found | University of Colorado Boulder
and I realize this is not the issue though it might have been back in the 60s before the lack of use of thom's catastrophe theory in the 70s OCCURED. I also need to work out my response to Percy in detail.I did hear them say there is "no transcendental signifed", this would be wrong(even if technically correct( it would be based on a mistransference of univocal science language and plurivocal real language) if my form is valid AND predicts phenomena approximating better and better predictions.This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 02-11-2006 12:08 PM

If you were speakingfor any molecules in living things and found

quote:

---

(m)ore importantly perhaps is the fact that it is only the three >dimensional aspect of the molecules and their coiled shape in the >double helix of the DNA that enables them to store the information >contained in the "genetic code" sequences non-linearly rather than >linearly

---

then it seems it *may* matter if one was D or L, logically.If you alternatively had orginally decided that all molecular formations could be deducted back to TWO FORMS during life then what you said "more" importanly would be MORE important besides.Did you say this? It does not seem you did.There could simply be linearity and a point at infinity, but one would have to cash in continuously Gould's insistance (in "The Structure of Evolutionary Theory") for instance that, with every competative victor there is also a detriment (in his "calculus" of species' life and death).

You started to to say:

quote:

---

>Life cannnot begin or proceed using racemic mixtures of the two >forms for life molecules.

---

evopeach by bradcap1

quote:

---

Life could have began using D-amino acids. It did not. The fact that all living organisms use L-amino acids is very strong evidence of common descent.

---

bradcap1
previously and then after quoting EvoPeach one more time you said,

quote:

---

I don't think you understand the concept of "handedness" in biological molecules.

---

I dont think it was nor is going to matter what Razd had to say relative to the point I was trying to make. If you are only trying to "pull" Evopeach's tongue then you could ignore my comment but I think it holds nonetheless.Evopeach seemed to me to try to take Kant's argument for the existence of GOD by the manifestation of the difference of RIGHT and LEFT and to extend this to the discussion of chirality.I was reacting to your thought that either sides' factuality (you fell to the D-side)is evidential for Common Descent.I do not believe this to be the case.Edited by Brad McFall, : BBCODE

Originally EP had:

quote:

---

Life as we know it, uses twenty amino acids to form the molecules that enable life to operate biologically, whether plant or animal, macroscopic or microscopic.
These forms are except for one extant in nature in two, three-dimensional forms called levo and dextro, left and right handed as in a glove analogy.

---

When I meant that I did not "believe" it to have been the case that one can infer common descent from a choice of either/or or both as you wrote to Bradcap1.I was trying to point to a thought of my own that may investigate effects of the "similar entropy" of different hands' creating different relations externally during selection that I started to indicate the form of in my first post in the thread. Thus I did not see that choice of one L or D mattered as to Darwin's case for common descent because I would suspect that in the atomic end the glove analogy to Kant's placement in any similar architectonic would not end anaytically where either evopeach or bradcap1 seemed to pre-dictate (as per their posts) it was.I only said "believe" to leave it easier for bradcap1 to respond to me. I could have said, "I think" instead.I did not follow evopeach's other use of argument/debate to which WK was refering.If the anaysis could have been carried to the entropic relations that may differ not per left or right forms but as to relations (say, autocatylses) beyond the "hands'" and this mattered across the scales of levels of organization as I am want to think or believe, in contradistinction to Gould's positioning on the 10 forms of worms at the Cambrian boundary etc then it did not seem necessary to me that Bradcap1 should have criticized Evopeach for his notions of information storage in 3D but only in what he might have meant by "except for one extant in...".I understood that Bradcap1 was likely refering to your correction of the BBCODES but he also might have used you iconically to feel less need to return post. I dont care either way.I am trying to focus on Gould's attempt to split the "standard darwinism" into a 3-legged formation but in doing so I think he let the argument TO common descent have too much room just because he did not want to involve the relation of rotation of the Earth to geographic speciation IN THE BIOLOGICAL portion of his thematization. That was an "external" reason that I reacted as I did to the comment that a single chirality indicates (sic!) a SINGLE path back in time. As you and others pointed out it might be one, it might be two or it might be both. Evopeach had some particulars about rna and replication instead. Gould in the end refused to write the word "form" without ambiguity to 0, 1 or 2 branching lineages. I think we have and can do (on evc) better than this.Edited by Brad McFall, : BBCodesEdited by Brad McFall, : spacing lost to software transfer

Sufficiency and necessity are not the same.

ONEVC@

quote:

---

I was thinking more of my comments on Carnap. Use the EVC Search function if you like or try
EvC Forum: Religion: a survival mechanism?

---

quote:

---

We may have this rather in mutation but because of moral issues made political we cant get scientists to consider this possiblity. I didnt see this as actual a few years ago but it is today.

---

OnEvC

quote:

---

I will suggest contra the molecular clock and the niche of molecular evolution (from Pauling etc) a synthetic apirori were in the biochem originates the genetics analytically contra Carnap such that a trend might be suspected.

---

oNeVCNow if you are really interested in my analytic ability I will ablige but if you are only interested in trying to interdict my conversation with Razd then I feel less compulsion to return the favor.
Please look here
EvC Forum: Neurotheology/Biotheology
for my introduction to the literature. I am however in Jersey for the summer and I do not have access to my personal resources till Sept.

or so.Are you cognizant of the fau pau in professional biological circles about phenotypes?You are then saying,

quote:

---

exclusive use of one form or the other

---

based on modern evidence. The point back is simply that you can not reason from the highest hierarchic level to this time just as it is difficult to reason before the big bang. If you discount biology of higher levels of organization on principle then we would simply have to agree to disagree.If you would never consider as falsifiable say, Kervran's notion of biological transmuations then you from an empiric perspective rule out, the possiblity I feel is synthesizable further and I can have no commerce with such a one who would only use words against the point where concepts would suffice. Gould for instance has the position that there can be no direct imposition of physical force.The remnants you seem to require could still exist. How did you say that you have the final analytic position on the shape of semantic information transfer across generations. How do you specify the formation of this when it "stored" in niches or thermostats hypothetically??

Dear Frog,The issue here is how the one-dimensional information that flows from generation to generation might feedback from the different potential shapes of proteins to the fields of force BETWEEN the the DNA strand and the extra-chromosomal material.The neobiological truth that only one kind of protein hand exists does not mean that the track of this continuity can be necessarily probed behind the adaptive condition that forward feeds the changing shape(s).Analysis of the code and actual sequence data however may provide the means to track a margin of a single SIDE.One could make specific hypotheses furthermore.

no four letter words either please!Since you say you are good at bioinformatics perhaps you could do the work itself.Last time I looked it up, I read that some description of molecular forces fall off in space at 10-7 from a given atom and since there are 1-D repeats at the number 8 (ACGT*2) then the formal relation between 1-D symmetry and any community of attraction and repulsion would be found by checking a given sequence to see if it repeats a given base at intervals of 8 "downadaptivestream." A simple JAVA or BASIC program could accomplish this.With actual data this would start to create a kind of landscape or geometry from which differences of ionic and covalent forces in different relations of the gene expression process may stablize a kinematic layer.I would suggest at this point that Freize patterns be used with the further information about rnas to see if some general trend does not emerge.With the term "extra-chromosomal" I was only trying to make clear that the use of this geometrization is to intedict the possible 1-D symmetries (either across a DNA strand or along one (with further connections to the host of potential coded information)).I would predict that handedness is a result of only certain kinds of relations among the various manifestations of patterns on a strip.But without carrying on beyond the analysis of the situation I can not be certain if the "side" here is material or only topological.If I was being paid here to elaborate I would do (more) so.Alas, no one here is.

Sir,the day will come when you and other will realize that I am a first class theoretical biologist. I come to my understanding admittedly in a larger circut (that has some philosophical component) than is required for phds. This is not hubris.One could simply say that presence of carbon is a sign of common descent rather than silicon life.Sir, my Grandfather warned me about the incursion of molecular biologists into the field. I have no animus against this kind of thinking but I find that evolutionary theory speaks to the whole individual organism BEFORE it does to the parts therechanging.I find the disagreement is social before it is scientific.I resent your judgements somewhat and wish you really only spoke to the subject.Feel free to respond until you find me adequately replying but please do not try to speak for something larger than both you and I.I was recently trying to explain evopeach's position that was somewhat in harmony with my own. You are new to EVC so perhaps there is room for something off topic. The admins will tell us to talk about other issues elsewhere.I did not say that levos must NOT be thought of WHILE thinking about common descent.I said, IF YOU had already decided that there were ONLY TWO possibilies then you might TRY to think so.I think there are three where the logic breaks off, and so, I have started to elborate where this threefoldness exists synthetically, so as to show where the LOGIC in the thought IS.My Grandfather also thought about evolution rather indiscrimanetly. This I refrain from doing but I am aware how it can come about in ones' mind.Edited by Brad McFall, : materiality

Cum on frogert,Razd got it.Common ancestry is not common descent.If there were determinative information that modern taxas' useof "lefts" CONSTRAINS Gould's third leg where Gould insists on constraints from the INSIDE, then a mathematical demonstration of handedness *might* foil the analogy to Kant's "glove" positionining (in general)INTERNALLY and thus BECOME an argument against say Evopeach's placement of the concepts revolved (thus getting "god" out of it as you would probably like to see occurr) but to do so one would need to ARGUE that the common ancestry indicated by modern use of L forms is not just "evidence for common descent"(inter thread alia) but common descent in any decent use of the word.I would be more than happy, as you are probably fully and painfully aware, to discuss my own ideas in the appropriate places on EVC. Sure, one could even laminate me with less than superlatives in the ALL ABOUT BM thread as it is still under 300, but there IS still something more that should be obvious.Since Gould restricts his use of geography to the third leg and as there is some non-Brad science on the effect of the rotation of the Earth causal with chirality (I have posted info from Gladyshev many times here at EvC)a simple lingo to discuss the issue about the mathematical aspect of the handedness in an origin of life (getting by with a defintion, to be agreed on, as to what "life" is, (not Mayr's view that biology need not use the difference of "life and death" anymore, etc.)) seems definately tied to the existence of the triplet code linguistically(to me), but some BIOLOGICAL affect must also be present. Bradcap1 simply seems to discount this possibility.
He responded for instance not realizing or avoiding that I was ANSWERING his question TO ME, elaborating a bit on how the symbol for such a thought might be dividing the physical pace of form-making and translation in space.That is fine if he is simply at odds with my view but again it should at any time be obvious that common ancestry is not common descent.I have no issue with Lforms indicating some kind of common lineage relations. It is ALWAYS the similarites between forms that first leads the taxonomist to a hierarchic proposal. You know this, I know.
--------------------------------------------
"Geographic distribution is the last but not the least thing the taxanomist considers"- Leon Croizat.