The Nature of Mutations

But when C Aquadro whom I saw and not his genes appear on the Cornell Campus writes ON THE POSITIVE SIDE OF THE LEDGER, "the fixation of a single nucleotide substitution, however suggestive, provides no statistical power." theis board is left to dangle in the wind.I have left many clues to be tried but we do not even attempt to be able to think thru them let alone show them to be false (or true) so I will say nothing else. "Background selection" always seemed a slight to me but unless the CAUSE of mutations (by correlation to bioge0grapy for instance were deductively possible (Aquadro's "shape of the genelogy giving demographics') our promotable view of mutations itself also can not make the next go (there was an "or" in this position which may not be an addition but a multiplication. I have no idea but need work from cause not because there is symbolism available.)The proposal would be for a non-biological overdetermination of mutation categories by BEING thrown into the electrotonic state. Selection is not of the (this) kind. Gould simply could not THINK of someone putting drift and selection to the lack of something elese.

Let me leave the impossible to grasp aspect to continue in other threads and have you note that I am increasingly begining to think that there is not a typo in Mendel's Experiments in Plant Hybridization that the FINITE bionmial expansion will lead one to suggest in the genetics problem set but that Like Cantor Mendel was actually OPERATING (if this is true than the e-numbers would provide in the standard form of transfinite factorization some symbolic programming punch for genomics...)with acutal infinites in the sense that philosophically Cantor clearly marshalled but that Nageli incorrectly confused theory and expt with in asserting that Mendel could not use "integers" which were actual inifinties when the a posteriori reality was that the quantities' magnitudes were emprical (not statistically by division 1:3). I think Gould went just too far in trying to ban creationism. He could have stuck with the empircs and left Lewontins double coupled differential equations of bio-change to suffer their own intelligent fate map.But for this to be true and not just English, I will need to re-read genic balance and all sorts of genetic things I am not familiar with. At least I think it possible.The point is that Aggaszi was not the LAST legit creationist but one of the first established ones.

I was trying to express my different understanding of Chip Acquadro's review in a recent Journal about the future of limits to knoweldge in population genetics especially as to if larger data sets and or better computation will help one move "unknowable" things one can think are listed into a 'knowable' category but the intelligence to have in the take home lesson is that I "SAW" this guy appear at Cornell and I had already struggled tru GENETICS281 where in the begging of the course the TA's claim that what is revlead to the student in the microscope is an "unknown" and by the end of mapping a few genes suddenly the unknown IS "known" and yet you are still looking thru the same scope at the same flies mutation and all no matter the proportion of mutation to time.Steve Wolfram has been around this country this year promoting a NEW KIND OF SCIENCE in which he shows a model of mutation that depends crucially on single rule changes to cellular atutomata incremented by single changes and in the post above I merely used this notion to review why it may be that orthogenesis is not standard biology BECASUE orthoselection of fixed point mutations could potentially differentiate an amorph from a hypomorph when not also being a neomorph (but this antimorph would have to argue ANGAINST Wolfram's use of natural selection for which neither I nor Chip has any information on as far as I can tell) but this at least could be known while Chip asserted in the article I was drawing from that not only would it be hard to determine (if a lot of acutal polymorphism) if a single point mutation fixed was due to selectio or not but that in the current best-computation statistical tests there ARE cases where strong selection is preety much known and yet the result is null (neutral). There is a stopgap or disconnect here to WOlfram's notion of materaility of programs (physics vs engineering) that reasoning from statistics can not gain say to which I took lexicographic adavantge in the post and assert a possiblity for bio-change that need not cycle with Gould if species selection were reduced to the mecanics of taking one rule off another back to the limit of the number used to "compute" the morphometrics of the morph mutant that would have been classified by sorting from the group under the microscope. I know that was quicky. Ask again if it is still too dense in itself.

I am not going to extend this thread in another direction than starting a new one but I wanted to re-call to Mammuthus that he holds an interesting position aka whether a hyrid IS ONLY thought in terms of DNA or not. My thought is turning specificlly to question this very notion. I am begining to think from the genetic side of the epigentic-genetic question( which I approach in trying "think up" a process of topobiology (Edelman)) that there may be DNA C H A N G E S that are not mutations in any sense of causality at all and even statistically interms of 3:1 etc may not be in any post-Brad consensus etc etc but rather are the OUTSIDE of the external variable that may be either genetic or epigenetic (or in Lewontin's terminology the computer analogy showing that preformation is not clearly the "loser") but for the momement contrarily I recognize that Mammuthus holds the "standard" position no matter how one is to interpret Muller's ideas FROM the 'position effect'.

I was there specifically thinking of whatever it is in the search programs for sequences that prevents easy finding of a match or alignement, i.e. point mutations, junk DNA, non-known expressible repeitions. I am not fluid in DNA base pairing lingo as of yet coming from this more from a whole organ in the ism perspective.I am however trying to imagine if specific expressivity such as to the cell membrane is a flow in one direction from the DNA that these kinds of non-function known changes are FORCED by Newton's Third Law on the the physical chemistry say of having to get beyond any topology of a lipid/water eddy immiscibility that CHANGES when an extracellular protein for instance is expressed and expelled from the cell of "origin". Some epigensis when not "pre-programed" preformation may be involved in motions of this framed by a cell collective kind but not of the line of expression that would have to more than correlationally contiguous in terms of the chemico-physics biophysically etc etc.

NOW THAT I S funny

I was there specifically thinking of whatever it is in the search programs for sequences that prevents easy finding of a match or alignement, i.e. point mutations, junk DNA, non-known expressible repeitions. I am not fluid in DNA base pairing lingo as of yet coming from this more from a whole organ in the ism perspective.
I am however trying to imagine if specific expressivity such as to the cell membrane is a flow in one direction from the DNA that these kinds of non-function known changes are FORCED by Newton's Third Law on the the physical chemistry say of having to get beyond any topology of a lipid/water eddy immiscibility that CHANGES when an extracellular protein for instance is expressed and expelled from the cell of "origin". Some epigensis when not "pre-programed" preformation may be involved in motions of this framed by a cell collective kind but not of the line of expression that would have to more than correlationally contiguous in terms of the chemico-physics biophysically etc etc.
+++++++++
I was trying here to give you access to what Gould attempts to formalize in terms of a heirachy selectable flesh. All of my posts sum to the same thing. But once one trys to work on the actually forces involved whehter at a distance or say contiguous in Faraday's sense then some SPACE is travesered in the description in words that indeed may fail to denote the nature being attempted to be read. In this case I was trying to specify both the mutants AND the environment of them so that you, the reader, could be more able to judge if I had indeed said something of the mutation itself for which If it said nothing then the environs would be come spatially relevant and that apears tp have happened to you. This may indeed be a mutation.I was trying to describe what in DNA-RNA "compaction" may be molcular but NOT a muatation and yet the terminal place of correlation of epegenisis. What was missing as it did not pertain to this very thread was WHY i think scientifically Newton's @nd book can be re-read in mole bio terms. I may be wrong but then I would have reverted to a discussion of Helmhotlz and all sorts of nanotechology sustpect things in my opinion. I have a way of thinking about the use of Calculus and functions that Borel and Lebseque discussed that Hadamarrd deviated from that may not be "monstors" but integral to embyrogeny but that is the ADJECTIVE I used which I think Russel MISUSED as the word "ordinal" but now we make this thing being at the fringe of my acutall reading even harder for the majority of c/e users to follow lest of of best the ball.Biology is not an easy discipline to talk about if one wants to have it written that economics flows from biology and not the other standard way around. I can try to unpack this notion further but you are at my current bounds and that will only liekly lead to more frustration as I simply write what I think than what I think I can teach.

Well you know then that you HAVE NOT heard a thing I said.

Ok, Duly noted. Thanks for the cordiality.