Fixation of genetics - program

That reading depends at least in part on the full interpretation of such like,&14.2-The Molecular basis of mutation (Whitehouse Towards an Understanding of the Mechanism of Heredity p228) "In order to understand the aminoacid code, it is essential to know in chemical terms the nature of the changes in DNA caused by mutation. Watson and Crick (1953b) had suggested that mutation might be due to a base in DNA occasionally occurring in one of its less likely tautomeric forms (tautomerism is the wandering of a mobile hydrogen atom from one multivalent atom to a neighbouring one within a molecule. Tautomeric forms of a molecule are usually in dynamic equilibrium with one another.), so that at replication the wrong base is inserted at this position in the complementary nucleotide chain."except that in this thread Rei said (if mutation = error) and this OPENS up the details (in the EvC post, for instance, oscillation of Percy and Ipetrich etc., on what is the exact analogy of DNA and Computation) in quote connnect context such as&14.2p232 "However, Brenner, Barnett, Crick and Orgel (1961) postulated that proflavin causes mutation by the insertion or deletion of one of one or more base-pairs in the DNA, and not by transversion as Fresse suggested. Part of their evidence for this was that proflavin-induced mutants appeared completely to lack the normal activity of the gene, whereas mutants produced by other mutagens were often 'leaky', that is, showed some growth on strain K of the host (see &13.4)."as AN ERROR in the age we are discussing as well. So I would not say "exactly". I may be wrong but you may have thought of DNA caused mutation not mutation caused DNA? Even if I am wrong it would still be content-wrong to say exactly but then we would have much more than a tread in this tissue at issue.

Are you talking about an instability NOT currently recognized by "flux" (Cantor cricism of infinesmals whatever the collectivity etc...) OR what Rei meant quite clearly indeed with "uncorrected" error no matter the scale of the phenomena (of change)?? There is a choice here. No I did not "neglect". I was just trying to correect some logic which can indeed conflate the explanation by using mutations to think some computer informatin DNA model vs DNA (life) INT TIME proceeding with subsequent mutations. This is EvC and not all E for example so that a simple such assumption CAN NOT BE made. Besides you seem to either not follow or purposely rupture my simply point on the logic involved. If you stick to "uncorrected error" then the issue is clear as to BEING a base pair difference but indeed there is plenty of late 60s questioning OF THIS point on change (not MINE nor my interpretation) so in the issue of THE TIME involved there ISNOT IN FACT "a wash". It is only "exact" at you said if you bring in an assumption that enables one in some/yours/any idea of a computer-soma relation assert DNA-mutation-DNA-mutation as Loop. I was making the record clear by citing the sources and keeping track of when what ideas were and are being developed and when. The chemical terms even still DID NOT conscript the dynamics for the DIRECTION of mutation in addition to it cardinal existence can go in different CHEMCIAL directions. But you would have me have it that I could tell short of something already in this post that I would be able to find the error from the mutant phenotype in any term encoded. This is not necessarily "unstable". It could be a discontinuity or nonlinear effect. But I dont know how to do it. Please do not "dumb Brad down." Then tell me how to KNOW the uncorrected error coded FROM the mutant phenotype (whether you would already know if what is not in error AND non-coding exact locations) PER GENEOTYPE. Drug discovery companies would love to have this knowledge. Otherwise you must respect the history that FIRST it was the DNA explained from the mutation not any hope of getting the mutation explained from the DNA. All and Tide clean differently no matter the fall. You can not avoid this phrasing then if you admit to some kind of notion of "error". I had left open what the age is.The logic know involves both an "or" and an "and". You response only made the answer more difficult. So my conclusion is if you continue to igore my words/wordings you indeed can tell me whether I am looking at the left or right of your avatar but you are sneaking in the long time frame via the DNA and NOT THE MUTANT. Go ahead prove me wrong but please recognize that I do not post on the simple level of NAIG here. IF you go a second post with someone here you pretty much better be willing to retreat to some island North of Madagacar and nobely admit defeat (of course I can do the same) or you must be prepared to back up what you/one had said. I am not however going to take over the thread with polemic. just the facts man, nothing but the facts.