Evolution — An Idiosyncratic View

Preface/Forward

Out of teenage sibling rivalry, after my brother shocked me with news that he was to become a physicist, I made my mind that I would be become a biologist and study evolution since our ornithologist and biophilatelist grandfather, Willard F. Stanley ( teacher of teachers) was keen on conservation and genetics and eager to pass on his knowledge to his family. The rise of Mendelism in the USA meant that biologists here were subject to a skewed view of the relation of forces to forms because the principle mathematics used overdetermined topological aspects normally otherwise available. Because religious freedom is stronger here as well, the combination culturally was not a constriction of theories of evolution being globally discussed but a cohesion-less rigidification of the distinction of the genotype and phenotype. Furthermore, because of the effect that Fisher had on both Galtonian evolutionary theory and statistics, words no longer held any semantic weight on the discussion of the syntax of change and everyday science kept paradigmatic science from even reaching back to a Maxwellian question as to if there were enough molecules to have heredity derive evolution or whether it was precisely the other way around. All of this and more will be discussed in (this)my rather idiosyncratic and personal view of the science of evolutionary theory.

Table of Contents

1 Viruses -RNA, DNA, and proteins ( repulsions vs. attractions)

2 Archea and Bacteria ( distributed vs local speciation)

3 Procaryotic Margulian Cytoplasmic Inheritance and/of Ecosytem chemical reaction networks

4 Multicellualar eucaryotic and protist organic correlations and histogenic nuclear differentiation through the Edicarian (math and biology)

5 Cooperation vs Competition (homotyposis) and the Cambrian Explosion ( forms)

6 Earth Centric Systematic Constitution and Adaptive Radiation (inertial force formats of vicariant genetic revolutions)

7 Heredity of populations, Pathological deviations of individuals, Phanological correlation of mutations , Disease directed somatic programming metabiology

8 Non-Earth associated Evolution

1 Viruses -RNA, DNA, and proteins ( repulsions and attractions)

Metaphysically there is a huge phonoromic difference if viruses adapt functionalities primarily via repulsions or attractions. Structurally either appear a priori just as likely but probabilistically it is hard to decide how viral physical chemistry and biophysical chemistry format supramolecularity. The place of ancestral influences in chemistry. Where coded instructions go. Mendel had the audacity to suggest that there was a math to hybrids and that there was something that remained constant when hybrids were bred. We later called them dominant , those traits that always appeared while those recessive that may be absent for a generation reappear in the 3rd

Something on history of biophysics, attractions, repulsions and preface to macron dissection of phenocopies ( physiological genetics). Figenbaum kinematics vs dynamics — DNA replication, Chemical Copies and Biological Reproductions — phronomony linking these two lines — angle to physics and difference of geometries with distance different with angle the same vs when angle and biophysics also changes. Two forms of replication. Replicators-Interactors ( no distinction of angle and distance)

All Haldane could say was that either the biological original or the chemical copy was “more likely” to be the original. It was this uncertainty that Haldane sought to phenomnenolize to all of evolution. He concluded, “ The truth therefore appears to be intermediate between the crude biological idea that the gene has divided into two, and the crude chemical idea that has been copied.”

When we think of the chemical copy as duplication through a proton quantum physics directing the direction and rate of the catalysis then we no longer need to make the claim that dominance is just an index of enzymology but instead is a function, of quantum indeterminacy made classical by biology through chemistry but constantly being put — into quantum states through chemical copy that are biologically bifuctated (with reproductions outside the replications). The key idea is that the chemistry causes the classicality to become quantum again ( and allow in some ways with recoherence for reciprocal reciprocity) but it is the quantum biology that determines the dominance relative to direction and rate, affecting the biochemistry that is looped over…. by evolution through development. Haldane was correct to compare the effects of 3 or 4 duplications to one or two, but he needed to use his quantum difference of hetero- and homozygotes to reflect the dominance and recessivenes but history had him placing them in a different order. Indeterminacy of position and of momentum allows us to reorganize them, when multiple genes are considered in their whole organism effects….

Galton molecularly presupposed chemically copyable bifurcatable reproductions but did so without forcing Aristotelian categorization of the forms so forced at the same time that Pasteur narrated life out of the Newtonian view on fermentation and occult causation otherwise carried on by Liebig. Brownian motion randomness never became a correlational aspect of the statistical comprehension (of) natural selection and thus biochemistry was left to (be) restructured by Pauling, resulting in an historical subconscious preference for attractions over repulsions in normal everyday science. See chapter on Pauling, various ways to apply quantum mechanics to biology.

So Haldane had suggested that homozygotes and heterozygotes are different due to their quantum exchange energy relative to biological reproduction and what later in molecular biology came to be known as replication. We lost the connection back to Haldane because after Lowdin suggested the notion of quantum genetics through a “proton code”, notions of genetic false pairing potentials and base rivalry never gained footings though available to any mind.

Dynamic Hyperbolic vs Euclidean vs Spherical Geometry for sequence force (attraction-repulsion) kinematics (as macrons between two biological whole“systems”) use of concepts of dispersion and separation within mathematical sequences.

“The genotype-conception is thus an ahistoric view of the reactions of living beings-of course only as far as true heredity is concerned. This view is an analog to the chemical view, as already pointed out; chemical compounds have no compromising ante-act, water is always H2O, and reacts always in the same manner, whatsoever may be the “‘history” of its formation or the earlier states of its elements. I suggest that it is useful to emphasize this “radical” ahistoric genotype-conception of heredity in its strict antagonism to the transmission or phenotype-view” Johansen

We will see that geochemistry creates an historical resivoir that is only accessible to biochemistry not chemistry and answers the Wolterck Johansen difference of opinions.

Population genetical subsumption of randomness to the chromosome reduced the range of logical aspects a force-based rather than mass-density based organic chemistry (that)that could (have) provide(d) towards those physical and chemical invariants that were supposed distributed into the biotypes from the populations possessing hereditary evolution and possibly evolving heredity. For instance Bernestein was not used in his time and Kolomogorv was only later picked up by Kimura.

In high-school I had decided that a force-based approach was the only scientifically defensible way forward and constructed what I had called a gravitational wave hypothesis of the mind to explain how physical forces connect biological phenotypes with -(these)-expressed genetical information(s) contained in proteins. Once I got to Cornell to study evolution formally, I found a faculty disinclined to consider this force-based predilection and a near wholly sedimented and ossified interest in the materially particulate viewpoint, to the total exclusion of consideration of forces (whether from Prigogine’s dissipative structures, Frolich’s quantum mechanical resonance, or a counterstance to Kervern’s suggestion of weak-force biophysics). Stuart Kaufmann, visiting, was the only scientist who encouraged me in my own thoughts on evolution fully. Simon Levin listened intently but only was able to reduce my thoughts on genetical fractals to a highly stylized two-level version and Richard Boyd had my innovation on the relation of aposteriori and a priori knowledge in genetics of downward causation confused with the religious history of American Science against my will. Will Provine refused to mentor me adequately during my attempt to complete the College Scholar Program but in the era of the internet, prior to fulfillment of the undergraduate, I received support from panbiogeographers over my adumbration of vicariant time, but let’s not get ahead of the(this) (evolving) story.

The pandemic has steeled my mind towards origin of life theories and this will be the subject of this chapter.

Lowdin thus thought that quantum mechanics provided the material difference on which variations as naturally selected were evolved. He did not go very far to consider how this selection was to be related to the genetic message repeated over and over again that was chemically copied outside of the quantum variation provided nor how the biological reproduction repeated the message, the copy and the protons tunneled.

What Haldane sought to imagine was how does the gene-factor replicate and duplicate itself. Feymann has explained that the breakthrough to this idea is that it is by complementarity as a glove fits a hand but for Haldane this was simply recognizable as what it is not. It is not like the chaos of a waterfall in which droplets break off from increasing masses of flowing liquid. Instead he insisted that there were two conceptual components — one biological and the other chemical. This difference has become confounded in the rise of molecular biology but for Haldane this great difference was as clear as the driven snow and he utilized it to explain how quantum mechanics provides at least a partial resolution to evolution’s central concern of heritability.

he simply assumed that however this biological division happens it must be chemically copied. He considered the chemicals to be stretched out in a thin classical layer or chain, the likes of which Langmuir would have envied, but he differentiated the copy from the original which he associated wholly with the biological object.

Johansens’s physical invariants of genetics. (Chromosome chemisms)

“The famous Galtonian law of regression and its corollaries elaborated by Pearson pretended to have established the laws of ‘’ancestral influences’’ in mathematical terms. Now, by the pure-line explanation of the well known action of selection in poly-genotypic populations, these laws of correlation have been put in their right place; such interesting products of mathematical genius may be social statistics in optimia form qia, but they have nothing, at all to do with genetics or general biology! Their premises are inadequate for insight into the nature of heredity” Johansen

au contarire — ancestral influences must be tracked back to the forces that viruses gain access to production from plications by copies but whether Galton was correct about the molecule vs the force for the electricity vs the chemistry vs the physical is yet to be discussed in the chapters that are to come on the relation of heredity and evolution.

“The essential point in the whole matter is, of course, that a special genotypical constitution always reacts in the same manner under identical conditions as all chemical or physical structures must do. Differences in genotypical constitution (as well as differences in cheniical or physical nature) are not bound to manifest themselves at all-and still less to do so in the same sense under all conditions. Sometimes even quite special conditions may be required for the realization of possibilities (“Potenzen,” as some German authors are saying), due to a special genotypical nature: This is a well known fact in physiology as in the fine art of gardening. Baur has long since emphasized the importance of this point for the Mendelian researches.” Johansen

More on populations’ biotic potential later from Maynard Smith…but with the definition of homotypic chemical reaction network it will be possible to dissect a cladistic ahistoricity out of a polypheletic ecosystem passaged physical invariants of pure (historic) homotypes. The lack of Waddington canalization for microbes caused the profusion of missteps, through which Thom’s view of catastrophes for extinctions( Lewontin) never gainsaid. This is explained next and permits the integration of form and forces via transversalities of Abraham for the logics of sequence codes of quantum genetics ( where under bisexual evolution apriori) confounds the coded effects of the paternal and maternal (and dismissal of Provine’s “conditions” on cases.

Haldane assumed that genes are different with respect to isotopes so when he attempted to break from classicality he basically asserted that genes were space separated atomic configurations whose superposistions were indistinguishable and yet were both biological replicable through inheritance and classically chemically copyable and that both concepts were heteronomously yet unifiably united through measures of joint energy.

Wolterck and Johansens genotype — substrate and energy and the substrate lack in Thom associated with extintction , loss of chromosomes, loss of genes and the existence of different chemicals in the ecosystem of species’ inbreeding endogamy and outbreeding exogamny. Use of hyperbolic space to graph the norm of reaction.

Mendel had supposed that the heterozygote was dual thing made up of parts from both the parents and the hybrid past states of the species

and he considered the homozygotes in populations of parents and children to be less ordinally ( symbolized with cardinal numbers) than the heterozygotes which developed this ](programmable)[ duality through enforced unions only to be broken up during gametogenesis.

Haldane noted that the exchange probability was different for homozygotes and heterozygotes and yet Eigen insists that there is no wildtype or individual subject to population fitness if molecular hypercycle selection originates life from non-life. Bateson on heterozygote as an ionic bond.

Computer point line duality programming language.

Haldane had mistakenly projected the existence of a real exchange probability between the reproducing genes to mean that the chemical idea was more nearly true than the biological one but he like many who attempted to think of quantum biology before Penrose simply failed to differentiate the quantum gravity or subjective collapse of wave functions by minded philosophers from the gravitational reduction of the space-time superpositions.

The truth that evolution has happened on Earth in a gravitational field is part of the new quantum genetics but not even Penrose has noticed this because he has been thinking more with Shrodinger’s and Hesienberg’s ideas than Dirac’s.

Eigen simply went all the way with the chemistry ( without using it to go back and forth between classicality and quantum philosophically per Pauling’s chemical bond) and tried to use this to deflate the autonomy of this biological understanding so ably philosophized by Ernst Mayr. But geoecosystemchemistry has it’s own “phylogentics” of negative and positive curvature in hyperbolic parrallell with cladogeneses. The poised realm is not a cartesian eucledianism united by conciousness but rather the biological governance of chemical bonds that pass in and out of networks classically and quantum mechanically during the evolution of new functional biophysics. Transturing machines will thus be Wolfram-Chaitin metabiological applications.

Heterozygotes are not hybrids but recent genomics makes this point hard to realize because the random tests for heterozygoisty in populations can not distinguish classical chaos from quantum uncertainty in position and momentum. It all comes down how the paternal and maternal influence are to be mechanically ( classically — quantum mechanically in Heisenberg’s matrices) to be understood.

Here we find a totally new way to think about genetics — one in which even Newton would approve but will require the radical position of Penrose who sees quantum mechanics in need of a change from without — here it comes from biology using the concept of Haldane to revitalize Mendel’s thoughts via Leibig’s molecules of fermentation as Kaufmann’s electron motion in quantum critical protein directions. It appears that Faraday was actually closer to the truth than history has allowed. While Maxwell’s equations can be put on a computer and so can general relativity to some extent, electrotonics of quantum genetic cross generational transmissions cannot. Only new transturing machines can compute with these physicalities of morphogenesis.

Newton knew that repulsions and attractions can move in both directions. Kant developed a whole metaphysics around this idea. Pure genetic lines can be quantized using various classifications of these force types when objectively reduced by quasispecies.

We must thus compute first these genetics with genes that are specifically adapted to the gravitational field else we will be uncertain to what extent the hybrid or the parent contributes to the uncertainty in the positions and momentums.

This has been roundly missed in the history of the debate between mendelians and biometricians. This is the first insight of the new quantum genetics. The exchange of electrons on genes may switch from original to copy perhaps every thousand years but the protons will collapse faster. Thus proton tunneling in DNA associated with quantum transport of electrons in proteins will evolve to punctuate forms of change.

Viruses have to be understood as quantum collapsers. It is not in microtubules are isolated sufficiently from the environment that coherence manifests principally or primarily but rather that viruses are related to the cells just as genes are to their “hosts”. It is embryonic idea of kaufmann that lipid forming auto catalytic protocells are cells through which electrontonic quantum transport happens that collapses and recoheres the superpositions as populations go into and out of hardyweinberg equilibria that niche constructs these environments. Eigen removed the wholeness of this and penrose and Kaufmann only brought it in in the mind rather than this environment. Finish discussing Wolterek vs Johahnsen — how membrane-nucleus is not proper deconstruction of ruler/coder.

Viruses as subcollapse sequence formatters reverse infinity ( w*) aspects in protein symmetry sustaining superpositions across cell membranes…with antisymmetry for the Weyl 2 forms of 1-D symmetry in triangles of eculdeian vs non eucldeian. (reflections combined with translations are not the same in geometric conjectured 3-d environment space as they are in decomposed independendent combined translations and reflections in the same 3-d space because of variance in the relation of distance and angle int the lines involved and the difference in form of the right angle. ( this is in Kant in metaphysics of morals?).

By being quantum collapsers, viruses function to coordinate different formats of stochasticisms of forces biophysi cally. The determinate chemical reaction network classific mechanical biochemistry are teleomatic goals of the viruses the hosts teleonomically operate from. Thus viruses’ structure and function can be deduced by a the application of random chance formatting to determinate dynamics biologically reproduced through chemical copy as the random quantum mechanical variations appear.

This gives rise to a way to think about biophysical forces systematically and to categorize them phoronomoically by hypothesiesing the proportion of attractions and repulsions involved.

2 Archea and Bacteria ( distributed vs local speciation) ( External “cytoplasm”)

Metabiological evolution of program size complexity and trifurcation of microbial systematics ( DNA replication etc)

Chaitin introduced to computer science the notion of program size complexity and reproduced gains the concept made, by creating a new theoretical direction(s) in evolutionary theory programmed to utilize a priori truths associated with randomness as expressed via/by Chaitin’s Omega number. He thought that pseudorandomness (caused by necessary uncomputability) would equally likely apply to games of mixed strategy without saddles and if part of Darwinian competition…

Provine has recently claimed that random drift and random sampling of gametes does not produce changes previously asserted for them

but here, by applying Chaitin’s novel innovation

to homotypic differentiation of organically correlated microbial recombinations under chemical reaction network reachability, the conservation of such is shown to exist due to predator prey role reversals across polyphyla and to cause fertile understandings of within and cross chemical homotypic correlations underlying distributed microbial speciation by said cohesive transformation, transduction and congugations of constantly increasing program size complexities despite inertia of preextant ( see chapter 1) repulsions and attractions exist and are.

Details — Predator Prey dynamic reversals ( Like time reversals but reversals in population sizes)

Changes in biotic potentials by role reversals and chemical reservoir alterations on deaths no matter the births causing new chemical reaction supramolecularities an d barrier to the catastrophe

Proof of Reachability of chemical reactions in heterogeneous compartmentalizations correlated with biological reproductions

This phanological overdetermination of the microbial genotype is statistically supported by a hyperbolic statistical analysis of plasmid-genome co-relations ( synthesis).

Chaitin initially combined insights from Shannon-Weaver, Von Neumann and Turing into a mathematics of program size complexity from which he managed to present a toy model of potential hierarchical structure horizoning for (software)phenotypes by limiting the application to finite looping. By using the Abrahamic interpretation of post fuzzy logic fractal looping for information from microbial predator and prey aij constants it is possible to prove, that chemical reaction network reachability is Noether conserved under ecoevolutionary scenarios

when (statistical mechanical modeling of popualtions kerner ensembles))

the network compartments are separated by phylogenies that additionally(irregardless) horizontally transfer DNA programs

as denoted in the theory

such that the ecosystem

retains the pool — resources from which the reachability projects.

By instantiating the Pearsonian homotype as a bifurcatable chemical reaction network

it is possible to demonstrate that two co-adapted and well integrated genomes ( Mayr) can be distributively reproduced in these populations when the program size complexity increases in the interative aftermath of homotypic differentiation and isolated selection of organically correlated recombinations ( on plasmid changes).

Thus with plasmids, vicariant microbial speciation is defined.

Provine sought to direct population genetics towards something centrally (Johansen like) new by drawing in the understanding of microbial evolution into standard evolutionary theory but he attempts to do so without constructing the equivalent of the Waddington canalization for single celled populations of microbes. Here I show how program size complexity thresholds can be homologized to diplodic genotypic canalizations if chemical reaction networks are made notionally into pure Pearsonian homotypes ( with respect to the reactions reachable by computation from and within such networks). The loss of genes by inbreeding and loss of species thus become related to the biochemistry of the different ecologies supported by geochemistry of the ecosystem.

Chemical reaction network homotypes (chemical reachability as link between mean ( mass action) and variance (standard deviation from the mean))

…………………..

The equivalent to the tissue is a microbial mat and the canalization is in changes to the increase in the genomes of mat participants due to homotypic differentiation despite organic correlations individually selecting particular lineages in non-cohesive ways.

The result is that the hierarchical recursion of the looping within the reproduction of these populations creates complexities that bifurcate the copying genomes fractally rather than Eucledianly and distribute(s) speciation.

demonstrate

A hyperbolic statistical synthesis of these populations are computed in terms of observed and expected recombinations caused by random sampling of the recombinations and random drift of the organic correlations onto the cross homptypic correlations ancestrally transmitted.

Automata instruction insertion place

Mayr “The essence of speciation, as we now realize, is the production of two well-integrated gene complexes from a single parental one. All early attempts to explain the genetics of speciation missed this essential point, being concerned entirely with the problem of the origin of difference…It is now evident that there is only one situation in which a gene pool can be completely reconstituted genetically (with reference to a parental population) while all of its elements remain well integrated and co-adapted: spatial isolation…Why isolation was needed remained a puzzle until the genetics of integrated gene complexes had replaced the old ‘beanbag’ genetics. “ (p. 518)

We use identity in hyperbolic space not difference of opposed qualities Mendelian wise and

Spatial isolation is not the only way to bring dual unity from bifurcative difference. Sorting of fractally geometric organization levels can double endogenous success under exogenous splitting.

Forces arrayed recursively in loops within increasing program size complexitites both bifurcate and provide variability and do so by “reconstituting” a canalized ‘gene pool’ ( that in which there was stationarity). This is the basis for a new discussion of Kant’s forces in classifications and classifications of forces. And the relation of the quantum to the biochemisty per biophysics.

Thus changing the random relation of levels geneically ( blinking fractals) substitutes where Mayr insisted on spatial founder isolation getting two clades from one phylogeny by simply putting the post fuzzy Abrahamic logic back in again at the place of instructable code. The origin of difference (univocal with Johansen’s but not necessarily Bateson’s differentiate) is can be localized or distributed and is agnostic with respect to the size of the “race” with respect to the species vs the with respect to cycles of endogamy and exogamy. .. with Thom.

With distributed forces under vicariant temporalities rather than masses of particles thought the algorthimic complexity of Waddington canalization in Thom topologies functions ala Chaitin just as the founder did for Mayr.

Trifurcation of the microbial phylogenies.

Thus we learn from procaryotic recombination caused speciation distributed vicariane of membrane physiologies as means later evolved for levels of organization beyond the cell as viral sex is sorted between plasmids and chemical reaction network diversifications. And this is the main topic of the next chapter.

3 Procaryotic Margulian Cytoplasmic Inheritance (Internal cytoplasm) and/of Ecosytem chemical reaction networks

“To my mind the main question in regard to these units is this: Are the experimentally demonstrated units anything more than expressions for local deviations from the original (>normal,) constitutional state in the chromosome? “(Johansen)

These two ideas: that “elements” in the, zygote correspond to special organs, and that discrete particles of the chrombiosom)R/es are “bearers” of special parts of the whole inheritance in question are neither corollaries of, nor premises for, the stirp- or genotype-conception. Those special ideas mav have some interest as expressions of the searching mind, but they have no support in experience; the first of them is evidently erroneous, the second a purely speculative morphokogical view of heredity without any suggestive value.”

Again wrong but this time b iased by the strip preferring cardinals to ordinals and does not use cantorian continuous motion in a discontinuous space.

Cross generation heterogeneity expressed by converging series to the midparentage focus ( Pearson) as ordertypes of cardinals and ordinals

By using gene pools with spherical geometry we can show that every and anything that can come and go

Into it transits from the parallels meeting up at poles in which divergences in the chromosomes connect with the hyperbolic perpendiculars of level of organization in cells. With this we may be able to predict the future of a population. It is the RNA that makes hyperbolic link to the Eucldedian as the lat long crossings of populations back do it to DNA.

This is where antisymmetry plays with Chargraff rules.

M ore on genomics and math of base compositions — in testing covid?

. Understanding what happens to recombined chromosomes is the key to biology today. P 174 Provine

Provine, William. The “Random Genetic Drift” Fallacy (p. 175). Unknown. Kindle Edition.

What is possible is that the “random genetic drift” fallacy

Is pervasive and Fauci and colleagues are as unaware of it as are

Many population geneticists.

Use of hyperbolic statistical analysis to population genetics and cytoplasm as the place of hyperbolic existence.

Provine asserts the eucaryotes have no random genetic drift from recombination. But as I mentioned was possible for viruses this might not be the case if the Cambrian explosion arose from the Edicarian in the bacterial embryology I thought up With Greek geometry of three lines provided the geometry is phanically influenced by viruses mating archea and eucaryotes.

With the relation of unisexual transmission due to cell splitting ( Galton) as a parallel set with one out line and a bunch of parallels,

the extinction of the line caused by lack of recombination compared to sexual forms, would appear for the sexual forms as a bifurcation the phenotypic non-eucledian geometry in which the recombinations are force connected by systems of repulsions and attractions along transversal topologies and thus Galton ‘s ancestrality can be tested in a Mendelian framework and the possibility of forces can be contained on the metric that unites the forces to the strain and stress in the manifold of the geometry regardless of blending or not.

This must be done because the organic units are never to be thought of as force fields but as cell sets and thus there may be chaotic dyanmics that links the forces to the histogeneies only never a purely reduced Weismanian germ type for Galton’s stirp.

+++++++++++++++++++++++

“The genotypes may then be characterized as something fixed and may be, to a certain degree, parallelized with the most complicated molecules of organic chemistry consisting of “nuclei” with a multitude of “sidechains. Continuing for a moment such a metaphor, we may even suggest that the genes may be looked upon as analogs of the “radicals” or “‘side-chains.’’ All such ideas may as yet be premature; but they are highly favored by the recent researches of Miss Wheldale.”

Morowitz vs Creationist Gish — first cytoplasm

Viruses — giant viruses use of macrons and introduction to surreal representations for cataloging recombinations. Electrical, chemical and physical affects.

The environment contains hybrid homozygosis providing encoded attraction repulsion decoherence avoidance that becomes lost during Hardy Weinberg random reproduction ( thus depending on overlapping generations quantum mechanics confounds the clear cut distinction used by Castle applied from Galton and Mendel that generations are phenotypically distinct) even in haploid lineages because quantum linkage group exchange functions as an effective diploid genetics.

One should be able to use quantum mechanics to predict chromosome size and number?

Subindividual variation appears cellularly due to multiply different standard deviations of chemical absence directions to other generations that autocatalytically build to where they were and thus can be.

***********************************

Plasmids provide the foundation for subindividual subcellular variation. Once this appears phylogenetically it remains as the endogenous that was exogenous and via anti-symmetry can through series of subcollapse formats back time form change in the replicative chemistry of viral collapsing genes.

4 Multicellualar protist organic correlations and histogenic nuclear differentiation through the Edicarian (math and biology)

Given the cytoplasm volumes there is much involved in the nuclear volume. Use of knot complements.

Program Size Complexity and the origin of non-adaptive correlations between levels of organization

Gregory Chaitin has introduced the use of algorthimic information theory to theoretical biology and by constructing metabiology has outlined a potential means that phenotypic structural hierarchies could be developed. Organisms are well known for possessing levels of organization and evolutionary theory has been in recent times broadend to include selection on various levels. What causes these levels to emerge over evolutionary time and how coordinated are they? Lets let the Edicarian morphotypes tell. The toy model using programmatic looping suggests a means through which hierchies of strucures might appear as program size complexity of recursive programs increases. Here I suggest that Wright’s well known claims of non-adaptive trait formation caused by random sampling of gametes and random genetic drift through increases in somatic program size complexity results in non-adaptive co-relations of traits across levels of organization.

Because program size complexity measures are agnostic with regard to the space that the measures quantify it is possible for the somatic volumes spanned randomly by the levels of organization may be of any mathematical type ( Eucledian, Hyperbolic etc). The demonstration also indicates the extent to which Provine’s criticism of synthetic populations of randomly achieved mendelian quantitative traits acquisition is mistaken. This is the first example of a practical application of metabiology to evolution which does not require active information. The example utilizes the terminological innovation suggested by Cook in 1912 but since deflunked by genetically inspired constrictions of theoretical possibilities with rise of Fisherian statistics. Here a new diversity of statistical implications are sketched under the application of practical metabiology to developmental ecological evolution.

Johansen (some remarks on heredity)

But here a note should be introduced. WEISMANN and so far I see, ex parte also DE VRIES have assumed that in Ontogenesis the dividing cells during the whole routine of development must totally use a good deal of their assumed representative elements (be it representatives of parts or of properties). Hence the different parts of the mature organism might not have kept the same representatives; at any rate they could not have a complete (active) set of these assumed elements. It is easily seen, that such views indicate a fundamental (I should say genotypical) difference between the several parts of an organism. Also these views are mainly morphologically stamped. Morphology operates with ))descriptive differences )) (I should say phenotypical differences), taking such differences as the essentials. Therefore it does not much matter whether we speak of unit-parts or unit-characters, both concepts are equally morphological ideas — neither physiological nor chemicobiological.

Instead by combing two bacterial genomes into one eucaryotic cell embryogenically over energy per catabolisms and anabolisms

This may play into the relation of homoygosity to recessiveness. But his entropy needs to be informed. With negative correlations for recessives and positive ones for dominants with a hyperbolic statistical synthesis this is possible.

Nucleus and metabiology.

If we consider the steady state of two bacterial syntrophs sharing a common reactant to product energy gain reaction linkage, there will be a constant amount of energy available for growth of the consortium. The cells will grow and divide but will reach a limit when the growth heterogeneity of the two species will break the linkage unless the growing cells themselves were further mixed. One wants to know how the timing of approach to a steady state is affected by other chemical network temporalitites and the physical properties of the different nutrients being assimilated.

One syntrophic constortium may have a different mixing profile than another. How consortia establish mixing is an outstanding question.

The edicarian tissue may do the mixing by different mixers in different levels of organization by recombining the copy number of ofrs.genes

“by a mathematical proof that there is a natural tendency in a pathway at steady state for the reactions with the largest equilibrium constants to be the furthest displaced from equilibrium. In conclusion, the simplest way that metabolite c”

mixing mutatons may adapt via this property.

Reaction network programmable semantics.

One answer might be if the individual growth that break the linkages can reverse the direction of half of the overall thermodynamically used equation. One side uses more reactants than it would in equilibrium and the other side produces more products than it would have locally on the other. Can the effect on the substrate and end product concentrations and the breakage of linkage reverse the direction of the equation?

Fitness is not necessarily a linear function of the metabolic flux and metabolite concentration. The wildtype tends to be on the plataue and this has a different linear relationship than the mutant on the increasing edge to the plateau — both however are linear. Fitness for the main effect adapations discussed above are linear the forward and backward directions as single line divided between the other linear relations and they do so by going back and forth to find the concentration when it does not now exist even though it did and was collapsed at at a prior time.

The use of syntrophs under quantum search for adapted nutrient negative concenentratons for steady state systems of fixed growth trajectories can provide cases where the optimum environment is part of the system and thus the fitness use is fully functional. The dominance of each wild type allele depends on the collapse of the wave function in the past as to how the genes for move the superposistion difference effected by its presence in homozygotic states vs heterozygotes when the the heterozygote is divided into a the past hybrid or the parental . The parental have galton progession back hybrids in the quantum seperations of space and time and thus it is that regression that is adapted in the given genes that allows the dominance to be available in the heterozygote of forced unions ( of the generant symbolized).

What we want to know is what is the selective disadvantage that the homozygotes and the heterozygotes have per quantum superposition. Homozygogtes are more likely to have a higher exchange energy than heterozygotes.

Quantum mechanics of Dirac (on renormalization).

Haldane’s basic quantum genetic idea was that homozygotes having like chemically identical copies have a higher exchange probability than heterozygotes and thus have a lower probability of separating the parental contributions while the heterozygotes have a greater chance of a biophysical difference between the parental and past parental-hybrid contributions (in the biology vs the chemistry). He thought this also applies to genes (of Thom’s substrate) that are closely linked so that linkage groups could be mixing by exchanging parental contributions quantum mechanically between each parent genes separately.

=====

Haldane made the assertion that replication was more chemically than biologically true but he did not go back to Mendel to see that Mendel had the idea that the parental contributions undergo a “forced union” in the zygote and yet the they posses both the hybrid nature of the forcing and parental contribution. This forcing of Mendel is physically equivalent to joint energy of Haldane.

Haldane simply made the point that the heterozygote has a lower rate of exchange and hence a lower kind of energy (relative to exchange) than the homozygote.

Thermodynamics and the energy transformations through different forms of energy.

Mendel never thought the hybrid to made from both homozygote types (recessive and dominant) together but realized their existence through the dual parent and hybrid in what we now call the heterozygote which develops by being physically forced during conception. Bateson’s realized the idea somewhat in his idea of the NaCl notion of the heterozygote. Notion of recombination by sister approaches and RNA exosomes into the reproductive tissue.

(Eigen never tried to think of this and Bateson’s son mislead anthropology on his father use of discontinuity with this as the background for his father’s use of symmetry in biology.)

Haldane did try to say that the gene and its copy were like the electrons shared in a chemical bond ,that one could not say to which the electron belonged but only that the two bonded atoms shared a set of electrons that may have come from one or the other orginally.

Medium article on Pauling.

But is the heterozygote and homozygote do not have equal exchange energies and are more likely to have ancestor-descendent relationships retained in identical chemical copies, it is not that the chemical idea is more true. In fact given that beneficial dominants are selected for and injurisous dominants selected against the evolution of dominance itself can express traits with older ancestry in chemically identical metabolisms if the quantum effects manifest themselves chemically and hence biologically and this happens because the heterozygotes retain entangled hybrid ancestralty when meiotically distributed and forced back together by the larger chromosome environment. This provides a means to solve Provine’s conundrum on Fisher’s F.

This Galtonian type ancestry retention is dependent on the relative quantum exchange rates of nuclei vs electrons( it is more likely that an electron is shared than a proton or neutron) relative perhaps largerly with respect to missing nutritive molecules and when so correlates past motions in present networks where the ancestral relations and entaglements have already had their superposition wave functions collapsed. It is where Haldane’s idea of quantum mixing of linkagegroups was.

Science of elemental ancestralities — the retention of different periodic table elements by different lineages ( possible direction to disprove silicon life is possible on Mars or elsewhere).

Thus homozygotes will contribute more to ongong wave form collapse than heterozygotes but also will possess stronger coherent superpositions. Heterozygotes have less chance to decohere since this depends on whether they had cohered has homozygotes in past generations or not.

When the physiology of the differences are manifest we will find that past biochemical enviroments are being operated on by present metabolisms to the degree that entanglements still exist. If the circuit is completed. High levels of heterozygosity indicate larger potential effects of past in the present.

Ancestral Information Complexity (Energy)

One of the devastating consequences of the Modern Mendelian Synthesis has been a general conflation of the parental and lineage affects across generations.

Quantum genetics suffers from the same issue but it is structured to address the suffrage systematically.

The attention to the genotype over the phenotypes has resulted in an autonomous framework in which theory remained only correlationally connected to past energetic effects regardless of the causes the information from such could gainsay.

Ancestrally persistent lineages can inform energetic conversion of parental contributions

if larger hybrid contextualization of constant qualitative invariants are understood

within distributions of discreet differences within generations. Instead with the transition to a Mendelian framework…

There are two competing theoretical physical systems from which genotypically defined ancestral influences

could

be examined — one based on matter and energy and one on information and computational force.

The discovery of the dogma of molecular biology with the recovery of the genetic code offers a goal towards which ( kinds of information ( complexity, Shannon, quantum q b its)

a fusion of the two systematic structures

could be

combined under realizable biophysical constraints that

unite parental and lineage contributional bequests generationally forward.

Chemical reaction networks have been found to possess semantic content and to realize general computability. By defining the information content of those chemical networks causally

connected with particular evolved lineages it is possible to use algorthimic information theory to describe the telonomic relation of genotypes to phenotypes within niched norms of reactions such that teleomatic energy masses depend on supramolecular informations resultant on the projected expression of genes across the gametic — somatic correlation. The substrate-less formalization of this notion in catastrophe theory remands a categorization of causes

divided into physical, chemical and electrical and by a metaphysics of point — line duality linking repulsions and attractions to the environments the niches and norms relate

a new theory of ancestral information energy is specifiable as the substrate

through which phenotypic ancestral influences operate.

Possible DNA

Actual RNA

Shannon information enables one to define the semantic capacities of differnt networks

++++++++++

and it has been decidedly uncovered that biochemical systems and certain random reactions networks posses higher capacities than others (Molecular Codes in Biological and Chemical Reaction Networks). By designing a metabiological notion of programmable reaction network syntax it is possible to recover this decided similarity in one cross lineage within parental influenciality

and thus show

a posteriori that gametic -somatic correlations contain causal information semantics syntactically dissectable into supramolecular reachaibilities of mass action semantics from the past.

Because points and lines under( programmable) duality possess the same bequest informations the chemistry of repulsions and attractions phornomically possesses the substrate of differences

And a toy metabiological model can be designed under the assumption

of a universal programming language of the point — line dualities for limit cycles of fractally connected associations on a cube of ordered phenotypes, geneotypes and environments ( first reordering the axes to maximize separations) and then finding sets of derivative relations across surreal day lines for whole environments, phenotypes and genotypes.

( in forms of energy conversion of the norms of reactions per biotype categorizable into recessive and dominant phenotypes per homo and heterozygotes no matter how divided and recombined)

….. while…..

Galtonian concentrations and dispersions

move

a population to a new equilibrium.

The use of fractal geometry rather than eculidean vs non ecudleian ( modoulo Remian hypothesis?) amongst the phenotypes and genotypes as one is what enables this advance

in our understanding of the biophysics of evolution.

A metabiologial law of ancestral inheritance

Here I present a model

of phenotypic ancestral influence as a minimized metabiological program.

I show that Galton’s law can be cast as a Chaitin computer program with output as the generant minimized given the ancestral data available.

notes

This model thus turns the simple law as a mathematical expression of statistical variates obeying a frequency distribution format across generations

into a biological hypothesis which is that the deviate of the generant is the is smallest possible program capable of calculating U.

Pearson’s insertion of the different ancestral midparental deviates are converted into different

Computer programs reaching the same hyperspaced result.

The programs are written( in point -line dual language per DNA RNA) depending on what data is known about the parental bequest.

A different program is theorized if something is known rather than implied about the previous ancestor.

Thus the theory as a program contains the implications as well as the known data and outputs the result given both.

Pearson did not want to generant the theory from only the parent on offspring information but here we can because we included many formats of randomness for the variations in the generations.

We have a theory that has fewer bits than the data it explains ( It it does so by using the team function of Social Selection which starts from the offspring then back to the parents rather than the mating at random).

Where the theory is the implication of the h’s taking on either a zero value with allkinds of random numbers for all hs making the total zero ( zero curvature of the surface) or it has specific values with others random to make them equal to the assumed ‘tax” oracle.

We use the program theory minimized to deal with the fact that Galton’s multiplication of regressions to find the regression of relatives are not independent.

We thus use the minimal program to decide amongst cousings considered either as offspring of two brothers (1/3*2/3*1/3) vs grandsons of one midparentage 1/3*2/3*2/3*1/3

Thus we use this to get the “shortest way round” and this is the argument Pearson sought lacking in Galton.

Pearson “I do not think Galton’s method of deducing the degrees of resemblance between kinsmen of various degrees of blood relationship from the single datum of the regression of a filial array on it’s midparent will pass muster”

“His method of reduction was, however, very different from any we should adopt to-day.”

“When he wanted a mean he determined a median, and he did this by roughly proportioning (graphically) the total in the cell in which it lies, he worked not with the standard deviations, but the

probable errors, and he determined these from the quartiles by rough proportioning as before.

If we assume that the standard deviation of the two marginal columns to be the same, then this regression coefficient is the coefficient of correlation.”

But we can not assume that an orthogonal correlations as 1 for the variance ratio.

“Let R be the multiple correlation coefficient of an individual on all his ancestors or his correlation with his “generant”,

“He perceived for the first time that the problem of multiple correlation when solved would give the closest prediction possible to the probable value of the character in an individual from known characters in the kinsfolk, but he also recognised that long selection could not indefinitely reduce variability, that 30% reduction in variability was about as much could be hoped for ( i.e. p to b in his notation).”

Wobble and blue sky catastrophes thus connecting for Galton.

Galton “The possible problems are obviously very various and complicated, I do not propose to speak further about them now. It is

“Over and over again we meet with the statement that more able men are born from undistinguished parents than from parents of marked ability”

What this means — “What they assert is that the ablest child of one gifted pair is not as likely to be as able as the ablest of all the children of very many mediocre pairs”

Can we use a program to determine our use of the generant either as receded midparents or

For both blending and non blending traits together of a stable population

Arnolds Thom obstacle.

Given that Galton had only two generations — then this could match a posteriori Mendels f1 and f2

And we could find that the concentration of the midparents and further concentration of the generants to be the combination of effects of f1 midparents and all recessives latent f2s via acnestra influences onto the generant with the segregation resulting in the dispersion by the family of offspring.\

With the generant as the population of pairs gametes of the next generation variation this is the homozygote heterozygotes being .8 hybrids from parental differences where parental is same for parent, race, hybrid and subspecies. Vicariant vs allopsym patric.

5 Cooperation vs Competition (homotyposis) and the Cambrian Explosion ( forms)

Extinction of individual genes and cooperation of genes(post Roughgarden).

The statistical autonomy of biology

There is in the debate with Feryand, and Kuhn an irrational basis for scientific theories in the line between science and what it is not . Mayr’s approach to this question debated in the 50s for biology is mistaken to assume that the autonomy of biology lay beyond a series of non-God experencies.

Huxley had said that it was not the experience to follow Pearson but the statistical autonomy of biology does need that experience which in this case can be only related originally to a God experience event though the line separates the science of biology from it’s theological prediscursivity.

Directing us towards this solution …

Transseries decompositions of the four cornered surreals of homo/hetero/reccesive/dominant for connections of asymetical probability distribtuions in the 3rd dimension.

Pearson“That problem turns on the extent to which selection of somatic characters in the parentage will modify the somatic characters in the offspring”

When seeking “the selection of certain stirps for survival” we must beware of the computation for chemical reaction network reachability which affects this even in it’s traiditonal meaning , understanding and application.

We can decrease the variance applied either by increasing the data of the ancestry or by changing the triangle used in the orthogonal regressions as found in the transseries decompositions.

Pseudorandomness can apply to Brownian motion effects in the torque of the egg cell to gravity for the somatic developed ments from the zygote in the population that the zygotes exists taxonomically in.(Pearson’s germinal potentiatlities) Thus in social selection of rougarden it exists when extant.

Surreal Heredity

Here is a mathematical model for embedding reversed fertilization per gamete formation as somatic forms into surreal numbers capable of developing a transseries representation for meristic variation and a means to test Mendel vs Galton. The original intention of Mendel to separate hybrid reproduction from evolution not new equilibrium of Galton type.

By putting Mendel’s “law” and Galton’s “law” ( Castle) with data to test each divided into negative and

Positive surreals and reflecting each side across itself to represent homozygotes and heterozygotes

Subject to recessive and dominant expressions

then it is possible to determine when one or the other is a better predictor of the contribution of ancestral form to generationally differentiated trait revolution.

The segregation of the soma vs the effect of the evolution of the dominance can now be compared to the ancestral law in multiply differen tL- logex series to limit of two functions that come to two or one which match infinitesimal — infinite surreal day boundaries.

Thus we have a model of reversed fertilization ( Castle). Castle was concerned with uniting gametes

AB having invariably to somatic form of A or of B or sometimes of A and sometimes of B

There was no statistical means to test for this differences because it crosses an infinite series that may be convergent or divergent

but with surreal embedding of the alterative when Mendelian transmsssions occcrus and dominance and recessives becomes invariant it is possible to make a transseries decomposition of the population doubled which can be used to test what the nature of the invariability purely is. This can be experimentally aposteriori approached in duckweed which have offspring from different left and right pockets.

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

Thus with this model it is possible contra Bateson that Galton and Mendel can be applied to the same set of cases because the homotypic and organic correlations are separated by infinite and infinitesimal surreals respectively. We are thus able to include pseudo randomness of mating from pure randomness for the various series limiting

underconsideration in the game theory either of predator and prey or social selection.

What caused the confusion is that the ancestrality may be different for different generations not the same as Galton had and thus manifestation in an offspring from a parent is not guarenttee that it is the same as parent and grandparent.

Use of reciprocal fibonnaci and lucas series and tetrations rather than necessarily a priori with Galton of a geometric series across lineages per generation. …

Castle had taken this assumption from Galton and Mendel to compare the two but did so without a mathematical means to compare the double race population from which the chances were drawn for the evolution of dominance. We are able to model rather than state what a “dimorphic” character is than was. It may take more than a surreal “day” to compute.

Castle fallaciously thought of this crossing as “race improvement” which is only total THEORETICAL population bifurcation towards the errors for the finding the actual populations which may or may not be “racial” with respect to the species. The rate o f L- logex in the functions to orders of infinity(Hardy) determines the “Progresses at first somewhat more slowly, but ultimately more rapidly”

One needs follow the physics and chemistry of Johansen not the analysis of Castle (with Weismann) because RNA effects the germ cells from the body ( soma ) form . One needs a theory of the dimorphic doubled soma representing the double theoretical population and one uses homotyposis of cross homotyposis to do this THEORETICALLY . thus science or non science and using God in the case of the fibonnacii series of gametes dropping in line with tree growing as skews formed of transseries to analyaitcally format Pearson’s skews as well.

Thus Phanetics exist as the doubled theory and since it can be statitcial maniftested in hyperbolic space beyond the Eucldeian it is possible to rather dissect the double dimorphics into the eucledian correlation of Pearson organs as Edgeworth wanted. This we can use virials for a statitiscal theoretical population genetics following post Fisher analogies via ( feynmann studied statsical theory kerner on predator preys etc — larger levels of evolutona and ecologies.()

&&&&&&&

The organic correlations between these two theoretical populations on the postivei and negative surreals permits one to define variance that is transversally zero (Thomian) contra Fisher.

These doubled theoretical population of gametes and somas permits one to deconstruct and discurse Provine’s placement of population genetics in determinism vs indeterminism by the use of program size complexty of game theory of non saddle games pseudo randomness to divide out his chromosome from the mendel vs galton ancestralities. We thus put his use of Mayr on geographic distribution , the founder and nonadaptive trait in its place where Johansen had thought was unit wise placed left semantically, since God is at the end of God being present regardless of whether determinism or indieterminsism for gene factors and ofrs.

“Is the whole of Mendelism perhaps nothing but an establishment of very many chromosomical irregularities, disturbances or diseases of enormously practical and theoretical importance but without deeper value for an understanding of the ))normal> constitution of natural biotypes? The Problem of Species, Evolution, does not seem to be approached seriously through Mendelism nor through the related modern experiences in mutations. Here again the word ))normal)) was used! It is a dangerous and somewhat illegitimate expression in Experimental Biology.”

It is here Hyperbolic population space and orthogonal regressions. — see application in later chapter on Duckweed

With the Protestant reformation came the interest and desire for everyone to be able read and understand Scripture.

Calvin reflects this sentiment amongst another interest when he writes–

“Though the light which presents itself to all eyes, both in heaven and in earth, is more than sufficient to deprive the ingratitude of men of every excuse, since God, in order to involve mankind in the same guilt, sets before them all, without exception, an exhibition of his majesty, delineated in the creatures, — yet we need another and better assistance, properly to direct us to the Creator of the world. Therefore he hath not unnecessarily added the light of his word, to make himself known unto salvation, and hath honoured with this privilege those whom he intended to unite in a more close and familiar connection with himself”

Calvin continues along the same vein with

“For as persons who are old, or whose eyes are by any means become dim, if you show them the most beautiful book, though they perceive something written, but can scarcely read two words together, yet by the assistance of spectacles, will begin to read distinctly, — so the Scripture, collecting in our minds the otherwise confused notion of Deity, dispels the darkness, and gives us a clear view of the true God.”

Many of us have probably read the following passages I am about to read in Genesis many a time and we probably feel that we have pretty clear view of the what the true God represented is and is saying to us.

Genesis 11–12 “Then God said, “Let the earth put forth vegetation: plants yielding seed, and fruit trees of every kind on earth that bear fruit with seed in it. And God saw that it was good.”

Genesis 29 “God said, “See, I have given you every plant yielding seed that is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree with seed in it’s fruit; you shall have them for food”

Now if we put these two lines of scripture together with God’s eyes as Calvin says, can we find a notion of Deity and read out a truth that clears some darkness and shows us God’s light in his word?

Well I would like to submit that for these two passages , it has been possible for me to understand them together in way that yielded an insight, I was later able to apply to science. I do indeed think this is quite remarkable finding by reading because it is often said that the Bible is not a book of Science, which it definitely is not, but this does not mean that it can not be used to derive new concepts and potential understandings for Science. It is true that I initially started trying to read these Genesis passages as an attempt to assess if there was any truth in Creationist claims about the so-called “scientific” truth of Genesis, hoping but not being too optimistic that I would find any, but to my surprise I did.

So here we go -

These passages on the creation of seed plants are embedded in the creation of the phenomenal heaven and earth from which Calvin contrasted the need to have the word to help us understand. What I noticed clearly in these passages was that there was direct connection between the seed plant and the earth.

“the earth put forth vegetation; plants yielding seed”

“plant yielding seed that is upon the face of all the earth”

Not looking up the Greek or anything I wondered whether the earth referred to the soil or dust or if to the planet Earth itself but given that Genesis 29 says the plants are “upon the face of all the earth” could be both,. the face of all earth being the soil layer itself all around the whole earth Then in moment of reflection back on the fact

that this about our own human creation as well as the creation of the Sun and all the light, a new thought occurred to me.

Seed plants grow to the light, towards the Sun and they drop their seeds to Earth’s ground, and yet Planet Earth moves towards the light, gravitating to the Sun. Could it be that seed plants are not merely figuratively “put forth” by earth and not merely distributed across the surface of planet Earth and growing from it’s “face” but rather are adaptively at the same time growing to the Sun and generationally falling to the Sun because the Earth is falling to Sun while the seed plants grow. It would if it was true be as if God wanted me to see that seed plants he gave for food to us to exist do so not just because he made them for food but that this food itself was part of system that involved the evolution of seed plant in all their diversity and differences as part of an integrated creation with the Sun and the Earth. Thus Genesis provided me with a new concept on why trees are mostly growing and evolving perpendicular to the surface of the planet Earth. I am starting to work up this idea mathematically and the truth of the model if any I owe all to God. I think that is amazing!! The model is one in which the line of growth of trees is mathematically equivalent to the line of seeds falling by gravtiy to the ground with respect to the correlation of the somatic phenotype and gametic genotypes. The Bible does not say any of this but this is what I actually read out of the Bible. So…. I do think the reformation, that encouraged the everyday congregant to read and hopefully understand the Scripture , was a very good thing indeed as there is light in the word and it is in our food too.

Thus in a curious and roundabout way by eating fruits and nuts we are literally able to fullfill Calvin’s call to get beyond an inefficiency of the created world and stay in line and in a course way with God. And by doing everyday science about the mathematical evolution of seed plants we are actually being Christians unawares. He is what Calvin sought for us.

“God, forseeing the inefficacy of his manifestation of himself in the exquisite structure of the world, hath afforded the assistance of his word to all those to who he determined to make his instructions effectual, — if we seriously aspire to a sincere contemplation of God, it is necessary for us to purse this right way. We must come , I say , to the word, which contains a just and lively description of God as he appears in his works… If we deviate from it, … though we run with the utmost celerity, yet, being out of the course, we shall never reach the goal. For it must be concluded, that the light of the Divine countenance, which even the Apostle says “no man can approach unto,” is like an inexplicable labyrinth to us , unless we are directed by the line of the word.”

There is much that this insight can lead us to — one a about the seeds of religion ( some of the seeds fall on rocky ground etc) and another is a rewriting of the first chapter of Ernst Mayr’s book “What makes biology unique?” in which he tries to place an autonomous biological science at the end of an historical series of no longer invoking God’s presence to explain certain particular biological phenomena or to Roughgardens’s social selection… Here however with this insight one clearly can and Mayr’s conclusion if my math to be be verified can be shown false

Either way let us now knowingly then run on a course not just with the Scripture but with the trees through our short life on Earth as well as continuing to garden to eat them. Amen.

The physical (inertial) line in evolution causally extant with the gametic-somatic correlation connecting the person-soma and germ-gametes. A fractal geometry (not Euclid’s) for embyrogeny along this line defining dual points and space in the solar system for such. Abraham’s philosophy of math.

The evolution of statistical heterogeneity.

A new biometry

Gauss — observed, expected

Pearson on Normal vs Skew

Russian on Random

Heterogenous decomposition

Evolving Populations — Weldon

Gametic-Somatic correlation of congenital passages under fibonnaci spiral seed drop distributions

Earth- Sun horizontal repolarization of fruit seeds by animals

Random Gametic sorting of earth sun axis by insect pollinators.

New forms of skew distributions and Kalpskey redo with Edgeworth on causal adjacent possible of Kaufman

Implications for ANOVA, DOVa and Ancestral bequeaths via mendelian populations beyond Fisher into shifting balance under random genetic drift. Divergent series of the ⅓ generalized to nonmendelian transmission s. A transseries recompostioning of bifurcatabke heterogeneity. Chaotic statistical distributions unified by wobble and blue sky temporal catastrophes.

Chemical network independencies and noneucledian distributions across surreal number day lines per clade. The origin of homotypically diverse offspring periodic selection variances and a new biometry based on organic units under hyperbolic statistical analysis of overlapping regressions across polyphyletic ancestries horizontally. Divergent series applied to chemical reaction networks. Origin of genetic code. Synchronic- Diachronic antisymmetry

6 Earth Centric Systematic Constitution and Adaptive Radiation (inertial force formats of vicariant genetic revolutions) Evolution of Fish( to the moon). New double population phanetic statistical theory

Surreal Heredity

There was a need to differentiate somatic phenotypic categories ( color for instance between mammals and reptiles) along with segregation to any other cause of its developable expression (in the Woodger reverse embryology to taxonomy) as this was left to statements of dimorphic factors without saying what these were universally ( using the word instead of the concept to carry the semantic weight).

The anglo-saxson biological mistake was to presume reversed fertilization ( Castle) without specifying the molecular evolution of stationarity. Which I realized in transturing quantum genetics of electron vs proton collapses of ancestral elements cladsitically retained. The neutral chromosome of Fisher is not the same as the neutral alleles of Kimura etc.

Here is a mathematical model for embedding reversed fertilization per gamete formation as somatic forms into surreal numbers capable of developing a transseries representation for meristic variation and a means to test Mendel vs Galton. The original intention of Mendel to separate hybrid reproduction from evolution not new equilibrium of Galton type.

By putting Mendel’s “law” and Galton’s “law” ( Castle) with data to test each divided into negative and

Positive surreals and reflecting each side across itself to represent homozygotes and heterozygotes

Subject to recessive and dominant expressions then it is possible to determine when one or the other is a better predictor of the contribution of ancestral form to generationally differentiated trait revolution.

This historically never happened and led to the various concerns around the biometric and mendelian “debate” and even after the 70s never righted the Pearsonian and Weldonian attempt to bring both as one. Here we continue the discouse of frogatt and nevin and Magelleno by addressing Castle and Swinburne and Provine etc with a new theoretical means to the statistics of natural selection by use of the surreals.

The segregation of the soma vs the effect of the evolution of the dominance can now be compared to the ancestral law in multiply different logex series to limit of two functions that come to two or one which match infinitesimal — infinite surreal day boundaries. The transseries are also applied to the quantum mechanics of the particles.

Thus we have a model of reversed fertilization ( Castle). Castle was concerned with uniting gametes

AB having invariably to somatic for of A or of B or sometimes of A and sometimes of B

There was no statistical means to test for this differences because it crosses an infinite series that may be convergent or divergent but with surreal embedding of the alterative when Mendelian transmsssions occcrus and dominance and recessives becomes invariant it is possible to make a transseries decomposition of the population doubled which can be used to test what the nature of the invariability purely is.

Thus with this model it is possible contra Bateson that Galton and Mendel can be applied to the same set of cases because the homotypic and organic correlations are separated by infinite and infinitesimal surreals respectively. We are thus able to include pseudo randomness of mating from pure randomness for the various series limiting underconsideration. What caused the confusion is that the ancestrality may be different for different generations not the same as Galton had and thus manifestation in an offspring from a parent is not guarenttee that it is the same as parent and grandparent. Castle had taken this assumption from Galton and Mendel to compare the two but did so without a mathematical means to compare the double race population from which the chances were drawn for the evolution of dominance. We are thuse able to model rather than state what a “dimorphic” character is than was. It may take more than a surreal “day” to compute. We apply it to bacterial vicariant specieation, Edicarian tissue form-making, and Kerner higher ensembles.

Castle fallaciously thought of this crossing as “race improvement” which is only total THEORETICAL population bifurcation towards the errors for the finding the actual populations which may or may not be “racial” with respect to the species.

The rate of logex in the functions to orders of infinity(Hardy) determines the “Progresses at first somewhat more slowly, but ultimately more rapidly”

One needs follow the physics and chemistry of Johansen not the analysis of Castle (with Weismann) because RNA effects the germ cells from the body ( soma ) form. One needs a theory of the dimorphic doubled soma representing the double theoretical population and one uses homotyposis of cross homotyposis to do this THEORETICALLY . Thus Phanetics exist as the doubled theory and since it can be statitcial maniftested in hyperbolic space beyond the Eucldeian it is possible to ruther dissect the double dimorphics into the eucledian correlation of Pearson organs as Edgeworth wanted.

The organic correlations between these two theoretical populations on the postivei and negative surreals permits one to define variance that is transversally zero (Thomian).

These doubled theoretical population of gametes and somas permits one to deconstruct and discurse Provine’s placement of population genetics in determinism vs indeterminism by the use of program size complexty of game theory of non saddle games pseudo randomness to divide out his chromosome from the mendel vs galton ancestralities whether with quantum mechanics or not.

We thus put his use of Mayr on geographic distribution , the founder and nonadaptive trait in its place since God is at the end of God being present regardless of whether determinism or indieterminsism for gene factors and ofrs.

2-adic metrics of the shifting balance theory.

Galton made the mistake of assuming bisexual evolution a priori. This was a lot easier than trying to think as Leibniz had tried — to compare a combined positive and negative infinity — when imagining heredity and traversing mentally the co-relation of parent and offspring subject to natural selection.

(The relation of the genotype to the phenotype is actually mathematically analogous to that between an infinite sum)

The evolution of trait is to a series not actually adding up as the attitude a series equals some finite quantity is to the 1-D symmetry of the forces formatting the inheritance of the same trait.

Mendel’s double parental F2 generation is the

The natural selection of alternating series 1–1+1 genotypically

Plus 1–2 + 4–8

Galton made the mistake because he confound the correlation of parent and offspring (measures) with the different divergent sums for 1–1+1 and 1 -2 +4 -8

Mendel however had the notion with his developmental binomial and the double parental in the F2.

Both series are equivalent genomically under an assumed bisexual origin for the basic unisexual splitting of cells but the first series = ½ can not capture the 1/3 nature of the two different kinds of recessives that appear phenoyptically which were Galton’s object of regression. Thus Pearson’s attempt to clarify with multiple correlation amongst all organs failed because he assumed the Galtonian strip rather than a Mendelian binomial as the basis for the lack of the summation yet finite trait expression during the development of whatever the stirp was supposed to represent. It is not Weismanns of course either.

Mendel had the correct notion with the combination of the parental and the hybrid. The parentals resulted in ½ and the hybirds across the parental results in the 1/3 based on ½. Galton simply had everything reduced the ½ and Pearson never mediated the combination but instead put the ½ in the 1/3 on a spectrum of mathematically separatation rather than generationally separated. The idea that randomness intervenes between the ½ and 1/3 made the entire subject artificial. The literature around the biometric mendelian debate fails to make this crucial mathematical logics central and thus never historically helped lead to applications of actual infinity in the shifting balance theory.

The split of deme in a population is between the biassing the left and/or right of the Leibniz view of the positive and negative infinity for generations of evolution in mendelian populations where either positive or negative selection appears 1–2 + 4–8… (left ( positive selections 1,4,…; right negative selec4tions -2,-8) applied to geneotypes per co-relation. He results from the Shifting balance theory — going up the landscape, however need not only apply to mendelian popualtions of breeding experiments but also to blendin inherticance of forces.

Chaitin’s Omega for the randomness between generations may permit a theory of the triplet base code from Mendel’s notion of the math of hybrid ( species) and parent (per generation) form a shifting balance theory of 2 adic metrics 1+2–4+8.

By defining and then using the stirp in the sense that “all that we may learn concerning the constituents of the strip must be through inference, and not by direct observation: we are therefore forced to theorise”

Galaton had supppsed that whatever it is that each offspring has from the generation before it was not something open to current a posteriori discovery and thus he defined it in such a way that a theory could be made from which inference to it existence and properties were possible. But as I show this is based on the wrong divergent unisexual series. Mendel however had the correct ordinal numerability where Galton had a better cardinal presentation. Because there was not clear idea of the finite and infinfite for inhertance the relation of evolution and heredity became a priori confused.

Galton had presumed that a phenotypic theory preceded whatever the genotypic one was to be. He stated this from differences in perspectives on the organic units of Pangensis. He divided the general?ideal phenotype ( differentiate with Johansen) into independent units which Pearson later empiricized with multiple correlation of organs but Galton had simply made each independent phenotypic unit ( the things that taxonomists used) to have a separate germ and original stirp materializity. Thus it was more like a one gene one enzyme notion than a multi valued function relating geneotypes to phenpotypes. Because he had made the unit to the germ one to one he also presumed that postal communication of the strip between generations resulted from bodies composed of a much greater number of germs than the number of independent phanetic units ( expressed). Thus he did not consider that the phanetic to genotypic relation might itself be multi-valued. One “indpendnent” unit having many stirp germs associated with the ansectral influence in mass. He nevertheless considered that individuality for the genotypeic multivalues but because he assumed bisexuality the nature of the individuality could not be supposed apiroi because he did not incorporate explicit divergenet seriers in his splitting of cells since he also kept selection inddpenendt of the independence in the phenotypic units and thus never got the correct notion of the phanetics ( by his synthesis of spencer’s colloid) This is needed for the reverse embrypolgoical transformation of Woddger logics on development. Further more because he took the said development to molecularly contain, the multivalued geneomics being active while not communicative en mass in the mature organism into the gametes he left room for ancestral forces to communicate but not chemically go between generations.

Hence a differentiation matter and energy approaches vs informationa and computation per force based Kant cohesions.

He similar ( theoretically) supposed the affininites and repulsions of the one to one germs resulted in the affinities of the independent taxonomic units which were also the dynamic that separated the germs that would be available to the next generation ( through communication via the stripal descent).

Johansen never attempted to incorporate this complex mathematiiazation across generations b ut tried simply to remove the phantiec expressive implications and with it the inferences Galton’s defnitions remanded in the particular theory proposed in contradisticntino to Darwiins. Johansen falsely removed the ancestral influence than figure out that Galton’s lack of divergent series simply meant that the ancestral influence was of a constant type which Johansen had shown did not hold for pEarson’s attempt to recapitulate the generant from. The multivalued divergent series function thus contains the ancestral forces but not the ancestral influences!! ( “ancestral peculiarities”) . These are the minor variation in the taxonomic phanetcs that do not lead to species (independence) definitions) but when Johanense removed the phenotype he removed the ability to use math help definite the indiependnece relation of the multivlaues between the phenotypes and genotypes and thus there could be n o reintegration that Lewontin later sought As lewontin also did not have empirically the virus as a quantum genetical collapser. Parental bequests thus never became the needed part of evolutionary theory and population genetics that inheritance passed.

The divergenet multivalued function theory thus connotes the residual germs that retain vitality despite the total selective fluctuations (positive and negative). These remain the geneotype and might be obseverd now ,

while Galton thought they could not, in the copy numbers of genes mutating by correlated mutations acrros genes. Galton’s final postuatle — that genotypic organization depends on the ( mutual) affininites of the speerated organic unts is a specific biophysics that functioned to precluded the 1/3 divergenet series by biasing the ½ to achieve the speperation of unisexual cell spliiting. Instead the 1/3 results when both affininites and repulsions of organic units be theorized. The repulsions however only work between the hetero an dhomo zygote and only Mendel had that as the phenotyepic idienty of affinities is one thing while the force communications coded phanetic expressinos can have both repulsion and attractions and the parent is thus doubled as Mendel had found.

Galton did not attempt to imagine such a general plastic force and instead opted for the materialism of the 1 -1 divergent ½ bisexual series summed instead. Maxwell wondered whether there really were enough molecules for Galton to be correct. I show with the use of repulsions and chemical reaction networks in the ecosystem the number is high enough but without them not so…thus such a 1/3 general plastic forced materialism is needed instead of Johansens’ s criticism of WOlterek for the hyperbolics in the divergences. These are observable emprics and not apriori theorectis. Pearson got this wrong because he only considered the population to need be split from heterogeneity not from repoulsions and attractions per two infinites of demes.

Replusions however are not necessarily responsible for “partial faliures” of the action s of affininties across generations, whether by germinal identity or individual identity the hybrid shows 1/3 rules of changes in the communication

but because of the apiriori bisexual resumption galton could never get a detailed phanetic expressionism and Pearson by not using edgworth would never get there by relying on the correlation for the cause.

Because Galton did not have the repulsion of independent taxonomic units for the partial failures he only thought in terms deteriozation of the race with sex as the consequence of keeping the failures from extincting the species but as I said he never said how the affinities and repulsions in the acgive ancestrally peculiar germs work with independent organic units that undergo development and this happened because the double parentage only comes from the ½ divergenet series. He should have needed to have used the 1/3 series for the regression from the atavism that came through these failures and peculiarities and later Pearson’s deviations, and Fisher’s errors.

Self-division with divergent series explains the differentiate of Bateson.

Liebniz increase in complexity…. And the evolution of the divergent series post Galon.

We can thus define evolutionarily balanced motion up the adaptive landscape by generational series that are convergent for Johansen biotypes of reals but more broadly divergent into infini e and oscillating hypernumbers that contain the ancestral forces coded in proteins. Extrafunctions for Manyvalued functions? Thus we can express ancestral influences by derivaties of specific biotype points?? Does biology unlike physics have access to infinitesimal force effects materially (ultrametrically??) as new chemical bonds? We can use surreal numbers because we only need hypernumbers not separated from zero.

We use the extrafunctions and norm based extrafunctions to get the gamete somatic correlation fibbonianci distributions of the many valued genotypes per phenotype shape ( topological catastrophe theory).

7 Heredity of populations, Pathological deviations of individuals, Phanological correlation of mutations , Disease directed somatic programming metabiology

Ecological stabilization through role reversal.

In 1958 Kerner noticed that LV equations possess an equivalent to dynamic Newtonian time reversal in population quantifications of predator and prey systems via sign changes in aij parameters of said equations. Some empirical evidence exists that such role reversals do exist in nature.

If the system is constrained by reciprocal influences for both the predator and prey such that the reversals coincide with sign changes in the divergent series (1,-2,+4,-8…) then a bifurcative structure exists that could theoretically stabilize the short time scale interactions of the predator and prey and result in a constant proportioning of the influence equally into that from the predator , that from the prey and that from whatever it is that is causing the role reversals. This stability gives rise to a class of population size categories that are Noether conserved that both the predator and prey can access in ecological time and could drive particular adaptations of eco-evolutionary origin. Here I show how to derive the class such convergences from the divergent series constraining Lotka-Volterra equations of Kerner types such transversally bifurcated.

Using metabiology where eugenics was –

zNow the notions ))normal)) and ))abnormal)) in their valuing sense are not adequate for Genetic analysis, hence classifications according to such valuation are without interest. The question for us is this: what is the nature of the difference between A and a, B and b and so on? There is at present scarcely any doubt about the theory, that ,Mendelian factors)) are in some way bound in or to the chromosomes. The morphological view regards them as formed particles (say ))morphs)), ad modum ))allelomorphs))) of the chromosomes, an old Weismannian idea — mutatis mutandis. From a physiological standpoint we may prefer to regard local conditions (say ))chemisms))) in or on the chromosomes as responsible for those units — avoiding the hairsplitting remark that Bchemisms)) are ultimately is some way ))particulate)) — as all things, even energy, now seem to be

Theory of disease deviational states within structural and functional correlated mutations and the evolution of Omega randomness on the anti-symmetry of DNA information transfers.

9 Duckweed vs Wood Wide web for plant soma Phanetic doubles. Reducing the theoretical duplicity of points and lines to a single genotype-phenotype per phenocopy. Plant levels of organization, fib variance decerease by increased sequence use per inbreeding out breeding.

Fibonnaci dropping gametes decreases the variance in the line of evolution of seed trees with increasing growth of large fib numbers.

Because seed plants are moving along with a gravitational field structure it is easier to theorize these effects for them than for animals which move across this aspect. Plant appear to be able to adapt to the speed of light via “Platonic values” at the plank level by dividing this processing towards CO2. All of this is made possible by proton/electron ( superposition collapse along with HW equilibrium) — a difference — between DNA and protein — differentiation — adapted to homotypic correlations ( fraternities to subindividual variations) — discontinuously — of negative atomic bond concentrations ( true randomness in deterministic chaos). The statistics of this is designed with wobble and leap bifurcations for genetic feedbacks amonst two cellular morphogenesis. The equations that determine these relations are Remanian elasticity-annealabilty = Emendel=ESunEarth where E is the Penrose Daibali Space Time separation gravitational self energy = (h/2pi)/t where t is the time to transition to collapased(measurement) and h is planks constant; while ½ Emendel + ½ Eearthsun = the objective reduction threshold ( of h, G(gravitational constant) and c(speed of light)) =1 = S(space separation)timeT(temporal separation) in which T is positively supported (in terms of mass superposition differences) per the number of HW generations to the adaptation evolved ( to fall equally to Sun and Earth and maximize CO2 absence finding)and S is the revolution enumerated Earth Sun distances that seeds fall and embryos grow ontogenetically for all generations during those revolutions.

In the case of plants growing to the Sun and dropping seeds to the Earth, the fixed Earth-Sun line provides the “frame of reference” in which the limit cycle flux wobble may be said to leap to another adaptation and thus to another form of the flux to wildtype mutant biochemical graph shape.

Thus we are able to investigate the evolution of plant enzymes by Penros Diosi gravitational decoherence reduction as to how the dominance and recessiveness of the mutations is involved in the phenotypic adaptations of the plants. Here however unlike in non-biological situations we can not avoid taking into account the Earth’s gravitational field because it is the difference in the homo and heterozygotic lump locations with respect to the enzyme flux effects along the Sun — Earth line that drives the adaptation to fixation irregardless of the flux towards CO2 energetically — which is inertial. It is this that needs to be added to the Penrose formalism to apply objective reduction to evolution.

The next step is to consider how the coherence and superpositions are related to dominance heterozygosity.

One might think that homozygotes are coherent and heterozygotes are superposed but it all depends on the relation to when the lumps don’t exist -ie when the evolution of an adaption can happen while the chemical concentrations are negative because they were positive at some time in the past.

These are times and cases when the gravitational effect played no part in the biochemical fluxes that supported lineages that evolved then.

Gravity is only effective when there is mass but evolution of biochemical flux dominance and recessiveness can arise when the quantum mechanical but not gravitational mass was extant. What we have is acomplex relation ship between biochemical networks of negative concentrations across mendelian generations with quantum entanglement. — quite a knot. To untwist. One needs to apply diffeomorphism invariance directly into population genetics.

Because the dominance and recessiveness of each mutation is in both the Earth and Sun frames at the same times of gene fixation sequentiality in evolution

one can with a modified Penrose structure ( to include the Earth’s gravitiational field ( and the Suns) determine the tensor system in which a single mutation is in two lump locations — spatially- both in terms of gene expression and genetic manifestation since space and time are space-time no matter the Kant.

On Penrose’s current theory the time for a proton superposedly separated into two spatial locations will decay to one or the other locations in something like a million years.

When combined with superpositions of electrons used in metabolism that may move through various quantum transports of proteins

it is possible that speciation is caused on the order of a million years when the effect of proton reduction to the opposite base pairs become observable in lineages that have undergone population genetic micro evolution for that long

with corresponding changes in the relation of dominance to recessivenes electrons through proteins optimally adapted with relatives partially dominantly adapted via both chemical directions (ie Pearson/Galton wise) . Thus gravity may be responsible for macroevolution from microevolution quantum mechanically and punctuated equilibrium may have a physical mechanism.

It must be understood that it is not the proton ‘s changing place in in base pairs after a million year half life that cause the punctuation but the auto catalytic like phase transition in electron flow

that such a transition means for leaps from wobbles biophysically that have been happeningly more randomly but now chaotic deterministic randomness comes through the background in novel ways with and without Chaitin pseudo randomness!!!!

Quantum genetics provides cases in which a heterozygote for a specific clinical phenotype is distinguishable from the wild type in the ‘main effect’

The “wild type” main effects in these cases are where lump locations of nutrients have been telenomically adapted to, by past collapsed wave functions when the present concentration as determined by the systemic metabolic system is zero or even negative( thus isolating macronically chemical , physical and electrically amongst different orbits of classical and quantum phyiscalities dividing the gene). The heterozygote is distinguishable in these cases because the homozygotes are not affected in the same energy exchange way by the lump location superposition difference, but the recessive and dominance relations remain the same while the nutrient mass had teleonomic effects selected for in the “wild type.” Every wildtype is of a type that adapts to highest energetic nutritive assimilation possible in the systemic sensitivity coefficients and the selection coefficients serial evolveabilty.

8 Non-Earth associated Evolution

Repeated acceleration to data clustering/convergence ( between the two theoretical populations) Fib reciprocals like geometric sequence. Galton used geometric where the ratio of consecutive errors is constant across the series — this is a limit of Fisherian statistics to biology where instead a variable variance is necessary for Galton regression co-related in hyperbolic geometries.

Observed — expected …..

Acceleration of DNA informations (per RNA) in proteins measures the maximal separation as caused by repulsions despite dispersion caused by attractions. Repulsions and attractions are measured by the effects on the consecutive error terms for sets of combined convergences and divergences ( chemically networked and sustained within and without the line of evolution). This will define the evolution of life off of Earth.

one in which the “proton code” is not a code or inheritance but the homotyposes of original life, homotyposis within a subindividual variation of a cell.

It will inform our findings of other life in the Universe as we begin to get off Earth but it is not a view that is independent of gravity. It may change as a best form of quantum gravity is revealed but until Wolfram then we will have to continue with the empirical directions provided by physiological genetics of a different morphogeneses

The next era of the internet — the internet of living things is the base from which a new technology of trans turing cross generational machines will arise that will take us off Earth and to Mars but will do so from the perspective of a science that nurtures genetically our environment here on Earth as a means to extend life off and possibly with other life on Mars and does so not from the simple idea to live in two places just because we can be different.