Quantum Genetics

Lowdin inaugurated the field of quantum genetics in part by musing on the relation of DNA replication to evolution:

“and it is remarkable that the mechanisms of replication and mutation seem sufficient to explain the synthesis of the enormously long DNA-molecules which are characteristic for the higher organisms. If the small polynucleotide has the power of self-replication, it has probably also (under certain conditions) the ability of doubling its own length by adding the copy to the original. The replication of DNA by means of the quadruple helix seems particularly convenient for such a procedure, if there would be a mechanism so that the two double helices could be joined to each other in the final stage of their separation. The process could be repeated and would lead to a long DNA-molecule containing the same genetic message associated with the original polynucleotide repeated over and over again. However, due to influence of proton tunnelling and mutations, the base sequence may be altered with time and get a more complicated character. In the struggle for the nutrition material, the principle of “natural selection” would then start working. It would take us too far to go any deeper into the theory of evolution here, and we will only give a few references. It is evident, however, that the question of the base composition of DNA and the order of the base sequence represent very important problems in this connection. “ Lowdin 1962

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.

The fault for this is largerly that physicists had become used to thinking mostly in terms of signal transmissions of interactions. If however one thiks of ths same form from an Ingoldian notoion of the inbetween going along with the between perduring correspondences one is able to think about the issue quite a bit farther than loweden ever did. We are able to bring out in much and many ways what Lowdin might have niavely physically meant when he said “in the struggle for the nutrition material, the principle of “natural selection” started to work.

One might think that he was simply making a thinly veiled reference and analogy to Darwin’s Malthusian argument molecularized but this means much more when one realizes that the quantum protons, the chemical copy and the biological reproduction all have different roles to play in the work natural selection does on the material nutrients. Pasteur had simply said that the nutrient materials were dual with respect to the reproduction of the cells in which they are utilized but when it comes to the quantum genetics and the particular science that Lowdin started this is not so because the replication and the metabolism are the same thing relative to the protons being copied by replicated genes read by other molecules. The nutrition is as classical protons are actually inbetween the quantum protons tunneling mutant variance between that,… that are assimilated increasingly as replication and reproduction continues.

Ingold imagined the cutting along with in this case, but physicists have yet to tease this out of chaos. Certainly Lowdin was not in a place to do so. What was missing was Leibgig’s insistence for on oxygenic reduction and the electron movements that also go between and inbetween as via quantum critical proteins of Kauffman — — that is where the reading was that so concerned Lowdin as he struggled to get a handle on the relevance of molecular biology to his nascent quantum genetics. With Penrose we are most of the way there. — objectively reading it instead of subjectively as Crick did.

Quantum genetics will find its final expression of this nutrition when the relation to membrane chemical networks are attended further( see Trainor and Lumdsen on de Broglie?). The idea however that the quantum mechanics provides the variation can only (direct)? the readings and one author Dreschel following Lowdin suggests so indeed.

“With the help of equation (32) we also receive another explanation: When after a warm period follows a cold period then (in a large DNA — lot) will occur irreparable mutations because of base rivalry. These mutations will always lead to a change of distribution of DNA. So it is conceivable that in early warm periods only plain forms of DNA have existed with very short (monotonous) sequences (with a length 3).These short (monotonous) sequences must have lengthened themselves through temperature decrease considering of equation (32) because the cytoplasm viscosity has enlarged itself. Thus, with change from warmer down to always colder periods (caused by slowly cooling of earth) the distribution of DNAs has changed itself, so that always more longer monotonous sequences have developed themselves.”

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.

And how this got missed at the inauguration of quantum genetics and remained so in the renewed 21st century quantum biology is next explained.

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. By the time the Synthesis came around there was a clear idea that not only the categories existed but that they had substantial reality. Lowdin cited Delbruck and Schrodinger has having helped give rise to quantum genetics but it was rather JBS Haladane who participated in the Synthesis that actually suggested the link to quantum biology and genetics. I think it was because Goldschimidt had tried out his form of physiological genetics that quantum genetics never took off and instead is a term that exists in philosophical conversation of the Synthesis rather than in something that appeared then but made its first day in the Sun as molecular biology began to take shape. What is less than clear is that quantum genetics actually is a new form of physics and one in which biology chemistry and physics are indistinguishable. It has done for science what molecular biology has done for bontany and zoology. Biology is not in need of becoming philosophically and practically autonomous. Evolution is in need of having all things ordered and read in.

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. The recent insistence on protoconsciousness and protocell consciousness are simply extreme philosophies intruded where empirical a posteriori truths remain to become conventionalized. This continued rather than what is described herein because the notion of reading the “code” remained the past time of physcists in war time and a culture that did not see the ontological error of separating out cultures of peoples and this happened to format molecular biology as well but with a dose of thinking in terms of “language” instead. Chomsky did not make the matter any better in this regard either.

So now we are able to think about the dispute between the interpretation of dominants and recessives that labored Fisher and Wright in a different way and physical way and 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 then we will have to continue with the empirical directions provided by physiological genetics of a different morphogenesis. 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 nutures 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.

This next step for humanity is going to bring Mendel’s dominant and recessive along for the ride. And the machines we build to help us on the way will be automata that also self reproduce but lack the entanglements that wet and warm biological life and its machinery and machines will have. It may even be quantum but it will utilize coherence and recoherence differently and the decoherenece it will provide to life will enable all of us to discover and grow in all kinds of new nutritional realms that will be found on planets and moons as moves from one place to the next occur but will be sequentially read along with life’s reading of its physics, chemistry and biology together — engineered now as one as well.

Von Neumann was right to think of the automaton related to genetics but automata will never express the quantum genetics that actual reproducing life from life will even as we historically adjust back to Leibig and Newton and away from Pasteur and digital electromagnetic techniques. All of this is just straight forward science with a little anthropology thrown in. It has to be straight however before it can be curved.

Haldanes “when three or four genes in the duplication are present” brings us Kaiser and Bruns and to dominace and recessiveness as the numbers refer to evolved enzymes as genes having been reproduced. How the chemistry is classically duplicated depends on the replication evolution physics of quantum genetics relative not only to a reference frame of the Earth but to the Stars as well. It is the genetic safety factor of Haldane and Wright that distinguishes life from robots but one in which sibling homotypic rivalry is over anthropomorphized and free fall is an attractor of specific chemical bond patterns.

Haldane considers the mutation ( relative to gene duplication and dominance evolution) to affect the rate of a chemical bond alteration ( oxidation of a substrate)

But the mutations can not be generalized functionally overall this way — sure they might be imagined to be so in some case.

But they might also be imagined to affect the direction of the reaction — say either towards anabolisis or catabolisis Anabolism and Catabolism can be linked by the rate of reactions.

Thus Haldane is comparing one mutant to another in terms of the rate of catalysis as if there was a threshold relative to the formation of homozygote and the heterozygote but he could equally have considered it in relation to recessive and dominance. And thus the safety factor of heterozygotic relation to wildtype preferred by Wright but dismissed by Kaiser and Bruns to simple summation of enzymatic effect across multiple genes short circuited Haldane’s argument relative to the substrate. 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 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) but it is the quantum biology that determines the domanice 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 heter and homozygotes to reflect the dominance and recessivenes but history had him placing them in a different order. Indeterminacy of position of momeneutum allows us to reorganize them when multiple genes are considered in their whole organism effects.

Quantum Biology is embryonic. It is also a bit overly idealistic and slightly over it’s theoretical ski(e)s. The landscape ahead of it however is excitingly impressive and the few mature suggestions made are turning out to herald a calling in the next 100 years that has actual economic consequences as large as any currently forecast with current technology. Surprisingly, the early view of JBS Haldane has not been gainsaid. No one has tried to show how quantum biology is a new biology for improved genetic understanding and a theoretical bulwark in which to integrate the expanding discipline of high through- put genomics, the internet of living things, and microbiology into an evolutionary theory capable of challenging the vision for change the likes of Stephen Jay Gould adumbrated.

The inadequacies of the infant suggestions (of Kauffman and Penrose) in the growing field of quantum biology are overshadowed by philosophical justifications and explanations of departure from conventional science. JBS Haldane actually initiated this kind of approach right in the title of his prescient article “Quantum Mechanics as a basis for Philosophy.”

JBS Haldane modified the horizon of materialized evolution principally by only paying attention to uncertainty and as such adequately addressed only a small part of the change that quantum mechanics can supply to biology. How quantum mechanics and biology are to be combined will remain forever linked to how well quantum mechanics gets along with the rest of physics, but this constraint is no reason to avoid making preliminary canalizations and developing enscripted embryonic suggestions into behaviorally affective demonstrations of co-ordinated space-time adequacy.

Factually, Haldane ascertained concepts that if heeded allows for the design of a form of quantum genetics capable of elevating Eigen’s claims about the molecular meaning of Darwinian selection into Dawkin’s vehicle as the internet of living things reads genomic information squarely in real time into Woodger’s scheme for a cytoplasmic theory of zygotic reproductions reserved for evolved species subject to quasispecies population genetical relationships. Rene Thom figured the topological replicability of the uncertainty inherent in any such departure from classical reality but cultural and political movements have obscured the initial insights while far reaching philosophical justifications prop up visions that really only blind those who attempt to look into what they can offer. Black body radiation is not everything.

The time however is not for involving language as an aid making the new science of quantum genetics a reality. We simply need to return in the history of genetics to various junctures of contingent debate and discussion and discursively bifurcate our way into the present chaos of overhyped claims, depauperate theory, and unabashedly fresh faces. The failure of logic to lead may seem embarrassingly subjective but objectively this can not be so and thus we have strange bed fellows when cultural relativists look like conventional scientists who but lack an excluded middle voice echoing through slits in the walls of next discipline of evolutionary quantum genetics unawares.

There are many ways to trace the history of genetics into our current day where personal 100$ human genome reads are just around the corner of commercial plants competing to be the first to people Mars and advance food insecurity securely into the oblivion of a post solar age but before we get here we must first look back to the way science and society was before space and time became space-time and positivism was written out by post modernism.

JBS Haldane wrote, “A living organism is always, in greater or less degree, a self-repairing and self-reproducing system. Every biologist, however mechanistic, takes this fact for granted. This fundamental postulate appears to differentiate biology from the physical sciences. Many biologists — perhaps most — think that such facts will ultimately be explicable in terms of physics and chemistry. But they have not yet been so explained, and a large group of biologists doubt whether they are so explicable, while a vigorous minority proclaim that they are inexplicable.”

Haldane then goes on to explain how quantum mechanics might explain conceptually the self-repairing and self-reproducing system of every biologist ( object of biology as an autonomous science). He thought that evolution escaped from the quantum uncertainty whether in the form Heisenberg’s matrix mechanics of dual state structures, the particle-wave measurability of Schrodinger’s superposability, or the formalizable non-commutativity of Dirac’s materialized symmetry — — anti-symmetry. He did not return to the debate between Pasteur and Leibig over yeast fermentation but pushed on beyond the views of biologists to embrace a philosophy that yet remained untapped in the recent ideas to make quantum biology something other than a side-effect of physics. Stuart Kaufmann believed his poised realm had extripated Roger Penrose’s reduction of biology to physics but neither came to direct terms with JBS Haldane’s idea that quantum mechanical physics affects biochemistry differently than it does with biology itself.

Haldane introduced ( his concept ) in the simplest form of heredity imaginable — that when a cell divides into two daughter cells that generally resemble the parent but neither of which can be identified with one parent more than the other. Eigen has insisted that this phenomenon is just part and parcel of genetic replication subject to phase transitions like Wilson renormalized much in the way that Woodger imagined the cell to simply be an elaboration and division that accompanies chromosome DNA replication but Kaufmann thought whatever this cell originated from RNA as, prototypically in its bauplane, it would do so with quantum critical molecules possibly capable of consciousness that auto cataytically accelerated through the phase transition by making lipids as well.

So in the modern version it is unclear whether the resemblance is matter of gene expressivity but for Haldane this explanation was not necessary because his point is that whatever it is, it is different than gene-factor duplication because when he wrote DNA had not been found to carry the genes and they were only known as factors which while being small intracellular units were only just mapped onto chromosomes and shared with them the property of reproducing their like — the phenomenon he relied on when discussing the object of biology — and he did so with a gene that functions both in ontogeny and phylogeny.

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.

And so he made neither an ass out of you or me but 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.

Penrose recalls hearing Dirac speak of quantum mechanics and recalls only that he was overly excited remembering only that it had something to do with energy and nonlocality. Haldane assumed that genes are different with respect to isotopes so when 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.

What he did not then do was to draw out this idea with respect to his thoughts on viruses and genetic categories in populations of homo and heterozygogtes entropically and like his contemporiaires sought to find nirvana in consciousness and thus left behind the most perspicuous and awe inspiring possibility that quantum physcis could impart to biology — a completely new way to realize eco evolutionary recrursion through a cytoplasimic theory of zygotes on par the the genetics of genes.

All Haldane could say was that either the biological orginal 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.”

Neither Penrose nor Kaufmann have followed out this idea of genetics of the exchange probability but schockingly Mendel’s actual thoughts appear to better bear out this suggestion than do all of modern genetic’s follow up decades after his recovery of the phenomenon.

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 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.

We are now in the place where instead of seeing life from life or life from non life we can return to the Pastuer and Leibig debate and rule instead with Leibig by showing that dual quantum heterozygosity of a different energy exchange probability in heterozgoges populations removes the dual nature of Pastuer’s understanding through both nuturition and reproduction because the objective quantum reduction is different for electrons than for atoms while the hybrids are subject to the same transmission genetic commutivity and non-commutativity. To confuse all of this with consciousness is simply to ignore that plants and animals have the same basic genetics but do not need have the same effective consciousness. Philosophy, poltics and culture just got in the way of biological reality.

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 and tried to use this to deflate the autonomy of this biological understanding so ably philosophized by Ernst Mayr.

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 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.

Viruses as subcollapse sequence formatters reverse infinity ( w*) aspects in protein symmetry sustaining superpositions across cell membranes.

Jerry Fodor however suggested that mental intentional separation of coextensions could exist in evolution if the separation was provided for in the ecology of the traits being selected for and indeed this appears to be possible by physical law of phagocytosis through asymmetry of lotka Volterra interactions of predators and prey. Again this is not in the mind per say but only in the evolution of organs and cell histogenies which may also appear in brains of post Noetherians.

The environment contains hybrid homozygosis providing encoded attraction repulsion decoherence avoidance that becomes lost during Hardy Weinberg random reproduction 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.

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.

Systemic biochemical fluxes enzymatically mediated may be “outputs” ( waste products, milk solids etc.)or they may form “input” assemblages of “internal” products like muscle proteins, fats, or pigments but they also may form a limit cycle directed both outside and inside the phenotype at the same time if the diverging and converging flux system corresponds with distributions of negative concentrations of auto catalytic reactants and products previously metabolically supported and adaptively evolved from positive extant concentrations recoverable by gradients from present distributions of absences.

Thus while dominance may indeed be unpredictable from a knowledge of some kind of alteration of the genetic specification of any one enzyme if this enzyme is one that arose as the limit cycle wobbled to another alteration discontinuously but determinantely then dominance may indeed be discoverable even in the chaos of the complex flux of product build ups through waste outputs and input internal sedimentation of specific aggregations. The flux itself may not necessarily thus represent the phenotype in all biochemical reaction networks. Wright dominance of lesser degree in relatives is possible within these cells rather than amongst them as he had supposed.

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 situtations 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 coherentn 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. 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 protiens optimally adapted with relatives partially dominantly adapted via both chemical directions. . 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 that have been happeningly more randomly but now chaotic deterministic randomness comes through the background in novel ways.

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. 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.

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.

“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.

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.

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.

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. He thought this also applies to genes 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. 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. 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.

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 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. 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.

Order for free.

Kaufmman does not mean that order is gained biologically for free in the sense that Gould understands D Arcy Thompson’s insistence that math is important for understanding biological evolution. Kaufmman supposes that this order if the order of a life in which life can be without Carbon but given that it is using Carbon then it can get its order for free. He had assumed classicality for the order of the atoms. Now he wonders what will happen with quantum criticality in a protocell if the autocatalysis involves the formation of a lipid containment chemistry.

The issues for Kaufmman but not for Gould is that quantum mecahics applies not with respect to the life’s atoms but with respect to the forces the atoms use. It is a question of what forces and then in what material life exists. Could life exist made up at the level of quarks only for instance? It is in the appeareence of randomness that can not separate between forces of attractiona and replulsion on which the phase transition to order is involved in spontaneous self-auto assembly for “free”.

The free is free with respect to selection but selection conceptually can be taken all the way to the difference of repulsion and attraction but due to the way that nature uses attraction ( gravity — no repulsion) selection appears to metaphysically to be in attractions rather than repulsions, at least as long as life is not imagined without atoms.

So if we start from the idea that the life we have is atomic then we can get a lot further and so far in fact that we do not need to simply suppose that life does not need DNA and in the this process we will find that the math is needed to understand the nature of the perturbation of mutation — or change in the atoms, only QM will come in at the junction of position and momentum uncertainty in the forced effects on coextensive trait seperability endogenously as exogoenously projected while being due to differences in the symmetry of repulsion and attraction from the same particle per wave.

Pasteur made clear that this life requires both nutrition and reproduction. Order for free only gives us both. It does not give us life ordered for both as one. We get this because selection operates without respect to either randomly and it does so due to the antisymmetry of repulsions on attractions and attractions on repulsions that happen when traits are selected for under genetically heritable symmetry. The vechicle for this is not order per say but a kind of pucked up genetics as Dawkins has said in which cyctoplasmic inheritance is fully understood as genetic and the notion of the gene is yet again modified to take into account our realization of quantum mechancis of atoms and the further loss of our sense of classicality, this time with repsect to the atoms used by forces in life.

Bateson had made this point but it got lost in discontinuity vs continuity. Thompson simply made the insistence that the math was important for form as order. Gould did not remove it’s possibility for evolution but mistakenly linked the physical proposal of Kaufmann with Thompson. Pasteur was wrong and Leibig correct — the quantum mechanics of electrons from Oxygen links both the evolution of nutrition and reproduction as one — but it does so biologically and not physically simply.

Newton mused over how repulsion and attraction differs from attraction alone. It is the QM of position and momenetum acausality in structures of materials which remain via nutrition and reproduction that gives the appearance of being for free but because this freedom/uncertainty/randomness is in the nutrition as well as the reproduction it is not for free energetically and because Darwin based evolution on the replicability of nutritive support for natural selection the freedom of replication is as uncertain only as far as the freedom of nutrition is. If we assume that life is not in quark interactions only or not a mater of matter- antimatter interactions but one in which Carbon is used evolution does not happen for free in the mathematics of Thompson even when imagined by Kaurmman in auto-catalytic sets because spontaneous atuto catalysis of life can only happen in structures that use quatum criticality to move electrons (not quarks or antimatter). If life was something else we would have found Kervran’s ideas accessible — that life can transmute the elements — and we would be back at Newton’s alchemy for Leibig — searching bacteria to change Iron into Gold. We can not do this because quantum mechanics shows that artificial and natural selection are not analogical at all. Evolution is about clade energy not phylogenetic energy. Diversity is not visualizable as a fan. Stasis wwwwwweeeeee does not leap it can only wobble. We all fall down — homotypically.

Tupanvirus soda lake, complete genome

GenBank: KY523104.1

/translation="MPARNSKAASKANPKDVEDSDEELVSEDEAPVKKGAKAAPAKGK
A N KAA KAN KDVED DEE V EDEA VKK AKAA AK K       GKAAKDESEDEGSDVESEDEKPAKGKGKAPAKGKGKAAKDESEDEASDNEEDEASDGE
KAAKDE EDE  DVE EDEK AK K KA AK K KAAKDE EDEA DNEEDEA D E                     EDASEDEAPAKGKKAPAKKAAAKKAPAKKAPAKKGKAAKDESDEDEEEEDDEDEKPAK
EDA EDEA AK KKA AKKAAAKKA AKKAPAKK KAAKDE DEDEEEEDDEDEK AK                    GKKAAAKKAPAKKGGSKSGKPQSEYQKFISQEITRQRKLNPGLQNKEYMSLAAKEWNA
KKAAAKKA AKK   K  K   EY K    E     K      NKEY   AAKE NA                     YKKKHGIVTGGSKTAKKTTGSKGKAPAKKTAAKKAPAKKAPAKKGKKVEEDEEDEE
YKKK   V    K AKK    K KA AKK AAKKA AKKA AKK KKVEEDEEDEE

box domain-containing protein that might be involved in DNA packaging

https://www.pnas.org/content/112/38/E5327.full

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12551-016-0236-4

As for most DNA binding proteins, binding to DNA is typically driven entropically by the release of condensed counterions from the nucleic acid upon electrostatic interaction with the protein. This is supplemented by van der Waals contacts, water release, and both direct and water-mediated hydrogen bonding. Intercalation unwinds and induces a strong, continuous bend in the double helix

If I read this correctly the insulation is around the 75 amino acid active triple alpha helix and thus may direct the release of the counterions away from DNA by insulating other charges from affect or providing a channel away in the Tupanavirus and Acanthomeoba polyphaga

The insulating proteins may thus function to direct quantum transport if the counterions are associated with critical or chaotic proteins via the HMG box protein.

. It has long been known that HMGB proteins can accelerate the ligase-catalyzed cyclization of DNA fragments into small circles

Can Tupanavirus and Avantomeoba polyphaga direct electrons both to and away from DNA?

A Theology of Nature — Ruse’s Way (page 335)

GENESIS 1:11–12 Then God said, “Let the earth put forth vegetation: plants yielding seed…The earth brought forth vegetation: plants yielding seed of every kind…”

“A theology of nature that sees and appreciates the complex adaptive glory of the living world, rejoices in it, and trembles before it.” “We should strip away the pseudo-arguments in the way of a full appreciation of the argument to complexity and start sharing what moved the natural theologians of old and what still moves the evolutionists of today.” Michael Ruse Darwin and Design: Does evolution have a purpose? Page 335

1)

God said that planet Earth was to bring forth plants that produce seeds but evolution says that plants evolved from other living things and were not designed in any way from the Earth itself. Is there really anything one can say about the complex process that organized seed plants and gave rise to the diversity that blankets significant portions of the Earth’s surface today? Is there really any way that we can think like a natural theologian and share a sense of evolutionary contingency in the practice? Well yes there is. Yes we can.

The striking thing about seeds is that they are heavy. They fall. Pollen moves and blows in the wind but seed plants “set” their seed, by dropping them to the Earth sometimes being facilitated in the process by animals that move them to locations as they pass digestive tracts in a way that a direct fall with gravity would not affect. Seeds however, generally must make it to Earth before they grow and develop into the kind of seed plant they are to become. In a way the Earth does bring forth plants yielding seed of all of their kind.

But come on, what on earth does that have to do with evolution? Think about it.

Let’s start by thinking of the large seed plants — recognizing that there are deciduous trees and evergreens. Both produce seeds either in fruits or pine cones. These trees often are mixed in (some) forests and one can see that they dominate the plant world around them, growing to large size and creating darkness below them as they do. It looks as if they are growing towards the Sun. The first tree to get into some area and begin increasing its height is likely to be the tree that survives the longest and has the most “ opportunity” to set its seed and reproduce more copies nearly just like it. In a word — to evolve.

A noticeable difference between the evergreen and deciduous is in the branches. The evergreens seem to have branches that extend more or less radially and somewhat horizontally but and (seem) to die off below as the tree gains height (and establishes more branches higher up) while the deciduous trees seem to form quite a bit more heterogeneously, growing branches in many directions and angles but particularly upward in the direction of the Sun. So, both kinds with flat leaves or compact needles grow towards the Sun upward, which is the source of energy used to power the photosynthetic reactions on which the same growth and reproduction depends.

While the trees are doing this they are also dropping seeds to the ground which potentially can grow into another of its’ ilk. The ground however is the Earth and the Earth itself is moving towards the Sun (in orbit around it) So could it be that seeds evolved as a way to fall to the Sun (not the Earth) in line with the branches and leaves growing reactionlessly to the Sun?

And could it not be that the difference between the seed in the fruit or in the pine cone is due to the evergreens growing to the Sun from outside the branches and deciduous trees from within and that the fall they all experience is but an inertial system incidentally coordinated/programmed to the Earth-Sun gravitational field? If so, it seems that it makes sense for a God to have the Earth bring forth the seed plants and this might be investigated with all the rigors a science of evolution can provide the adaptive glory for.

Now let’s think about the physics of this a bit…irrespective of any difference in the matter/mass/substance of the seed itself.

When we look at the seed’s structure and shape we find that as the cell divisions proceed, the seed forms into an eventually “up-down” line precisely as needed to fit into an inertially ordinated organization.

Now when these cells are dividing it is an interesting question to ask if on the division there are not two newly ‘birthed” cells or whether there is simply one old cell and one new one? (Maynard Smith discusses this)

The population of seed plants of a kind also can be thought of as a sum of the births and deaths of those individually different living things. Much of population ecology works around the idea.

So it might be asked if during the complete set of embryological cell doublings (Pearson’s “undifferentiated like organs”), whether or not the genetics of each doubling encodes different sums of past populational deaths and births within those forces that are moving the cell to double in the first extension — — along the inertial line (without going out of the system) (that gave rise to the incident inertial lineage lines in the first place).

If that is the case for a new investigation in physiological-developental genetics, then different kinds of seed plants might be understood to have different deviations from that perfect symmetry and exists Mendelian-wise because it is — of a structure where no force is acting (inertial).

Hence one could possibly find, that we owe a lot of the perpendicularity of trees to the existence of the Earth-Sun gravitational field and not (just) because green things just “want to be and get that way”. The temporal change in shape of the Earth-Sun gravitational field forms a kind of resonance and solitary/standing wave rather than a dissonance and dissipation with trait transmission across these F1 F2 F3.. generations. There is a physics of this coupled oscillation yet to be worked out.

What this means is that the Mendelian genetics of seed trees should be thought within the shape of the plants themselves no matter what the mathematical form of its description from population genetics entails. It means, that the different kinds of seed plants when crossed are being bred within an inertial system and that any attempt of the plant to deviate from that path either during growth or reproduction (especially when multiple complete genome doublings of cellular differentiations occur and force cells out of a straight divisional lineage)(and/or by man-made biotechnological manipulation(s)) must come along with, an equal and opposite force (to that) that has the potential to actually alter its evolution (and development).

The pine cone retains as a whole that kind of standing wave, moving amongst the generations to the sun directly (parental) or via the earth (hybrid) is/could be the real reason behind the Fibonacci spirals in the cone. One line in the spiral indicating the direction of/to/the sun the other to the Earth and the entire tapering conic nature indicating crossings of generations (different zygotes). Hence each spiral contains traces of the pure sun parental and pure earth parentals which when put together as two Fibonacci numbers results in Mendel’s symbols of the force as a classification (A(Sun) +2Aa(gametes in whole set/population of zygotes) + a(Earth)) not as the genetic AA + 2Aa + aa. That is the heterozygotes drift (are selected) towards the wild type as Wright said.

Kant distinguished two different kinds of classificatory modalities and as we investigate this possible evolution further it will be necessary to use them. He called one in filiation with Linnaeus the “system of nature” and the other the systematics of nature (22:501 “the forms in action and reaction of forces in space and time.”) (or here theThom morphogenesis of external paramaters generally)

So in a way one can say that the Earth with its gravity (as God called it) provides the systematics of nature (at least that inertial system from which any other forces (used) must have relations via Newton’s second law with) ordinally from which, evolve the diversity of seeded vegetation denoted in Genesis and studied by Linnaeus in his artificial system of nature that humankind continues to taxonomically construct and evolutionist’s marvel about to this very day.

As one forms connections between these two ways to record and document the forms involved it is helpful to organize the relations via Kant’s capacities for formations:

Capacity of in-formation (Vermogen der Einbildung)

Capacity of anti-formation (Vermogen der Gegenbildung)

Capacity of ex-formation (Vermogen der Ausbildung)These capacities exist to be re-formed as creative generations/productions of representations in the present (Abbildung), to be post-formed as reproductions of representations of past times (Nachbildung) and pre-formed as anticipational representations of a future time (Vorbildung).

Past births and deaths of seeds that fall perhaps on rocky ground and do not germinate might be reflected positionally as exformations of former informations in particular branching anatomies (fractal dimensions perhaps) provided the geology(needed soil type) has been stable enough for enough generations that any /enough selective effect is consequential. This may have direct relation to chromosome/gene/exon/intron locations (linkage groups) and may allow us from the glory of nature to reveal against any antiformation overdeterrmined — not only the kinds of seeded vegetation but the forces themselves that also well-order the classification (of forces (attractions/repulsions) and attractor/repellors) arrived at.

We can accompany Thomas Huxley in his venture to take us via Jack’s beanstalk into the then new world of evolution and ethics but now we see that this was not a merely cyclical Sisyphaean process bounded by latency and ephiphany but rather an inertial one developmentally constraied wherein the beanstalk takes on more than a poetic and metaphoric quality as the ethical dimension becomes part and whole of the same theology of nature. This is not the natural selection of religion of DS Wilson of any place but rather a new take on Gray’s variational analogy to rivers that flow to the sea but may have trenches dug in different places.

Huxley imagined a simple continuing cyclic processing of opposites that resulted in a development like a unfolded fan or the river system at the entrance to an ocean but here we saw it more as unitary forward going thing that is not simply canalized as Waddigton thought but has attractors causally back which give the impression of cycle but is simply an complex inertial system based on two fundamental forces not a strict evolution to a chaotic boundary. Huxley did not want to imagine the forces specifically and because of that he could not go beyond the thought of a “cyclical evolution”. We don’t know if life will be able to move out of the Solar System before the Sun dies but we can certainly investigate if it has the power and forces capable of doing so and we must so that we can be the moral creatures we feel we are for whatever reasons we feel so.

So with this possible evolution and diversification of seed plants in mind was there really any conflict of perspectives at all? Was there really a difference between “the design” of seed plants from the Earth or from prior green plants or is this just a supreation of our cultural heterogeneity that leads us to anticipate that both possibilities are “out there” under collective discussion of metaphysics and philosohy and illusion or math and philosophy.

The Earth put forth the seed plants on this evolutionary view without a design per say. If there ever was one it was God having created the Earth and the Sun and perhaps having created the very first seed plant but from there the Earth brought them forth more or less programmatically that no design of that sort was needed (programming without a programmer from designing without a designer). The complex dual system of Mendelian inheritance and forces in inertial systems is enough metabiologically speaking. One day we may even have a quantum mechanical description for this.

This may not have been the way evolution did proceed, but if it is the way mitosis and meiosis are correlated, the organized complexity of cell doublings containing coded information of past births and deaths is enough, no active information from God is needed. Yes, there had to be some synchronicity between the changing gravitational field and the timing of plants’ Mendelian generations but this (is a) purely physical phenomenon (that) operates irrespective of the fact that it is oscillations of gravity et Genus and plant breedings per specficum (no motion the kind of forces (em,weak,stron, gravity etc) matching distances covered).

This frame in the plants leads to a direct study of the strobile form with the different directions to the Sun vs. the Earth between the two different Fibonacci spirals’ numbers. A change in the fib number adjancey used (3.5) vs 5,8) etc reflects a difference in the partental vs the hybrid double heterozygote via segregated factoring and thus the whole strobile (form) is a result of mendelian genetics in straight line between earth and sun represented amongst the recessive and dominants.

Perhaps this will be used to distinguish molecularly with a strobile, different seed positions possessing different earth –sun relations (times of year bias/ season, perhaps ability to fall to ground (shape of seed) vs shape of pine needle to grow to sun. Thin needles growing more loosely (in many directions) between the crossing of the Earth –Sun fields (falling more times?) than short fat ones that also might be by preference to fall to sun or Earth depending on how the grown on the branch? ) What is the macron algebra , statistical mechanics etc. And with deciduous trees and their fall of leaves they unlike the everygreens have the whole strobiliar representation in the leaf itself that grows from inside the branch and has a different dimensionality (not 1-D) (different basin of attraction etc).

What this means is that a metabiological reality of this possible evolution describes a situation where there is no need for the guidance of active information provided by the/a designer God as that simple former resonance was all that was required vibrationally and beyond that a metabological reality can be shown even without the need for limited resources of the sort no matter the frequency or amplitude. The Sun is an unlimited resource as far as the plants are concerned. And as long as plants have a potential to continue to grow and evolve then they could continue to find a more mathematical form of growth by blinking fractal changes. Biology and math are reciprocally creative.

Yaro Sergeyev has introduced the notion of blinking fractals for infinite different processes that have different infinitesimal to infinite representations numerically and it is possible that different seed plants can be infinitely diverse by grossone differentiations and thus as long as the sun shines and they are not cut down (and rain falls), they will continue to diversify and evolve (provided our artificial extinction of species has not )hamstrung( their kinetics), the earth…with geology etc… Earth and life evolve together etc will continue to bring them forth due to their organized complexity and not because they are designed. This is also how Croizat’s historical panbiogeography has been mis-studied. Darwin changed how to think of design but purpose is not wholly of no affect.

This is true for these plants because the process is working where no forces exist and when they do that they (it) only expresses some particular relationship utilized by the two homozyotic traits to each other (not the effect of the force fulled heterozygote (Bateson’s NaCl within Darwin’s “elective affinity” millieu) (the wild type in the wild)) .

There may well be a congruent limit when the forces can no longer find some other inheritance (than what they started with)(end of blinking fractal math use)(difference of fib numbers (2,3) vs (5,8,) vs(8,13) but if and when we know that — we will n o longer have the question. (of Dembski on Intelligent design Nor Huxley on not using forces with Darwin’s idea…Instead we will see (beyond Bertrand Russell)

Forces in DNA (vs RNA vs Protein)

that we can update (in) the biometric –mendelian debate with… and return groosone-wise to some of Galtonian and Pearsonian idea(s) on traits’ physically within the genes rather than among them but yet all of a Mendelian nature and further show that the math used by Fisher and Wright now does at least make an intellectual difference for evolutionary theory of the 21st century’s continuum formarum (Kant 22:283 Forester p 100) (differentiating any bean bag genetics from all interacting systems for any possibly modified Fisher theorem).

Darwin was afraid to guess at the shape of variations- materiality but with God behind us, we are not!

Darwin said, “An omniscient Creator must have foreseen every consequence which results from the laws imposed by Him. But can it reasonably be maintained that the Creator intentionally ordered, if we use words in any ordinary sense, that certain fragments of rock should assume certain shapes so that the builder might erect his edifice? …Did He ordain that the crop and tail-feathers of the pigeon should vary in order that the fancier might make his grotesque pouter and fantail breeds?” (Darwin 1868: 2.426–8)

As we come to a macron notion in heritable legacies we will be better equipped to pursues this question to the fruit it delivers (the rocks’s shapes the trees evolve from — Forced effects as programmable results in solving a complex problem output interface one recursion at a time). Eventually we will be able to ask if Asa Gray’s gravity-landscape-earth tilled analogy holds its own water so to say. We will progress to the mathematical organism of an applied metabiology and we may even wonder if we can infer geological periods from plant homological anantomy/morphology. Insofar as one can work back from the current utility to it’s forced origins the algebra of the macrons will be instructive especially when trying to determine the relative contributions of the level of organization vs the level of selection to the phenomenon under consideration.

But for now we remain with the words of Bateson, “ we must distinguish what we can do from what we want to do. We want to know the whole truth of the matter; we want to know the physical basis, the inward and essential nature, “the causes”, as they are sometimes called of heredity: but we want to also to know the laws which the outward and visible phenomena obey” (p3 Mendel Principles) Taking this slightly out of context, we want to know the systematics of nature but we also only really know the system of nature just now. We have not reformed far enough that information gained since DNA improved the state of evolutionary studies of Bateson’s time which was beyond Darwin and Gray even then but active information of the designer and/or intelligent design is not needed for this. We will however, be quite active with that as we explore its technological implications. This dimensionality is in order to organize a co-ordination. It is not a design. God did it.

As we understand the adaptive nature of the plants (extending to and getting as much energy from the sun as possible physically) given their variation (kinds of seed plants possible by blinking fractals traveling in mendelian fashion down lineages reproducing particular biotic potentials supplied by ratios of births to deaths encoded from forces deviating the inertial directums by in-formations reformed in cell doublings of post-formations ex-formatted into options of pre-formation and anti-formations that we will design. God did not. Life is capable of this , even without animals but with animals we need (more) forces and we need to know where the instruction is placed. God told us where we are to not do it.

Regardless we are able to answer Michael Ruse’s final question in Chapter 14 of Darwin and Design. We find that we can indeed stress an argument to organized complexity much much further than Ruse suspected — so far that — natural selection is involved but looking with both Newman and Rolston (that we start from ‘the origin’ for the design and ‘ the progress’ for the complexity) but we need not see this as leading to man but only a species with cultural technological ability that learns in one generation something biology never can do even if this is a ‘biology’ of non-Carbon life. The organized complexity in the branching of trees permits a variational evolvability capabale of moving around the obstacles in shapes of rocks wedged by Earth’s provisions and God ordered. The fractal dimension of ferns’ shapes reflects the motion of its gametes by water without a fall.

“And to the man he said and have eaten because you have listened to the voice of your wife and have eaten of the tree I have commanded you not to eat…you shall eat of the plants of the field…. Until you return to the ground…you shall return.

God is telling Adam and Eve that they must not have tried to live in the place as the plants only could be at (between the Sun and (Earth -which gave rise to them)) but rather must survive in the place the Seeds not the Photosynthetic Reactions go to.

This place is where grasses drop their seeds more preferentially to the Earth than the Sun (and have multiple leaf blades like multiple needles of evergreens but from different topological ontologies) and where insects have possibly evolved from creeping there to flying and waggle dancing it’s location away ( as to indicate the nectar like of the gods — in that place forbidden in general but known to the snake and others transgressing a certain synthesis).

Might it be that animals as well as plants can be thought in this same frame — namely is there some way to envision animal form that is in direct relation to this inertial-system-coordinate-structure like the outline perpendicularity of plants?

Yes if we use and add the Moon to the Earth-Sun Gravitational field. The Moon creates two tides a day because it pulls the Ocean water closer to it more than further away. These tides form repetitive motions that can move living things around the globe. Lancelets, the sister clade to the vertebrates live in the sand and filter food with cilia the tides bring in to shore. They have a minimal amount of organs compared to other vertebrates/ tunicates possessing themselves a dominant branchial arch system, a muscularized notochord and a nerve chord but a very small brain and not much else. Perhaps through the eons of time that moon moved other things around the seas the lancelets evolved to simply be at the place the tides wash up to filter out food using their muscles only to keep themselves in place in the sand where — the moon brings the food to. With two tides at a time the lancelet would only need to sense the opposite sides of its body and move its cilia within the place where the opposite sides are NOT moving to — provided the sand is that place where the moon was going to and it reaches a populational equilirbrium.

So could it not be that the cilia in their lateral lines and the cilia in their mouth function for this combined function. Pre vertebrate evolution was thus a means to remain where the moon’s gravitational effects have their largest consequence. The only brain functionality required would be the ability to monitor the cilia motion in the lateral nerves via a double quaternion which could keep the translation and rotation effects of being tossed and turned in the tides independent of each other.

Perhaps the food came in the branchial arches rather than the mouth at first (no cilia) and actual direction to moon) but simply separated the muscle force from the food sources. Then the cilia developed in mouth. The cilia developed (in the direction of where the food was) and that was in the direction of where the tides are relative to the body position in the sand. Thus the moons gave rise to the cilila use beyond moving the whole cell .

And that is all. Thus — there is minimal symmetry all of which appears to be explained by the moon separating the water to provide food for these guys and all our (vertebrate) ancestors.

2)

So with animals we look at the evolution of the notochord and ear and find there concussive motion.

The moon’s motional effects can be outlined geometrically with the 7 frieze patterns outward at those places the moons two tides mix. Creatures could simply be moved about by these forces or function by equal and opposite reactions which if not single but truly equal and opposite could enable different concussive motions throughout the ocean. The moon and the sun in their dance move around a central point the center of mass and perhaps the development of the inner ear(with cilia inside) and eventual hard vertebrae was an effect of converting the double quaternionic lateral line tracking of the moon tide caused motional positions into a single quanternionic processing eventually with 3 semi cicular canals of an direction in 3D and thus arose a functional motion able to orient absolutely with respect the dynamically changing positioning of the Earth and the Moon and later when amphibians invaded the land they simply brought the force creating appendages out side the anatomy otherwise shaped (fish wise) with respect to the Earth — Moon inertial gravity modified structure. And thus we have a thought that D’Arcy Thompson did not, not at least as understood by Gould.

The hag fish ancestors might have eaten giant squids which had neutral buoyancy not by air bladders (first in the inner ear) but by ammonium chloride. Thus lampreys mastered the force (with their ears) that squids could only move up and down in and later fish developed an air bladder where the bone was. The statocyst of squid only enabled a one –way to gravity relation of distance to concussive motion but with fish the ability to use the brain (eletromagetic distance relations) opened up that niche and thus we amniotes were conceived in principle. Hag fish could lodge in giant squids and take in the digested flesh slowly across the skin. They may indeed have retained the lancelt feeding across the gills. The air bladder in the ear provided means for brains to function with forces relative to the ocean itself (not the tides via the moon).

The hagfish/lampreys might have evolved from the plexus with the sisters to verts by attaching to giant squid which could not keep the double quaternion lateral line to innear ear division of the tide space from attaching to them as they simply moved relative to the tides themselves (like the sisters to verts did and do). The ear was a means to differentiate the double quaternion space into areas that the moon caused differences were not a system organized and ordinate to.. but still (where) in the volume of the ocean is. All other fish evolved this precise ability, eventually replacing the dominance of the giant squids etc and the hags and lampreys survived as mere hangers on, in this inertial system, feeding on the better competitor fish but being motionally ‘invisible” (surviving by not eating out the whole population of fish). The fish gained a Gould “quirky functional shift” as the gill V shaped by forces of an older moon motion caused histogeny (not the “form of the gill) into the lower jaw and thus could project the force outside where the food was moving and move it inside.

Tunicates never found the moon and thus were relegated to move with tides as larvae but pick a spot as adults whereas the cephalochordates the spot picked as adults was the place the moon moved. In other words the muscles developed by the lancelts was a motion between the moon and the earth (hence away from the moon but by force against the gravity of the earth (and the moon in the earth gravity)while the tunicates moved only to the moon (in the life cycle) Thus this systematics of the forces (would) meant that vertebrates came from lacelet ancestors but that tunicates evolved separately in the system of nature.

Such a systematicity wherein the hard vertebrate homological symmetry is due to the providing a place from which impact forces could evolve behaviors in any direction along the general plane of the solar system (Kant’s systematic constitution) thus extends Thompson’s argument and shows indeed that bone shapes can to some extent be homological because of directly forced formations. The evolution onto land was a move back from the moon to its superior Earth (hence extensions of limbs out of the dorsal ventral axis (different than used for swimming which utilized the near coincident(ce) of the wobble of the earth and moon around the same biogeographic per species dimension))

Prior things living could only concussivly move where the moon orbit lines crossed Earth moving lines — now on land they can move with the Earth itself regardless of the earth moving to the Sun (they ate that).

The inner ear in the fish evolved as a means to track the motion of the moon around the Earth and the Earth around the moon which gave those fish the ability to orient absolutely relative to the Earth and the Moon which was effecting the motion of most of its prey. Thompson rather thought there might be a limit to selection while here we see selection from some other selection. There is a difference of math and physics to biology that Gould missed and simply went to “order for free” for any discontinuity in the chaotic dynamics of the same. Cantor showed that continuous motion in a discontinuous space is possible so one must recognize mathematically that friably caused separations and infinite discontinuity need not be the same clinamatic division.

When the lamprey/hagfish evolved from the lancelt sister split and began to solidfy the vertebrae they still used the double quaternion. The solidification could be associated with the central circule that the Earth and Moon move around and this solidificaition in the ear moved to the 3 canal structure to (get) the full 3_D nature of the moon-earth motion. Interestingly, alpha-beta split occurred after the lamprey and it might be asked now if the process of information gain is associated with trajectories away from the inertial system, in this sense from a double ear canal to a full 3-D space quaternion which conmittantly meant that formation had to exformat into a present (then) Nachbildung and the forces that did this also duplicated the hemoglobin which remained separated for all future vertebraes.

In this way we could see how information path (between what counts as information and what as redundant) is not measured by the system of nature we have but with a systematic s of nature (of the forces in space and time). The information content is much more involved than Dawkins analyzed while saying that what it means is hard to say. Algorthimic mutations provide a means to generalize this. The information increases are capable of synthesizing across and within genes and thus degrades the idea of selfish DNA. Outside the genes the extra DNA marks the paths the forces have topologically involuted and exist to prevent the current forces from hindering past motions used usefully. Frame Shift viruses simply are replacing a repulsion for an attraction etc. This view proposes constraints on “selfish-genes”. They are not able to indiscriminately increase in a genome at the expense of the individual but only can accelerate replicability as long as such copy does not “violate” the code’s symbolical affect of / through force-effects bodily.

Both of these possibilities suggest that there is a very complex relationship between forces and forms. Behind both suggestions lay the idea that the physical order of things provides a kind of stability or relatively unlimited resource with respect to the diverse shapes of things alive. It is not order for free directly but only through complex networked feedbacks and through-feeds… The sun provides relative to survival an unlimited amount of potential energy for plants to change with and the ocean motions caused by tides provide the appearance of a perpetual motion machine to animals that can adapt in different ways to it. Further the magnetic quatum mechanical chemical bond effects also provide a kind of unlimited resource for biophysically moving electrons. What I propose here is that this relation between abiotic force organizations and biotic form-making is one of the sort introduced by Rene Thom as a morphogenesis that is such structurally stable within the different sets of external (to the reproducing living thing) parameters (supplied by the physics of matter in general). The structural stability of the solar system is the principle structural stability behind the changes in forms that evolution diversifies (but specifies molecularly). This information may indeed enable us to get a handle on controlling viruses with DNA computers. There is some flow of information back to the DNA via proteins selectivity altered by tRNA quantities which force frame shifted readings.

What this means is that physics provides a phase portrait to biology (through chemistry) that population genetics functions as a change of a catastrophic control with respect to a generalized vibratory state the portrait sits for via a coupling structure(s)(s) of genes individually selected but bifurcated. Further we can legitimately ask with Darwin not strictly about the biotic adaptations’ variation per say but his analog — that of the shape of rock for the builder’s future use or whether the genetic code implies a kind of orthogenesis but seemingly random with respect the process that shaped the rock or in the case of biology the forces that gave rise to the codes’ functioning and existence. Metabiology guides this creativity as a changling philosophy of biology interacts with more advanced (become more quantum mechanical) models of the classification of the forces involved and selections that have actually occurred macrons (-wise). Gould missed and misunderstood that Thompson’s transformed co-ordinates which were simply different orthogonalities do specify that a force was behind the change since whatever the forces are they do not affect the inertial system back of the specific transform being perpendicular with respect to the change which could be historically contingent.

Biological Complexity as a free lunch provided by selective Value

So now that we have the possibility that both plants and animals have evolved relative to gravity we can ask if Asa Gray’s evolution guided by law is not appropriate and ask if we can go one step further and propose that DNA- RNA and Proteins format a reversible weight lifting machine achived by concurrent selections via repulsions and attractions at the same loci place. This will even enable us to suggest that their might indeed be a biogeobgrpahic homology of places that results not simply from the/a genetic position effect. It will enable us to analyze genes rather than simply synthesize them as is currently done in biotechnology. Will show that Panbiogeography has a life after Vicariance Biogeography after all.

Fisher developed a science of selection. Chaitin designed the field of metabiology. Here we combine them morphogenically and show that there is a mathematical computation of natural selection from what natural selection (taken from Croizat’s dispersal from what dispersal as Pearson indirect selection from prior more direct selection)) which herein is universal as finding the geometric organization when repulsions selected cause the same form-making as attractions selected on drift to the wild type (differentiating pure and not pure attractions). This is what DNA as software programs without a programmer.

In otherwords an algorithmic mutation is a genome-phenome coordinated mass in which all repulsions = all attractions for a set of traits genetically fixed.

Homo duplex has survived for way too long in the United States. Psychiatrists have over exploited the bio-psychological individual and politicians have become unhealthily tribal as a consequence of imposed involuntary equality of socio-cultural persons. Scientific creationism has appeared to be unrealistically religious and sociobiology has returned racism to the targeted backdrop of former years. This appearance of personal hemi-individuality is the consequence of a binary opposition within an historical manifestation of a duplex of biology and culture. This split characterization that makes up the fictionalized yet realistically extant Homo duplex has caused untold harms and unwanted coercions and yet no assemblage of the halves has ever been wholly considered to correspond to the theoretical dissection the difference accomplishes, whether justified or not. I offer a unification of this populationally distributed clinamina forced by our learned but non-necessary separation of biology and culture. As these deviations are seen rather to be transversally yoked with our life-in-the-making, the frustrations caused by this cultural schism may be found to touch towards surficially appearing progress in solving particular environmental issues. I review solutions to the human overpopulation problem from the perspective of life beyond Homo duplex.

The environment is at the heart of the difference between the sociocultural person and the bio-psychological individual that make up what Tim Ingold introduced as Homo duplex (“Biosocial Becomings Edited by Tim Ingold.” 2013). Hearts however are obviously in bodies and not in environments. We have the potential to process past past objectifications of the environment by attending to this difference and by feeling how it arises from within. Socio-cultural anthropology has shown that people are not well comprehended as objectified nodes in a network of bounded interactivity but rather subsist more humanizingly (Ingold, 2007 “Beyond Biology and Culture”) as meshes of communications of harmonizable motions (Ingold, 2013 “Making: Anthropology, Archaeology, Art and Architecture”). From this composable motion emerges a sound understanding of the environment-within that is at the same time, without. These motions tacitly include biotic and abiotic components reaching beyond the surface of the individual as bound by the skin (Ingold, n.d. “The Sustainability of Everything”). This well researched and critiqued development in the history of anthropology (Fuentes, 2016; Ingold, 1998) has not been fully accepted as a general approach to human nature (Eriksen, 2007; Meloni, 2014) and biologists continue to resist attempts of humanists to mitigate and transcend the division this failure to find common ground has socially created (Ingold, 2007 “The Trouble with ‘Evolutionary Biology’”).

As such, the bio-psychological individual sets the person out individually as an object distinct from its environment. It is one that can be coerced by external forces and institutions to do things that cause the person to be something that it might not have become on its own. It is a being that both selects more than choses and can be selected by cutting against sequential granularity more than by splitting along bifurcatable lines in motion. The bio-psychological individual is one in which its materiality comprehends its potential interactivity with other moving beings and things. It is the person as a particle. It enables the notion of an environment as existing around the person. This is the view that psychiatrists have of patients when they approach resolution of behavioral variations with drugs. When chemicals are themselves considered to be in this bodily externalized environment, it justifies treatment of states of mind, mental states that are likewise objectified as objects of unbalanced materiality and faulty informational communication in the brain. These chemicals are not recognized as the bodies’ own but belong to the environments rather instead than the living thing. Likewise, it is the view of the creationist scientist as a person who is put in the external creation of God and works to understand God’s meaning in this environment from which he has fallen.

Tolerance of this split personhood has curiously marginalized notions of the environment outside the human and other forms of life and prevented it from being described from within them. Homo duplex has hoodwinked not only humanity but also our relations with other living things. By learning how oppositionally to pull these covers over our heads we have simply failed to see what the environment is. We remain emotionally attached to violent actions and destructive tendencies accepting of and tolerating this difference through coercion and forced regulation. The environment however is not something like absolute space was but rather is a dynamic fabric of connected motions that moves marked by materials flowing in and out during life and death.

One problem with this environment so situated, is in determining whether our activity in it is destructive or not. If we consider that a forest, say, is a part of our very being (Ingold, 2000) then we are less likely to consider its partial disappearance that goes hand in hand with our need of and utilization of it as a destruction we created and caused (Ingold, 2000). If our life and death is seen as flowing amongst the life and death of forest plants and animals, the absolute numbers of plants and animals destroyed or killed is only a measure of our interaction with them as objects external to both us and them and the environment in which geographically all subsist. This is the view that Charles Darwin had when he described evolution by natural selection (Darwin, 2001). He came to the conclusion that nature evolves through death rather than life. If however it is flows of living participants through those same lives and deaths, cooperatively rather than competitively exchanging an environmental flux of composed and decomposed materials, then no matter how one measures the change going on and on and on, this clinamen of interactivity need not marginalize the difference the tolerance maintained. Rather, it can envelope and internalize the same environment as subsistence converts growingly, development energizes metabolically and evolution changes adaptively.

Darwin thought that evolution happened because the rate of food increase could never match reproductive enumerability (Darwin, 2001). Through competitive checks by predation and abiotic environmental effects, given that there was some variability in living structure and form, new forms of life would and could emerge as death came to those, after never-ending numbers of lives were physically forced selectively to die naturally (Lewontin, 1970). There was no attempt to connect evolutionarily the cardinal numbers removed to the ordinal numeration (Cantor, 1915) reproduced as a result of and within the same numeric system. Darwin did not consider evolution to arise recursively from texturized environments within and among the biotic and abiotic materialities themselves.

Various claims about what amounts to inheritance and genetics were argued over instead. Pearson’s homotyposis for instance, which points towards another view was replaced by evolution in Mendelian populations (Provine, 2001). This evolutionary constriction (Sarkar, 2004) continued until the discovery of DNA as the substance of heritability was made in the 1950s. By then it was too late for organismic biologists to dominate theoretical conversations as funding proceeded towards molecular genetics and molecular evolution (Dobzhansky, 1964) within a physiological genetics that objectified biochemistry as something actually separate from embryology and natural history.

One could liken Darwin’s idea to a perpetual Pez dispenser whose head-hood is continually pushed back and changed somewhat with each pez brick taken, such that, as the pezes are being selectively taken off, the number of them being removed causes the head of the pez hood-head to change shape, form and color while during this removal the pez bricks move from the bottom on up — forever. As these hood-heads change shape and form with each selected candy brick taken, some hood-heads out wedge the others and knock them off the common baseline on which they stand, never to return again. Thus, a group of pez hood-heads might assort as to their level of transparency if the more transparent ones push the opaque ones off more than vice versa. This is a view of evolution via bio-psychological individuality, one in which the species and the environment are separate independent entities.

Darwin could have imagined evolution otherwise, in which the form of the resultant population of pez hood-heads is not identified by forced selection resultant from removals of top level pez bricks, but instead as a variation sorted, as pez linear bodies bumping and colliding so cause pez bricks to move from one body to the other with a concomitant translation of form changing the pez itself from the pez tube to the hood-head. The force and relation of change is here during the growth and replication of the pez brick towards the top rather than in removal and consumption from the top. This imagined evolutionary dynamics in which each pez hood-head identifies a different species is actually a view that modern microbiology has provided in recent years. Microbes exchange a significant amount of genes across rather than within monophyletic lineages. The tree of life is more like a web of life than a tree (Hayden, 2018).

This alternative view meshes with the relational conclusion of the person of the socio-cultural anthropologist (Ingold, 1998, 2013). It is one in which the relation of the pez brick as chemical materiality of reproduction creates the variation in form by exchange with other already existent pezes rather, than through the creation of a diversity of pezes by selective survival of some pez bodies over others. It is one in which subsistence and development drive adaptation as much as adaptation creates the species that develops by eating others and maturing. It sees evolutionary form, more by cooperative ecology and ecosystem functionality than by competitive economic vital population statistical accountings. It is one in which Homo duplex is extinct.

This alternative shows that Darwin’s idea of natural selection designed from artificial selection, that he shares with Alfred Russel Wallace, falls into the same category as the critique that political ecology (Robbins, 2012.) made from cultural ecology (Steward, 1972). The alternative considers the environment to be within the traits selected rather than outside of them. When evolution was first described by Wallace and Darwin there was not a lot of genetics known that could inform such a view as this. This is a view in which there is dynamic non-equilbrial relationship topographically spread (McCabe, 2004) rather than simple multiply adapted and equilibrated trajectorizations towards fixed but diverse structures dependent on resolution of the subsistence problem in each individual and independent case. This idea was biologically suggested by Pearson (Pearson, 1900) to be one wherein life could have originated from other life but evolutionary biologists considered nature’s living modality to more likely originate from non-life rather than life. Pearson and others who had realized that life does not spontaneously arise from non-life did not see how life could be thought backward to its origin from living things alone (Pearson, 1900).

The idea that evolution itself might go backward as the forms of life influenced the divisions of the lines of evolution though contemplated by microbiologists into the 1920s never gained a theoretical foot-hold (Stephen Zinder , personal communication). The suggestion that the diversity of living things is due to the cooperative flux of the environment in life rather than a resourceful use of environmental materials in a struggle to survive, thus never received its wings to fly. This alternative view which stresses the actual reproductions as they move with the environment of living things rather than the potential to do so, as accounted for in the genes actually evolved, remained latent in conversation and ideation only. However, this haptically knowable alternative offers the biological anthropologist a version of evolutionary theory it might consider suitable as an olive branch to the socio-cultural anthropologist since it retains provisionally all of the elements of evolution as currently understood. It is not a partial view of evolutionary mechanisms but instead is one that can reply to detailed adumbrations such as those of Bateson (2002).

Darwin however saw the diversity of life arising into a fan of multiplicity from the direction of the environment as it draws out and adapts Homo duplex’s various pez particles into pez-head-hooded-bodies independently of the circulation and production of pez parts. Adaptations of Homo duplex’s split personality evolves towards a fixed or absolute environment. The evolution of species on this view are seen as due to the multiplicities of the genetic potential variation which when identified with mutations and then through the discovery of DNA, the dogma of molecular biology and experimental confirmation of regulatory genes theoretically precludes the alternative. No one has been able therethrough to design the cytoplasmic theory necessary (Woodger, 1945) to link the energy of subsistence of the alternative with the differentiation of cellular expressivity via ontogeny further adapted that nonetheless evolved with fitness increases of the particular genes involved.

This alterative view of the evolution of genes derived from the notion of relational man and socio-cultural persons is a result of how the chemicals of the environment provide for the doubling of, and materialization of these mutations and differences — via metabolic support for the reproductions being counted, in the correspondent relations of cells of living things growing and maturing and with perdurances exchanging temporalities as the species themselves reproduce their populated niches of the environments. These environments are only formally attached to the geographic space in which they are ground-truthed but dwell. It brings the environment of bio-psychological individuals accessibly within the same dynamics that evolves and suggests that there might be correspondingly alternative solutions to various environmental issues because of how the environment is found to arise from within us often as much as from without us.

Now with this conceptual possibility of sending Homo duplex down a path of depauperization, let us consider an application of this position. One of our larger environmental issues is that of human overpopulation. Overpopulation is a problem both of the environment and of our continued reproduction. With the environment now able to be seen as being within us rather without, humans and other creatures might not actually necessarily need be seen as being too many for their places they dwell in as Darwin argued. By envisioning these dwelt places not as simple latitudes and longitudes but rather as the very materials that form all plants and animals, we do not need to see the environment as the container of resources necessary to advantage some of us rather than others competitively as Darwin supposed. We can see it rather as a fabric of connected motions that moves markedly as materials flow in and out during life and death much in the way that many Indigenous communities understand their lands and places (Brosius,1999; Rocheleau, 1995).

Human overpopulation however is often thought to result directly from Darwin’s and others’ use of Malthusian notions (Morton and Stroup, 2018) with resolutions revolving simply around how outcomes can be formalized mathematically. Three standard possibilities currently exist as a result of such an enumerated representation: we already have too many people on Earth; human population numbers must stabilize out at some number somewhat higher than we currently possess but must nonetheless start to increase at a lower rate; or we can continue to increase at the rate we are going but we must leave the Earth since we will use up all of the resources as that growth continues. All of these solutions result from the idea that the environment and person are separate objects that can be simply and vitally counted.

In the first scenario, where we have supposedly already overshot the amount the environment can support (Pimentel et.al., 1999) we must take the human population to a lower level by dyeing off the population. No one is going to invoke some kind of old school eugenics program and start killing off existing people, but this possibility of a required decrease in population size suggests we should let much more people die than we reproduce. How we are to decide to do this is not easy to imagine.

The second scenario has the environmental carrying capacity a bit above that already attained at present. It requires us to have our births less than our deaths and then our births always equal to our deaths in order to achieve a sustainable level. These scenarios result in forced coercions through punishable social relations that create frustrating impositions that not only seem unfair but can be discriminative of some over others. This is the position we find ourselves most often in today.

The third possibility is one in which we allow our current population to continue to grow at its current rate but because our environment is only thought of as a bunch of resources to be used as each generation passes. It’s practical solution to the represented problem is to move life off of Earth as the size of population destroys too much of this planet and we use up everything necessary to subsist off of. Peopling Mars for instance is thought of in terms of making a new frontier of outer space (Boyle, 2016). It is the idea that we can colonize space much as we have done with America. No attention however in these proposals is being made as to how this might happen if we encounter life on Mars. There is no intention to see that we grow our life from Earth off onto Mars for example (Spacexcmsadmin, 2016). Rather it is often the idea simply to terraform mars without regard to our present life on Earth (Mars.nasa.gov, 2018). No active attempt is being made to understand how the different gravity and chemistries between the planets may affect our environment within us on Earth in terms of subsistence converting growingly, development energizing metabolically and evolution changing adaptively as one. It continues to be investigated from a view dominated by the bio-psychological individual construction of evolved personhood hoodwinked by Homo duplex.

We could on the alternative view without Homo duplex, apply evolutionary theory rather than argue about it. We could learn the skills necessary to live with life on the extreme margins of habitability here on Earth and then take those lessons learned onto Mars. We could establish enskillment institutions in which we learn to dwell with landscapes and networks of plants and animals much as indigenous people have done and continue to do. We could have “internships” with people like the Kodi (Fowler, 2016) and convert these experiences into specific ways to live in close relations to plants, animals and bacteria and protists that we then take on to Mars. We can structure such lives-in-the-making with the goal of being able to handle environmental landscapes that might contain other living things. The field of animal geographies (Hovorka, 2018) could find a large domain of application in this new discipline of applied evolutionary theory.

Thus we can could begin to form human population centers in close association with ecosystems of living species, creating relational living communities in the extremes of deserts, the deep sea and in polar regions with particular bacteria, plants and animals as a way to understand how to evolve with them. By learning how viruses interact in these situations we can develop the needed theoretical structure of an applied evolutionary theory as that proposed herein. We could use our human population “problem” to bring forward relational man with articulated environments as the death of Homo duplex and in so doing, establish for biological anthropology what socio-cultural anthropology already understands and wishes to unite with (Ingold, 2007).

We can also ask ourselves if indeed we have already overshot our carrying capacity here on Earth or not. By looking at Darwin’s argument as to how the limit is reached in the abstract one can see that he did not consider artificial food production in the third dimension (Darwin, 2001). He considered that food could only increase arithmetically because the yield was to be provided from the agriculture of a country or region in an abstract two-dimensional latitude and longitude space, not from a forest or an ecosystem in flux and flow already evolved. He did not consider whether plants could for instance change their form and simply by increasing their height provide more food. This could happen both quantitively and arithmetically while also increasing total living productivity qualitatively and possibly exponentially, by providing in addition, more places for lives ( of microbes, protists, invertebrates, birds , mammals etc.) in the making to evolve. Agriculture only increases food of bio-psychological individuals but forests with trees that grow higher and higher, increase animals and plants as socio-cultural persons as well. Plants might be able to do this if we sought to try to genetically engineer them so, under the alternative presented here.

We could also imagine that we might find ways to photosynthesize ourselves, by creating plant-human tissue hybrid cellular structures that we might place on our skins as we become lichen-like gaining energy back through those places the objectivization of the environment had suggested we were separated from. With energy gained by photosynthesis on our skins we would not need to eat as much. We could decrease our reliance on agriculture and allow more of the land to revert back to forest. We could convert our institutions in which we learn how to be with and amongst the environments of Indigenous people into ones that return those places back to them. And finally we could use this new time freed up by not needing to find and eat as much food to create cities, not in the best habitable land on this planet from which we have dispossessed many an indigenous culture (Spence, 2000) but instead at the extremes of habitability with a view and purpose to move people and lives-in-the-making off of Earth and out into space.

Thus, if we make these changes to biological theory, anthropological practice and our lives in this making by close yoking of multispecies community building that sees the death of Homo duplex, we may be able to not only decolonize the Earth but continue to grow our human population into space. As such we can begin to prepare humanity for a time when the light of the Sun will be no more. We can transform via the insights of socio-cultural anthropology our human overpopulation crisis into a propaedeutic of life beyond solar. In this temporalized dance of pez bodies realized, we will find out both numerically and forcefully what this meshwork of the social cultural person as environment becomes biosocially (Pitrou, 2015). But unless in this making, we step away from the difference of the sociocultural individual and bio-psychological person we will never find out how the boundary twists and turns while we revolve and rotate together either towards a new life or in deaths of old. May it be the former more than the latter.

References

Bateson, Gregory. 2002. Mind and Nature: A Necessary Unity. Hampton Press.

Brosius, J. Peter. 1999. “Green Dots, Pink Hearts: Displacing Politics from the Malaysian Rain Forest.” American Anthropologist 101 (1): 36–57. https://doi.org/10.1525/aa.1999.101.1.36.

Boyle, Alan. 2016. “Jeff Bezos’ Blue Origin Space Venture Sets Its Sights on Trips to Mars and the Moon.” 2016. GeekWire. September 27, 2016. https://www.geekwire.com/2016/jeff-bezos-blue-origin-space-mars-moon/.

Cantor, Georg. 1915. Contributions to the Founding of the Theory of Transfinite Numbers. Open Court Publishing Company.

Dobzhansky, Theodosius. 1964. “Biology, Molecular and Organismic.” American Zoologist 4 (4): 443–52.

Darwin, Charles, and Ernst Mayr. 2001. On the Origin of Species: A Facsimile of the First Edition. Facsimile ed. edition. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.

Eriksen, Thomas. 2007. Tunnel Vision. Social Anthropology 15:237–43.

Fowler, Cynthia T. 2016. Biosocial Synchrony on Sumba: Multispecies Relationships and Environmental Variations in Indonesia. Lexington Books.

Fuentes, Agustin. 2016. “The Extended Evolutionary Synthesis, Ethnography, and the Human Niche: Toward an Integrated Anthropology.” Current Anthropology 57 (S13): S13–26. https://doi.org/10.1086/685684.

Hayden, Erika Check. 2018. “A New View of Evolution That Can’t Be Represented by a Tree.” The New York Times, August 17, 2018, sec. Books. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/13/books/review/david-quammen-tangled-tree.html.

Hovorka, Alice J. 2018. “Animal Geographies III: Species Relations of Power.” Progress in Human Geography, May, 0309132518775837. https://doi.org/10.1177/0309132518775837.

Ingold, Tim. 1998. “From Complementarity to Obviation: On Dissolving the Boundaries between Social and Biological Anthropology, Archaeology and Psychology.” Zeitschrift Für Ethnologie 123 (1): 21–52.

Ingold, Tim. 2000. The Perception of the Environment: Essays on Livelihood, Dwelling and Skill. Psychology Press.

Ingold, Tim. 2007. “The Trouble with ‘Evolutionary Biology.’” Anthropology Today 23 (2): 13–17. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8322.2007.00497.x.

Ingold, Tim. 2007. “Beyond Biology and Culture. The Meaning of Evolution in a Relational World.” Social Anthropology 12 (2): 209–21. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-8676.2004.tb00102.x.

Ingold, Tim. 2013. Making: Anthropology, Archaeology, Art and Architecture. Routledge.

Ingold, Tim. 2013. “Biosocial Becomings Edited by Tim Ingold.” Cambridge Core. June 2013. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139198394.

Ingold, Tim. n.d. Tim Ingold. The Sustainability of Everything. Accessed December 10, 2018. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ncLv9Gk7XrI&t=413s

Lewontin, Richard C. 1970. “The Units of Selection.” Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 1 (1): 1–18.

Mars.nasa.gov. n.d. 2018. “Mars Terraforming Not Possible Using Present-Day Technology.” NASA’s Mars Exploration Program. Accessed December 10, 2018. https://mars.nasa.gov/news/8358/mars-terraforming-not-possible-using-present-day-technology.

McCabe, J. Terrence. 2004. Cattle Bring Us to Our Enemies: Turkana Ecology, Politics, and Raiding in a Disequilibrium System. University of Michigan Press.

Meloni, Maurizio. 2014. “How Biology Became Social, and What It Means for Social Theory:” The Sociological Review, August. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/1467-954X.12151.

Morton, John and Stroup Richard. 2018. Overpopulation: Where Malthus Went Wrong.” n.d. Accessed December 10, 2018.http://www.socialstudies.org/sites/default/files/publications/se/6106/610608.html.

Robbins, Paul. 2012. Political Ecology: A Critical Introduction. John Wiley & Sons.

Rocheleau, Dianne E. 1995. “Gender and Biodiversity: A Feminist Political Ecology Perspective.” IDS Bulletin 26 (1): 9–16. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1759-5436.1995.mp26001002.x.

Pasteur, Louis. 2010. The Physiological Theory of Fermentation and the Germ Theory and Its Application to Medicine and Surgery. Kessinger Publishing.

Pearson, Karl. 1900. The Grammar of Science. A. and C. Black.

Pimentel, David, O. Bailey, P. Kim, E. Mullaney, J. Calabrese, L. Walman, F. Nelson, and X. Yao. 1999. “Will Limits of the Earth’s Resources Control Human Numbers?” Environment, Development and Sustainability 1 (1): 19–39.

Pitrou, Perig. 2015. “An Anthropology beyond Nature and Culture? Tim Ingold and Gisli Palsson’s Edited Volume, Biosocial Becomings. | Somatosphere.” n.d. Accessed December 10, 2018. http://somatosphere.net/2015/08/an-anthropology-beyond-nature-and-culture-tim-ingold-and-gisli-palssons-edited-volume-biosocial-becomings.html.

Provine, William B. 2001. The Origins of Theoretical Population Genetics: With a New Afterword. University of Chicago Press.

Sarkar, Sahotra. 2004. “Evolutionary Theory in the 1920s: The Nature of the ‘Synthesis.’” Philosophy of Science 71 (5): 1215–26. https://doi.org/10.1086/425237.

Steward, Julian Haynes. 1972. Theory of Culture Change: The Methodology of Multilinear Evolution. University of Illinois Press.

Spacexcmsadmin. 2016. “Mars.” Text. SpaceX. September 20, 2016. https://www.spacex.com/mars.

Spence, Mark David. 2000. Dispossessing the Wilderness: Indian Removal and the Making of the National Parks. Oxford University Press. http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/view/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195142433.001.0001/acprof-9780195142433.

Woodger J. H. 1945. “On biological transformations.” In Essays on Growth and Form Presented to D’Arcy Wentworth Thompson. Clark, Wilfrid E. Le Gros, and P. B Medawar eds. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Imperialistic timbres of forced participation : a memetic analysis of Eco-Imperialism

Eco-imperialism is a useful concept for understanding aspects of a particular phase in the globalization of environmentalism however it is unable to describe fully all social consequences of the movement which may express itself situationally in different countries. As such, it is only partially useful in understanding the social influences of individually initiated environmentalist caused actions. Having worked closely with someone who was responsible for the creation of an eco-justice project and network at Cornell, I know that morally and politically activated displacements charged to eco-imperialistic domestication as described by Brosius (1999) and explored by Driessen (2003) are not fully encompassed by the concept. After reviewing Brosius’ recognition of the use of participation in management policies and as practiced during activist intervention associated with Malaysian forestry economics, I suggest that additional moral and political dimensions of change-promotion remained hidden in the critique that eco-imperialism was meant to expose. The norms and practices promoted explicitly inscribed particular moral and political agendas unawares and thus appear responsible for the institutional deafness diagnosed as instances of eco-imperialism. With morality-politics and ethics remaining latent in normative institutionalizations precipitated by the environmental movement, eco-imperialism sensu stricto is not able to scope out all kinds of statist consequentially resultant incidental affects. Eco-imperialism as a frame for recognizing environmental activist overreach is also unable to necessarily cover all future directions and situations that the environmental movement may move in and take and thus appears projectively as a meme that attempted to be all to everyone but in doing so both missed some of those it was supposed to reach and does not reach some of those it was adumbrated to envelope.

In a detailed analysis of international influence and reaction to Malaysian government forestry management projects Brosius (1999) noticed that environmental groups extended both advise and consultation to indigenous tribes and governmental institutions while also navigating the effects of their own influence on responses to the state government actions and reactions. Grass roots environmental groups and NGOs had coalesced around the UN supported Earth Charter and through advocacy and unified messaging began to influence local social responses to state actions including encouraging participation through management programs. Brosius labeled this imposition from without as a form of eco-imperialism and he described it as a new kind of fundamental Rappaportian deformation by deference to contingencies and instrumentalities noticed earlier in the history of affective international development influences of foreign countries on local decision-making and population structuring. Brosius recognized that the interests of environmental management programs towards including the participation of local populations was often just lip service. This phenomenon has also been observed by Paul Nadasdy (personal communication) with respect to wildlife management in the Yukon. Brosius argued that environmental groups fundamentally manipulated local participation in socio-economic realities through homogenizing sustainability by a kind of false participatory involvement charging this involvement consequentially to intentional illegibility through envelopment, surveillance, and governance and concluded that it was imperative that everyone weigh carefully the terms under which such institutionalizations occur.

In this effort to discern what is gained and what is lost, who is heard and who is silenced however Brosius failed to identify a group of people and their effects that were behind this new style of environmental activism and response. The UN Rio Earth Summit in 1992 which created the Earth Charter around which a general ethic for earth community arose led to an agreement to not carry out activities that would cause environmental degradation on the lands of indigenous people. The World Council of Churches participated in this summit and having created a JPIC ( Justice, Peace and the Integrity of Creation) process ( World Council of Churches, 2018) that subsumed ethical guidelines around principles of participation and sufficiency provided further support for those environmentalists attempting to realize such a community. This support itself had been backed by various religious denominational representatives that had met periodically over the 70s and 80s to craft a normative ethical structure from which organized conversations for activist eco-justice commenced. These conversations capitulated into the creation of an Eco-Justice project that operated through 1995 out of the Center for Religion, Ethics and Social Policy at Cornell and attempted to bring both secular and religious concerns under one network (Gibson, 2004). This new ethics for activist consumption included moral directives under named concepts of participation, solidarity, sufficiency, and sustainability. They were explicitly framed without direct use of implicit religious and moral percepts behind them. Some of the participants in this network served and effectively consulted with the World Council of Churches.

Brosius’s synthetic construction of eco-imperialism relied on keeping these norms analytically separated and culturally without memetic contact with each other. He saw the reaction of environmentalists to push-back from Malaysian state actors as something actively unanticipated and saw the reaction as a different kind of response. He considered participation as something different than sustainability and he did not see that sufficiency was directly linked to participation. From the perspective of the creators of eco-justice environmentalism however participation and sufficiency are tightly linked in intended application. The idea of sufficiency means to consume only what one actually needs rather than what one wants or desires. This was to apply to all peoples but in the application of the idea it leads to a tension between the participation of indigenous people and citizens of third-world nations’ access to and use of the economic structure of the rest of the world and the interest overall to limit total economic consumption worldwide. This failure of eco-justice to conceptually support the claims of local indigenous peoples because it restricts economic outcomes was drawn out quite dramatically by Driessen (2003). At the time that Brosius was analyzing the situation in Malaysia, the eco-justice network had not realized that its call for frugality through sufficiency was not going to be accepted in the West. It had been hoped that if the world consumption patterns were decreased this would free up capital for use by locals and third-world individuals.

So the very case of the Malaysian forestry economic situation cannot be diagnosed as a simple imposition of the North /West on the South/East. That case was actually a much more complex social dynamic in which the charge of intentional eco-imperialistic legibilization does really explain it at all. It explains that the normative background remained precisely there — in the background. It does not explain how for instance solidarity and participation were held together in the minds of the activists. It did not expose precepts behind the principles. Brosius never discussed the plight of the Penan people themselves beyond saying that their interests had been abandoned. Eco-justice was designed to restrict some economic activities, but the norms as concepts do not specify to whom these restrictions are to apply ( i.e. whether to the producers of Malaysian forest products or the consumers in Europe). More fundamentally, the norms were not constructed to resolve the inherent tension between participation and sufficiency . This is why the Rappaportian analogy marshalled by Brosius is less than perspicuous.

Additionally, the social consequences of these imperialistically appearing actions by environmental groups assumed that degradation of the environment, forest tree destruction, was undesirable in principle but this need not necessarily be the case. Fox News reported that on 11/17/18 that environmental group activism had kept government officials in California from removing underbrush and practicing controlled burns as indigenous peoples have for so long done. President Trump said that he was providing funds so that such forest management could and would happen and governor Brown agreed to push-forward on environmental groups that oppose the practice. Thus when generalized to other potential social consequences of environmentalism, the labeling of Malaysian forestry economic activity as a case of degradation of the forest environment of indigenous people need not be critiqued from the angled constraint of eco-imperialism at all.

Also, eco-imperialism cannot address how the environmental movement may change in the future. Where the movement goes is completely open and given the lack of any real sign of actual political change with respect to the larger issues of climate change and its deniers, there is no way to predict or even to understand, how the social consequences will play out . Driessen (2003) considered that the Earth Summit in 2002 might have preluded the end of eco-imperialism but from the perspective developed here that meeting was simply a case where eco-justice thought attempted to hold solidarity and participation close in the face of a realization that holding sufficiency and participation close had not worked. There is no telling what the movement will do next having essentially failed twice to reach its goal of a new Earth community. The next generation may choose to ignore the norms themselves completely. They may attempt to institute true forms of co-management with indigenous people perhaps via programs developed out of use of radical participation (Nadasdy, 2007) that could lead to new forms of engaged social constructions that cannot be considered to be eco-imperialistic in any sense.

Thus, eco-imperialism both in general and as developed from the particular instance Brosius narrated does not serve as a universal critique of forms of environmental institutionalisms. There were moral and religious backgrounds that were never fully institutionalized in the process and yet nevertheless influenced the social consequences of activism yet remained latently sedimented in Brosius’ analysis. For various and sundry reasons there is no way to predict how the environmental movement will change in the future nor to how it might respond to positive critiques and criticisms that are not eco-imperialistic in tone or temperament. In the particular case of how participation is applied, there are a variety of potential programs that work from and with local people such that the charge of wrongly imposing a global view on local action does not apply. We simply cannot just ask who is heard and who is silenced, who is helped and who is hurt but we must look to understand how cultural concepts and memes interact and influence each other within and among communities as new formations of linguistic conveyance circulate.

References

Brosius, J. Peter. “Green Dots, Pink Hearts: Displacing Politics from the Malaysian Rain Forest.” American Anthropologist, vol. 101, no. 1, Mar. 1999, pp. 36–57. Crossref, doi:10.1525/aa.1999.101.1.36.

Driessen, Paul. Eco-Imperialism: Green Power, Black Death. 1st ed, Free Enterprise Press : Distributed by Merril Press, 2003.

Gibson, William E., editor. Eco-Justice — the Unfinished Journey. State University of New York Press, 2004.

Nadasdy, Paul. “The Gift in the Animal: The Ontology of Hunting and Human-Animal Sociality.” American Ethnologist, vol. 34, no. 1, Feb. 2007, pp. 25–43. Crossref, doi:10.1525/ae.2007.34.1.25.

World Council of Churches (WCC) Justice, Peace, and Creation (JPC) | Engaged Projects | Christianity | Religion | Yale Forum on Religion and Ecology. http://fore.yale.edu/religion/christianity/projects/wcc_jpc/. Accessed 19 Nov. 2018.

Magic — Pythagoreans — Chaos — and Indigenous Cultures

Nature/Culture:The Politics of Human-Environment Relations –Paper #1 by Brad McFall

Roy Rappaport (1967) conducted research on human-environment relations with the Tsembaga of New Guinea and applied a methodological distinction (Rappaport, 1968) he categorized and described as the “cognized environment” and the “operational environment.” This strategy is not shared by all anthropologists. Franke (1962), in contrast, prefers ethnographic observations that are not forced a priori into categories of the theorist’s choosing but instead utilizes a strategy that taps the cognitive world of one’s informants. Rappaport does find that the cognitive understandings of his subjects do indeed possess functional power and casual efficacy however he essentially considers the way these functions operate and the consequences they entail as reality and thus he ends up reducing the significance of the informant’s discoverable features of the objects and events they regard as significant. He did not pursue how these features may imply a need to change the theory that informed his operational perspective. I will show that by further segmenting and ordering the contrasts inherent in Rappaport’s information and data that the Tesmba’s signification of the kaiko ritual is not only functional towards structuring an operational environment but also explains why it is that the cognitive environment of the Tsembaga matches closely, descriptive a priori categorizations in the ecosystem approach to cultural anthropology which otherwise were thought to exist ontologically outside recognition of and by the Tsembaga and Maring people. I will show that this match was outside the cognized environment of operational recognition as Rappaport then understood it.

I also suggest that the distinction between an operational and cognized environment is a flawed epistemological approach to ecological anthropology because Rappaport was forced to conclude that the ritual leads to two different operational consequences resultant from a single cognized environmental situation and I explore a new model within his operational environment of cultural ecosystem anthropology to suggest that the local kaiko ritual, as ritualized, can holistically link the local and the regional ecosystems. The particulars of the model suggest that tapping into the informant’s cognitive environment does not force the operational cognition into a mode of “cultural relativism” precisely because the cognitive aspect of ritual, being ritualized, functions to negotiate what appears as a random process (a variety of large or small oscillations ) deterministically (through history) . It appears the Tsembaga have been able practically to explore and negotiate a complex dynamical system through ritual that Western scientists only first began to uncover the parameterizations of, in the 1960s and yet still continue to explore its behavior and ramifications at, to this very day.

Rapaport observes that:

“The kaiko or pig festival, which commences with the planting of stakes at the boundary and the uprooting of the rumbim, is thus triggered by either the additional work attendant upon feeding pigs or the destructive capacity of the pigs themselves. It may be said, then, that there are sufficient pigs to stage the kaiko when the relationship of pigs to people changes from one of mutualism to one of parasitism or competition.” ( Rappaport ,1969, p. 194 )

Rappaport stresses a couple of rules and another observation of the ritual cycle:

“If one of a pair of antagonistic groups is able to uproot its rumbim before its opponents can plant their rubim, it may occupy the latter’s territory.” (Rappaport, 1969 ,p.194 )“A man becomes a member of a territorial group by participating with it in the planting of rumbim.” ( Rappaport, 1969, p. 195)“If a pair of antagonistic groups proceeds through two ritual cycles without resumption of hostilities their enmity may be terminated.” (Rappaport, 1969, p.197 )

Because the kaiko is dependent on the local relationship of pigs and people but the rules around its consequences extend beyond the local group, Rapaport analyzed the relationships of the Tsembaga with their environment as “a complex composed of two subsystems.”(Rappaport, 1969, p.198 ) He said, “ What may be called the “local subsystem” has been derived from the relations of the Tsembaga with the nonhuman components of their immediate or territorial environment. It corresponds to the ecosystem in which the Tsembaga participate. A second subsystem, one which corresponds to the larger regional population of which the Tsembaga are one of the constituent units and which may be designated as the “regional subsystem,” has been derived from the relations of the Tsembaga with neighboring local populations similar to themselves.” (Rappaport, 1969, p. 198 )

Rappaport reasoned, “It has been argued that rituals, arranged in repetitive sequences, regulate relations both within each of the subsystems and within the larger complex system as a whole. But the kaiko, which is the culmination of the ritual cycle, does more than reverse changes which have taken place within the local subsystem. Its occurrence also affects relations among components of the regional subsystem…Ritual, among the Tsembaga and other Maring, in short, operates as both transducer, “translating” changes in the state of one subsystem into information which can effect changes in the second subsystem, and homeostat, maintaining a number of variables which in sum comprise the total system within ranges of viability.” (Rappaport, 1969, p.198–199 )

It is this transmission of information and the proposed homeostatic nature of the ritual that Rappaport suggests are outside of the cognized kaiko of the Tsembaga who are talking with ancestors, mediating local emergencies and disputes and dealing with their neighbors but are not dissecting culture into a system of subsystems and summing up variables into an ecosystem model.

The synthesis of this model with Rappaport’s analysis of the information leads him to conclude both that the Tsembaga and other entities with which they share their territory are a “ritually regulated ecosystem” and the Tsembaga and their human neighbors are a “ritually regulated population,” (Rappaport, 1969 p.199) despite the fact the Tsembaga simply recognize their behavior as part of one phenomenon. Rappaport did notice that “The concept of the ecosystem, though it provides a convenient frame for the analysis of interspecific trophic exchanges taking place within limited geographical areas, does not comfortably accommodate intraspecific exchanges taking place over wider geographic areas. Some sort of geographic population model would be useful for the analysis of the relationship of the local ecological population to the larger regional population of which it is a part, but we lack even a set of appropriate terms for such a model.” (Rappaport, 1969 p. 184 )

What I find interesting is that knowing this, Rappaport did not try to investigate if ecological models could be expanded to take into account the rules of the ritual he learned from the Tsembaga themselves. Instead, he attempts to suggest that one might consider evolutionary effects in the ecological situation because in genetics and ecology both operate with the notion of a “population” of organisms (Rappaport,1969 p. 184). This should have been enough for him to either decide to reconsider the distinction he made between the operational and cognized environments or determine that the ecosystem approach was not viable in general if “appropriate terms” could not be found. Reasoning ultimate evolutionary effects into proximate ecological causes is fraught with many difficulties.

In fact, terms suitable to do just what Rappaport mused on and about was propaedeutically available a decade earlier, admittedly expressed in hard to instantiate language. Edward Kerner wrote in 1959, “ We may note in passing a characteristic time-reversal symmetry of equations (3) , namely, that if t (->-t), the equations are unchanged if also the signs of the gamma(rs)are reversed, meaning in the original usage( gamma(rs)=alpha(rs)/(beta(r))*beta(s))) a reversal of the roles of predator and prey, thus a kind of biologic analog to the principle of dynamic reversibility.”(Kerner, 1959, p. 222–223. )

Thus in 1959 it was possible to think, without even any specific model, the reversals within the local subsystem as dynamic trajectories of the whole system. Rappaport did not need to invoke genetic populations and narrate a two part conclusion for one phenomenon. Hernandez ( 1998) has recently developed a consonant model (Hernandez and Ignacio, 2003) and it has direct application to Rappaport’s mode of operationalism.

In Hernandez’s model ( 1998, Hernandez and Ignacio 2003) two populations may interact in different ways during their lifetime, and even undergo transitions from one type of interaction to another, such as mutualism to parasitism. Thus the transition of pigs being beneficial to the Tsembaga at low densities but detrimental at high densities can be explicitly modeled with a cost and benefit function that can be shaped completely by recognition of how the Tsembaga actually operate. The only constraint that is needed is that there be a transition from a positive to a negative benefit with increasing population sizes, which is what Rappaport reported is the case. The dynamics of these transitions ( as the Tsembga go through the ritual cycle as applied to the functionality introduced by Hernandez) result from variations in population density (endogenous effects), or in the environmental parameters (exogenous effects) ( Hernandez, 1998).

These “variable outcomes — and transitions between them — are categorized as homeo- or allo-environmental, that is, occurring under the same ecological setting, or not, respectively. Bifurcation analyses show that these dynamics are moulded by ecological factors that are: intrinsic to the nature of the association (concerning the sensitivity of the interaction), and extrinsic to the association itself (the quality of the environment referred to each species alone).” ( Hernandez and Ignacio, 2003 p. 571). Multiple density equilibria are possible and the “influence of the factors may be conflicting , consequently, the dynamics involve catastrophic events.” (Hernandez and Ignacio, 2003,p. 571 ) The homeo-environmental variable outcomes are effected under the same environmental conditions as occurs to each ecological population in the region. The allo-environmental variable outcomes are effected “variations that occur for the same two species but under different environmental conditions; that is, variable stable states for a different set of parameters. Transitions between these states are induced by changes in environmental conditions, which is to say, in the parameters of the model.” (Hernandez 2003, p 581). These can be effected by either relations of when and how the kaiko itself is called or by alteration of the carrying capacities of either the pigs or the people.

The nature of the catastrophe that the model specifies is such that the homeo-environmental outcomes possess multiple equilibria conditions but are flanked by the allo-environmental variations on either side (Hernandez 2003, page 588). Because the kaiko effects the allo-environmental variations on either side of the region of multiple possible equilibria its cyclical effects enables different entrances and exits into and out of the boundary via turning points and thus can ritualized decisions control teleonomic trajectories towards different equilibria overtime by operating in both the local and regional places, precisely as Rappaport sought to find terms for.

By thus centralizing the ritual in this way, Franke’s ideas of ethnographic procedure ( Franke 1962, p. 54) are thus gainsaid and an advance is made beyond Moran (1990, p. 21) where one is now able to model and predict to some extent future structural situations as “On the whole, in systems where bifurcations and catastrophes are involved, the particular history of the dynamics is determinant. That is, the ultimate outcome of the interaction between the two species depends upon initial density conditions and on the specific sequence of environmental variation there after” ( Hernandez and Ignacio, 2003). That however is only if the cost and benefit between pigs and people does not change. Even if they do, that too can be incorporated into the model. Additionally then, there will be a stochastic element to prediction , not the otherwise seemingly prima facie environmentally deterministic one. Regardless, it is an advance over that aspect of Moran’s criticism of the ecosystem model in this sense.

Furthermore , by including the actual Tsemba costs and benefits directly into the alpha function of Hernandez ( that reverses the interaction between pigs and people) one can see that this cognized environment directs how the catastrophic turning points can be specially utilized to direct the population trajectory through its space of different equilibrial possibilities because the Tsembaga ritual “steers” the population through possible paths but does not create the set of possible paths altogether. It is important to include the Tsembaga’s decisions since these changes affect how fast or slow a transition from one dynamic orbit into another can occur.

Finally, because the kaiko ritual is repetitively repeated the Tsembaga appear able to negotiate non-equilibrial states without going extinct. In one possible scenario they do this by utilizing both intrinsic factors associated with their local interactions (various yellow circles and ellipses below) and extrinsic regional factors ( purple and red brown paths below) as one cyclical path moves into another one across the non-equilibrial catastrophic space that crosses the diagonal “boundary” area.

Thus theoretically this is not a culturally relativistic situation, one in which each culture itself completely determines not only to where the equilibria will go but to what they would happen to be teleologically. Rather, history determines (even if stochastically modified) how the oscillations curve into others merely because the ritual is circular and thus possess geometric curvature.

Consequently, one can return back to the Tsembaga and re-embody, the causality of transformation, into the connotation of their actual ritual that Rappoport had “disempopulationed.” Catastrophe theory (with its emphasis on transversality ( Thom 1972)) enables one to reach a higher degree of orthomorphism with emipirical fact than adaptatioin ( Brookfield (1970), in Moran p. 16) and we can see now that the cognitive environment of the Tsembga matched the operating environment because it preluded towards a needed change in theory construction formerly applied out of a priori or model reasons.

This work can be used to investigate further the model results already obtained and reviewed by Foin and Davis( 1987).

In conclusion, I would like to address Moran’s (1990,p.16) arguments against the ecosystem approach ( in italics below):

a) “Tendency to reify the ecosystem and to give it the properties of a biological organism;”

The ecosystem however is not being made more real than it is, on the contrary the abstract parts of ritual that regulate two different things in Rapports model is made more realistic and comprehensive with the model suggested here.

b) “Overemphasis on predetermined measures of adaptation such as energetic “efficiency”;”

The cost and benefits are not predetermined but made from the Tsembaga decisions themselves.

c) “A tendency for models to ignore time and structural change, thereby overemphasizing stability in ecosystems;”

Time through reversals in the relation of the benefit of and cost of pigs results in types of possible structural changes with stability being a telos but not necessarily a goal actually reached.

d) “A tendency to neglect the role of individuals”

Ritualized communications with ancestors can lead as part of the individual communication itself to a tracking and being flexible to the causal paths ecosystems go through.

e) “A lack of clear criteria for boundary definition;”

Homeo- and allo- environmental outcomes determine a boundary.

f) “and, Level shifting between field study and analysis.”

Rappaport relied on using a particular notion of group level action arising from population density much after the manner of Wynne Edwards(1962). This work has been much debated (Borrello, 2010) and while there is a new field (Peltier et.al., 2009 ) of eco-evolutionary studies that might incorporate this particular mechanism suitably criticized it was possible to understand the density effects from within the level of decision making observed by individuals in the field without need for further model development.

References

Borrello, Mark. E. 2010. Evolutionary Restraints: The Contentious History of Group Selection. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Frake, Charles O. 1962. Cultural Ecology and Ethnography. American Anthropologist, 64(1) 53–59.

Foin, T.C. and Davis W. G. 1987. Equilibrium and Nonequilibrium Models in Ecological Anthropology: An evaluation of “Stability” in Maring Ecosystems in New Guinea. American Anthropologist. 89(1):9–31.

Hernandez, Maria-Josefina 1998. Dynamics of transitions between population interactions: a nonlinear interaction Alpha-function defined . Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B. 265:1433–1440.

Hernandez, Maria-Josefina and Barradas, Ignacio . 2003. Variation in the outcome of population interactions: bifurcations and catastrophes. J. Math. Biol. 46: 571–594.

Kerner, Edward H. 1959. Further Considerations on the Statistical Mechanics of Biological Associations. Bulletin of Mathematical Biophysics 21: 217–255.

Moran, Emillo. F. 1990. Ecosystem Ecology in Biology and Anthropology: A Critical Assessment in The Ecosystem Approach in Anthropology: From Concepts to Practice Moran ed. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.

F. Pelletier, D. Garant, A.P. Hendry .2009. Eco-evolutionary dynamics .Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B. 364:1483–1489.

Rappaport, R.A. .1968. Pigs for the Ancestors. New Haven: Yale University Press.

Rappaport, Roy. A. 1967. Ritual Regulation of Environmental Relations among a New Guinea People. Ethnology 6( 1):17–30.

Thom, Rene. 1975. Structural Stability and Analysis: An Outline of a General Theory of Models .Reading Massachusetts: W.A. Benjamin, Inc.

Plastid automata

Two routes towards making synthetic photosynthesis include addition of genes into non-photosynthetic cells until they are able to utilize light energy or else one could place functional plastids into non-plastid cells. The functionality of the latter may be further engineered at length by extending the suggestion made by Von Neumann that relates automata to living replication.

Modify a host, A such that it can construct both itself and the plastid.

Make an automaton B, with a virus that can make a copy of any genotype.

Automaton C is added to A and B which provides A with an I that describes A and is compatible with B that subsequently results in a copy of A. C is also structured to subsequently then trigger B to copy I and put it into the copy of A. Finally C possess the functionality to now release the copy of A with its I copy from the A+B+C automaton group called D.

Now an ID is inserted into the A of D. Call this aggregate E. E is now self- reproductive provided that the duplication and separation do not cross each other when the AD copy is removed and the BID copy of E is made and inserted into the AD copy. In other words the A+B+C does not confound the insertion of any I in A, the separation of the A copied, the I formed from B in the construction of the ID.

The amount of rethinking that Ingold has called for can scarcely be underestimated. It seems prima facie naïve and overly simplistic that Ingold thinks that he can generate all that evolutionary biologists have thought while making life unfold only “as a tapestry of mutually conditioning relations (that) may be summed up in a single word, social.” Is there really some compelling reason that we should reconsider bacterial quorum sensing as truly social in a sense comparable to E.O. Wilson’s eucsociality? Are kineses really to be cognized as social when they appear to be fully accounted for, as purely physical interactions and responses? Do plant’s really have endocrine like person-self systems?

One way to gauge the immensity of the change to biology that Inglodian reconceptualizations entail is to interrogate Ingold’s charge of hylomorphism with its resolution as put forth by automaton views derived from Von Neumann. Von Neumann contends that automaton self-replication is like biological replication where genetic information is copied and divided concurrently with cell divisions.

Ingold-

” It has proceeded as if the form were already there, prefigured in the virtual space of the genotype or its cultural equivalent. The work of ontogenesis, then, is reduced to one of mere transcription, of the prefigured form or design into the material substrate of organic matter, or what used to be called ‘protoplasm’.”

Ontogensis is not comprehended explicitly in Von Neumann’s suggestion, however one can imagine it may be incorporated if the combination of B with A and the separation of the A copy from D were recognized as a mitotic cell division. In this way differentiable forms developed histogenically are not merely prefigured in virtual space of the genotype via I but depend on the union and separation of parts of E as I ( the nucleus) is copied and moved (metaphase plate). There may be some effect of the result of B action that creates a different ID and IE that depend not on the vat of chemical elements accessible to A that are also used by B but in the relation of the addition of B to E differently than to D or C. Energy relations appear wholly in the interrelation of B’s use of A elements with more energy being needed to produce increases in the size of I after union and separation repeats. These only affect form in the speed with which A can copy not with form that A copies have descripted. Form however is not wholly abstract and removed even though it can be modified by “mutations” whether in the provision of elements for A or in the union and separations themselves.

Ingold

“This way o fminldng about me creation of mings, whemer living or artefactual, has been wim us ever since Aristotle, in DeAnima, introduced his distinctionbetween form (morphe)” and matter (hyle), arguing mat me thing itselfis a result ofthe combi nation ofme two.”

So in the abstract there is still a distinction of the form and matter since the elements and the energy that goes into process are separate from the form, it is a question if the energy and form are actually this separate or if changes in the form of the energy used perhaps also in the separation and union are not directly causal with the shapes that result. D’Arcy Thompson proposed that mathematical rules and thus perhaps physical forces determine these while Gould has suggested that this need not be the case. That is an open question. Below is an answer to this.

With the genes are simple containers of received information that shapes and constructs the unformed plasmic material — chemicals that can be decomposed or composed. It does not on Ingold;s reporesentation contain the information in the chamical or the environment. Only in the how the genes receive inform atkon from which they reform the material. On the automaton view this view is not correct about the information since it can depend on the copiying — that is what makes making the atuomoaton view hard to realize. However the automaton view does not fully integrate information beyond just how the genes recive it, They do not consider that chemical environemtn as abiotic forced influences may be the information genetic per say and this can be imagined with Fodor’s idea if one is able to see how the genes do make the cells, making in the chemical interchange as one the division — theorugh a common conversation of stages of form energy transforms — chemical — to electromagnetic — to protons under a concervation law that like wise dominates the death of the replicated lives by other lives thorugh eating which decomposes them back down to the energy transforms themselbes. This is the idea that langrangian has a NOtherian conservation lawy that bridges the entire idea of replication and control and the cells and the geneyptypes which by law are united. Way -The implication for evolution is that life comes only from other life and that there is not a general autonoton that will be able to match the dynamic s of life even if it sia ble to match the kinds of apparent patterns of survivals.

Whetyher this should be considered to be social — however is another question.

Ingold-

“ This so-called ‘hylomorphic’ model of creation is for example invoked, for me most part quite unreflectively, whenever biologists declare that the organism is the product of an interaction between ‘genes’ and ‘enviromnent’. The genes are introduced into the equation as carriers of received information, which is supposed to order and arrange me formiess, ‘plasmic’ material of the environment in the acmalization of the phenotypic product. Applied to culture, the logic is just the same, andjust as deep-seated inthe western intellectual tradlition. The only difference is mat me information is carried in me virtual space of memes rather than genes ”

These can be social but not have to have the cultural idea of memes for the forms.

It does say how it is to be related to the population. A population need not necessarily be seen as preventing the form from being a part of the ontogeny and evolution as Ingold further remarked.

“This kind of relational mhamng, however, fiies in me face of the ‘population thinlcing’ mat has always defined me neo-Darwinian project, according to which every individual is a discrete, bounded and enumerable entity, one of a population of such entities, and relating to other such entities along lines of contact that leave its internally specified nature unaf fected. Thus the advent of relational thinking replaced me comple mentarity mesis with an unstable compromise: not between twopai-ts of the human being, respectively social and biological, but between two completely different ontologies of the human, respectively rela tional and populational. How could both be right?”

When Fisher suggested an deep analogy between populations and thermodynamics and utilized the Malthusian argument he made this identity. However he did not fully incoroporate the relation of different populations amongst themselves on the very statistics that made into the fundamental theorem and thus some population geneticists such as Roughgarden so no way forward with the global populational stance of population genetics. It is not that populations of organsisms are to be thought of a particles but rather that the particles of populations in populations still retain a particle like ontology but only through movmenet in and out of genetic populations as actual particles interact. Wright found another way to address this without utilizing the very particles since it was only necessary to recognize the materiality as factors as particles not the particles of chemical elements that went into them and Kimura went so far in the neutral theory as to say that the particles have no effect . Use of synthetic Von Neumann automata while not being likely fully biological can provide some insight into how Fisher’s ideas need to be modified as the relational ontology is integrated with the populational one. In view of Von Nueman’s automata Kimura’s idea was simply that the chemical vat used by A and B did not have an effect on the separation and union as I was provided, inserted and removed — that the energy of such use has no effect on the forms produced.

The law of Kerner with the particles in populations with a decision on energy relations shows that somethings that are social are acutally biologiucal ( Kiako of New guinea) but they don not mean to show that all biological are social since some relations merely are parts of isolatd species evolutions and adapations to environmental chemicals that go in the vat without forced coupling to form-making either of the species of others that contribute on degradation to the chemical vat.

Ingold -

” In this limited sense, variation under natural selection is still going on within me process of evolution. It is neimer necessary nor sufficient, however, to explain the process. In a sense, me problem ofexplanation is me precise reverse of what it has conventionally been taken to be. It is not a question of explaining why forms change, despite being pegged down to a fixed genetic template whose constituent units are copied wim remarkable fidelity across generations. It is rather one of explaining how forms remain the same, from generation to generation, in the absence ofany suchpegs. “

The answer to this question depends on how the energy can change forms ( chemical, electromagnetic, gravitational) as the forms remain across generations with the chemical vat undergoing as much passage of materials in and out. It is the answer to the question of how can we extract energy from the form. By asking the question this way we do not immediately assume that the form and matter are separated but we do not say that ontogeny must necessarily be the missing link in the resolution of the problem.

Ingold

“The more we know about the genome, the more improbable it seems mat it could serve as an anchor for stability. Indeed it is hard to see how the reproducibility of organic form could be attributed to anything as fluid, as liable to getting itself ded up in knots, as prone to alteration by retro-transposition, and as susceptible to me transfer of bits and pieces back and forffi with the organism’s multiple and heter ogeneous microbial symbionts, as me genome (Charney 2012).”

This is the whole concern of Ingold. Ingold suspects that the motions of the particles can not support the stability of the formed population and its structure since they are like random billard balls boucing and exchangning places and as such can not constrain the shape of the resultant chaos. He does not see how to extract a deterministic form from the chaotic motions nor how to build the population from the particle motions and cell situational orderings as formally resultant despite this motion and historical contingency. I shall further explore a suggestion on how the genonme can and does actually support the stability rather than the instability Ingold refocused intention to with his attention.

How they remain the same form is by having more energy in the form than in the environemnts they have formed from . They can have the more energy becaue they retained some of the energy from the prior evolutions. This retention does not imply that forms which on their edges may or may not have come from the past and may or ay not go into the future and thus can not be said whether they are social or not — thus not all of life is social since we do not have this idea broken down into the attachtiona and repulaions per kindso of forces — such as the relation to weak forces and strong — or to some other kind of forces such as implicated in quantum biology. These things mya find their own way inbut in doing so they would have alterted the chemical to the social relations and we would have to evalutate them then and not now as we search for the control and understanding of the cell form and pheynotyop shape to the replication cycytles. We would need to know of every case of how forces can change the phenotycopy and how ophyenocopies can evolve . These could mak the social a muchj larger category. If that is all that Ingold meant then yes it could.

One other result of this investigation will be if chemicals actually can be negative quantities in the process — because if this is the case then there can be ethically netural infleuce=nces from the left and right such that Ingold’s idea of minor and m ajor might itself fall abour

Woodger

“[N]o one had attempted to do for biology anything analogous to what Galileo had done for physics, and Boyle had done for chemistry. No one, that is to say, had undertaken a systematic critical study of the fundamental properties and special requirements of this science in relation to the most advanced metaphysical, epistemological and logical notions of the day (Woodger to University of London Registrar, 6th January 1930).

Ingold considers that hylomorphism is the major issue that evolutionary theory has failed to come to terms with. His accusation that abstract forms of living things that are supposed to be expressed via genetic information however is being further explored in a particular way by Chaitin in Metabiology and in general by Brenner — who sees following Von Neuman that copying in automata may be considered to be the same as reproductive replication of life. If Woodger’s use of Whitehaed is to be the backing for Igolds truth in the making of the minor over the major future archteture of ontogeny and phylogeny then it must be indeed that cells being simply things that elaborate and remain divided from genes in that genes do not in the making make cells is the idea behind this future idea moving forward.

So the abstract notion of form, is to be pursued then as a self-reproducing automaton — such an entity is supposed to contain both ceullar replication in life histories and and the genetic information that is replicated during the division.

Breenner hae the idea back in 1952 — that Von Nuemann had got it right.

With an automaton there is no vicious circle in the functionality . The issue however is how the control mechanism functions relative to the parts that are replicated. Since this is considered as a tape , there appears to be an additional process that can be approached frosm the Ingodlan minor and major in which would extend beyong the simple phenomenalism of Pearosn on the the origin of this life.

The aditional process is that from the perspective of Ingold it is the form as expressed in the ontogeny that effects the controls ( not the differential expression of genes) and thus while becoming can establish a different control that need not be associated only with the self-replication of the automaton.

The automaton idea limits the kind of self-reproduction that one might imagine if Leibg had been correct and Pasteur wrong. — that abiotic/environmental chemcials may have fundemantal self-replicative equivlantes but are merely effecting the c ontrol of the self replication rather than the division itself.

I am going to explore some imaginary idedas about how the hylomorphism of genetic information Brenner cells may n ever be able to approach.

How far can Woodger’s cytoplasmic theory go towards fulfilling Ingold’s need put ontogeny into embodiments of new conceptions of living such that with every design for a new form of life the design fashions a living being?

Ontogeny relates the forms(a new form of life) as they change under the taxonomic transformation, T.

In the minor — the interpretation is complex:

Woodger’s zygote transform Z can be likened to Ingold’s embodiments of new conceptions of living that are able to fashion the living being becoming by subtracting the form as life in E2 from the form in E1. When you do this you get the ontogeny itself that links the evolved phylogenetic form with genetic information necessary towards such a design. One must note that Ingold’s use of the word design is not intended to be teleological as he considers “anti-chance” rather than “transcendent cause” in the dynamics he suggests.

In the major the interpretation is simple:

The Z transformation is ontogeny itself. E1 is genetic information of the form from it’s phylogeny, and E2 is it’s phylogeny from the same genetic information after becoming an adult. In the major, one would not consider that the adult’s matured conception of living necessarily fashions a different living being than (the sum of) its earlier life history traits, so Woodger’s connexion would have to be modified so that the taxonomy and genetic information does some kind of fashioning which was what the minor was designed to do.

What is at stake is how a theory of cytoplasmic organization of the zygote that changes during growth and development is related to a theory of zygote structure that includes genetic information expressed or not during ontogeny and formalized in the embryological transformations.

We can bring Woodger’s and Ingold’s ideas a bit closer since Woodger considered the egg and it’s future adult “just as the first and last movements of a symphony are both temporal parts of the same musical composition.’

Do genes make cells? Woodger thought that genes were concerned with characters and not with making cells. He thought that cells are never made they merely persist by division and elaboration. It is on the Ingoldian conception to relate the genetic information to the relational organisms to say how genes make cells such that the organism is it’s cells in the making.

So the question becomes ca n the zygote cytoplasmic structure effect control of self replication both during embryology and meiosis as one?

I am going present a hypothetical theory of the origin of the Edicarian biota based on this idea . It will show that there may be a fundamental relationship between the control over the direction of chemical reaactions and division patterns in cells such that there can be no fundamental biological separation with respect to form-makiing in the parts that self reproduce and the controls that track and make the reproduction happen. It will be because life utilizes the logic of the difference of attraction and repulsion in the distances that actually obtain and thus can not made by abstraction of the control of the information alone as to the form. The forms posses particular relations of gravity to electromagnetism

With such a use of projective geometry it will not be directly the case that Ingold’s against projection an for the black board carries over completely to his idea of the needing to see Homo duplex replaced with a relational individualitiyt. In this particular idiea sex is related to catabolism and anabolism and thus projection still exists in so far as there IS sex but in the lives in the making that do not contain this difference then only in those cases will there be no projection and only the black board.

Of course the idea about sex and the specific about the relations of histogeny may not be true in this idea in which we will find that actual realtion of the automaton genetic ifnrokatino future and the biological anthropologial influence can be something other when it come to how the control is related to the parts under going copy.

It will be a matter of the force relative to the topology

.

Von Neumann had the idea if explored at length might offer biology more than an analogy to biological reproduction. His set up of parts A, B ( copying mechanism), C with tape I and Control Mechanism. The analogy appeared to him in that the genetic code and tape I were possibly homologous if the at length exposition was to show so. The difficulty with this indentification is that it may be that the duplication of the tape and and the dupliation of the part A. At issue is if there is any idea of modification of traits that can make the idea homologous. Prima facie B appears to be the molecular biology necessary to replicated the genome with Tape I being the code and A being cell being copied, with only the control mechanism being unattached. Ingolds ideas however suggest that there is no trait that can be found to make this analo

A gets an I and makes a copy of A. Control mechanism provides the I then to B which makes a copy. Control mechanism then inserts I into the copy of A and effects the separation of the I copies.

There is thus an A copy on copy on copy, a I that is copied on and on and is moved from an orgianl location to the copy location to its own copy location to as a copy ino the A copy. And copy

It is interesting to consider that Woodger noticed modifications to the concept of homology brought about by genetics which showed that descent from a common ancestor need not exist for homologous genes that evolve by separate but ‘parallel” ( same molecular effect) mutations. Rather than see this as a symptom of objectification Gould has attempted to mediate different claims about what homology is. So diagnosed however it is possible to realize that the change that genetics brought to anatomical homology is due to the notion of the common ancestor as being existent in the external environment. Such a view seems to be definitionally impossible but on the relational view of the person this is not so. Also resolutions of Fodor’s endogenous need for an exogenous intentionality provides the mechanism such that the anatomical environment can be found to exist in forced directions of sets of molecuarl affects where homology is located in the form and pattern of the forcing not in the forms so forced to form. With this we see an organ as external to the body interms of the variation in shape it may have when the heiracgy of parts and wholes and this is a function of environment with a particular lineage and can be imagined to an ancestor that is not located in any body. Here we apply woodgers correspondence to Ingolds correspondence. This happens when we update Woodgers correspondence by subindividual variation if this subindividual variation supports Ingodian correspondence.

The question is if the evolutionary postulate can be made strong enough such that the community of descent and community with respect to some Bauplan will always be a logical consequence of the occurrence of morphological correspondence (in both the woodgerian and ingoldian senses). How are the forces of the relational expression of ontogeny to affect the hierarchicial inclusions of subsets of morophology? Do cases such as in the Edicaran fractal morphologies that may only share the cell-Bauplan of their ancestors necessitate a difference in the communites of both that can not be brought togeterh such that the only after the Cambrian explosion was such possible?

The community does not seem to be maintainable if the large clade stabilities are maintained by subindividual variation that supports particular independent deme structures that link common cell bauplans poly and para phletically. As such the evolutionary postuatle could be extended but the community of Bauplan desecent would not mathc the morphological correspondence within phylogenies beyond the clades — except in relation to the cell Bauplan . The only resolution is to extend the ancestor into the environment ( much in the way that Leibig thought of fermentation).

It is possible to think that the irreversibility of embryological transforms are due to a bauplan conservation law that links the environmental relation to the selected traits with a given morphological correspondence and that conservation as a relation of least action is related to the reversible symmetry of predator and prey when subindividaul variation directs clade heterogenetiy within a given correspondence.

This view is not compatible with the kind of division implied by Von Neumann even when drawing out the analogy at length between automata copying and cell replication. There B parts are dependent on changes in A and C is not separable in any way from I , A or B. The direct relation of symmetry to conservation in Noether’s theorm excludes Von Neumann’s and metabiological automata from mimicking biology in any substantially manifestible way. This will also show the limits of the information application to the genetic code techno biology.

My walkabout in chaos. Once upon a time, I worked on a single mathematical problem for six years. The project culminated in two books, written simultaneously . When the manuscripts were done, I looked up to see what was happening in ordinary reality . It was Princeton University in 1967. The Sixties were happening . A full-bore revolution was on. A lot of people were departing ordinary reality for one-day trips. Like Joseph Knecht, I decided on the spur of the moment to try it out. For me, this was no one-day trip. When I came down, it was 1973.

The whole experience of the Logos could not be shared, but perhaps a visual representation would excite the full field in the viewer’s mind by morphic resonance . The underlying idea was a vibration analogy for mind, brain, and human behavior. At present, these ideas have become widespread and familiar, in the form of neural nets, excitable media, cellular automata, and complex dynamical systems. But at the time, they belonged to the fringe . Further, the edge of the wave of the chaos revolution had just arrived at the shores of the physical sciences. Some students, still under the influence of the lost Sixties, were attracted.

The vibration metaphor. During the European phase of my walkabout, in February of 1972, I was invited for a short visit at the Institute des Hautes Etudes Scientifiques near Paris, the French equivalent of our Institute for Advanced Study. This is the home institution of Rene Thom, who invented catastrophe theory in 1966, and David Ruelle, who brought chaos theory to the attention of physicists in 1973. Thom showed me Hans Jenny’s book, Kymatikl I was struck immediately with a feeling of urgent importance. Z called Jenny in Basel to arrange a meeting. Soon I was at Jenny’s home, where he showed me slides and films of his work, and shared his ideas on the significance of vibrations and Chladni patterns in human physiology. He was a follower of Rudolph Steiner.

VISUAL MUSICAL INSTRUMENTS by Ralph Abraham July 26, 1988

Abraham sought to reexperience his idea of Logos by using form to realize its conditions and sought to develop an experimental science of morphodynamics therethrough. He thought that one could simply morphometrically parameterize observations with mathematical structures but because he was unclear on how the controls used in the metamodels depended on the forms themselves he was unable to motivate the field of disciplined macrodynamics from which his experience originated morphosophically — or so he may have thought.

Thus the actual logos of the parameterization scheme became something he had intuited but was not something that could be easily communicated and he sought to create a variety of techniques to visualize the phenomena. He did not however attempt to bring morphodynamics fully under a unified experimental and theoretical system. He defined the macron as the finite morphometrizable image of a suitably infinite metamodel in an attempt to design morphostatically stable node conditions under experimental control and manipulable discovery that could be dynamically systematized kinematically but because he gave morphos precedence to vicariant time he could not mentally dismantle the phenomenologies that continued to block its identification within substantial materials a posteriori.

The newly rediscoverd field of eco-evolutionary dynamics provides just the sort of experimental situation in which one could flesh out the morphogenesis of Abraham’s macron because the vibration metaphor which underlayed his intuition on stable modes of form can be replaced by population relations amongst different species and the resultant dynamical behavior can be morphostatically proportioned into diverse and varied physical realities all of which arise through macroscopic (mostly larger than a nucleus or electron) processes and the reliance on visual perception can be eliminated from the recovery experiences.

Thus with all of and just the apparatus that Abraham has already constructed one can begin to decide if his original idea of homogenous macrons categorized into physical, chemical and electrical formats serve to compound attractors of the excitable media of ecology and evolution. One can decide if for instance the hypothesis that populations are not observed to experience chaos much is due to trade offs in life history traits because homogenous macrons of physical, chemical and electrical formations genomically support different and sequential and algebraic configurations of single points, circles, and possibly two-dimensional tori through all possible life history differences but do not support chaos.

Morphodyamics as an experimental and theoretical biomathematicalphysics can thus provide biology with a way to take apart the very complex relations implied by attempts to differentiate ecoevo from evoeco and it is poised to do so in a way that has not even been anticipated by scientists who have been reductively positioned to divide the study against the inbetween rather than along with the between. This embodiment of Abraham’s “macron organism” supports via his metaphor on vibration a biophilosophical locale closer to Ingoldian socio-cultural anthropology than to any currently known physiological genetics.

1. Dynamic RNA secondary structures can bridge turbid clay foam compartments kinematically as methane bubbles up.

2. Sequential RNA base variation can transit foam pockets that form and reform inside when bridging RNA is replicated or extended there-at.

3. When the foam unites different pockets that contain different DNA proteins can differentially associate with RNA for a given common DNA- RNA extendability.

4. Over time protein-RNA-DNA coordinations of systems of compartment formation and deformation can become enveloped by miscible /immissible protein attracted and repelled hydrophocities of extraordinary(not methane, clay, DNA, RNA, proteins) chemicals that assemble along the same bifurcation paths of foamed clay divisions via a common catastrophic format RNA secondary structure formations which increase the geographic pocket size.

5. Changes in geographic pocket sizes over larger time scales can by chance create through DNA-RNA and protein attractions and repulsions — associations of amino acids with different sets of DNA, RNA and protein PER sets of now ordinary (more often occurring) hydrophobically active chemicals through clay foam formation ( by different non- methane governed) which results in the first “cell” but not one that can reproduce using wobble leap statistics.

6. Over very long times the chemistry of methane ingress and egress by chance results in a biochemistry that can by the difference in DNA and RNA elongation force governance from exogenous directions to those endogenously arising in the molecular relations of the proteins, DNA and RNA by angles larger than 180 degrees. In multiple leaps per wobble type.

7. Reproduction begins and is furthered by going simultaneously in catabolic and anabolic directions interchanging entropies ( sets of rights and lefts) for the same energy when THEN exogenously redirected creations form a self-sustaining and selectable system of feedbacks only when topologically inverted by repulsions geometrically in the place of attractions at the boundary of step 6 entities under further turbidity happen probabilistically.

If this is a real method to originate life — I need to calculate it’s probability.

Now this is not life — it is a propaedeutic of life.

Life turned this corner by randomly finding minimally energetic ways to establish dominance and recessivesness morphometrically in attendant proteins. The surreal differentiation of these wayfindings led to ever larger reproduced dominance and recessive loci lengths when the proteins were able to catalzye via 1-D symmetry differences, orbits to(wards) ions. Some of the homotypic proteins wayfound thus with( and ) through reproductions where there was a difference in the anabolic and catabolic functionalities resulted in increasing energy per entropy by teleonomically prejecting negative ionic concentrations and by day two established life from life. We call this nonlife only because we had no understanding that negative concentrations only exist in life-like things like I have described and not because the forces that gave rise to life are all material (non-vital) forces. Wildtypes appeared at the same time when the dominance lengths extended beyond the Eigen error threshold and were composed of protein codes for chemical absence. Biology does not need to be ergodically encoded since Mendel’s hybrid is dual. These hybrids allow tetration in addition to exponentiation of hyperbolic etc as quasi parallels arise ecoevolutionarily.

Eigen/Shuster hypercycles and the neutral theory of evolution — molecular to macrodynamics in phenotype geneotype relations ( using symmetry breaking bifurcations and where chaos appears as noise which simulates the environment but endogenously and hence why RNA as well as DNA) — why viruses cant do this.

Ecoevolutionary Resonances : macronic dissection of morphogenetic sequences

We need to use the macrons to locate the vicariance within the attractors so that the boundary of the basins can be identified and the phase portraits exfoliated.

The stability of ecoevolutionary interactions are points of equal and opposite forcings. The resonance of these interactions relate atomic attractors into molecular configurations of bifurcations that by redistribution of the forced oppositions through addition of macrons one can expect errors of uncertainty to be minimized and randomness of drift excluded even while the harmonic associations define an algebra capable of connecting different finite dimensional record spaces R that are subsets of the infinite dimensional space S from which crypsis lays deposed by positions so exposed genomically.

This series is not symbolic in any way as it may be composed of dominance and epistasis to the exclusion of deme structured variance. This is why the distinction of Mayr of proximate and ultimate fails for the biology of ecoevolution and why Eigen was mistaken to generalize selection to population fitness. Thus there is no message, contra Abraham, being sent from one organism to the other when for instance there is a symmetry of the predator prey relation. Instead the population structure is simply made from conserved deme variances consequent on Noetherian symmetry lives in the making affect that happens to vicarate with bifurcation pathed between attractors of coupling electronic, chemical and physical macrons in a common evolutionary and ecological time while predators and preys adapt feedback forward. This happens again because Mendel noted the dual parent, hybrid nature of what came to be known as the heterozygote and wildtypes exist.

“The classification of bifurcations into (these) two types was suggested in 1966 by Thom ( 1972), and given explicit treatment (under the names leaps and wobbles) by the author (Abraham, 1976). It was also identified by Ingold as schizo?????.

The blue sky catastrophe leaps to chaos, suddenly becoming a completely different macron, and changing it’s type. This process is contrasted with the usual way that chaos is achieved via a sequence of subtle catastrophic bifurcations in which for instance a circle and wobble grows until the oscillation becomes noticeable. Fluttering on boundaries is an example of a wobble catastrophe. Fluttering to a different type via a bifurcation is a wobble path rather than a leap taken which immediately results in a different macron. It remains to be found how the algebra is organized when macron additions in returns from chaos to lower classified attractors caused by wobbles vs leaps are divided out into different physical, chemical, and electrical formations. One should be able to distribute the effect of the controls into the different formats that vicariate temporally between wobbles and leaps for any given bifurcation inbetween between forms formations format. Here we may find out just what the logos was.

The exposure of correspondent lives in the making are clearly found in some insects that are faithful pollinators while others are nectar robbers, birds that are good at eating seeds while others good at eating insects, plants placed well in high-light environments and those dwelling in low-lit environments. Tim Ingold insists that these kinds of beyond the individual relations are the norm rather than the exception. From the perspective of these things’ ecological kinematics on evolution there is no doubt that Ingold’s minor key exists as a horizon of significant aspect in the ecoevolutionary dynamics of Hendry. As Hendry lists: “toxic mine tailings cause the evolution of plant resistance to heavy metals, industrial pollution causes shifts in the frequency of melanic moths, droughts that alter food resources drive the evolution of finch beaks, and changing predator pressures altered the evolutionary trajectories of guppy populations (Hendry 2016, p. ix).”

Ingold wishes to introduce the idea that artificial breeding or humanizing? trait modification is compromised as an aspect of human control and domination over nature. In doing so he dips his toe into the recent discipline of “contemporary evolution” that has also been called “rapid evolution.” only to say that “ “. By noticing that artificial and natural selection are not so easily separated he realizes what any evoecologist ( as opposed to an ecoevolutionist) already knows and this not because the major has invaded the minor but because cutting in line is also a cutting in point where the point is a species and the line is a clade. Human environmental change is domesticating wild species rapidly. Much of our future on Earth will be in tracking and keeping up with the effects that our civilization is having on the lives of the living already getting on. When it comes to comprehending the whole life on Earth, ecoevolutionary dynamics must also come to terms with the possibility of life off Earth. If we are going to be able to understand how species’ adaptations affect other species populationally produced evolutions then we will also be able to project how we may not merely pejoratively rescue species from extinction but also increase many populations by living in an ordination of Earth cardinally on Mars or elsewhere with another ordertype.

The possibility that parallel non-human domestications which Ingold wants for positive reinforcement are going to be rule rather than the minority of specialist interests can only be so if we know of them and then through the very close relation of artificial and natural selection we may come dynamically interact with them and they would not be so. Ingold of course would not go for this but we will have to do so until we can be sure what the relations causally are and to do so will result in some understanding of ecoevolutionary stability which is not an essentialistic object but a position in choice that continues to alter without alterity as far as we can.

Eigen error threshold and phenotype geneotype — The notion of error threshold is not what determines the nonlinear relation of the chemicals across generations, instead the size of the needed DNA and Protein lengths are just what are needed for dominance and recessive relative to moving in directions where no chemicals are while the other chemicals are moving ( mixing — that Eigen never solved) but still forming a relation of bonds ( probably electrolytic) ( effects of looping of chemical motions prior to reactions )

Poincare wanted to understand the stability of the solar system and this feedback system is much more involved — so it is not going to be easy to decide to understand the ecoevolutionary dynamic stability unless we have a means to unite the physical, chemical and biological materialities that expose and hide, depose and reuse those very in line harmonizable resonances transversally orthoganalized. The only concept that appears able to do this Abraham’s macron. Figuring out how to dissect it out of relationally based ecoevolutioanry dynamics is the next big direction for environmentalism to embrace. The politics of doing so however is huge.

This will result in the marriage of ecology and evolution and will be basic for discussions of complete participation of humanity, human population growth, industrial advancement, technological development and climate change change. To do this we must continually have the mindset of the sociocultural anthropologist but we will only find this stability by continually trying out various ideas of objective absolutist material science as we find what points and lines are really and actually interchangeable in that topology the axiomatic geometry architectured can probe and connect. We will have to go through and come out of chaos and we will be able to do this only by designing artificial algebras of macrons to experiment with creatures with genomically. We must have an art and technology of physical, chemical and biological macrons forcefully united with genomic supraorganons of coordinated correlations. This is the future. It is now.

When Levin mathematized further beyond Pimental’s original genetic feedback mechanism he described the relation of space to flows of feedbacks and in doing so limited the places that models could find the biogeographic positions genomic variables and phylogenetic classifications might be metrically predicted at when Euclid became chaotic. In so doing he created relation of math to biology that was too coarse to differentiate trajectories of ecoeovlutionary interactions that are related both in and out of chaos. That is why I insisted on the use of projective geometry to Ingold’s line all the while finding the need to remove the projection in line with population growth and evolutionary change. The only way to do so is to begin a new science of genomic macron biophysics and describe the trasversality that connects throughtout the ontogeny of each individual. This is the only way to materialize the Indolgian correspondence of lives and dehylomorpize the genetically informed taxonomic differences that appear in diverse species that so engaged Manfred Eigen.

So in the end Ingold will be wrong to insist that animals and plants possess true parallell lives in the making even as we come to understand how different species may evolve in parallell with each other. There may not be a “necessary” relation but just what futures all of life possess depends on what in it is necessary in the feedbacks. We just don’t know enough about them to say how the social life of humans will be of the same property with other living things. Given that elements can be found on differentially throughout the solar system and beyond implies that the propertizing our atomic elements will eventually be sometging that necessary relates all of life sufficiently. We need to understand the contrasting directions community organization and ecosystem structure imply for eco evo evo eco. Do microbiomes evolve in parrallell or across those of the species populations they inhabit. What about viruses?

Some cuturallally ontologized peoples may understand other lives of plants and animals that mainstream humanity does not but over time as this cultural transfer increases we too will come to understand them and when we combine those individual understandinds with all others on Earth we will be able to connect and combine them unitarily on Earth and we can do this because there is a Moon and there is Mars and there will be living to be done in these places as well. This is not the same narraritive of civilized life from hunting and gathering to farming but one of ontologized biotechnology outliving by drawing in electromagnetic technology. It was electromagnetic technology that was the unintended selection of man not evolution of forms from genetically informed zygotes. Absolute differences of artificial and natural selection will continue to be maintained as ecoevolutionary dyanimcs becomes ecoecolutiobnary systematics of stabilites. These can be sustained by probing the dynamics with experiments and lives made which will include art archtieher and archeology as well as biology and while not necessary will become sustainably so as we move beyond the solar age and push draw but not push life to other stars.

We are not going to Mars to avoid extinction. We are going to resolve the tension here on Earth. We are going because the rest of the world does not end with the Earth it begins here where the ground meets the sky. We are not going because we want to keep things the way they are but because we need to exchange the point of our lives with the lines of our horizon. We are not going to survey the solar system but to hang with it. How are we going to do this? — by splitting with life on Earth and not by cutting the Moon out of the path to Mars. The Moon and Mars are two points whose line connecting will be interchanged and in so doing we will cycle from Earth to Mars and beyond. We will move masses here on Earth in such a way that the Earth the Moon and Mars are not so much as preserved in what they are but rather are like trees are on Earth — places where wisdom sits, are named, and being found over and over again -ways of living continuing.

We have to inhabit this place inbetween which is the new quality of our life in this making, that in the process continues, while … extinction goes on around us. We will do this because in the process somethings will be accidentally cut off but we must manage to move everything, even when this happens. We have to live with climate change as much as we can. We cannot change all of it because it is us. This is what we anticipate but to do so we must project the Moon onto Mars from the tension here on Earth. We do not want to do this but that is all we know how to do.

This is a new type of ordering with life not futuring of what has gone on and on. The line of our future to the Moon is twisted contrary to the line of a future to Mars and we must resolve this twist by developing a particular technology on Earth that moves living diversity by differentially phasing the associated perversity of reproducing things and a new technology that will involve making robots that self-reproduce between but not in-between evolving life. This is how Mars should be peopled, as if I knew how to ecologize it. We have a lot to learn about our gravitational ecosystem — but it is time get going again and start to apply evolution rather than argue and debate it. We are not going to be in the museum of the Earth forever — for the Sun surveys it all into a harmony that is never permanent, never preserved and never ending but resonant nonetheless. Let us not colonize Mars but transverse both the point of our lives and aspect of our horizon as one. We are going to repel off gravity hung by robots but with us all sustaining sufficiently and participating solidly. And by all I mean with all and in all. Should other life show up we will be well on our way towards attracting what we need as rotations intend the revolutions attended.

Applied Evolution — a discipline that relativizes supply-demand energy economies.

Pimentel has made an argument that predator-prey, parasite-host, and herbivore-plant systems function via a balanced supply-demand energy economy based on a genetic feedback mechanism (1961–1988). There are continual demands resultant from human population growth for more food energy. Here Pimentel’s balanced supply demand economy is cast into a multi-equilbrial format in which elasticities of otherwise balanced supplies and demands inscribe co-motions of formerly stable population sizes that correspond with coupled increases in population growth rates via diversity differentiation that results in more food energy availability via eco-evolutionary dynamics of subindiviudal variations. This new field of applied evolutionary theory offers a means to increase human access to food via dispersal assistance agro-evolution utilizing specifics of the genetic feedback mechanism.

The human species seems poised in various ways towards destroying much if not all of life as we know it on this planet. Whether via nuclear winter, continued industrialization and colonization it does not appear that humans have explicitly made out a path that does not seem to be working towards the destruction of other species and thus of us, yet animals and plants have generally evolved to do so without us. There are parasites and hosts, predators and prey and herbivores and plants. Is is possible to bioengineer the evolution of this balanced homeostatic equilibrium in such a way that new supplies can be found for increases in demand or is the balance such that no exceptional trajectory beyond the current one is possible? Can the rate of population increase through artificial evolution be proactively dispersed such that natural selection causes eco-evolutionary changes in ecosystemically effective quantities of communities that increase both localized species diversity and global population levels. Can this new discipline of biomass productivity provide a means and motivation to consider moving life off of Earth?

Pimentel suggested that “prudent predators” who consume but the surplus prey or interest of the prey population as opposed to capital may have evolved not by some kind of ethically directed top down restraint imposition nor from group selection but via “a simple consequence of heightened prey selection for resistance in heavily exploited populations, counterbalanced by selection against resistance as an unnecessary expenditure of energy when the prey is not threatened.” The question is all about how traits for cessation of energy expenditure/use when the population size is not being predated. It is a question on how the rate of population increase can evolve increasely at decreasing rates when energy being created is not being taken from without. It is a question of how a fit species becomes more fit by deceleration with increasing velocity. What is genetic jerk and how is it variably proportioned in systems of predators and prey, hosts and parasites, and herbivores and plants. We thus have the idea that genetic homeostasis can be jerked such that decellleration of rates of growth happen after periods on high velocity increases in population sizes and do so by genetic feedforward of the genetic jerks through the feedback prudent predators provide. The linkage between the selection coefficients of the prudent species depend on the density of the second the population by artificial dispersals implemented by the one on the other. It is the design of strategies to accomplish this that the new displine of applied evolutionary energy ecomony manipulation is built. This human intervention is needed in the cases where the evolution of eco-evo is too fast so as to prevent polymorphic equilibria and thus the human applied component is to genetically engineer and artificially disperse the the resistance activities of the prey when these gene fixations are too fast. The details of the theory will help inform how to prevent viruses from evolving too fast for immune responses to keep up.

On Eigen.

It is the superiority of the intermediate phenynotype that gaurentees the success of the process so in the extension to non-equilibirial format I introduce the use of the pitchfork bifurcation to track different phenoytyope to geneotyoe converstions in the different predator -prey, host-parastie, and herbivore -plant systems. It is used in which the host(plant)- parasite , same parasite(as prey) — predator, and same predator(herbivore) — plant(host) system is set up in which variations in subindiviudal variation provide the material forms of energy exchangability. Because the genetic feedback mechanism works in each system separately it is proposed to function in cases where all three are combined and in doing so provides more energy utiliziable than could be done by summing the energy of each individually since the forms of energy do not need to change in some situations which happen automatically instead by the reciprocal form of aij via a Noetherian biolaw. This shows that Eigen was mistaken .

Discoving these systems in nature as bioengineered offers a new way for humanity to access food beyond agriculture.

Evaluating the contribution of intraspecific competition in systems with genetic feedback.

Pimentel offered this kinematic as a means by which a less abundant but similar species may evolve to ecologically dominate the ecosystem niche in which it otherwise might not change but merely continue to exist in populations with low numbers.

Kerner had shown how one species that is similar but less adapted would decrease in numbers.

Here we combine the models of Kerner and Pimentel to describe the case in which a less adapated species that decreases in numbers might not go to extinction but instead enters a new eco-evolution zone in which it increases in numbers not because it becomes any less adapted but because the increased numbers of the more adaptive species results in competitive selection which leaves the middle of those osciilations open for the less adapated species to change it’s phase and as the new adaptations in the more adapted spcies produce mutations and the host responds.

This is slightly different than Pimentel’s because it is a ecological phase shift not the evolution of competition from which B changes it’s rate of increase.

Pimentel conflated the genetic equilibrium with the ecological homeotstatic equilibrium by thinking that intraspecific competition leads to interspecific competition as the dominante ecological consequence of the eco-evolutonary association.

Pimentel had the idea that competitive exclusion within a species would tend to permit new adaptive advance outside the species but this can only happen in if the traits involved are subsets of each other regardless of the species in which they occur.

In this way we can get to Levin’s ideas –

“Further, it is essential to determine to what degree the elaborate ecological theory which has been founded upon the Lotka-Volterra approach is altered when various aspects of population structure are introduced. In particular , structural feedback loops may increase the diversity of limiting factors in a community ( Levin 1970) and thereby permit survival of populations which would otherwise be competitively excluded. This idea has been developed to some extent with respect to genetic structure ( Pimentel 61,68, Levin 72, 73; Leon 74; Pimentel, Levin and Soans 75; Levin and Udovic 75, Udovic and Levin 75) but applies as well with regard to space ( Levin 74a,) and age ( Ayala 71, Demetrius 75, Skellam 51).” Some Mathematical Questions in Biology

Specifically the question is, once a balanced supply-demand economy has evolved in the parasite-host system, what then prevents the parasite from evolving to convert more of the host population into more parasite food?

The general format for the new disicipline is to use balanced supply demand communities into new territiories by light gaps and water distribution moving the communities into locations where parasites, predators, and herbivore evolve new traits in the habitibilities of the differently moved into lociations because they have a food source and doing so permits them to obtain other food sources or means of acquisition. Once the ecosystem is reached these directions or goaled towards new means of energy acquisition in the system and not simply in the food obtainment based on the dyanmics already engineered we will have fully answered Eigen.

’ A mutual balance is developed as a result of co-evolution between the herbivores and their host plants such that the herbivore population is regulated by the amount of energy that can be removed from the plant population without increasing the level of plant resistance.

The concept of genetic feedback is not limited to herbivore — plant interactions, but may be extended to predator — prey, parasite — host, and competitive population interactions. The energy constraints suggested by the genetic feedback model have significance for world food production and current agricultural practices including pest management and plant breeding

Agro-Ecosystemic Transformation : towards political evolution and evolutionary politics

Introduction

Anthropology has had a deep and changing interest in biological evolution. The trend has in recent years been to distance itself from making analogies, analogies that appear relevant prima facie, but in fact restrict and constrict the practice in ways thought to prematurely constrain its full development. Evolutionary theory in contrast has not attempted to view this horizon of cultural criticism and factual analysis as offering any evidence that phylogeny, it’s ultimate subject, may be in need of change itself.

Richard Lewontin and Richard Levins (1987) popularized the notion that evolution is a dialectical process coupled between organisms and environments that co-construct each other. This view has received some acclaim but Lewontin’s latest take on Fodor and Piatellis’ (2010) challenge to evolutionary theorists was seen by one of his students as being a bit out of date (Coyne 2010), nevertheless a few authors have instantiated the idea in a process called niche construction that has been designed to apply to human culture as well (Smee 2003). The associated concept of ecosystem engineers has received some attention in a description of a possible origin of early multicellular life . (Edicaran ecosystem engineers).

Political ecology has morphed into a discipline that insists that local bottom-up perspectives be synthesized and valued as much as large scale top-down influences but it remains somewhat estranged from a clear and consistent coupling with environmental causality in part due to historical-legacy-baggage in which evolution, ecology, and biology have been metaphysically imposed without an analysis of what these positions mean for organizations of populations that are under complex and variously affected forces.

The dynamic historical match between organisms and environments, suggested by Lewontin and Levins ( 1987) , need not however, be understood solely from an adaptationsist perspective that tends to “provide explanations for the characteristics of human behavior, human relationships, and human institutions in terms of natural selection’s furnishing our ancestors with functional solutions to problems posed by ancestral environments” ( Smee 2003, p. ). A second route through a neglected process called “niche construction” views historical change in evolution as a “two-way” process involving organisms both responding to their environments and changing them through niche construction. ( Smee et. al. 2003) . Some political ecologists suggest that the result of multiple scales of interaction amongst humanity and nature results in peoples being made into non-natural ( newly minted) environmental beings (environmental beings) rather than humanity having new environmental processes coming into being for all. I suggest that it may be possible to turn the highest scale political level of involvement with the environment towards the environment itself, tap the understanding of indigenous people in the process and have humanity become a new environmental people as a means to solve the (concern) over our increasing human population growth. We have an option to turn agriculture into biomass production and provide all of humanity a path towards continued growth in a discipline of applied hunter gatherer biomass evolution that does not privilege anyone’s particular ontology and taps indigenous knowledge and information in the process of pointing the way to the future both of humanity and structures in biological theory. I call this political evolution which I sketch as a discipline for agro-ecosystemic transformation. It is time we consider all generations when making decisions for and with others.

Tapping Indigenous knowledge and information of living nature

From the background of Western science and society indigenous concerns for animals and plants seem anachronistic and backward. Ingold (ref) adumbrated the indigenous recognition with:

“In short, animals do not participate with humans qua persons only in a domain of virtual reality, as represented within culturally constructed, intentional worlds, superimposed upon the naturally given substratum of organism-environment interactions. They participate as real-world creatures, endowed with powers of feeling and autonomous action, whose characteristic behaviors, temperaments and sensibilities one gets to know in the very course of one’s everyday practical dealings with them.” Ingold

Ingold engages a new kind of ecological anthropology that leads to the establishment of persons, connected by what might be called living nature if one takes care to attend to the social-ecological relations implied and the active perceptions understood: forest as parent, animal as person, and landscape as dwelling. (ref)

Organism-environment interactions are recognized anew as a mutual involvement, “as undivided centres of action and awareness, within a continuous life process.” (ref) They are not particular things that can be disengaged from but rather are parts of the “total field of relations embracing all living things.”

Many years ago, in 1945, J.H. Wooder ( 1947) called on biologists to analyze and express embryological transformations so as to explain taxonomic differences such “that given a certain sort of zygote and a certain sort of environment we can predict the sort of time-slice that will be realized in a given time.” This theoretical approach has not been sufficiently developed so as to penetrate into laboratories and consequently we do not posses the right kind of data for applying the application of continuous embryological transformations into the various histories of and in life. Indigenous experiences and evidence offer a possible palliative to this depauperization of theoretical need.

Ingold draws on the Cree notion of “pimaatisiiwin” (is) that he relates as a “continuous birth”. This notion of living and being alive is “to be situated within a field of relations which, as it unfolds, actively and ceaselessly brings forms into being: humans as humans, geese as geese, and so on. Far from revealing forms that are already specified, life is the process of ongoing generation. Every living being, then, emerges as a particular embodiment of this generative potential.”

Parents appear to offspring as actively bringing forms into being. They also appear to unconditionally provide for these forms that are given birth to. The forest is thought of as perpetually giving part of the landscape on which this active dwelling unfolds.

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

This new perspective offers the opportunity to engage with plants as centres of action and awareness. What exactly does this mean? What perhaps can it mean? How do plants dwell?

Rocheleaeu has noted that “Ethnobotanical research in several countries over the last decade has uncovered a rich store of local knowledge and practice concerning the use and management of food and medicinal plants, with gender specific use and knowledge of particular plants and source areas.

Nadasy describes an instance where people listen to the trees “talking to them”

Basso describes the significance of a cottonwood tree as representing a place of understanding and understanding of place.

One can imagine that plants attend to both the Sun and the Earth. The Sun provides them with energy and warmth and the Earth provides them with soil to grow from and a place on which to dwell. Both the Sun and the Earth can appear to the plant as the same place even though these two objects present as different. The plant or tree-person is situated in field of relations of the Sun and Earth in a particular way relative to the life it lives that actively and ceaselessly gives birth to new plants. At least from the perspective of the tree-person this field is as ceaseless as the revolutions and rotations in the solar system. It is that tree people grow not into a continuously changing notion of time that depends on the rotation and revolution of the Earth around the Sun but rather as a perpetual temporality denoted as the conceptual juncture between the rotation and revolution of the Earth physically. As such this concept is perpetual for as long this Earth moves towards the Sun.

— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — -

Tree people as grown persons conserve this motion actively. How can that be so? They do it by dwelling the landscape (not dwelling in the landscape) and by taking on the person-hood of the animals that are interactively around them … all the while falling and growing, in a never ending motion to the Sun and the Earth at the same generational-continuous birth pimaatisiiwin time. They are not reproducing to the Earth and the Sun as a time objectified by Newton’s F=ma that categorizes the temporal relation of rotation and revolution of planets or masses around larger masses as in the physicist’s science but are centres of active motion conserving a particular “parallelism” in cellular positioning that lives this birthing and population of ( social -environment subsetting) the dreaming unfolded field of dreams. In other words their growth and reproduction are part of the very same physical motion such the growth of all individuals is complementary to the reproduction of the same. Plants achieve this because the Earth and the Sun are protectively the same place from within their historical trajectories but because these perspectivized objects are in different physical places each and every cell of the plant has dual signification with respect to colocation of material objects. Indians understand this simply as the notion of dwelling.

Reproduction is not about the offspring that are birthed but rather of the places that are in line with dwelling towards the Sun and the Earth as one unified body. It is the dwelling of the parent-plant(tree) -person from which as the plant dreams its ancestral Sun and Earth. This path does depend on the interaction of the plant with itself, with other living things and with its environment (both below and above ground). The offspring must learn the dream and they do so by duplict nature of the point and the line projected amongst material things to both the Sun and the Earth

Show perspective ( hyperbola ) behind and in front

“New knowledge comes from creative acts of discovery rather than imagining, from attending more closely to the environment than reassembling one’s picture of it along new conceptual lines.” p.56.

In this duplict projection exists that perceptual awareness of the plant’s “atmosphere” and the ability to learn this unified body and place of the rotation and revolution through a “sensing” of time perhaps via the coming and going of storms that the Earth and the Sun format in the atmosphere. It is hard to learn the ways of plants but this is something that educated humanity has not spent much time thinking about. We need not imagine this any further instead we must attend more closely to the environment of the plant — listen to its voice and we might be able to dwell in the same way. We are animals after all.

THE POLITICS OF EVIRONMENTALIZED PEOPLES

The concern for the environment may not seem to be a large enough issue to think that the whole of humanity could be turned toward furthering a particular environmental vision. it is particularly hard to see how all of humanity could be turned towards embracing the Cree Primitwin nor is it obvious how one might have environmentalists accept that some aspects of changing or niche constructing the environment might be a solution to our increasing population demands that do not place high level checks or limits or forced stoppings to growth, nor how education would support thinking of tree persons as giving meaning to our own dwelling of landscapes.

The politics around climate change provides one example of this difficulty. Climate change however has rarely been thought of in its historical evolutionary context. Well before humans were around there were two kinds of life on Earth , the archea and bacteria that survived and reproduced. They themselves were responsible for changing the climate. They harnessed the power of light and created an oxygenated atmosphere. Some evolutionists think this triggered the origin of metazoan life, that reproduced, died and left large deposits of carbon as oil in the ground. The fossil fuel we use to power the society writ large is the result of an atmospheric change that living things changed and changed in such a way that gave birth to us. We however are not bacteria and are not limited by the genes we have received in order to transform energy for our use. Now we are in a process of changing the atmosphere by burning the dead bodies of the living things that microbial life caused the environment of and for, but unlike bacteria we have culture, and an ability to use it with technology to stop utilizing what the bacteria did. We can rather turn to the very light as the source of our energy, the very physical thing that the bacteria used to alter their environmental relation to the atmosphere and cause us to exist.

As of this year, 2018, progress towards making this change globally away from fossil fuels and away from the historical consequence of bacterial climate change has not occurred. We can not get all peoples to agree to make this change so as to culturally proceed aside of some evolutionary outworkings of the actions of lineages from some of our common ancestors.

Why would I think we could make a larger change with everyone involved to direct all of humanity not just away from the effect of a particular historically contingent event in the past but instead to enter a futurizable process of changing the whole environment , not just the atmosphere itself?

Well the answer to that is simple. We will have to do something. Sure, we do not have to switch to light energy if we don’t mind all of the consequences for moving life around on the Earth caused by increased flooding as ice melt and water rises, since unlike plants which dwell in line between the Sun and the Earth we move across these dwelt placements. But in the case of the growth of our population we must find a solution to our increasing numbers of peoples everywhere. I suggest a solution, one that moves political ecology into new territory, a territory of the tree /plant dwellers, where we embrace the idea of environmental and atmospheric change and we plan to do so. This may result in the extirpation of some ancestrally initiated paths of evolutionary effects just as we must find a way to move from consumption of the bacterial and areachal historical event but the idea is to show that not all paths from the past are the same. Darwin did not need to think that all variations were the same. Diversity is not to be valued for its own sake. I suggest that just as it is the case that we are not held to the chemical energetic transformations of our genes we can converserly see that these very energetic transformations do affect our behavior and that evolutionary theory has not fully worked out the relation of the energy to the cell and thus we are not held to the Malthusian view.

We know that ____is n ot the same.

Evolutionary theory has placed an overemphasis on reproductive advantage over developmental growth and the consequence has been detrimental to ecological anthropology .

What we need in political ecology is to see ourselves, all of ourselves, as the beings we are finding that we are making indigenous people out to be. In order to have new relations to the environment based on the rules and regulations of many different levels of social influence, the Malthusian view can be abandoned as an historical path that is only relatively true. By dissecting the Malthusian form of change it is possible to understand that ecosarcity is not as limiting as it seemed. We can apply a form of evolutionary theory to value the peaceful participation of all races and peoples and also provide a path for the whole of humanity to expand without forcing competition and war amongst some nor by intellectually marginalizing others.

THE BASIC IDEA — how to overcome ecoscarcity

Here I will suggest that there is not actually any limit to relative actualizations of the biotic potential and that humans may be able to not only have more organic resources but that indigenous people’s knowledge can be accessed to increase this utilization.

The idea is to apply evolutionary theory to enable us to optimize the food production ability in each region of the Earth. In the project of changing agriculture into biomass productivity we utilize indigenous environmental knowledge and return towards a hunter/gather/basic agriculture style of food acquisition. This time” geared “ towards increasing all of the indigenous species in a region.

“On practical grounds, the complexity and scope of changes already in progress exceed the capacity of formal research institutions to conduct in-depth studies under controlled conditions and rural people have the capacity to experiment and innovate both independently and in collaboration with research institutions. On ethical grounds the poor rural majority, particularly women in most developing countries, should direct any process that will transform the landscape and with it the biological basis of their livelihoods (Rocheleau et al., 1989).”

Show diagram

We now know that ecosystems are not successional equilbirial systems but instead are patchworks of places in non-equilibrium.

The idea is that if we learn to grow the reproductive potential of many creatures in a particular place we may indeed need to change the environemnts but we could increase the food and allow people who know the relationships of organisms to provide information.

In one example we could:

One might set up a water re-flow structure and manage its effect on populations. (adding water and light gaps) example of use of landesque capital (cutting trees to make troughs to light gaps were cut down and making waterwheels.

In another example we could:

Grow bacteria, that then feed insect larvae, that then feed toads but then feed snakes, then racoons.

The idea is if there is a lot of something in an area then that is the food. We learn how one thing is related to antother and the develop it.

Show human population growth with other creatures population growth in an area.

By taking on this project we allow the market economy of biological knowledge both of indigenous people and all others to drive food production but because it is dependent on local emprics the local scale and the global scale ( information from science, government) have inputs.

What we relay on for this vision is the genetic productivities of the differences in the species.

Indigenous Animals and population increases — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

We do not have a lot of detailed knowledge about how animals and plants are related to one another but indigenous peoples have had a lot of this knowledge. We must learn to tap into that.

There has been a robust history of attempts to utilize biology and evolutionary theory to inform and format thinking of Indigenous ethnology and cultural anthropology . Cultural Anthropology no longer relies on evolutionary theory in the construction of it discipline and has found how to move from a politics of scale to scale of politics ( ref) Evolutionary biology however itself has retained the politics of scale and has not learned this lesson.

. There has been an influence In seeing human behavior as an aspect of mere reproductive advantage. ( refs). It is a view of evolution which sees natural selection driving fitness advantages from reproduction. This might however be the result of patterns of development and social selection instead.

In fact some theorists ( EO WILSON, LUMSDEN) have reasoned that genetic relations can never be overridden by cultural factors completely.(Culturegen)

Here, I suggest that the lack of genetic understanding in the early development of evolutionary theory inhibited the development of ecological anthropology in ways that precluded full and direct model support for indigenous community activities back into evolutionary biology. This early lack of consensus on genetics resulted in overemphasis of the structural properties of the Malthusian view and kept biologists from recognizing refocusing on the relation of the offspring rearing and development towards evolutionary fitness.

Arguing from the perspective of cultural understandings of gender Joan Roughgarden has suggested a two-tier model of the relation between behavior and selection and suggests that offspring production and not fitness is the target of selection.

Within in social selection groups of individuals possess more fitness because they work towards the raising of more young. More young are not raised because of mating success but mating is part of the process of raising more young. Sexual selection is not seen as a major driving force. Fitness accumulates daily and hourly based on individual efforts but the group attains a higher fitness than the individuals

Furthermore I conclude that the mathematical basis of the Mathusian influence on ecological theory has been restricted to a form (exponentiation over tetration) which belies the failure to refocus and prevents viewing life cellularly from which the indigenous perspective is more consonant with.

That hides its mathematical structure the cellular bases of social selection and thus a priori precludes intricate/ deep incorporation of Indian experiences into our thinking of evolution itself .

Ingold draws on the Cree notion of “pimaatisiiwin” this (is) that he relates as a “continuous birth”. This notion of living and being alive is “to be situated within a field of relations which, as it unfolds, actively and ceaselessly brings forms into being: humans as humans, geese as geese, and so on. Far from revealing forms that are already specified, life is the process of ongoing generation. Every living being, then, emerges as a particular embodiment of this generative potential.”

This notion can be understand mathematically either from within the series as it increases at an arbitrary place or in the limit to that point at infinity with time out of the consideration.

Parents appear to offspring as actively bringing forms into being. They also appear to unconditionally provide for these forms that are given birth to. The forest is thought of as perpetually giving part of the landscape on which this active dwelling unfolds.

Darwin’s principle supposition however does not permit reproduction to be imagined as unending in this way. He wrote on page 79 “Every being, which during its natural lifetime produces several eggs or seeds, must suffer destruction during some period of its life, and during some season or occasional year, otherwise, on the principle of geometrical increase, its numbers would quickly become so inordinately great that no country could support the product.”

Indians however think otherwise . “what prevailed was an animistic belief system that viewed animal prey as inexhaustible but success in capturing them as dependent on social reciprocity involving ritual forms of respect (e.g. in handling carcasses and caring for the bones of prey). Within this belief system, the way to ensure abundance of prey was to kill as many as possible and consume them respectfully, so that their reincarnated souls would animate future prey animals to yield themselves to hunters in greater and greater numbers. In some cases, hunters claimed that to refuse to kill animals that made themselves available to hunters was a form of disrespect that would lead to a decline in hunting success (Brightman 1993, Krech 1999). “

Cardinal, ordinal orderytpe

Darwin reasons differently from and with Malthus that a geographically bound region or country can not support long existing communities of parents and offspring because reproduction increases individuals geometrically ( 2, 4, 8, 16, 32) while support for continuing this series ad infinitum can at best increase arithmetically ( 2, 4, 6, 8 , 10). So because there are in fact many reproducing varieties, as many as there are species in the diversity of life, some of the individuals must perforce die.

Darwin insisted on the idea that the world as a surface was limited because there was no practically known way that by husbanding of animals and agriculturalizing plants (reassociating cardinalities and ordinalities per ordertype of the numbers) that a geometric increase in their reproduction could be supported on a finite surface. The geometric quantities approached infinity but food even if it was geometrically increasing would be limited by the “country” or bounded portion of the geography on which it was supporting the production of the creatures.

This new perspective of Cree pimaatisiiwin” however offers the opportunity to realize an infinite fractal boundary to this landscape while engaging with plants as “centres of action and awareness” such that it is the plants that fractalize the land thus do not limit the country or world or landscape through which dwelling proceeds but Darwin and others felt confined by diversity.

This shows that the two hills was more prescient\\\]

What exactly does this mean? What perhaps can it mean? How do plants dwell?

. Presently limits to human populations are assumed but as I explained increases in populations are possible if the food consumed are exponentially increasing as well. Many animals have co-evolved with plants to move their seeds around but there is no concerted effort to remove some plants that may be prohibiting other plants from growing to larger numbers. By utilizing water flow , making light gaps and providing dispersing seeds one could do so. If one just has a smooth mind.

These limits were found to be the result of considering that the evolutionary diversity of life depends on the death of individuals and that these species are only living on Earth. ???

The idea that tree-people dwell on Earth is contrary to Darwin’s idea because without knowing of genetics Darwin did not however consider that it might be possible to genetically engineer plants to grow wider and taller and increase their buds or food. In other words he did not consider that tree people could simply grow higher and higher and produce more and more food because (he){ did not relate to tree people as they dwell on the Earth instead} as with the relation of species diversity to geographic varieties he saw forms that might be modified during life or in death simply as numerical- }statistical{ representations that were independent of the other forms and species around them except insofar those around them acted in the “destruction” of the living things as he reasoned had to happen. He did not have Cantor’s ideas that numbers were ordinal and cardinal both in their finite and infinite representations.

He did not think that genetic engineers might one day be able “to talk” to plants and ask them if they wouldn’t mind providing a little more space fractally and food exponentially for all of and in the landscape on which they and us thus have and continue to dwell.

This expands this Indian notion of place.

There surely is some limit to huge increases in individual growth sizes ( as Galileo) first pointed out but if we with Darwin did not think of the possibility of artificial increase in food could happen in a third dimension. He thought that more species could evolve but he did not think about how individuals could grow in ways that supported cooperatively the speciation of other populations.

Rather than find a cooperative forest dwelling the past and possible future

Darwin said

“Hence, as more individuals are produced than can possibly survive, there must in every case be a struggle for existence, either one individual with another of the same species, or with the individuals of distinct species, or with the physical conditions of life. It is the doctrine of Malthus applied with manifold force to the whole animal and vegetable kingdoms; for in this case there can be no artificial increase in food; no prudential restraint from marriage. Although some species may be now increasing, more or less rapidly, in numbers, all cannot do so, for the world would not hold them. “

He did not have the numbers as pure genetic differences.

Now the Indian notion of continuous birth relates to and includes the possibility that the “artificial “ means of increase may be much larger and if plants could grow arbitrarily high and so exponential population growth could be supported by exponential developmental growth.

With exponential developmental growth coupled with artificial means of zygote distribution huge gains in food production could be achieved if plants actually are structured this way. We have to have a culture willing to work towards this “artificial” means of increase — however it is not artificial it is just that evolution has been misconstrued with the environment — we need to learn from indigenous peoples and plants etc.

Blaklie 2.2

If carrying capacity changes with each turn in the course of socioeconomic evolution, each new technological input or new crop introduction, and c an also vary markedly according to the bounty or otherwise of rainfall in a given year, of what use is the concept.? Writing of Malthus’s original essay Peacock has argued that “like any other theory , the theory of population must be regarded as a conditional hypothesis’ in Glass 1953

The problem can be solved and it will involve both labor and new technology. It is not population pressure that will lead to new innovations but the understanding of how the genes relate to the cell divisions.

Reevaluating Rappaports Ritual — how symbols may posses cellular currency — where is the boundary.

Idea applied to the Tsembaga — relation to warfare

Attempts to design paths of causality between culture and evolution

(Where humanity intervenes in the ecosystem distruburance)

in this way however requires one to overcome the general idea that macroevolutionary process are not principally of a different scale from microevolutionary and ecological ones ( Allmon , 2009 ). Otherwise one might be tempted to disallow the idea out of some general argument that human ecolocal impacts or may conflict with evolutionary processes that are operating on a different scale and

The sociobiological perspective considers that human men in particular seek to gain a reproductive advantage over other individuals and groups in part by raiding and warfare (in McCabe 2011). In the model developed here, warfare amongst the New Guinea highlanders is instantiated not as parameter directly correlatable to reproduction (having more offspring) but rather to individual growth as generalized across a population. The influence of individual decisions on community activity are the means that links the ecology to its’ evolution and this broad-based connection enables one to develop a scale free concept that nevertheless avoids the pitfalls of thinking solely adaptationistically. Thus the origin of warfare is not found directly in Darwinian theory but instead in a layered ecological to evolutionary structure that leaves aside the issue of just how the cultural vehicle is related and clustered to and with the genes cell wise. Doing so allows political considerations to be incorporated directly into the products of human change of the environment. This model does not imply that human disturbance of nature is necessary but allows for when it does occur, to be understood, sometimes at least ,from within biology.

I offer another track through the biology of human historical contingency utilizing a non-vehicular notion on the relation of genes to organisms and in this relation to evolutionary change I couple social and ecological systems after the manner that Gibbs (1902) did between micro and macro states thermodynamically and apply this to the relation of ecology and warfare amongst the Tsembaga of New Guinea. This model creates a theoretical dynamic which on its largest simulation extent can be incorporated into social selection theory and linked via tetrations back to specific genetic hypotheses in the test. In this procedure human cultural activity is modeled as part of the ecosystem itself and thus need not be viewed merely as changing externalized selection pressures. Instead cultural activity such as violence, raiding and warfare become the pressures and thus not only can culture possibly construct new human niches by influencing hominid genetic evolution but cultural decision making is a kinematic that couples ecology and society xxxxxx. In this way it is hoped that political anthropology can be brought closer to ecological anthropology while still moving the evolutionary analysis of the relationship of organisms and environments forward as a co-construction. Human niche construction results genetic differences and the ecology both feeds into evolution and moves in response to it.

Ulanowicz considered that it was obvious that the analogy between physics and ecology was drawn too closely. In Kerners model. May also expressed this sentiment. Curiously it is precisely because the population dynamics models are usually analogies themselves with what if one is lucky “only the vaguest notions exist for what macrobiological laws might be” that we find ourselves in the place where the even less clear understanding of human populations enables us to express definitively a law of nature that at once is physical, biological and anthropological. Vayda did not need to back pedel as much as he did when explaining how best to understand why Maring fought.

In this case of the Tsembaga, we are not considering the whole global level with all of its scales but the local dynamics of local to regional systems turns out be bounded enough to provide an example of how this could work

MacKinnon has drawn attention to a tendency to masking of areas of conceptual overlap between political-economic and poststructural approaches especially in their common concern for scale and introduces scalar politics to replace a politics of scale. Here we are able to see that a politics of scale has been a part of evolutionary theorizing and offer a scalar politics to replace it. Vayda, (1989) reviewed ecological approaches to understanding Maring warfare and recognized that he and others had reified population pressure and ecological influences on the waring. Here by rethinking the relation of the local subsystem to the regional subsystem as Rappaport presented it in the eco-system that Kerner proposed and developed it is possible to understand that there can be a necessary explanatory import to “the fact that victorious warriors sometimes take enemy land and benefit from doing so has, by itself, no necessary explanatory import.” It is not that population pressure need be thought as the proximate cause of fighting but instead it may be a means not to alleviate population pressure per say but a means to realize biotic potential as decided by the individuals who take the land. If those who take the land are also those who have a local community capable of utilizing it then there may be some import.

Converting arguments from population pressure on resources to resource relation to biotic potentials

As here we are able to specific as to the mechanism that Vayda objectively sought consequentially ( not putting consequences forth as causes)

The basics of the model -

“The Volterra’s model, so far from being pathological in its distinction of odd and even, is capable of stating through this distinction how the eco-system can act as that filter which any evolutionary consideration of an assemblage of species must require. The model in short can draw an evolutionary picture which continually pits genetic introjection of new species against ecological pruning of old or new species, by way of parity <-> imparity transitions.” Kerner (ref) Coupling this with the even and odd approaches to tetration as involved in dividing this odd and even seciation, a coherent view can be formed.

We can model the species pruning as occurring in the Tsembaga as a combined growth of pig populations and the adjustment of human territory over which the growth of pig and human populations occur as one phenomenon of Kerner “ecotemperature”

In this way we see that ritual functions bringing parity to latent transitions in species numbers by filtering evolutionary genetics. It does so by switching the cost and benefits of the pig population to the human one and socially (instantiating) enforcing this via ritual communication with ancestors.

Synopsis of first paper -

Lumdsen and Trainor have criticized the development of canonical or Gibbs ensembles in theoretical biology in general for the purpose of explaining multilevel order in organic systems in general because with Gibbs ensembles one is “automatically restricted to static, unchanging properties that are the analogues of thermodynamic equilibrium quantities in physical systems”. In the particular case developed here, using Rappoports data and rules, the particulars of the informants information does not appear to need to generalize beyond a static larger level property of the larger regional system related to the local one.

Lumsden and Trainor also supplied a list of concerns that any starting from an ensemble development would need to contend with.* The particular case of the Tsembaga ritual cycle provides context and detail sufficient to address these concerns. The kaiko cycle forces the population system to fluctuate through a very large number of states and constitutes for theoretical purposes to be the equivalent of a particle bath with a fixed temperature that varies with the time taken to complete the cycle. Short cycle times with less variation in population sizes when repeated are colder than those Tsembaga that need more time before the kaiko is reached and result over time in more fluctuations from the mean and hence have a hotter ecotemperature. The kaiko cycle gives rise across a region to a distribution function of ecotemperature and it does so because the kaiko is directly related to the changes in the space the kaiko is manifested in by the planting of rumbim and the taking or nor of land of neighbors. Thus there is reason to suggest ( eating plants for both people and pigs, pigs only to kaiko, no marsupials) that equal volumes of kaiko phase space have an equal probability of being entered and exited. The kaiko leads to time independence in the relation of space and population growth and thus does not have preferred ensemble states. The additive constants of motion wholly arise from each local Tesmbaga attaining kaiko and switching the assymetric A matrix sign as pigs go from being beneficial to detrimental. That symmetry of action gives the additive constansts and because it is directly related to the amount of food energy used only the Hamilitonian energy survives ( this is held true in part of by marsupial hunting avoidance?).

Species increases and “intensification”

Thus with the Tsemabaga and Maring we can see a human population matched to another species population — that of pigs and we can see how works into a whole system in the isolated geography of the island of New Guinea. They are socially selecting to increase their own population growths not fighting to present quality of their good genes to females.

Now while this example shows how a peoples were able to solve the problem of the boundary of the species increase in a limited area -

The application of the Kerner model does not say how any and all social selections function with respect to the population growths of different species amongst themselves or how the particulars of biomass productivity would work when some kinds are tetrating and not merely exponentiating — How does the

And when combined with social selection there is every means available to see how the population growth of individuals rather than reproductions of populations is just as important towards moving the populations through the nonlinear space of the their ecological relations. That the niche constructing of peoples creates the very social selection pressures on which it evolves together with the whole of nature.

Brining it all together

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

Brining it all together we are able to unit human decision making with a parituclar model of eco-evolutionary seriation by utilizing a cellular view of on the relation of ecology and evolution and having genes influence from within this while humans decision making and conscious choice affects how cellular divisioons are related. We remove the tendency to think that mating success is the driver but rather that it is energy support cellularly. And with that humans that are making energy decisions can affect their and other creatures futures in a way that works from the local to the global ecosystem, and from the indigenous food production to global.

One way to think of how the tetrational divisions are related to the species pruning and biomass productivity through different systems of social selection would be by considering an ecosystem engineered by the right of water to flow and using the water power to power biomass production, It is like turning the industrial revolution into agriculture but doing via huntering and gathering.

Arithmetical increases are related to exponential increases as exponential increases are related to tetrations. So if reproductive communities across evolution can be modeled in terms of genetic tetrations rather than gene pool exponentiations with food support of populations understood as exponentiations rather than arithmetics then one could both understand the exponential increases of populations provided that space be had to support the genetic descendants of such. The tetrations can be described given the Mendelian population to Mendelian gene( as linkage group effects )on chemical reaction networks. The infinity of more and more giving and taking between Indians and their animal hunted thus can be understood not merely as a belief system but as genetic eco evolutionary kinematic.

This is described in model on Rappaport.

It finds its expression in plants and also in a particular understanding of cellular development into a Kerner model.

It might be that we simply ask our tree friends if they wouldn’t mind it continuing to being so.

…. Because the parts of plants can increase serially within themselves — leaves, buds, nodes. ….

Thus while the number of any individual tree person can only counts in the geometric number the total amount of food support can be a tetration and when this tetration grows other exponential increases in creatures ( insects) (because of the homotypic correlation between the leaves and buds and the past insect pollinations) these insects can support exponential increase in other creatures, birds and crows eventually to wolves and humans as the kinship effects cross circles of non-clade kin.

As these exponentiations of the animals are related to the tetrations in the plant at infinity, the wolf and human can be found as brothers provided that at the very top of the chain is here and sometimes throughout, the role of predator and prey are reversed.

And thus the variation within the body can (thus) evolve along with variation between brothers.

Brother wolves humans and wolf variations thus are linked by the entire ecosystem supported by the dwelt tetrations of moved materials amongst all dwelling creatures in the landscape horizoned.

Currently biology does not recognize that the variation with the tree person is related directly to variation across the generation but this is simply because ecological theory did not consider the natural law that results when prey and predator interchange roles , langrangian wise and this was something that Indians have always had to consider when finding creatures giving or not giving themselves gift wise.

Indian ideas thus provide biology with a reason to reconsider something that it left behind — undifferentiated like parts of Pearson (1902) and these parts are polyphyletic ( in the description above) and have to do with divisions of genes across rather than within clades WHEN THEY ARE A NECESSARY PART OF ALL SPECIES THAT FILL A PARTICULAR HISTORICALly DIFFERNTIABLE DWELLINg. In other words culutural anthropology diffusion of cultures appears within ecology as the relation of trees to insects that pollinate them to the birds as one tetrational (because it crosses phylogenetic lines — is polyphyletic) kinship population while the predators that switch roles bind all of the exponentiations into one tetrational whole comprehended by higher orders of combination ( tetrations of tetrations) with their plants (and bacteria etc associated). Thus variation within an individual is linked with variations within another speices individual genetically in the embryological commonalities of differentiation of like parts in general and then specifically. ( Need to write this idea better).

One is thus lead to the possibility of applied evolution dwelling with Indian understanding where by growing all of the animate in the fractal boundary of Earth as we ask plants to provide provide an infinite surface ( defined by colocation of tetration projections) on the 2-D form relative to the overall genetic biotic potential having titrated evolutionarily.

This work becomes a process along with Land Management in general that works to minimize the genetic degradation while increasing the local populations.

Niche constructing in Kenya — “The experience of people in Kathama illustrates the complex gender division of ‘niches’ in rural landscapes and production systems” Richelaeu(Sp)

Plant people dwelling have a unique perspective on the material on Earth and can move around the chemicals on a different relation to what supports them — light — thus they can tetrate where animals can merely move across the same landscape.

We will only do this if we stop the ecological imaginary with Indians and support their land rights instead.

And from this perspective we can ask if with the inanimate a biotic landscape, if as peoples we can even move where the material places are not ( between spaces as places) and grow our tetration off the Earth and onto Mars as we populate the deserts, poles , and hot places and as trees grow to the maximum height in this same time. This would depend on how the exponential increases in the populations of the creatures relates to those of bacteria and so on and how the bacteria are related to the abiotic viruses at the boundary that the plants are not or where negative concentration of chemicals are and how the Indians understand disease. In discussing going to Mars we will be exploring expansions of the ecological margin here on earth into mountains, deserts and poles and deep sea.

Another way to think of this is: If we imagine a tree seeing both the Earth and the Sun as one we see that the evolution of species need not be limited to the surface of the Earth if we only understood how changing he climate was directly related to our evolutionary motions that are kept in our biotic potential.

7.2 Blakie

The Malthusian argument may work well in the purely human social context in which it was developed but after it was rethought by Darwin into evolution and as evolution evolved to include the knowledge that DNA was the substance of inheritance, It becomes possible to imagine something else.

Viruses regularly grow to 10⁹ in number and the number of cells in each individual is also of this number. If instead of seeing individual organisms as gene vehicles or seeing individuals as the unit of selection we are able to see cells as that unit then we may be able to show that the exponential population growths are actually growths of tetrational points of infinity of inherited organs of like kind which start and stop over short time scales being dependent on the interaction between genes, individuals and the environment via their specific affect on cell division.

So we create a theory of applied evolution that turns our attention to our cells, not our genes nor to our whole body but the cell as understood evolutionarily and we do so by appliying tetrations to the odd even behavior of Kerner’s evolutionary model.

Macrons of cell division coextensive trait connections of coupled biochemistry and embryological growth.

Evolutionary Statistical Dynamics: towards a theory of zygote structure

“One basic requirement of biological theory is therefore a theory of zygote structure. One such theory we already have in the theory of the gene. But this theory was constructed to explain the distribution of properties in Mendelian ratios among the members of interbreeding populations. It was not devised to explain embryological data. To deal with embryo-transformations this theory must be extended so as to include a theory of cytoplasmic organization. The Mendelian method alone does not help in this direction, because when properties mendelize, the cytoplasm of the zygotes concerned do not differ…It is therefore necessary to devise methods of obtaining data which will suggest how the required theory of cytoplasmic organization is to be constructed.”

J.H. Woodger On Biological Transformations in Essays on Growth and Form presented to D’Arcy Wentworth Thompson, Oxford, 1947.

Kerner has introduced an extension of the Gibbsian ensemble formalism, the greater-than-grand ensemble with “particle speciation” for systems of particles open to fluctuation and diversity and suggests it’s use “where numerous chemical types are locked in a sizable reaction network.”

The theory designed below builds from this extension and utilizes a “fundamental” difference (coming out of the study of) in chemical reaction networks between chemical species concentrations and chemical complexes’ rate constants to bridge the connection to the theory of the gene. Genes encode proteins that (we will) identify with rate constants generally. The chemical reactions will be (sorted into catabolic and anabolic categorizations.) The relationship between the rates and the concentrations come out of time-stretches within one’s life reach nevertheless forcefully beyond the lives of life of the individuals ( death and decomposition being the simple manifestation of such) all the while Mendelizations of dominance and recessiveness otherwise include entire lives.

It is this property that will enable us to define a zygotic structure without neglecting the cytoplasm. Biochemcial reaction networks thus possess some unique relations that do not occur in chemical reaction networks. One outcome is a specific suggestion as to organization of linkage groups and chromosome lengths via differentiation to embryological transformation. We will restrict the beginning and end of the processes described to the developmental temporality of whole genome duplication on cell division so as to retain the Mendelian theory latently within and we will thus end up with a/the theory of the gene between a population structure of Poisson statistics. While theoretical and a bit wide of the mark it provides explicit methods and devices from which data can be requisitioned to further adapt and dovetail the project.

“But while we cannot neglect certain bathmic factors in evolution, to assume that evolution, either in the main or even considerably, is due to the organic antecedents of a particular type of life rather than to the physical environment of life is without doubt unscientific. The physical evolution would then be fixed by physical causes and the organic evolution by organic causes, but what is then to preserve the unison between the two evolutions?”

“If…we take refuge in one of our clocks being controlled by the other, i.e. assert that the environment controls the bathmic tendency in variation, so that the tendency towards the type suitable to the environment only receives freedom to come into play when the environment is suitable, we seem lost in a verbal maze.”

Karl Pearson 1903 The Grammar of Science page 377

Edward Kerner developed a model of evolution by describing a statistical mechanics of populations through analogy with Gibbsian chemical reaction networks. I am going to show that this analogy is possibly homological and I will explore an interpretation of the Ediacaran biota as a Kerner great ensemble that underwent a phase transition into the Cambrian period literally.

This model recovers Gould’s premonition that evolutionary theory can unroll an internal channel of positive change by reconceptualizing Pearson’s hypothesis of homotyposis from within Kerner’s model.

This model applied will construct a causal account for the bulk of the Ediacaran phenoytpic variation from the biochemical reaction networks of microbes and (thus) metazoan embryogeny will be developed from an ecologically unique least action Noetherian conservation law of antecedent organic forms homoplastically expressed across the Ediacaran period. As the Cambrian explodes the biochemically and ecologically derived homoplasts that evolve to homogens of the major metazoan radiations and homoplastic bathmic forces undergo a phase transition of the ecogas bacterial mat communites into solitonic streptophytes. This evolutionary theory works to separate out the effects of the chemicals and their rates of change as they vary and differentiate with changing ecologically modeled species numbers. Selection on the statistical mechanical properties results in different biases in the contribution to developmental differentiation of the chemical species, complexes used and rates of change as expressed in part by proteins.

The practical result of this theory is that it will be possible to construct devices to extract energy from extant organisms’ ancestral bathmic forces latent in the relation of the chemical rates enzymes to chemical concentrations differentially between species ( you put two different species into the device and you get an energy output proportional to the difference in the inherited bathmic forces per type). The uniquely physicalized nature of the Kerner great ensemble permits this kind of machine to be built.

The key take home message is that we allow ourselves to imagine with Lewontin that the organism constructs its own environment and then we are able to see how both chemical concentrations and chemical rates as they exist abiotically but within the cell both are like the random Darwinian evolution and the bathmically riposted evolution of Pearson. The Kerner equations possess a symmetry in predator and prey that like Newtonian time symmetry will be shown to have specific biochemical kinematics and thus what appeared to be a mere war of words between Bateson and Pearson will be resolved symmetrically and the notion of recessive and dominance will be relegated to a confusion between generations over the biological meaning of time rather than to an absolute difference of personalities of anyone, at least so to say once a device is built, up and running on the basis of a separation of traits with the same coextension but different Noetherian charge variationally and current differentially. We will have a new way to understand the unique genes of viruses through an equation of negative concentrations with a different way around right and left as determined by DNA. Poincare’s octahedral group of a sphere with two handles is the way to describe the viral gene chemical concentrations ( left and right into the sphere from each handle from which the meet in the external space as DNA structured).

By using Kerner’s model amended to include biochemistry and population numbers the transformation applied will work for both embryos and adults. This is made explicit by incorporation of Pearson’s homotypoisis where Woodger noticed that the Bauplan is the same.

The idea of LV monomolecular reactions relative to species absences via the syntroph reactions depends of course on the antisymmetry of the species interaction coefficient and is this relation that is described by Pearson as the bathmic force, a realtion hidden in the cause and correlation issue being perfected in this theory, regardless of stablilty, but left as philosophical desiderata of counterfactuals otherwise. This is not going to depend the any idea of “absolute reaction rates” ( possible exception if a quantum mechanics of proton and electrons across membrabes) because it is the diversity not the the possible origin of life with weak and nuclear forces that will mediate the randomness relative to the varitation in the mendelian and differentiaon- variation in the zygotic strucgure theory.

Pearson and Bateson –

Pearson — “it appears to me as a direct result of the words cited that high variation is associated with low correlation and vice versa; or that variation and correlation have in Mr. Bateson’s biological usage a significance which is diametrically opposed to their numerical definition by the biometrician.”

This is not at all the case. Bateson simply used Pearson’s theory as best he could and related it to the same subject matter they had in common — heredity in evolution.

Bateson wrote — “If differentiation exists and is not recognized the apparent homotyposis due to individuality will, as Professor Pearson perceives, be immediately lowered ( Ibid. p. 169).’

It is not that homotypic correlation is a priori lower when differentiation goes unrecognized and differentiation nevertheless within increases the total variation having been measured but rather that the diversity of forms as observed taxonomically from the parts. Bateson referred to the serial parts because unlike leaves or scales simply the morphology of the meristic series and other transitioning parts is the basis on which taxonomy and classification is built and they contain the difficulty that the naturalist had to deal with day to day. Biology worked though a stage of this much later when phenetics gave transitioned into cladistics. When an organism has a series of like parts it is a question about how they arise serially. Pearson’s homotyposis explains that the seriality is related via the heredity and thus explained at least statistically and correlationally to past reproductions inherited. Thus Bateson recognized this. When the variation in the series begins to exist it can become so highghly irregular and complex that the naturalist is unable to use the traits to sort out differences without futher study. Thus simply based on the a posteriori existence of variation amongst presumably similar evolutionarily that may be more or less variable the correlation goes down only because the heritable cause had not been removed from the correlation.

Erns Mayr said that G.G. Simpson did not know what a species was because he was not a naturalist, that he had not been in the field and observed the variations sufficiently to discriminate what could classified as different species. This ability is something that Bateson if not in possession of was utilizing when exploring the difference. Pearson defined the variation biometrically and did not think about as the naturalist.

Wright was fully aware of this difference and simply developed a means of analysis which assumed that the cause was already contained in the structure of the data being collected. Bateson was not trying to use the terms not in the ways that Biometrician intended rather he was trying to use them to further his own understanding of the phentic variations that naturalists were able to observe.

Pearson said — “We are obviously using the same words for very different quantities”

The difficulty that Pearson did not address was the situation where statistics might be defined across parts that are absent but could not be found by any random exploration because by being absent one was not able to ensure that the original sample was not something much bigger. Pearson would welcome this so that he could develop a further statistical theory but he was unable to see how to do this which later came as Bayesians began to think about stats or there are two ways of understanding statistics.

Wright’s approach to regression shows how to get around Pearson’s reliance on it since mating systems need not be linear and thus Wright designed path analysis.

It is not that variation can not ever be distinguished from differentiation but only that there must be a stastical way to decide when one a series of apparently homogenous and non-different parts which at one end are different than the other in two ways that the homotypic cause that correlation gives rise can be decided when approached from one side or the other, since without specific knowledge on the growth and development, the amount of correlation due to variation on the right may be from a different amount of diffentiation relative to homotyposis that from the left. Pearson related this to organic correlation in general but because this was observable in series with two ends in creatures this correlation could have a path anaylsis from the two sides. This is why Bateson tried to have Pearson use symmetry.

Path analysis for homotyposis of worm anterior and poteriror parts.

Because forms can be radially disposed it was clear that there was not a simple linear ordering of this thus Bateson used the most general words of differentiant and normal to express when some other math was needed. Path analysis works for linear systems but not for any kind of relation of parts. A langrangian least action principle could be used in these more general differences.

Niles writes:

The idea of determination, in the sense of causes fixing beforehand the nature of the effect, is based upon the belief in an inherent necessity in the order of things

This is not the case when and if the chance bathrmic force arises from the deterministic chaos of interacting parts.

No one is saying that there is some necessity in this but only that symmetry can be used to explore when this might be necessary. That is all that Bateston said to Pearson.

Poincare was just begiinng to understand this complexity and the transfer from mathematidcal thinking to biology was not what is is today.

Imaginary Evolution

The Evolution of Development — Fodor’s mechanism of decoupling correlated coextensive traits realized

A Theory of Evolution by Differentiant Variation

Pearson –

Whatever views we hold on selection, inheritance, or fertility, we must ultimately

turn to the mathematics of large numbers, to the theory of mass phenomena, to

interpret safely our observations. As we cannot follow the growth of nations

without statistics of birth, death, duration of life, marriage and fertility, so it is

impossible to follow the changes of any type of life without its vital statistics

DEVELOPMENTAL MECHANICS

SYNTROPHY

MACRONS

CELL CYCLE ENDOSYMBIOSIS

Evolutionary Statistical Dynamics: towards a theory of zygote structure

“One basic requirement of biological theory is therefore a theory of zygote structure. One such theory we already have in the theory of the gene. But this theory was constructed to explain the distribution of properties in Mendelian ratios among the members of interbreeding populations. It was not devised to explain embryological data. To deal with embryo-transformations this theory must be extended so as to include a theory of cytoplasmic organization. The Mendelian method alone does not help in this direction, because when properties mendelize, the cytoplasm of the zygotes concerned do not differ…It is therefore necessary to devise methods of obtaining data which will suggest how the required theory of cytoplasmic organization is to be constructed.”

J.H. Woodger On Biological Transformations in Essays on Growth and Form presented to D’Arcy Wentworth Thompson, Oxford, 1947.

Kerner has introduced an extension of the Gibbsian ensemble formalism, the greater-than-grand ensemble with “particle speciation” for systems of particles open to fluctuation and diversity and suggests it’s use “where numerous chemical types are locked in a sizable reaction network.”

The theory designed below builds from this extension and utilizes a “fundamental” difference (coming out of the study of) in chemical reaction networks between chemical species concentrations and chemical complexes’ rate constants to bridge the connection to the theory of the gene. Genes encode proteins that (we will) identify with rate constants generally. The chemical reactions will be (sorted into catabolic and anabolic categorizations.) The relationship between the rates and the concentrations come out of time-stretches within one’s life reach nevertheless forcefully beyond the lives of life of the individuals ( death and decomposition being the simple manifestation of such) all the while Mendelizations of dominance and recessiveness otherwise include entire lives.

It is this property that will enable us to define a zygotic structure without neglecting the cytoplasm. Biochemcial reaction networks thus possess some unique relations that do not occur in chemical reaction networks. One outcome is a specific suggestion as to organization of linkage groups and chromosome lengths via differentiation to embryological transformation. We will restrict the beginning and end of the processes described to the developmental temporality of whole genome duplication on cell division so as to retain the Mendelian theory latently within and we will thus end up with a/the theory of the gene between a population structure of Poisson statistics. While theoretical and a bit wide of the mark it provides explicit methods and devices from which data can be requisitioned to further adapt and dovetail the project.

“But while we cannot neglect certain bathmic factors in evolution, to assume that evolution, either in the main or even considerably, is due to the organic antecedents of a particular type of life rather than to the physical environment of life is without doubt unscientific. The physical evolution would then be fixed by physical causes and the organic evolution by organic causes, but what is then to preserve the unison between the two evolutions?”

“If…we take refuge in one of our clocks being controlled by the other, i.e. assert that the environment controls the bathmic tendency in variation, so that the tendency towards the type suitable to the environment only receives freedom to come into play when the environment is suitable, we seem lost in a verbal maze.”

Karl Pearson 1903 The Grammar of Science page 377

Edward Kerner developed a model of evolution by describing a statistical mechanics of populations through analogy with Gibbsian chemical reaction networks. I am going to show that this analogy is possibly homological and I will explore an interpretation of the Ediacaran biota as a Kerner great ensemble that underwent a phase transition into the Cambrian period literally.

This model recovers Gould’s premonition that evolutionary theory can unroll an internal channel of positive change by reconceptualizing Pearson’s hypothesis of homotyposis from within Kerner’s model.

This model applied will construct a causal account for the bulk of the Ediacaran phenoytpic variation from the biochemical reaction networks of microbes and (thus) metazoan embryogeny will be developed from an ecologically unique least action Noetherian conservation law of antecedent organic forms homoplastically expressed across the Ediacaran period. As the Cambrian explodes the biochemically and ecologically derived homoplasts that evolve to homogens of the major metazoan radiations and homoplastic bathmic forces undergo a phase transition of the ecogas bacterial mat communites into solitonic streptophytes. This evolutionary theory works to separate out the effects of the chemicals and their rates of change as they vary and differentiate with changing ecologically modeled species numbers. Selection on the statistical mechanical properties results in different biases in the contribution to developmental differentiation of the chemical species, complexes used and rates of change as expressed in part by proteins.

The practical result of this theory is that it will be possible to construct devices to extract energy from extant organisms’ ancestral bathmic forces latent in the relation of the chemical rates enzymes to chemical concentrations differentially between species ( you put two different species into the device and you get an energy output proportional to the difference in the inherited bathmic forces per type). The uniquely physicalized nature of the Kerner great ensemble permits this kind of machine to be built.

The key take home message is that we allow ourselves to imagine with Lewontin that the organism constructs its own environment and then we are able to see how both chemical concentrations and chemical rates as they exist abiotically but within the cell both are like the random Darwinian evolution and the bathmically riposted evolution of Pearson. The Kerner equations possess a symmetry in predator and prey that like Newtonian time symmetry will be shown to have specific biochemical kinematics and thus what appeared to be a mere war of words between Bateson and Pearson will be resolved symmetrically and the notion of recessive and dominance will be relegated to a confusion between generations over the biological meaning of time rather than to an absolute difference of personalities of anyone, at least so to say once a device is built, up and running on the basis of a separation of traits with the same coextension but different Noetherian charge variationally and current differentially. We will have a new way to understand the unique genes of viruses through an equation of negative concentrations with a different way around right and left as determined by DNA. Poincare’s octahedral group of a sphere with two handles is the way to describe the viral gene chemical concentrations ( left and right into the sphere from each handle from which the meet in the external space as DNA structured).

By using Kerner’s model amended to include biochemistry and population numbers the transformation applied will work for both embryos and adults. This is made explicit by incorporation of Pearson’s homotypoisis where Woodger noticed that the Bauplan is the same.

The idea of LV monomolecular reactions relative to species absences via the syntroph reactions depends of course on the antisymmetry of the species interaction coefficient and is this relation that is described by Pearson as the bathmic force, a realtion hidden in the cause and correlation issue being perfected in this theory, regardless of stablilty, but left as philosophical desiderata of counterfactuals otherwise. This is not going to depend the any idea of “absolute reaction rates” ( possible exception if a quantum mechanics of proton and electrons across membrabes) because it is the diversity not the the possible origin of life with weak and nuclear forces that will mediate the randomness relative to the varitation in the mendelian and differentiaon- variation in the zygotic strucgure theory.

Bateson

(Note, added November., 1901.) On p. 287 Professor Pearson has added a note in which he seeks to meet a part of my objections. He says: “A diversity due to differentiation and a variability due to chance are quite distinct things. The one is the result of dominating factors which can be isolated and described; the other of a great number of small factors, varying from organ to organ, and incapable of being defined or specified. Indeed, upon each dominating factor of differentiation is superposed such a chance variability. Of’ course all things which differ even by chance variation are in a certain sense differentiated.” This welcome passage outlines the conception that must form the point of departure in any attempt to understand variation in its relation to Evolution. The same conception I have myself often laboured to express. On former occasions to these two kinds of diversity of which Professor Pearson speaks I have applied the terms “ Discontinuous “ and “ Continuous.” Though useful in prac- tice, those terms are open to misconstruction and perversion. In the present paper I have suggested the nearly equivalent terms “ Specific “ and “Normal.” Similarly, to variations occurring among repeated parts or homotypes we might apply the ternis “ Differen tiant” and “INormal.” Throughout nature the variations between the members of fraternities may be discontinuous and specific, and in like manner may the variations between repeated parts be specific and differentiant, though in both classes normal or continuous varia tions are always superposed on them.

In most cases the naturalist is seldom in lmuch doubt with which he is dealing. But though these two great classes of variation can broadly be recognised and treated as distinct, the distinction may be evasive, and when the differentiation is irregular that distinction must often be obscured and not “‘statistically discoverable.” Pro fessor Pearson is mistaken in supposing that such differentiation must show itself in his seriations. It may appear only as a lowering of correlation. The diversity due to differentiation may exhibit a “ homogeneous chance distribution,” as, for example, in my illustra tion of the crab’s claws. We have only to suppose that the l’ mode” of the population falls on a form with claws approximately equal, andl — -to take the simplest case — that the frequency of both right-handed andl left-handed differentiation is inversely proportional to the magni tude of the differentiation, a state of thlings commono enough in nature.

DEVELOPMENTAL MECHANICS

Richard Lewontin —
“Organisms are not utopians. They can not imagine a world they want to make and then make it.”(1)

Sure, sure organisms are not utopians. But in what I will ask you to imagine it will be true in a sense that Ediacaran biotypes niche constructed their very own growth and development

Lewontin wrote: “ Organisms do not adapt to their environments they construct them out the bits and pieces of the external world”( 1983).

One of the difficulties with implementing Lewontin’s coupled differential equation between the environment and organism is that it generally does not have direct immediate access to the intuition in “modern dynamical theories ( e.g. circuit theory and continuum mechanics) “ where the distinction between general dynamical laws and particular constitutive relations is clearly maintained as Lewontin would have the biologist search for each organism amongst the “non-countable infinity of ways in which the bits and pieces of the world might conceivable be put together” to discover what constitutes the general law they describe as dO/dE = dE/dO.

Curiously, when attempting to construct a large theoretical framework in which to realize chemical stoichiometry, thermodynamics etc. Oster et al dispensed with Kerner’s various attempts ( 1964,1972 etc) to provide a suitable mechanics for chemical processes that was biologically motivated and sought at least for biochemistry to utilize dynamical theories at the expense of dissecting the relation Lewontin connotes when he discusses that organisms might be recognized to construct rather than ad-apt to their environments. Lumsden and Trainor thought that Kerner’s attempt was ad hoc and was unable to imagine what the forces could be that would both move a population and connect levels of selection.

There is a way to use modern dynamical theories in biology and attempt to take apart Lewontin’s ‘general law of dialectical evolution’ and this would be by using the notion of the ‘macron’ designed by Ralph Abraham to discuss morphogenesis in its most particular biophysical instantiations.

There is a universe of Lewontin-like discourse in which even dimensional systems and biochemical dissipation is not a serious stumbling block to a fuller and more intricately developed dynamics of evolution. Here we reconstruct Kerner’s project by casting his general plan into projective geometry and describe a possible origin of complex metazoan multicelluarity as the development of adaptations to microbial syntrophy and do so by breaking the “hand” of history.

Lewontin would have us believe, (motivates us) that Darwin made a division between the inside and outside in which the internal causes of variation is what makes one organism different from another. (1) Without getting into a history of the relation of abiotic to biotic “forces” (“rigorous separation of internal and external forces”(statistical independence) Gould’s attempt to discuss internal channels of positive and negatve constraint) (2), there is no doubt that (from Fodor (video gesture) and Lewontin (video gesture)) — sense — of selection as coming from outside the organism, selecting much like animal breeders do, from that supposedly internally effected variance (metaphor or no metaphor) is what Charles Darwin and Darwinians have/had in mind.

Be that as it may, in matter of fact, Lewontin was contrarily to the opinion of Jerry Coyne (3), quite explicit on what Fodor and Piattelli — Pal (4) were missing when they described these causes as if selected by God (Fodor video “god has access… reaches in for T1’) for this or that difference, they were missing the entire coupled differential equation of Lewontin that links the environment and the organism.(?)

Instead, by utilizing a naively simple notion of the environment and ecology as “outside” the organism, Fodor and Piattelli went ‘ too far ’ (5) and said that because the selection had to be exogenously directed while the coupling was going to be if not largely, completely, endogenously affected, that Darwin actually got his own idea wrong. Lewontin explained how indeed Darwin was right ( and current evolutionary theory ( in the mind of the biologists) wrong) in need simply of a governed theoretical intentionality).

Extensive Evolutionary Cooperation and the Origin of Competition ( Defector patterns)

Multicellular organisms evolved projective plane cell cycle representations of syntrophic Pappus lines (by coextensive selection for indirect reciprocity) separating divisional syntrophic replication sequences under direct reciprocity.

There is no center (in) to the ( this) environment instead there is a point at infinity from which they are co-constructed during evolution.

This was accomplished ultimately by cell division geometrizations of mass action resulting in increased available exergonic energy by projectively transforming the syntrophic Pappus lines incidentally. Pascal’s advance projectively is fully expressed.

In this particular case of Pappus line syntroph host evolution the biological reality of adapted species gives an infinite recurrence of repetitive motion ( cell divisions into extant species existence coupled metabolically — ergodicity for particular returns to positions in chemical reactions) such that making a dynamical kinetics possible with an ensemble theory. While dissipation is going on this is in the possible extinction of the species involved and in the possible new species that may arise there from — not from the mere existence a posteriori

Cell cycle horizons circle the return chemicals and identify a circumcentered circle of chemical equilibrium incidence structures on a projective plane without overdetermination through Desargues triangles. The different sides of DNA go to different locations on the infinite line at infinity in this plane. The relation between the chemistry and biology can be visualized as transfinite approximations of the locations from sets of parallel lines also going convergently towards the same locations. Through homogenous co-ordinates one is able to directly link transfinite set theory to divided sets of surreal numbers ( across zero) by infinitesimally associating ordinals and cardinals. RNA practically accomplishes this and gene translation can be understood as parallel sets identified with sequences when the line at infinity associated is forced (Kant’s forces in classsification, classification of forces) over ( this not “absolute space”). Chemical concentrations thus appear at the zero of the surrreal association when balanced by the right and left numbers. This defines a particular biochemical position for various chemicals that as a set make up into the zygotic structure theory.

By cell cycles matching the syntrophic Pappus line available exergonic energy is dependent on a precise connection between syntrophic cell division rates as affected by chemical equilibria and patterns of cellular differentiation.

Equilibrium constants of redox reactions thus prescribe forms of embryonic divisions.

The connectable space of centerable chemical activity tetrates beyond the arithmetic sum of the interacting species exponential growths altogether, while the membranes mark the perspective between the cellular reproductions and the chemical kinematics/kinetics involved. This modifies the primary linkage of Kerner between linearized chemical inputs and outputs projectivized morphometrically.

Fitness is relative to levels of possible replication (exponential, tetrational, infinite) that the adaptation is forced to approach through “birth minus death.”

This cellular view of the biotic potential expands the mathematical format that exponential population growth may be causally influenced into ( tetrational, infinite) when surreal games from the right or left affect from within a perpetual cell line the frequency distribution of macron oscillations by 1-d symmetries of specific attractions and repulsions.

Coextensive histogenic traits can thus be separated endogenously because different combinations of reaction products ( C02, H2, CH4, H2S, S) exist in different environments.

Thus by selecting for increases in exergonic energy developable life evolved cooperatively through coextensive trait acquisition amongst microbes and multicellular individuals.

Tribrachidium is an example of Routh’s theorem with Cevia lines ranging morphogeneically across the infinite perspective line with the angle of two syntrophs as they grow concomitantly between the tissue.

Pearson

“A diversity due to differentiation and a variability due to chance are quite distinct things. The one is the result of dominating factors which can be isolated and described; the other of a great number of small factors, varying from organ to organ, and incapable of being defined or specified. Indeed, upon each dominating factor of differentiation is superposed such a chance variability. Of’ course all things which differ even by chance variation are in a certain sense differentiated.” Bateson “This welcome passage outlines the conception that must form the point of departure in any attempt to understand variation in its relation to Evolution.”

Regardless, organisms were utopians. It is the relation of the variation (gene enzyme expressions), differentiation ( different chemical concentration/complex sets), to diversity(predator-prey symmetry, competition cooperation, sex). I imagine the niche not to be a “hole” whose surface is fit-to by reproductive community of a batch of individual organisms but was (at least) prior to the Cambrian explosion clearly a linear incidence of forced projected environs whose variance, chemically determined, was nonetheless under developmental constraint from within the organism. Fitness is the correct metaphor for what a trait is selected for and “environment” in this theory does have a ‘center’ albeit in a particular mathematical definition only and organisms indeed do adapt both internally and externally through this geometry into forms with a variability we can observe and explore as an internal channel.

I will specify an infinity of the morphed fractal forms with an infinity of the ways of Ediacaran living by the very idea Lewontin raises that it is not the minimal size of a population that produces the result but the middle numbers of stored energy with the forms. This specification will be described transversely as a morphogenesis of path curves that source and sink in a pair-wise fashion relating ecological and phenotypic possibilities.

Lewontin simply was working with pre-chaotic maths. The coupling under a sufficiently sophisticated mathematical tension at infinity permits the organism, environment and genes to be re-cognized as macrons of coupled attractors lacked without a description of the phenotype to the geneotype to coextensive trait separations, environmentally. Smale’s pitch-fork bifurcation enables one to define this interaction. The origin of the Ediacaran ecosystem engineers provides the case. Projective geometry supplies the foreground in which the one dimensional linearity is related to two mathematical lines in the same space. The demand is that chemical constants controlling as well as controlled are not to cognized as in saddle-node kinetics. This bifurcation discontinues a genetic relation between attraction and repulsion via a linear incidence of sets of projectively dual points and lines symmetrically positioned but nonetheless separable along the surreal number line into left and right games. Homogenous co-ordinates define a polarity in which each side of the origin lined pencil connects each side of the surreal number line.

Evolution thus transitioned from a variety of kinematic trajectories into a full dynamic as the cooperating Ediacaran biota were overtaken by predation and evolving adaptations that broke the cooperative Edicaran ergodicity with the microbes as oxygen increased ( leading to a Robert May form of kinematics). Meiotic sexualization arose as spatial cooperations ( Novak) within given ecosystems at the boundaries of reaction product environments. Ciliates and Worm likes dominated.

Selection on might come into play when a mind can by intent interact with selection of what had been selected for and we might indeed be mislead if we did not have the forces worked out ahead of time. Abiotic forces can become biotic and biotic forces can lose their biological denotation at a distance (differentiate amongst autonomous and accidental (2) ), something wholly missing from chemistry electromagnetism sensu stricto for gravity has an effect on organisms of this member historically. Gravity for instance has some effect on actually obtainable and extant coordinated influx an efluxes from which accidental forces might effect autonomous results. This does not happen in chemistry where density rather than evo-devo can interchange reverse wise the accidental with the autonomous ( effect of random Brownian motion on differences in the right and left of developing organisms). Due to difference in Plank unit relative to statistical composition.

WORKING OUT THE FORCES — recessive, dominant

Mass Action

“In chemistry, the law of mass action is the proposition that the rate of a chemical reaction is directly proportional to the product of the activities or concentrations of the reactants.[1] It explains and predicts behaviors of solutions in dynamic equilibrium. Specifically, it implies that for a chemical reaction mixture that is in equilibrium, the ratio between the concentration of reactants and products is constant.[2]”

Using the rate law for a bimolecular irreversible reaction

kt = (1/b-a)(log(a(b-x)/b(a-x))

with a and b being initial concentrations of the reactants,

x is the concentration of a reaction product,

t is the time

k is the reaction rate constant.

In the chemistry we take two redox equations as two separate equilibria and we draw three lines or directions (Le Chantelier equilibrium), more products continually removed, more reactants continually added and we use the dual Pappus theorem for points and find that there are three lines that meet at point and this specifies the chemical energy increase or decrease possible for the two syntrophs and Ediacaran host under mass action.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_mass_action

Here we will construct all chemical equilibria (sustained) through mass action as located at isocline intersections in Smale’s normal form pitchfork form.

https://www.desmos.com/calculator/x5fz6lavrx

The modeling framework is not codimension one but can be described in N-dimensions if need be.

A model explored by González-Cabaleiro et.al. (6) found that fermentative mixed cultures product yielding seems to be controlled by the principle of maximum energy harvest and the necessity of balancing the redox equivalents in absence of external electron acceptors

Menelaus’s theorem and Ceva’s theorem identify where the pitchfork bifurcation origin is located for two syntrophs and one Ediacaran host and describe the synchronous ranges of variations in the cell locations that development and replication can result in. This common bifurcation trackway determines the spatial constraint on the exergonic energy concurrently available to all three cooperators. It also constrains how open (chemical input and output system) can vary pseudo-reactions amongst various non-closed formats under mass-action ( A->2A, 0->A, A->0). The host clearly can provide constant influx -eflux condition.

Carnot’s theorem for cyclic polygons specifies the pitchfork origin for an arbitrary number of syntrophs per host and works with the Japanese theorem.

Ales Gottvald has investigated Carnot’s theorem on transversals applied to mass action via Riccati equations

The cross-ratio brings a new rationale for the Law of Mass Action, and nonlinear Riccati systems describe parametric dependence of any invariant quantity based on the cross-ratio.

(Gottvald, Ales)

. Intra cellular deviations from mass action does not obviate the approach if the effect is on reversal of the forward and backward directions when the free energy of dissipation is low which ensures constitutive ergodicty.

Alperin et al found ( 70 that © archaea and SRB engaged in syntrophic AMO face a substantial energetic cost for aggregating; (d) direct contact between archaea and SRB provides only a modest energetic advantage compared to a loose association; Another author (8) found that protein synthesis was higher in smaller aggregates as well.

These conditions supplied a selective force in which the Dushanto embryo’s evolved in order to divide the aggregates when they got too big. Multicellularity and its developments thus has its origin in the mechanics of maximizing syntrophic energy harvests. This is a specific form of Kerner’s nonbiologically motivated coupled Lotaka — Volterra equation for the syntrophs under evolution by direct reciprocity. The host uses the flattening at the top of the curve , carrying capacity, to split two exponentiating growths — coupled via transseries. The host by dividing the aggregate accomplishes exchanging the chemical species while the bacteria are exchanging the energy but tend to clump into nests and prevent chemical exchange and less energy exchange over time. Thus the host is the grand Kerner ensemble carrying out a Lotka Volterra bath with the microscopic trajectories of the bacterial biochemical networks that accompany cell growth and division.

In physics — we now have a new way to relate energy conservation to the logistic equation. There is a new integral summation of algebraic macrons equivalent to all potential and kinetic energies that defines the endogenous and exogenous limit and is nature’s proximate reach of each environing individual. It is the bound of this limit that is the target of selection no matter the level being selected. Group level properties arise when accidental forces become autonomous (Individualized) and then biotic (reproductive community ( Mayr))by forms of energy exchanged. This process probably also explains the existence of levels of organization as well.

Sexualization thus can be recognized when the cellular differentiation’s low frequency supplies a source that is sunk by the internal output back into the input the cell divisions remark. This bifurcation gives rise to the small gamete and the large gamete at the two extremes of anabolism and catabolism.

We are able here to add negative entropy thermodynamics of cellular differentiation into chemical kinetics and forge with specific proton gradients conservation laws into a new variational principle of macrons. Thus biology has provided a new kind of mechanics that chemists were not going to invent for themselves ( Oster and Perleson (9)). Biochemistry is thus poised to provide what many say that chemical reaction network theory has not, actual complex chemical processes of a generalized Lotka-Volterra equation, A “canonical” chemical reaction network based on polynomial mechanics. This one simply evolved. Cooperation ( Novak ( cooperation is always moving)) provides the oscillation. There is no “theoretical or mathematical” imposition here — just the relation of biology (ultimate) and chemistry (proximate) itself (but not in the way that Ernst Mayr wrote about it in 1982). We will be using the assumption that Pearson had but Bateson questioned, that all of the microscopic ( chemical Le Chantelier actions) are random and that this gives rise to the average through the correlation coefficients. We will look on Pearson’s homotyposis as a form of statistical mechanics. In the progress of the study we will be able to see how the “differentiation” of chance differences is itself a differentiation that is also differentiant superposed due to mixing I the environment which is travel into and out of the “heat” bath as caused by Pearsonian bathmeric forcing which is also due to cell cycle relations to DNA replication.

Endosymbionts evolved through direct reciprocity amongst themselves. The host evolved using indirect reciprocity.

The nucleus may be contained in the syntroph region. There are inclusions that are not in the middle.

Kerner’s eco-clusters (sub species, varieties, species) thus statistically similar to Pearson’s populational vs racial vs individual homotyposes, where the individual with its differentiation and organic correlation displays the species variation when a sample from the population is considered and the Batesonian discontinuous diversity (Mendelian genetics) causally divides the correlation set. This is not an ad hoc construction but arises directly from the evolution of the syntrophic relation into the cellular biology of the metazoa. How this evolved further is a difficult question. The Edicarian community was cooperative relative to their use of the bacterial mat and syntrophic possibilities and these different “species” were grouped both by their predator-prey interactions as well as their genealogical relations as they developed sex which separated this out by stressing differently the anabolic and catabolic in the conserved symmetry of the relations. The predators of the Cambrian moved these homotypic eco clusters into the major metazoan radiations. Thus the transition was not quite exactly as Gould reluctantly predicted that the Cambrian explosion was the Mammals waiting in the wings to overtake the dinosaurs. Instead it would be like the bird dinosaurs eating the other dinsaours so that the mammals could also eat them. Thus we come to understand that the phyogeny of the Edicarian biota arise via ecoclustering both around themselves being preyed on and preyon others macroscopically but microscopically due to the predator and prey relations of the evolving and horizontally genetically exchanging archea and bacteria indendently on each other. Some Edicarian biota will have adapted closely with their endosymbionts and others not so close. It is the ocean redox situtations and the evolution of photosynthetic microbes and euycatotes that provides the “virtual reservoir of possible systems” and these are determined by the physical chemistry of all permutable series of chemical redox equations. This notion of diversity space explains the terminological confusion between Bateson and Pearson on this and also why Provine did not go far enough in analysizing the difference in point of view between the two. One might consider modelling the three phases of the Edicaran temporality as independent Possion averages from the same system thus resulting the three different species compositions. It was precisely because the Edicarian eco-genetic community was like an ideal gas rather than a liquid with strong interactions of chemical species that the Cambrian explosion occurred because the simple properties did not have the ability to interact in the more complex ways the possessing hard parts in the shelly fossils and locomotion permitted. On this model we must show how the different groups of communities of Edicarian fossils form even , odd, even structures either in total time or across environmental gradients. It remains to be seen how the aij interaction family of null vectors might arise directly from the iteracion of the component syntrophs through the biochemical network into the complimentary aij interaction networks of the hosts. Whether this might be due to direct relations of heritable negative chemical species concentrations caused by new concentrations with sexual reproduction or by some other mean, such as expressed gene rate changes and or horizontal gene transfer on chemical concentrations and hence internal energy and free energy change is also to be investigated. It is wholly possible that the evolution of the Edicarian biota was due to differences the stoichimetry of the redox equations of the syntrophic bacteria as to whether this was effected by monomolecular or bimolecular diversity, differentiation, and variation. I have already said what is the eco-genetics of the chemical reactions, this is in the embryonic division and cellular differentitation of the hosts which will have different geographic effects and hence different speciational kinetic energy. It has to do with how the membranes are moving between the linkage groups and chromosomes and it is to what viruses must overcome if they are to get in reproduce and get out. The “eco-molecules” of the “eco-clusters” are either the further proteins associated with negative chemical concnetrations or simply the sum of the redox equation chemical concentrations as maniulable with enzyme genes in the endosymbionts. It seems that the macro-evolutionary step would be around negative concentration biochemistry since that depends on the larger the clade the more negative concentrations possibly carried while the sum of redox concentrations is simply in the individual on growth and development as to what it can obtain from the environment and it does not have the full Pearsonin homotyposes relations of homotype to organic correlation to differentiation in the distribution of varitational values. If so this will be found with the application of surrelat numbers to the cross monomolecular transitions. The Cambrian explosion is Kerner’s “biouniverse”. The possibility of a phase transition (Bibik 2016)may lead to the idea of how the Edicarian might have been prey upon so much that they became plants beyond the algae by themselves by giving rise to complex euycarotes — plants. Thus the Edicarians could have evolved sex through spatial cooperation and then phase transitioned into plants as shelly hard part metazoans and those worms able to break up the mats evolved. Plants are solitons of the Edicarian ecogas. Negative species ( like negative chemical concentrations) that can arise the greater than grand ensemble may be the origin of eucaryotic regulatory genes with specific associations in linkage groups and may link particular Edicarian lineages to particular metazoan lines. Also one might try to understand the many acritarchs from within Kerner’s model. Kerner did not say how in his great ensemble the diversity of species arises but we can speculate using Pearson’s homotyposis that the diversity arises via symmetrical, linear and successive differentiation into populations and geographic races as bathmic forces adapt specific chemical rates to extant chemical concentrations in the ecosystem and likely due to the addition of bimolecular and monomolecular underlaying complexes reactions. This need not involve sex but physiologically that is more likely. It is here that panbiogeography would be a better approach than geographic speciation since the total space must be divided and dispersed (explains Croizat’s dispersal from what dispersal without vicariance). Could it be that the various arictarchs are maximal at various numbers of “species” levels?

SYNTROPHY

“optimal cooperation will be secured in granules in which the partner organisms are randomly mixed to near homogeneity rather than in situations in which the partners form “nests” of identical subpopulations (Fig. 15).”

“A basic problem remains in that each partner bacterium multiplies and produces offspring only of its own kind. Thus, the situation in Fig. 15a will change after several generations into one similar to that in Fig. 15b, and the efficiency of metabolite transfer will decrease with the age of the aggregates unless there are ways of internal mixing of the aggregates. The use of thin sections of methanogenic granules has demonstrated examples of fully mixed as well as of nest structures (36), and similar pictures were recently obtained with thin sections in which the partner bacteria could be identified by RNA-directed gene probes (51). The dynamics of growth and internal structure development in such aggregates could be an interesting object of future research now that gene probes are available to provide excellent tools for direct in situ identification of the various microbial components involved.” It is the host mitotic separation of doubled chromosomes that does the “mixing” in different radial directions caused by different length chromosomes moved from the metaphase plate, of the syntroph “nests” that regardless form during the cell cycle. This may have been concomitant with the development of the macro — micro nuclei or perhaps as:

DNA at the metaphase plate on separation moves the reference projective plane at infinity into both daughter cells. Either way the different chromosome lengths could operate to sort particular chemical concentrations especially when histogeny is associated/correlated with chromosome dimension. Embyronic differentiation related to chromosome structure is thus caused by overall energy form transformations and metabolic (predator-prey) efficiencies/ rates extant and already evolved (some concentrations being never during the life time to be used compared to others). The spherical nucleus is the boundary of the inifinite projective reference plane ( X,Y) — mapping of the plane to the sphere which is apriori why translation occurs outside the nucleus, existence of ribosomal RNA and also what relates a virus capsid to its genetic components. N. equitans hosted by Hospitalis is also a case of the same geometry ( inverted). The chromosome linkage groups and lengths preserve the cross ratio via the negative chemical concentrations which also effects further invariant histogenic cross ratios through the rest of the projective group dimensions ( euclidian motion and size) ( in addition to shape).

MACRONS OF KERNER PERPETUAL CELL LINES

“As we look steadily at one micro-chemical constituent of one cell, we have to under- stand that “one cell” means its indefinite continuation along one chain of the branching tree of daughter cells; that is, “one cell” stands for an accordion-like performance of one entity under the microscope, that undergoes repeated slow, gross changes of volume, corresponding, at another order of observation, to the repeated shedding of daughters; but the closer-grained observation of purely interior chemical dynamics is confined always to one and only one entity and to its inner long- and short-term chemical excursions.”

Kerner proposed a model of chemical interactivity from an exclusively single cell interior view-point. We will want of course to show how this model relates to “daughters” spatially as well as causally/effectively and finally to how and when meiotic separation occurs on the same model that brings a Thomian morphogenesis full “circle.” For now we are just looking myopically from the interior of a divisible mother cell. Even in this case we immediately see a difficulty. As the cell volume bobs up and down we have to decide if the ebb and flow moves the point of view (from which the model’s perspective originates) to the right or the left as we advance our order of observation. Here I will account for this ordering using surreal numbers, the order partitioning into negative and positive numbers through a specific algebra of macrons from within Kerner’s model. This association to macrons will be insufficient when DNA division and meiosis is considered but works as from the perspective of a perpetual cell line that has a basic excursion frequency associated with cell division. The right and left sides are united by a coupled macron attractor from mother to daughter that becomes decoupled on division. The algebra describes, to the extent it is homogenous, as the/a connectivity of the right and left that can be called perpetual bilateral symmetry when the cell division is always rod like. For every perpetually started cell line a “song” can created from the mother and daughters via the frequency shifts as the given algebra is traversed.

Ralph Abraham defined the macron in a couple of papers. He wrote, “There are various macrons, or basic pattern phenomena, which are fundamentally chemical in origin. These occur in heterogenous media, amid chemical reactions. Included are mechanisms of change of state, such as patterns of precipitation, Liesegang rings of crystallization, opalescences like abalone shell. To this class also belong the classical diffusion patterns as well as the newly discovered patterns of periodic chemical reactions ( see Chapter 5 by Prigogine). This is a little-studied category, which will undoubtedly be explored more thoroughly. “

When daughters are shed ( separation mechanism) the two distinct structures are weakly macrodynamically coupled forming a compound macron of chemical origin with physical macron interactivity (C-P). With each perpetual line described as possessing a basic or stable Kerner oscillation the total coupled system now has its own stable mode.

How the entire set of mother daughter lineages’ macron are related to all of the daughter lineage macrons separately ( taking apart each (C-P macron interactivity)) is a morphological problem we seek to solve by defining the algebra of these macrons. The question will be in the recovery of these constitutive relations is whether there might be resonance and or sympatric vibrations that format the coordination. We will find that the algebra is actually continuously formed with negative concentration quantities charged to the form of the C-P macron linear additivity.

Abraham has suggested that the piling up of powder at the nuclei of plate macrons might serve as a general analog for macron addition ( in the experiment of Hans Jenny).

CELL CYCLE ENDOSYMBIOSIS

“cell division of the bacterial symbionts in the marine anaerobic ciliate P. frontata is constrained by the host and synchronised with host division.” “the endosymbionts are methanogens that presumably consume the hydrogen (and possibly the acetate) produced by the hydrogenosomes and convert these substrates into methane; in many cases the methanogens are found attached to hydrogenosomes inside the cells” Synchronous Division of an Endosymbiotic Methanogenic Bacterium in the Anaerobic Ciliate Plagiopyla frontata Kahl

“The formation of homopolar doublets can be induced by the action of antibiotics which inhibit the growth of cytoplasmic bacterial symbionts whose cell cycle appears to be controlled by the host. They multiply during the macronuclear S-phase of the ciliate and become enclosed in vesicles and are largely destroyed just before cell division is completed. Since doublet formation is due to an incomplete cell division, and because experimental disturbances at the cell cortex of dividing ciliates also lead to doublets, the symbionts are thought to contribute some factor which is essential for normal cytokinesis of the host cell.”

EVOLUTION OF AGGREGATES BY DIRECT RECIPROCITY INDIRECTLY INCIDENT

So we are going to start with two ( a priori ) syntrophs that can conceivably operate each of their energetic redox equations in either direction and we take clear note of the increased intricacy that the dynamical system beyond those often discussed by mathematicians where the lines can not cross or actually go onto one another that ecological interactions may appear to actually do so ( in the large) and this because like time reversibility one has “predator” and “prey” reversibility when the direction of the energetic redox equations are reversed. One syntroph may be anabolizing the catabolism of the other or if the direction of the redox equations are switched, perhaps effected by the Edicarain hosts’ change in cell cycle temporality and evolution of development, the same syntroph may now be providing the catabolism to it’s former “prey” and/or this reciprocity may be chemically divided into new differentiation and gene expression of the host. This example shows that genes do not generally manipulate the organism as Dawkins would like for all to move past the 30’s understanding of evolution deductively. Should there be one case where this possibility can be a posteriori be found then Dawkins’s gene eye view will be proved wrong.

When there are two syntrophs forming a minimal aggregate we call this the 0 state = <:> of syntrophs {S1,S2} and arbitrarily(until the projective geometry is added(depends on Noether ideal right and left)) assign one (S1 to the right or positive) and (S2 to the left or negative). When the Ediacaran host interacts with both, if S1 is the “anabolizing predator” we write the three-cooperator-state as surreal number 1, <0:>; and if S2 instead is not catabolizing (we have the opposite) then the triples’ state is surreal number -1, <:0>. This definition provides the background basis and justification for defining which macron is left and which is right as the algebra takes shape while the daughters are physically shed ( Pasteur did not give enough attention to this when trying to understand “fermentation” as it had been discussed by Leibig and others and instead operated with a notion of “dual” shaped living things; Pearson never understood Bateson’s biological backing of the notion of discontinuous variation).

Now when the size of each aggregate is measured at three different times and one is able to construct the Pappus line amongst the six points ( paper on using projective geometry to measure chemical reactions at three different times) then we identify each triple-cooperation with a different surreal number. If the first triple cooperator state was <0:> and that state prevails (ergodicity extent does not flip the predator-prey assignment) at the next measured point the three-cooperator-state is ½ =<0:1>. If this state prevails again at third time step then it’s state is signed with ¼ = <0:1/2>. If the directions of the chemical reactions are reversed ( resulting in different energy harvests), say at the second time step then the sign is — ½ = <1:0>. The projective point at infinity thus is contained in/at( the limit of the use of all the dyadic rationals (rational numbers whose denominators are powers of 2). If the host however divides the aggregate and distributes the cooperation this moves the labeling numbers into those of 2nd Day surreal numbers and beyond. The host thus accomplishes an ultratask and the syntrophs hypertasks relative to the ultratask perfomed. What we need to do is to describe different Conway-Dedekind cuts into the L and R Surreal sets of the same numbers associated with a particular biochemical reaction network such that different concentrations of negative concentrations can be defined as a gradient/structure of the different cuts. The supertask is the host separating the coextensive traits of the syntrophs because there is in the host’s lineage and the actual environment concentrations of chemicals it manipulated ( past tense (evolved effect in the present) since it is an infinitetask) to utilize a set of chemical reaction rate proteins under the common gene expression system in all three. It moves the biophysical right and left via the ideal algebra right and left across the chiral right and left, given the attraction and repulsion of existing concentrations.

· Volume 9, Issue 4

· December 2016 , pp. 836–847

SURREAL TIME AND ULTRATASKS

· HAIDAR AL-DHALIMY (a1) and CHARLES J. GEYER (a2)

• This paper suggests that time could have a much richer mathematical structure than that of the real numbers. Clark & Read (1984) argue that a hypertask (uncountably many tasks done in a finite length of time) cannot be performed. Assuming that time takes values in the real numbers, we give a trivial proof of this. If we instead take the surreal numbers as a model of time, then not only are hypertasks possible but so is an ultratask (a sequence which includes one task done for each ordinal number — thus a proper class of them). We argue that the surreal numbers are in some respects a better model of the temporal continuum than the real numbers as defined in mainstream mathematics, and that surreal time and hypertasks are mathematically possible.

·

As this was accomplished by hosted cell division geometrizations through mass action by projectively transforming the projective Pappus line increased available exergonic energy occurs adaptively by the ergodic cycling around the chemicals reacting under a dyadically rationalized series or by point-line incidences projectively transformed through the hosted cell mitoses.

KERNER’S SUGGESTION

‘Several authors have investigated the possibility of treating chemical dynamics within a framework analogous to classical mechanics (KERNER, 1964; BraT, 1955; ONSAGER & MACHLUP, 1953). Much of the incentive for this effort lay in the esthetic appeal of mechanical variational principles which so elegantly summarize the equations of motion. Of course, such efforts were of limited validity since the constraint of symplectic flows, with their restriction to even dimensional systems, is simply too narrow a universe of discourse to encompass dissipative chemical processes.”

In the case where we have two syntrophs with two basic energetic equations this is still possible as the conjugate paired phase variables even when the full circuit morphogenesis of meiosis is considered can be described by dominance and recessives paired with the heterozygote for any flow that is paired in the first description here with the ergodicity applying chemical species return stoichiometry, paired to the two syntrophs in two lines of growths in a projective plane that is reflexive across the pairs’ flow morphologically.

An “approach to analyze nonlinear biochemical systems was proposed by Kerner (Kerner, 1972). Many biochemical systems can be described by differential equations containing only constants and linear and bilinear (quadratic) terms. Differential equa- tions containing exactly such terms are known as Riccati equations. The important point is that Riccati type equations can, although they are nonlinear, be exactly linear- ized without approximation. Thus the Kerner linearization could be used as a starting point to apply the methods of linear stability analysis for the exact stability analysis of nonlinear systems. The possible applications of this technique to biochemical systems are, unfortunately, severely restricted. The reason for this restriction is that the transfor- mation matrices for the linearization must be commutative. To be more specific, Morris found that the Kerner linearization could only be applied to two categories of systems (Morris, 1974). The first category are Abelian systems which can be reduced to a set of uncoupled Riccati equations. These systems are trivial insofar as they can also be linearized in the normal way. The second category consists of some special non-Abelian systems of two or three variables. These systems impose however, strong symmetry relations on the rate constants. Therefore this method is not generally applicable to biochemical systems.

We will use this rate constant symmetry relation in the model to investigate the effects of the host division processes on the direct reciprocity empirically displayed by each syntroph. Under the various diversity of the obtaining reciprocal relations the decoupling of translation and transcription in the euycarotic host provides the indirect( angled) edges through which space and time pattern interactions otherwise not accessible to the same available chemical attractions and repulsions would merely remain latent.

SYNTROPH EQUATIONS

Phototrophic green sulfur bacteria and

Chemolithotrophic sulfur reducing bactering

Exchange sulfur

Fermentativre bacteria (using propionate, butyrate, and benzoate) and methanogenic archeae exchange hydrogen or formate. The archea must use up the hydrogen and fomate at a high enough rate so as to keep the first (degradative) reaction thermodynamically favorable.

“the syntrophic degradation of butyrate to acetate and H2 at pH 7, 1 atm H2 (101 kPa), and 1 M of acetate and butyrate is thermodynamically un metabolized.

1.

When hydrogen and formate concentrations are kept low by methanogens or other hydrogen/formate users, butyrate degradation is thermodynamically favorable with a Gibbs free energy change of −39.2 kJ per mole of butyrate (1 Pa H2 partial pressure and concentrations of butyrate and acetate at 0.1 mM apiece).favorable with a Gibbs free energy change of +48.6 kJ per mole of butyrate metabolized.”

anaerobic methane-oxidizing archaea that frequently form syntrophic associations with sulfate-reducing Deltaproteobacteria

Syntrophomonadaceae, whose members are known to syntrophically metabolize fatty acids, were abundant in butyrate-degrading, sulfate-reducing aquifer sediments (102) and fatty acid-degrading sewage sludge exposed to sulfate for long periods

Some syntrophic metabolizers, such as Syntrophomonas wolfei (97), Syntrophus aciditrophicus (57), and Pelotomaculum thermopropionicum (42), appear to be hardwired for syntrophy. They are metabolic specialists that lack the ability to use alternate electron acceptors or to reoxidize their reduced cofactors by making products such as ethanol, lactate, propionate, or butyrate (

Transfer of H2 The artificial co-culture of P. furiosus and M. kandleri is most likely based on transfer of H2. When grown in coculture, both archaea reach higher cell-densities than compared to single-species cultivation (Schopf et al., 2008; Fig. 6).

Transfer of sulfur compounds

Co-cultures of green sulfur bacteria (e.g. Chlorobium) and SRB (e.g. Desulfuromonas) are based on transfer of elemental sulfur and sulfide. By the activity of both partners, sulfur-compounds are kept at non-inhibitory concentrations, allowing the co-culture to thrive (Biebl & Pfennig, 1978; Warthmann et al., 1992).

Transfer of carbon-, nitrogen and other compounds Microbial consortia capable of anaerobic methane oxidation in combination with sulfate-reduction are formed by methanotrophic archaea and SRB. ANME archaea perform the methane-oxidation process, supported by a constant electron removal by sulfatereduction activity of involved Bacteria. The transfer of nitrogenous and carbon compounds has been proven; however the electron-shuttle or other transferred compounds — in this particular case — have to date not been identified (Knittel & Boetius, 2009).

Transfer of organic compounds ‘Chlorochromatium aggregatum’: This phototrophic consortium is a physically close association of several cells of C. chlorochromatii and a representative of the Comamonadaceae (central bacterium). Whereas the central bacterium provides motility, the epibionts seem to feed it with organic compounds, such as amino acids or 2-oxoglutarate (Mueller & Overmann, 2011; Fig. 5).

Transfer of nutrients, growth factors and complex organic compounds Since N. equitans lacks essential genes for lipid-, cofactor-, amino acid and nucleotide biosynthesis, this organism is completely dependent on its host I. hospitalis, which provides for instance lipids, amino acids and most likely ATP. Ignicoccus hospitalis however, seemsto be unaffected by the presence of N. equitans (Huber et al., 2012; Fig. 7).

Removal of toxic compounds

Aerobic enrichments of methanotrophic bacteria frequently contain representatives of the genus Hyphomicrobium. This microbe seems to remove methanol, which is produced as a by-product during methanotrophy and could inhibit the growthofmethane-oxidizingBacteria(Wilkinsonetal.,1974; Moore, 1981).

200 micrometers

Predator — Prey reversals

By using reverser acetogenesis bacteria can switch from being anabolic acetogens to catabolic acteogens provided they are syntrophic with sulfur reducers or methanogens.

“ If a system has a continuous symmetry property, then there are corresponding quantities whose values are conserved in time.[4] “ There is by Noether’s theorm a conserved quantity caused by temporality of the Pappus line that may be available either under direct reciprocity of the syntrophs themselves or indirectly with the host.

Thus the local action of reversing the anabolic or catabolic direction can produce the conserved current of hydrogen — where it, the exergonic energy is split evenly between the partners which share equally in the energy

“To every differentiable symmetry generated by local actions, there corresponds a conserved current.”

Because evolution can permit a effective conservation of entropy unlike the the 2nd law of theromodyanmics in time predator prey reversal has some relation to entropy conservation through a conserved current in the sythrophic catabolism/anaboloism redox eqations. The CO- — O(conserved charge) handedness is the conserved current in the acetogen sytroph. Handedness of the chemical reaction network is conserved current of the conserved charge in a given set of sytroph energy equations.

(CH3COO + 4H20<-> 2HC03- + 4H2 + H+)

Every growing syntrophic aggregate thus posses a Noether charge when each species’ nest branches off a daughter. The Noether current tends to flow between the locations where the two species are in close contact and is likely the place of flagellelar connections which are adaptations fit to currents as charges are localized under ecologically sustained division patterns. This current is the equivalent of switching which syntroph is on which line that created the Pappus one in between and is found by reversing he set of positive and negative surreal numbers sets that were reciprocally evolved. The handedness conserved is expressed in the cell division and causing the asymmetrical differences of multicellularity through a total mass conservation ( of all protons, electrons, plus all chemical species). Species predator — prey reversals conserve chemical mass.

Noether currents of syntrophic associations

When the direction of the energetic equations in syntrophic associations are reversed the role of each symbiont is reversed with in a general way one being a catabolizer and the other anabolizer and vice versa.

Kerner noted in passing that one formulation of the LotkaVolterra equation possess a symmetry with respect to the predator and the prey and suggested that has the property of a conservation Newtonian equations have under time symmetry.

Now given that chemical reaction networks and Lotka Volterra Equations can be related provided there are symmetries in the 2 or 3 variable non-Abelian algebras with symmetries in reaction constants, the Noether current is concomitant with a reversal of “predator” and “prey” (by whatever means), indicates that there are molecular Noether charge constants in metabolism of all microbes that link how the membranes grow and energy used to do so. It has to do with the actual charge put across (the membrane) of the daughters’ area as related to the conserved handenedness of the chemical equations during the division of the aggregates. When the flip of the syntroph relative to the point at infinity happens because in projective geometry there is a dual relation of points and lines. This flip has a corresponding line at infinity which is expressed in the Lie algebra and revealed in a particular transseries, as a particular symmetry orthogonal to the chemical concetration ergodic location ( keeping the divergence incompressible flow) The filaments that connect the syntroph aggregates are able to current the charge. Conserved protons per ATP or autonomous force related to histones as the minimized conservation. Linear independence of the Lie algebra under Evo-Devo. This relates the translation invariance in the physical macron to the timed predator prey invariance as a chemical invariant in reciprocally evolved reaction rates. What it says is that there are evolved coordinated reaction rates that were selected in the chemical reaction network and that these are adaptations of the entire gene pool but have different forcings depending on how many doublings have occurred within the membranes. When the predator and prey flip there is an actual physical tension in the charge across the membranes from the entire statistical ensemble due to the independence of the second derivative and results in reversed flow of protons through the ATP ase as a simple 2nd law of mechanics — each reaction has an equal and opposite reaction. This is a new law of population genetics and the Hardy Weinberg equilibrium when there is no sex ( big gamete/small gamate). It is that the conserved quantity or charge is a negative concentration or conserved current is the opposite rate constant. The effect of switching which is the predator and which the prey enables one to include “negative” concentrations ( support) in the kinematics. Thus biochemical reaction networks support a wider range of dynamical and chaotic behavior than purely chemical reaction networks. The different kinds of ways to conserve energy ( putting protons across a membrane, generating or using ATP, moving electrons in various ways) are different ways of experiencing negative concentrations. Noether theorm and the conservation of reaction rate sets equals the existence of enzymes out of amino acids ( general relation of concentrations ( essential amino acids) to rates — enzymes as catalysts).

Milnor has asked how evolution may have evolved constant cross-ratios and gave two substantive explanations both of which are true by this imagined evolution of the Edicaran biota. It would be interesting to know what Thurston has had to say about why he thought the projective group was the better group than Thompson’s conformal one. Regardless the relation of the flip to the cooperative ossciliation remains to be shown.

The engineering explanation comes into play with predator-prey reversal and the Lotaka Voltera format while the chemical reaction network idea from syntroph divisions gives the control mechanism.

A new homotyposis — the chemical reaction network as a Pearsonian undifferentiated cross-ratio like organ in a theory of zygote structure.

Provine said that Pearson’s homotyposis could not even begin to work because organisms do not possess undifferentiated like organs that distributed with the gametes but in fact the chemical reaction network specified by the chemical reaction rates of each specific genome’s proteins prior to development is such an organ. As different genes are expressed and dominant or recessive alleomorphs used it is possible to have many like within self but different than the geographic race from which it is a part become canalized ( Waddington) as to the cross ratios of the double stranded DNA into the set of other racially held negative concentrations in the individual ( but extant in the race/gene pool/population) conserved via predator prey reversals in races’ species’ the clade lineage. How much is due the environment and how much to the ancestral lineage will depend on the evolution away from syntrophic association, the formation of linkage groups and number and size of the chromosomes, and specifically in the kinds of chemical reaction complexes the haploid gametes’ cross ratio of base pairs attract and repel what actual concentrations of chemicals either found externally in the environment accidentally or autonomously attracted and repelled (to other kin individuals). Curiously, it is in the discontinuous variation of chemical concentrations as like undifferetied gamete ( divided inheritance) organs of Bateson’s symmetry class via prior predator-prey relations that effects the adaptive landscape such. Bean bag genetics is such a blatant miscategorization of the synthesis only, it is hard to imagine how it was sustained. Development not being included is not the answer.

Pearson — “frog. In the simplest forms of reproduction, budding and parthenogenesis, the offspring will not be absolutely alike, for buds and ova are undifferentiated like organs, and such organs have only a limited degree of resemblance. If this view be correct, variability is not a peculiarity of sexual repro- duction, it is something peculiar to the production of undifferentiated like organs in the individual, and the problems of heredity must largely turn on how the resem- blance between such organs is modified, if modified at all, by the conditions of nurture, growth, and environment generally”

So an individual never has a negative chemical concentration but the reaction rates exist in that individual (as if it did ) because one’s brother does have the missing concentration through the equation of like undifferentiated organs in the individual and across inheritance because DNA is double stranded. There is no relation of the DNA to information. It is not that it is an “aperiodic “ crystal that inheritance commits but instead because with two sides repulsion and attraction can moved without the mass in the individual provided it is in both the environment and the lineage. The environment is still outside the individual but really it is only such as outside the individual and the individual’s race, species, clade etc slightly differently just as each organ is not actually the same undifferentiation within the body.

There is a Perasonian Bathmic tendency in the forces that transition from positive to negative chemical concentrations that permit through the Smale pitchfork bifurcation to relate Mendel to Pearson contrary to Provine’s statement — “Clearly Mendel’s theory was contradictory to Pearson’s homotyposis theory. Bateson did not use the criticism from Mendel’s theory because he did not believe” …

What we actually have is the converse of Haeckel’s ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny with phylogeny recapitulates ontogeny! Prior lineage chemical negative concentration repulsion and attraction dynamics encoded in undifferentiated/unexpressed genes dominantly and recessively provide coextensive trait separation possibilities for further fitness optimizations even though Haldane did not think it made sense to speak of fitness being optimized since it must remain close to 1.

Mendel’s differentiation ( difference) of the germ cells is completely compatible with the Edicarian ecosystem engineered origin of competition view of homotyposis undifferentiation in the germ cells. Mendel needs only that the difference is latent in the second generation and this is due to the recessivneness being simply the missing concentration with only one copy and no ability use both repulsion and attraction and will be shown by the fusing of the Smale pitchfork bifurcation amongst points and lines at infinity. Mendel difference is only needed to explain the heterozygote (developmental binomial) and not the dominant or recessive homozygote an their alleomorphs as they differ in the race due to the factors which Pearson in a second paper discusses and Mendel addressed as the ‘constant’ double dominance of the pure line. The developmental binomial was needed for the latent offspring difference which differed from parents. Provine compounded the permutable combinations under a constant cross ratio with gene expression as differential differentiation caused by enzyme changes to reaction rates. When Mendel was “liberating” the differentiating units from the enforced union in the zygote — the developmental binomial he was explaining how the heterozygote/double DNA was going to a different dynamical place so as to be able to explain the lack of the traits in the F2 caused by recessiveness by giving the pure line a double dominance which is simply the negotiation in an individual around and negative concentration that is held in the parents and hence brothers but may not be in the environment as a given without the development and liberation suggested ( Darwinian and not Lamarckian wise). Provine had interpreted Mendel’s liberation to mean that the differentiation in the individual plant was a subset of the combinations/ permutations that were available to the population of germ cells ( combinations ) rather than seeing this as a bathmic force of a larger total yet individually symmetrically conserved development. That is why Bateson responded to Pearson that he agreed with him if he could just include discontinuous symmetrical variation and further discuss differentiation. Pearson never understood because his notion of homotyposis was too general and did not have the maths to connect the form of the chemical kinematics with the population dynamics so as to effect his interest in the ancestrally specific contribution to variation. Lewontin’s demonstration of molecular variability in the proteins does not address how the protein variations variably provided rate support for concentration epigenesises which move amongst different canalizations ( per phenocopy etc). The idea from the Edicaran biota had provided a new idea on how the sex evolved and what makes the germ cells different than other tissues. Provine did not have this available to him. There is no contradiction between Mendel’s theory and Pearson’s homotyposis theory broadly understood. One does not need a theoretical distinction between the individual and the population in the variation defined and its differentiation to have a means to understand like undifferentiated organs as Pearson said that there is more variation in the race than the individual. It is not that the geographic race and population are confounded but rather that the negative concentration which is more in the clade than the species due to reversals of predator -preys as evolved away from syntrophic molecular biology …. and subsumes the homotyposis organ concept and there is no actual difference in the chemical concentrations available abiotically a priori? to the individual and the population ( Lewontin was mistaken about the Environment to this extent as he held that it has to always be dependent on the organism) ,the population holds the rate constants and the individual the actual concentrations. The adaptive landscape of gene frequencies in the population vs the gene frequencies in the individual have to do with both the rate constants and the concentrations. It is not Wright’s fault that an analytic understanding of the effect of homo and heterzygotes on recessive an dominants via the pitchfork is unable to address the chaos in the negative concentration empirics under Lie transformations.

Biochemical Reaction Networks

Relating multiple game playing to multiple reaction rate constant substitutions as a way to negotiate around negative concentrations, extant positive concentrations and concentration behavior causal with development. . Regardless the relation of the flip from anabolic and catabolic to the cooperative ossciliation remains to be shown.

Bulk Developmental Dynamics

Kerner’s approach to biodynamics has in recent years been pursued by only handful of researchers. There has been a split between the “equilibrium” and “nonequilibrium” view points with the idea that at least in the ecological realm that things would “damp” or “dissipate” out and that neither chaos nor non-equilibrium nor macrolaws would exist in any sense in any way similar to Kerner’s attempt to invoke Gibbs approach in chemistry/thermodynamics to biology. Interestingly work by Nucci and colleges have sought to assert the dynamics does have something different than the intuition that May and Maynard Smith commented on in the mid 70s. What is not considered is the relation of the fit to the environment. ( Lumdsen 1985). Kerner had made the suggestion in 1971 that his modeling approach to design a Hamiltonian for the Lotka-Voltera and general differential equations might result in grand evolutionary ensembles such that ecology and evolution were related by something foundational in ecology such that competitive exclusion operated on genetic orgination of dual or singular species such that there is always an assyptotic relation to the and evened out total of species interacting. By using a notion of fitness with transseries it is possible to understand even those works that state that there is no contradiction using the symplectic Hamiltonians as criticized by Oster et al. The transseries connection enables one to relate discontinuous variation to smooth cross ratio preserving variations and requires only sources and sinks recursively within a pure reproductive line amongst the species diversity. Kerner’s unusual linear langrangian is not so unusual after all. The question of the relation of whether to follow Kerner’ statistical mechanics or Lotka’s auxiliary variable depends on the extent to which Pearson’s like undifferentiated organs exists in the biochemical reaction networks that provide place for viruses when either single stranded RNA or DNA provides the information necessary for virulence.

There is thus a non-typological approach as the population genetics supplies the results in which metazoan asymmetrical development is not due to a Goodwin type or Goodwind and Trainor approach but rather from a Fodorian separation of coexetensions via biochemical networks across day two sortings of surreal number representations within the cell cycle progressions applying. A new macronic coupling of the symplectic pairs establishes material divisions of various biophysical properties and through the couplings provides the means to experimentally explore the theoretical space of possibilities. This is much more decomposable than attempting to relate evo-devo via selection rules in a field theory of the Laplacian operator on a 2-sphere. Here we retain Fodor’s insistence on the formal separation of endogenous and exogenous only we locate the exogenous between the transcription and translation of proteins associated with the nuclear membrane locally. Theoretical biology and theoretical biophysics are one and the same subject. This false separation is depenednet on a separation of levels of selection and levels of organization. The levels of organization are simply human observable differences and only have extenence due to the relation of levels of selection to the development of what genes were fit for and selection on such. There are microbiological laws related to the entire doubling of the genome during embyrogeny ( which may be 15 times in humans). This doubling however has only to do with the relation between the biochemical reaction rates as largely determined by the protein expression and the chemical concentrations that obtain due to the networks of chemicals as possibly reversible in directionality that are minimized into the number of the protons moved per ATP formed. There is no such thing as downward causation, there is merely the statistical mechanics of the relation of electromagnetic force conversions of autonomous and accidental forcings when other forces are operating, weak, gravity, nuclear etc. in the breaking and forming of chemical bonds which however can result in levels of organization as soon as the entire genome is duplicated (potential spatial redistribution of the reaction rates ( which control the momentums). Thus the Hamiltonian is divided in space on DNA replication and when completely ( per needed developmental projection/perspective) and thus has all of the reaction rates.

Pearson — Principle of Homotyposis (by which we must again say we mean a numerical appreciation of the likeness and diversity among homotypes) is a fundamental law of nature, which will enable us to sum up in a brief formula a great variety of vital phenomena

There is no “layered” statistical biophysics here. There is only the doubling or copying of the heritable rates and space separations via proteins when not completely redistributed by the membranized cell divisions. There is only the seperation of traits selected for and those that are correlated but not causal with them. The project is to describe the relation of the inherited proteins with prior selections.

Pearson “We conclude, accordingly, that .there is no evidence at present to show that variation has decreased and heredity increased with the progress of evolution. On the contrary, without laying down any dogma, we should consider thejresults obtained as consistent with variability and homotyposis being primary factors of the growth of all living forms and not the product of natural selection, but factors upon which its effectiveness ah initio has depended”

This depends on the how tight the linkage groups and chromosome lengths are related to the chemicals used and reaction rates gene-ized. As Bateson was correct to ask how and when the differentiation is related to the diversity. Here we sort this out by the rise of the Cambrian metazoan as a diversity from predation on cooperators. Since the chemical action at a distance tetrates beyond the individual extinction may result when heredity increases via differentiation ( chance and deterministically ) beyond abiotic and abiotic influenced by biotic variation. Historical sorting in forces.

What Pearson never understood is that there does not need to be a dimorphic (bimodal) distribution accompanying a discontinuous change from symmetry (especially in 1 -D when there are two different kinds of 1-D symmetry that may be affected in opposite way by a repulsion or an attraction) of differentiant trait as the chemical concentrations and rates of changes may be bifurcated through a transseries to the locations without there being a difference in the standard deviation overall due to a catastrophic change through a singularity. Bateson did not think of this either however.

“In the conventional theory of statistical mechanics”

The ergodicity and filling of phase space is wholly around and to particular chemical concentrations in actual chemical reactions ( complexes (Feinberg) — Le Chantelier equilibria) which may if extant within the lineage even if not happening in the individual be negative since they exist the in sibling ( having come from the difference in the parents) and are correlated through Pearsonian homotyposis of Mendel’s developmental binomial. So what we have is a Kerner ideal ecological gas separated into parts across the surreal zero such that coextensions reach to those that were selected for.

Bateson — Pearson — a reconciliation.

Bateson writes:

“How much, that is, of the resemblance between repeated parts of an individual is due to its individuality? Further, how much on average of many individuals may be expected to be due to individuality?”

Here we take the repeated parts to be the complete copy of the genome that is repeated everytime there is a cellular doubling ( 2,4,8,16,32…) as to be the cause of the doublings more obviously observed in the repeated parts considered by Bateson and measured or discussed by Pearson to some extent. What is due to the individual whether to the differentiation of the parts within the individual or between the individuals depends on the specific way that the copying of the rate constant sets in the proteins etc whether during cell division or by expre ssion of specific genes has on the prior abiotic existence in the environment of specific chemicals. There is an individual contribution to the abiotic environment that is clear on death and decomposition that is extant during the life of each individual but depends on the history of the environment and organism coupling of the past (both of the environments and the ancestors). The Kerner ecogas temperature of an individual is a deviation from the mean of the population, race and lineage it is a part and it is this deviation that is the basis of the difference Bateson questions and reframes in terms of symmetry. And it is precisely because the symmetry of predator and prey through the biochemical reaction network that the symmetry of the repeated parts occurs similarly in the correlation within the individual and between the siblings.

Thus this imaginary evolution from the Ediacaran cooperations to the Cambrian competition of hard parts supplies what Bateson asked for in understanding of a degree or gradient of differentiation individually from symmetry to linear (cross-ratio) or successive (projective geometry path curves) when he wrote:

“That differentiation may in practice be mistaken for variation between homotypes he is aware. It is not, however, the difficllty of recognition I would now emphasise, but the fact that between the two phenomena no absolute distinction exists in nature. An “ undiffer entiated series of like parts “ means only a series of like parts which have varied and are varying among themselves but little. A series of highly variable like parts is a series in which differentiation exists or is beginning to exist in a complex and irregular fashion. A “differentiated series of like parts” means a series among which variation is or has become definite and regular. Between these classes there is every shade and degree. No one can say finally where each begins and ends, and, by appropriate selection, we could find homotypic coefficients of any required value. The average value of such coefficients taken at random has no significance in nature.”

Davenport wrote to Pearson in 1903 (found in 1969 in an envelop marked “law of ancestral heredity controversy” with other letters from 1901–1910)

https://www.dnalc.org/view/12034-Charles-Davenport-letter-to-Karl-Pearson-emphasizing-his-break-with-Bateson-and-De-Vries-on-environmentally-induced-mutations-7-7-1903-.html

Davenport was “at a loss to understand” Pearson’s refusal to publish “General Conclusions”, that he Davenport was not trying to be “defending De Vries” but rather in an “opposite” way was saying/thinking/writing that “mutation is one cause of differentiation”, that there are multiple “methods of evolution”, that geographic variation related to but different than specific differentiation may produce neutral ( ‘neither useful nor injurious’), “did not find any evidence against “sports.”

Pearson was unable to understand that Bateson had an idea of variation to differentiation that worked via cell division symmetry as being when combined with linear and successive serialization and all materials of variation fulfilled the sole method of evolution. Whether the geographic difference is neither injurious nor beneficial provided that it was symmetrical could be neutral and this Davenport might not have appreciated while he evidenced its observable signature geographically. As Davenport thought there are multiple “methods” of evolution and mutation was just one of them. Discontinous variation can occur without mutation. The separation of chemical rates and concentrations that are heritable are such a one and need only be partially related to mutation (past evolved biotics) vs past evolved biotics and abiotics having extant ( and geographic) biotic-abiotic complexification through reversibility of predator prey. The geographic differences in Pectan opercularis that Davenport tried to put in Darwin’s category might easily be considered as sports that have no affect on survival and be just due to development constraints as traits that free rode between light and dark forms that may have had some fitness difference.

Gould wrote as noted on

http://post.queensu.ca/~forsdyke/bateson3.htm

Bateson had proposed that organic discontinuities had arisen from internal, not external, causes:

“Such discontinuity is not in the environment; may it not, then be in the living thing inself?”

Gould was lost. Despite earlier heresies, he admitted to having returned to the Darwin-Wallace fold:

“I confess that I have never understood why Bateson regards this point as so telling. I think that Darwin presented a simple and perfectly satisfactory solution to this dilemma … namely, that forms once filling the gaps between modern discontinuities have now become extinct.”

What is being filled is the phase space with reduced dimensionality from that which includes the abiotic erodicity locations. This is a means of evolution not a result of extinction from it. Gould did not relate the symmetry in form that Aggassiz was concerned to describe the physical forces to and that Bateson had thought of relative to reading Pearson.

Darwin’s son writing to Fisher explained what we can also describe now in some detail having to do with the destruction of the micronuclei as related to adaptations from destruction of syntrophic bacteria when new concentrations and rate constants have evolved. Bateson of course had already explained that the “parental” characters are due to chromosomes of the male plant and female plant next to each other. We just did not know how to understand the non-gametic sexual example of the same biochemically and thus physically.

Darwin: “As to Bateson, if I had to write, I should write something like the following. But I am not well up in what he did do, and may well blunder …

‘In the future the great merit of Mendelism will be seen to rest on the proof that the ingredients of germ plasm on which heredity depends are located in pairs in each organism, one of each pair selected by chance disappearing at each sexual union. … The merit for this discovery must mainly rest with Mendel, whilst among our countrymen, Bateson played the leading part in its rediscovery. Unfortunately he was unable to grasp the mathematical and statistical aspects of biology, and from this and other causes, he was not only incapable of framing an evolutionary theory himself, but entirely failed to see how Mendelism supplied the missing parts of the structure first erected by Darwin. Nothing but harm can come from following Bateson in regard to evolution theory, though his name will come to be honoured for his pioneer work in Mendelism when what he failed to do as regards theory has been accomplished.’

Having written it, I daresay I should tear it up, and advise you to do ditto. …”

Fisher himself tried to find an analogy between statistical mechanics and gene factor evolution but never tried to deal with the idea of conservation laws through symmetry in form-making regardless of sex and instead could not see how actual thermodynamic concepts and gene variance were related — but then Fisher did not have DNA and the central dogma at his disposal. He did have Yule’s ideas of regression being confused with retrogression to the parental type however! It is also telling in this instance as to why Lewontin and others attempted to rid biology of the wild type when discussing heterosis and heterozygotic advantage because there has been no statistical way to divide the heterzygote back into Pearsonian homotyopsis. Use of the Kerner langrangian enables one to do so when framed on Smale pitchfork bifurcations genetically.

Linkage groups are coupled to form sets of protein rates that needed towards separating different syntroph physiologies and could be formed by reduplication or by chemical manipulation. Which one that is needs to be determined by experiment. This will help to decide along with Lumsden if the apiroir separation of equal probabilities or if there are ancestrally regressed preferred states. It is an open question as to whether during cell duplications (2,4,8..) the asymmetrical histogenies embryogenically are not a somatic cell division with differential expression fo the genes such as to influence reproductive behavior and hence possibly meiotic directions from and into the population. This depends on the full meiotic cycle to the mitotic divisions as chaotically or not on the cell cycles and membranes relative to the charge and Noether current.

Goldschimdt was on the phenocopy and Wright’s idea about domincenc related to inhibition explains how the many methods of evolution was confused with mutation and the discontinuity in the relation of symmetry relative to energy conservation and the real biophysics of the phenocopying ( temperature) and rates of reactions at particular times. This is all a one generational pheonomenon — aka recessives as they ( and dominants) sometimes exist. Sports. Progessive variation has been confounded with progessive differentiation. The latter is comprehended by Thomian morphogenesis and Abrahman’s macrons while the latter is the typology other wise derided.

Pearson –“If we can show that homotypic correlation is as intense in the simplest forms of life as in the most complex, and that inheritance flows naturally from it, it is clear that our view of living forms will be considerably simplified”

By Pearson’s desire to separate pure homotypes from deviations due to various sources and using Bateson’s idea of symmetry in the concept we can induce that the a pure homotype is a set of chemicals and necessary protein replication and expression proteins only not necessarily those that are involved with cell division however. This is the minial biochemistry to which virsues survive off of when some form of cell division is also present. Bateson was talking about homologous parts that arise from the symmetry of the pure homotypes statistically via the homotypic factoring (which may have abiotic influence as Pearson noted). Virsues survive through homotyposis which is not only a phenomenon of metazoan phenotypic variations but also found in microbes. Comparison with pairs of homotypes however require symmetrical considerations and in this imagined evolution is due to chemical concentrations sustained by DNA with some replication and expression but possibly no replication or reproduction — pure symmetry. Simple homotypes will result from the Kerner ensemble and will enable the homotypic correlation to be calculated? Can we do this by symplectic pairs differentiating mitosis and meiosis? Symplectic pair to the pair of homotypes in the replication of the DNA into momentum and space (position and first derivative relative to place on the DNA strand relative to electromagnetic repulsions and attractions and the two forms of weyl one dimensional symmetry).

Pearson’s correction for non-linear position on the organism will have to be supplemented with a transseries decomposition of the curve connecting the positions since there is no way to apriori decide beyond the Noether ideal into the chiral histogenically, where the positions of the characters truly lie on the organism and we will need asymptotic approaches to and from the positions pragmatically rather than the non-linear representation Pearson provided and hinted that a full understanding lies precisely where Bateson said symmetry extended to linear and successive variation in the repeated meristic series of differences lay. Pearson mistakenly assumed that since he was not statistically assuming linearly or common cross ratios that his math would find all correlations when this would be missed in many cases where asymptotic and approaches govern. Milnor has shown that conformal transformations ( which would encompass what Pearson had in mind) do not fit and that projective transforms do not much do so either except insofar as cross ratios are involved.

Transseries statistics ( use in chrial molecule movement?) will enable one to directly relate Bateson’s ideas and Pearsons since the symmetries of the Lie set can be distributed with the transseries decomposition of the curve between two features considered homologous which will have to show is also Noether satisfied. It is not that one could simply get any any homotyposis that one wants if one discounts differentiation as Pearson attempted to respond to Bateson on who was wondering why the fit for homotyposis of about .45 is half way between the extremes — well this has to do with the transseries approximation that combines exponentials and logarithms as approximations to linearity and due to the cross ratio effect from the biochemistry and inclusive fitness? Thus Pearson concern for the difference of adjacent parts “fitting” is the same as the daughter shedding mechanism or the effect of the cross ratio and it is this that Bateson could have directed his Mendelian concern but unfortunately we did not know what DNA was hereditarily it was either Fishers dominance by modifers or Wright’s dominance by not chemical inhibition. The Hamiltonian in projective geometry determines when the adjecnecy fits or does not via the transseries stats that reverse the tail and mean from the minimum and max through left and right.

Bateson –

We can feel nothing but admiration for those statistical methods which, as perfected by Professor Pearson, are yielding m.any useful results not otherwise attainable, yet their limitation;s must be constantly remembered. But even if the differentiation could be discovered by these means, in eliminating it we should Ihave arbitrarily excluded a class of facts which ought to have been include in calculating average homiotyposis, or the correlation due on an average of cases to indi viduality. In determiniiig the average correlation between brothers we must bring to account the continuous and the discontinuous alilke: so in the averagee of holmotypic corrlelations must be incliuded both the clifferentiant and the normal alike.

So now, let us idle no longer and get to the specific Hamiltonian and Surreal maths needed to study and statistically mechanically describe as Pearson wrote:

He ( Bateson) tells us that: “The attempts to treat or study them “ (the context suggests his differentiant and normal variations) “ as similar is leading to utter confusion in the study of evolution “ (p. 204). But if we cannot distinguish them, how are we to study them by different methods? Either they are distinguishable, in which case his criticism of my memoir is idle, or they are not distingulishable, in which case his theory of evolution by “differentiant variation” is also idlef. Man soll das Kind nicht mit denm Bade verschiitten !

Transseries and organic correlation during differentiation.

The transseries can be used to understand the way a concentration decreases to zero when the reaction direction is reversed. The parts of the trans series relate to different means that negative concentrations can be supported by the total biochemical reaction network. When the transseries decomposition in related to the Kerner ecogas temperature per individual one can redefine the return to wildtype or parental type as a regression of the transseries locations of the chemicials with held negative values with the biochemical reaction network if and only if it is subject to copy, replication and division as reproduction/cell replication provides.

Pearson “We have so far worked out nineteen cases of fraternal correlation in the animal kingdom, and their mean value = 0*4479, i.e., is sensibly equal to the intensity of homotyposis in the vegetable kingdom. It is, therefore, very probable that heredity is but a phase of homotyposis, and that the latter approximates to a certain value throughout living forms. The theory involves a certain mean relation between direct and cross homotyposis, i.e., that the homotypic correlation between characters A and B in a pair of homotypes is the product of the direct homotypic correlation of A and A (or B and B) and the organic-correlation of A and B in the individual.” The organic correlation has orbital asymptotics regardless of the statistics but from within it is described by biophysical macrons ( P, C, E).

Pearson writes

Now Homotyposis has nothing whatever to do with a comparison of deviation between parent and offspring, nor has it anything whatever to do with the question of whether the type changes infinitesimally or finitely between successive generations

We have shown how to view homotyposis both fraternally and between parent and offspring, including the case when there is no sex. Pearson said “Mr Bateson’s only hope lies in a discussion of the logic of chance, he must criticise the mathematical bases of the theory of statistics.” But now with chaos as a possibility as well the chance is deterministic and not the one simply thought by Pearson.

Mr Bateson takes the case of a syllid with numerous segments apparently undifferentiated but with marked differentiation of the segments at the posterior and anterior ends. How, he asks, are we to consider which, if any, of these segments are suitable for investigating homotyposis? Probably I should not take such a case for studying homotyposis at all, for each segment may bear an organic relation to its neighbours; there may well be a condition-as of fitting of adjacent parts-which is expressly excluded in the production of pure homotypes. But if Mr Bateson desires to know how I should determine whether there was differentia tion of any significance between two of these segments for any chosen character, thie biometric answer is perfectly simple. Measure the characters of these two particular segments in a sufficiently large population and determine whether the differences of the means and of the standard deviations are or are not sensible in comparison with the probable errors of those differences.

Bateson wanted to further the statistics and we show how with Kerner’s model combining Lotaka Volterra and biochemical reaction networks to pick up where the controversy left off.

Mathematical Essays on Growth and the Emergence of Form

It that the Hamiltonian only survives.

What constitutes the equivalent of the particle bath with a fixed temperature, which causes the population system to fluctuate

through a large number of states ( population states) in any “macroscopic: time interval. — Viruses?

This is what the difference between the racial-subspecies homotypic correlation and the individual one to brothers as related the homotypic correlation of the individual’s differentiational removal to equal the species correlation?

Sex is one thing, Spatial cooperation another, Kinship, and Reciprocity.

Some dominating quality ( temperature analog) which forces the popultion system through its various states in some appropriate time scale

so that a distribution function can be established.

This would have to be the homotyposis due to kin selection as structuring the undifferentiated like organs into pure homotypes of linear and successive placments

by chemical reactions keeping the switches in chemical reaction networks experssing past preadtor prey interactions.

The phase space is the space of the cell cycle to the linkage

we can establish additive constants of the motion due to the symmetry of the predator and prey , anabolic female — catabolic male, in the protons per ATP but will depend onthe otside chemicals

So it is the the relation of the variation (gene enzyme expressions), differentiation ( different chemical concentration/complex sets),

to diversity(predator-prey symmetry, competition cooperation, sex)

Pearson and Bateson –

Pearson — “it appears to me as a direct result of the words cited that high variation is associated with low correlation and vice versa; or that variation and correlation have in Mr. Bateson’s biological usage a significance which is diametrically opposed to their numerical definition by the biometrician.”

This is not at all the case. Bateson simply used Pearson’s theory as best he could and related it to the same subject matter they had in common — heredity in evolution.

Bateson wrote — “If differentiation exists and is not recognized the apparent homotyposis due to individuality will, as Professor Pearson perceives, be immediately lowered ( Ibid. p. 169).’

It is not that homotypic correlation is a priori lower when differentiation goes unrecognized and differentiation nevertheless within increases the total variation having been measured but rather that the diversity of forms as observed taxonomically from the parts. Bateson referred to the serial parts because unlike leaves or scales simply the morphology of the meristic series and other transitioning parts is the basis on which taxonomy and classification is built and they contain the difficulty that the naturalist had to deal with day to day. Biology worked though a stage of this much later when phenetics gave transitioned into cladistics. When an organism has a series of like parts it is a question about how they arise serially. Pearson’s homotyposis explains that the seriality is related via the heredity and thus explained at least statistically and correlationally to past reproductions inherited. Thus Bateson recognized this. When the variation in the series begins to exist it can become so highghly irregular and complex that the naturalist is unable to use the traits to sort out differences without futher study. Thus simply based on the a posteriori existence of variation amongst presumably similar evolutionarily that may be more or less variable the correlation goes down only because the heritable cause had not been removed from the correlation.

Erns Mayr said that G.G. Simpson did not know what a species was because he was not a naturalist, that he had not been in the field and observed the variations sufficiently to discriminate what could classified as different species. This ability is something that Bateson if not in possession of was utilizing when exploring the difference. Pearson defined the variation biometrically and did not think about as the naturalist.

Wright was fully aware of this difference and simply developed a means of analysis which assumed that the cause was already contained in the structure of the data being collected. Bateson was not trying to use the terms not in the ways that Biometrician intended rather he was trying to use them to further his own understanding of the phentic variations that naturalists were able to observe.

Pearson said — “We are obviously using the same words for very different quantities”

The difficulty that Pearson did not address was the situation where statistics might be defined across parts that are absent but could not be found by any random exploration because by being absent one was not able to ensure that the original sample was not something much bigger. Pearson would welcome this so that he could develop a further statistical theory but he was unable to see how to do this which later came as Bayesians began to think about stats or there are two ways of understanding statistics.

Wright’s approach to regression shows how to get around Pearson’s reliance on it since mating systems need not be linear and thus Wright designed path analysis.

It is not that variation can not ever be distinguished from differentiation but only that there must be a stastical way to decide when one a series of apparently homogenous and non-different parts which at one end are different than the other in two ways that the homotypic cause that correlation gives rise can be decided when approached from one side or the other, since without specific knowledge on the growth and development, the amount of correlation due to variation on the right may be from a different amount of diffentiation relative to homotyposis that from the left. Pearson related this to organic correlation in general but because this was observable in series with two ends in creatures this correlation could have a path anaylsis from the two sides. This is why Bateson tried to have Pearson use symmetry.

Path analysis for homotyposis of worm anterior and poteriror parts.

Because forms can be radially disposed it was clear that there was not a simple linear ordering of this thus Bateson used the most general words of differentiant and normal to express when some other math was needed. Path analysis works for linear systems but not for any kind of relation of parts. A langrangian least action principle could be used in these more general differences.

Niles writes:

The idea of determination, in the sense of causes fixing beforehand the nature of the effect, is based upon the belief in an inherent necessity in the order of things

This is not the case when and if the chance bathrmic force arises from the deterministic chaos of interacting parts.

No one is saying that there is some necessity in this but only that symmetry can be used to explore when this might be necessary. That is all that Bateston said to Pearson.

Poincare was just begiinng to understand this complexity and the transfer from mathematidcal thinking to biology was not what is is today.

So Here we begin by utilizing Kerner’s rendition with the added understanding of how embryological transitions can involve taxonomically and genetically combined ( the embryological transition and its inverse) can contain negative concentrations and proceed to the homology of homoplasmogens homotypically.

Kerner 1971.

“In first approximation, looking at the cellular interior with a purely chemical eye that steadily records only overall concentrations of selected species in the single cell as they fluctuate in time on through cellular generations, one can model the cell as a homogeneous chemical vat which…”

Kerner did not think that trying to find the limit cycle orbital prior derving the statistics was going to work because in that process negative concentrations were found to exist. With the use of Abraham macrons under kinematics of attractions and repulsions and given the idea for the heritable existence of negative concetrations surviving in particular linkage groups of genes and knowing that it is only the syntrophic papus line in a projective geometry then we get the orbital cycle later once we know what the negative repressor concentrations or messenger RNA are homotypically both within the organism and fraternally etc.

Thus cross over recombination which alters linkage groups is an adaptation to increased search for new negative chemical concentration regimes. Sexualization increases the rates at which these explorations can be found.

http://rstb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/372/1736/20160455

Goodwin’s model a and b meet these requirements when the entire genome has been doubled.

“In order to apply the theory to experimental observations, it is necessary to get expres- sions for these quantities in terms of the parameters of the system, which are a, 6, and /I. The assumption that a and b are the same for all cells in the culture represents the postulate that the cells are genetically identical with respect to those factors which have an effect upon growth rate and the regulation of DNA replication. The relevant calculation for ((?J is as follows.

“7 T(l+e-‘“)exp

1 [ -fl

(&)=(&)=40 O -

P(~i-)e-z~l)-~~~~)p,dpid~~ ~[ew{--P [i (pi-$ ewzpi)- q& I} pidpid& $ [ !(I- em2pt) exp { - /3 [i (pi+3 e-2pi)-a$i]} pidpid$i

-I- -

______ $ $exp (- b [g (pi+3 e-2pi)-a4i]} p&&i

$(l+ e-2pi) exp [ - $ (pi-g e-2pi)] pidp; =- - 00 s [ exp Pb 0 - z (pi-& e-2pi) Pidpi 1 $7 (I- e-2pi) exp [- f (pi+* e-2”)] pidpi -I- O [exp [ - f (pi+: e-2p)] pidpi

https://www.cut-the-knot.org/ctk/April2001.shtml

(1) Richard Lewontin (2003) Archive: Richard C. Lewontin, Co-evolution: Organisms and Environment https://tvo.org/video/archive/big-ideas/richard-c-lewontin-co-evolution-organisms-and-environment

(2) Richard Lewontin & Richard Levins (1997) Organism and environment, Capitalism Nature Socialism , 8:2, 95-98, DOI: 10.1080/10455759709358737

(3 )Jerry Coyne (2010) Dick Lewontin reviews What Darwin Got Wrong, Why Evolution is True https://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2010/05/07/dick-lewontin-reviews-what-darwin-got-wrong/

(4) Jerry A Fodor; Massimo Piattelli-Palmarini (2010) What Darwin got wrong London : Profile

(5) Richard Lewontin ( 2010) Not so Natural Selection, The New York Review of Books

(6) Rebeca González-Cabaleiro, 1 Juan M. Lema, 1 and Jorge Rodríguez 2 ,( 2015 )Metabolic Energy-Based Modelling Explains Product Yielding in Anaerobic Mixed Culture Fermentations

(7) Alperin MJ, Hoehler TM Anaerobic methane oxidation by archaea/sulfate-reducing bacteria aggregates: 1. Thermodynamic and physical constraints1

(8) Patterns of 15N assimilation and growth of methanotrophic ANME‐2 archaea and sulfate‐reducing bacteria within structured syntrophic consortia revealed by FISH‐SIMShttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1462-2920.2009.01903.x

(9) Oster and Perelson Chemical Reaction Dynamics

Paine G., H. 1982. The development of lagrangians for biological models. Bulletin of mathematical biology. Elsevier

Sergi, A. 2004. Generalized bracket formulation of constrained dynamics in phase space. Physic al Review E. 2004 – APS

Seymour, R. M. 1990. Statistical mechanics in ecological hierarchies. Mathl. Comput. Modelling, Vol 14, pp. 699-704.

Lumsden, C.J. 1985. Hierarchical behavior in fit dynamical systems. Bulletin of mathematical biology. Springer

Lumsden, C.J. and Trainor, L.E.H. 1985. Hamiltonian Statistical Mechanics and Biological order: Problems and Progress

Goodwin, B.C. 1985. Developing Organisms as Self-Organizing Fields. Mathematical Essays on Growth and the Emergence of Form

Organized Kinematics: The Legacy of DNA

[Image above: One example of how hydrophobic interactions can be found is in how DNA base pairs on the two strands are drawn together to form a double helix. The basic structure of a DNA molecule is a hydrophilic backbone and a hydrophobic inner region of nitrogenous bases (adenine, guanine, thymine, and cytosine). These molecular hydrophobic forces repel the water between them which drives the bases towards each other.]( http://engineering.ucsb.edu/news/520)

As early as the mid eighteenth century, living creatures were generally referred to as ‘organized beings’ or ‘organized bodies’. However, ‘organization’ still implied no more than an unusually complex arrangement of parts of the visible structure: the existence of a hidden structure had to be postulated only in the context of the Newtonian physical universe. In the Newtonian mechanics of matter, secret combinations of particles underlay visible combinations of surfaces and volumes. The intrinsic qualities of bodies and the properties of substances were determined, not simply by the nature of the atoms that composed them, but also by the relations of attractions or affinity between these atoms. The attributes of living organisms were, therefore, necessarily determined by the nature and interrelationships of their constituent particles. For organized beings, just as for inanimate objects, the visible structure rested on an arrangement of particles, united through the action of a force comparable to gravitational attraction, which gave coherence to the whole.” F. Jacob p. 75 The Logic of Life

There has been a steady increase in our knowledge of these hidden relations, especially since the discovery of DNA as the bearer of heritability, but no organon or instrumental means to systematically acquire this increased understanding exists. We are pretty much relegated to describing the particles and the possible chemical activity imagined in force-filled milieus. There has been no change from simply comparing this action to gravity, no coherent organon of organ organization in evolution is on the genetic horizon. It is still hidden, if it even exists.

One seemingly prevailing view of the whole is organacism, that organisms posses emergent properties supervenient on whatever these force “fields” are. The supramolecular viewpoint developed herein however is otherwise. Evolution organizes attractions to show an affinity to repulsions through a legacy of DNA. This is a unique kinematic property of self-reproducing replicable biotic Mendelian life and is responsible for biology being a discipline unlike physics and chemistry but progressive relative to philosophy and math. It is the cause of the origin of the genetic code and a metaphysics that embodies metabiology with practical applicability capable recapitulating applied evolutionary theory into the next best technological frontier.

This is an argument to design of sorts.

The reciprocal cause and effect (of itself) in the in the spatial affectational differences of the repulsions and attractions which themselves compound in the genes. The value of this is in the ability to match a gravitational distance with an electro-magnetic one (which is thus only evaluated for our known carbon life style) which is the hypothesis and thus genes that do this have a capacity to exchange information for energy and thus accumulate either in or out of the structural gene depending on whether in fact the DNA - RNA - protein relation is in truth a reversible weight lifting machine (goal-directed to ) the sphere of influence of the attractions and repulsions via macrons adapated/formed one at a time. Macrons have the purpose to convert stored potential into kinetic energy that increased a biotic potential. In so far as multiple macrons make an adaptation whether in an interacting system of genes or not evolution in purposive behaviorally even where conciousness does not exist.

Dependence is on whether the variations are complexes that are either of choice or chaos like behind the independence that does exist genetically and whether and how far this can extend to other life. The assymetry between the double heterozygote and the two independent homozygotes is complex and whether it is desgined relating both to the forces and the code and as such and to argue to design really does depend on purpose we put to interacting with it even though one might subjectively imagine it beyond both our current grasp and any other way around it.

This design is thus made on purpose, the goal of which is to substitute the external vibration of Abraham with an internal one of the sorts hinted at above where natural selection as a science in its own right,operates with Fisherian directionality when only the attraction force is considered but repulsions are coded as well in the network of interacting genes for any thing that has a biotic potential.

Metabiology provides this argument to complexity and we concentrate that final cause thinking Darwin actually used to verifiable cases of when the distances that correlate actually coded substance hertiages match both past flow fields of attaction and repulsions into attractors and repellors which the code only partially supports, supporting a specific alegraba of macron combinations which we are only now able to cognize as an orginal smooth bifucation from precellular replicability (with a metabolism (motion across gravity with copy) to the roughly states of change where the massive influence is continuous across the nuclear cytopplasmic size area remaining programmed algorthimically into generalized histogenic divisions and on the fly behavior of any choice (when there is no direct force of internal osciilations capaable of accelerating any possible mass but there is still power- force of distance work involved and entropy still happens throughout and reciprocally. We dont really have an objective instruction in how to construct these concepts and thus symbols (words) are used wheretechnologically accessible processes are designable that can interface therethrough. Without the techniques for manipulation of the macrons we lack the ability to go any further with selective value in terms of the forces to which it arose. As metabiology becomes applied the understanding through a certain symantics will help to bin the choice vs known repellor/attractor horizons.

For every point mutaton there is a complex network of forces that turns that change into one

possibly selected but of its opposite. The mutation as an algorthmic mutation is the program that

reduces to Fisher's theorem for those sets of matter that can interchange the point mutation through

its opposite to its repulsion equally selected directly and what the set of those changes in gene frequencies are.

This involves effects within as between genes.

Table of Contents

Forward/Preface

DNA Legacies

Motrix Matter

Formative Forces --Force and Mendel’s Developmental Binomial double parent- hybrid heterozygote

ßAaà (and) Hybrid | Aa (or) |aA Parental (new level for genetic analysis)

Centripetal circles of life

Organized Kinematics

History of the new Contingency

Organic Copiers and Metabiological Reproductions

Grossone distribution of forces

Cell doubling genomic asymmetries

Organized Complexity designed progress with Grossone

DNA Legacies

DNA changed the way biologists continued to think about evolution. It had a very hard impact on academic departments as the new began to replace the old (way of doing things). But after more than a half century of steady improvements and gains, some of the concerns that were revealed in the early days of the advance continue to dog the goal of most efforts – to understand our DNA and how it functions with our bodies. Richard Lewontin has made the point, on numerous occasions that we still do not understand how any genome is put together, despite our technical ability to sequence the entire genome of any creature should we so desire. How does a living thing go from the raw sequence of constituent atoms and proteins expressed to, the functional flesh and blood of the living and dying whale, slime mold or tulip? What are the hidden relationships and how are we to understand this chemistry beyond the merely descriptive and case by case explanations. Perhaps evolution is a tinkerer through and through and this is not supposed to be something we can figure out. Metabiology suggests this might be mistaken in rather uncanny way. DNA computers offer the possibility to harness the memory of those environmental milieus that evolve organisms and organisms evolve. It offers us a means to even say communicate with plants and “ask’em” to simply make more food for animals.

Lewontin was right that we didn’t know DNA well enough but no one has been able to show how his differential equations between organisms and environments work in general. Here we show that organized kimematics attraction- repulsions based on phonoromic composite motions reveals a hidden quantum of DNA variability so far cloaked in netural evolution. That enables one to resolve the Fisher- Wright controversy on a higher note, one in which selection, mutation and immigration are found to be much more intertwined with drift than heretofore thought. DNA is software and random walks in DNA software space is the hidden plexus capable of being recovered and interfaced in a brand new technological revolution capable of supplanting our current electronic based form(ul)ation.

Moxtrix matter of life

While the idea that hidden relations of atoms might underlie biological logic and reality began shortly after the start of the Netwonian revolution, focus on, different kinds of forces with development of eletro-magnetic ideas lead to (the) questions about the forces as well.

With the ability to synthesize organic molecules and Pastuer's induction that spotaneous life does not exist, biologists began to speak of the protoplasm and Weismann was able to cognize the germ-plasm. As Mendelian genetics developed it was not known what the gene factors were chemically as there were all kinds of atoms (nucleic acids, lipids, proteins, ions etc in the proto or germ(nuclear)plasm. And now with the advent of Metabiology rotations of computers will see a totally new time for (that-this) life.

Here we find in Mendel’s developmental binomial room for a trace of ancestry in the motrix matter that constrains how the recessive and the dominant interact and thus can indeed see to some of Weldon’s criticism

Weldon concluded, “The fundamental mistake which vitiates all work based upon Mendel’s method is the neglect of ancestry, and the attempt to regard the whole effect upon offspring, produced by a particular parent, as due to the existence in the parent of particular structural characters; while the contradictory results obtained by those who have observed the offspring of parents apparently identical in certain characters show clearly enough that not only the parents themselves, but their race, that is their ancestry, must be taken into account before the result of pairing them can be predicted.”

Moving matter of cells that are old and not new births bring the ancestry forward in the cell doubling (b-d) but only the extent of determing when a trait is going to be recessive or dominant not what the trait is going to be itself. That depends on the difference of the direct and indirect selections etc.

Motrix matter is that which moves everything in life but is not itself moveable in mass. It does not exist subsistently - but rather only inherently. The prime motrix matter of life is that -- which is originally moving (motrix).

It is not itself moveable(this does not mean that forces cannot move it, it does not move from its own forces (lack of this distinction is part of the cause of the confusion over vital forces)(ponderability ponderosity)). The prime matter in life is reciprocally attractive and repulsive, rendering in the biotic potential superfluidity in which self-replication is a kind of enhanced fluidity of the water it carries with it, from generation to generation. This is the “caloric” of Kant.

The initial RNA lines simply filled, the water bounded spaces but could only expand as far as the immicibility forces could be lined up. With time a completely stationary state resulted that only altered when the water boundary itself changed by forces external to that functioning.

Some ability to encode its own growing resistance profile was however possible and that different lines might attempt to use within that coded resistance the same force but in the opposite direction to… resulted in some matter diminishing the space of a given RNA line as Kant noted (“that matter is not here considered as resisting when it is driven from its place,(WHEN AN RNA LINES MOVES PAST A BOUNDARY) and thus as itself moved (…), but only when the mere space of its own extension (OTHER MATTER USING RNA REPULSIONS WITH ITS OWN OPPOSITE ATTRACTIONS) is to be diminished”(Second Division Explanation 1 Observation). That was narrowed by a coherent cohesion alive, growing and reproducing.

1) RNA repulsions coded to force of water-nonwater force-level (with amino acids in areas) (limited expanadability)

2) RNA- DNA toeholds with full phornoromic repulsions (unlimited 2-D expansions but not over reach(ing) to local toeholds in the third dimension

3) DNA gene multiplication/doubling due to use of motion across gravity as weight lifting machine(s). Doubling beyond the water-nonwater force results in the first cell division

4) Sequestering in the coded boundary - single genome copies capable of forces back onto the original (meiosis , zygosis).

These all work according to Kant’s “unity” of line and direction, “plurality” of directions in one and the same line as well as the “totality” of directions as well as of lines according to which the motion took place and contained an evolutionary quantum mathematically diagrammable that becomes the velocity imagined by early German teleomachanists. Hence Darwin could not have been a romantic but Pearson might be made into one.

What makes a fruit fly is not merely the sum of the expression of genes (proteins). No -- the proteins expound repulsions (per impact selected attraction loci locations) such that the space of the living thing can fill a greater space than any mere exchange of its matter/atoms could turn over and changed but merely the density of. Proteins allow living things to vary their volume independently of the density variations within. The first signs of life are ponderable and because RNA is coersible (as that described above) it began to move but it was only when DNA and proteins were formed that via the symmetry of repulsions per selective attractions found more niches space to operate even though the material promodial (lightning pre oxygen methane environment) conditions did not change. RNA between DNA and proteins releases the”caloric” as transfer RNA attaches and deattaches amino acids inside and outside ribosomes. Thus a DNA –RNA – Proteins created a looping circularity of force flows that enabled an ossilatory potential to become the kinetic energy of life.

Darwin wrote,

“A struggle for existence inevitably follows from the high rate at which all organic beings tend to increase. Every being, which during its natural lifetime produces several eggs or seeds, must suffer destruction during some period of its life, and during some season or occasional year, otherwise, on the principle of geometrical increase, its numbers would quickly become so inordinately great that no country could support the product. Hence, as more individuals are produced than can possibly survive, there must in every case be a struggle for existence, either one individual with another of the same species, or with the individuals of distinct species, or with the physical conditions of life. It is the doctrine of Malthus applied with manifold force to the whole animal and vegetable kingdoms; for in this case there can be no artificial increase of food, no prudential restraint from marriage. Although some species may be now increasing, more or less rapidly, in numbers, all cannot do so, for the world would not hold them.”

Yaro Sergeyev has created a new numeral system for operating infinite and infintesmals and here we show how to apply them to Darwin’s thought in order to frame a measuring system of species and their individuals such that one would be able to label those that can be increasing and at what rate such that the world holds them all. We will realize that there might be things like artificial increase in food relative to the arithmetic vs geometric increase and that effective reproductive barriers of species also affects the rates achievable for a given ecosystem of the whole Earth.

We are able to motivate this vision by looking at the notion of of grossone the hyperbolic plane and condsider this to be a projection of distrtibutions of populations from the sphere of the Earth with paths of fibbonic words to the girth of the Earths equator. We then introduce the fire model to growth not of individual trees but to whole populations subject to birth and death and notice that the infinite paths to the hyperbolic border is can be one to one and onto the tetrational infinity by increasing exponentials.

We show that depending on how a particular lineage serves as food for another relative to its speciations more species can exist on the earth if infintesmial to infinite relations are as dense as possible for the manifold forces that move the populations between the tetrationa dn parallels on the hyperbolic plane no matter the volume.

The result is that it might be possible to create actual simulations species food reproductive relations such that different levels of human numbers can support different amounts species and a skectch pof the rescources and develiopents neede to observe this are described. We also begin to explore the effect of drift and alterations via “prudential restraint in marriage” (different mating systems) has in this modeling coordination.

We also look at the possibility that bacterial interactions with vertebrates is acase of tetrational increases phylogenetically enabling huge increases in certain bacterial lineagtes (and possibly viruses) at the expense of vertebrate populations. Here the bacteria use other species as food and viruses use a caused constraining of random breeding (prudential restraint in marriage”” (this is the basis of the social selection alternative to look to the future offspring and not only competition)). We show that only with grossone systems where infinite numbers can be organized in the populations of virsuses and infintesimals in the those of bacteria can these simple qualitative concepts be modeled quantitatively. Other mathematical resources are not able to distinguish the limits form the convergence vs divergence.

So we use grossone divisibility to indicate the speciational (diversibilty numbers) monophlyetically.

Each monophylum is a particular division (Genius et specificanum).

All in the ecosystem is a sum of such such divisions which for a particular food – eater producer realations must be in N no matter what the origin was (path to the central window). Certain hyperbolic paths lead to actual tetrational population potentials.

What I am here describing is that a use of a grossone mathematical system in biology is an experience

of Kant's synthesis narrated/defined/outlined in the Opus.

Yaro has gone to repeated (cycles) of explanation of the unique empirical nature his contribution and here we see that when applied to biology (it can be applied to ecology seperately than genetics etc) it appears as a conceptual "manifestation"(?) of Kant's 'synthetic unity of appearences' (22:324 p109). This synthesis is not complete with the math of grossone itself but must involve the matter or biological inheritance that bore the forces the grossone system provides some )investigation{ of.

so while there is a possible different application in ecology than in genetics, an entire inheritance heritage is necessary because the relation of the math to the biology via some certain physics requires the notion of possible infinite (in definitum ... infinity) form-making which is some hypothetical physical division of the matter/body living but is realized in a particular life (Carbon based here on Earth). In other words the moving force contribution via the physics is plural (hence different possible applications of grossone systematically in biology) but the matter since it is biological is particular and hence why there can be some manifestation at all. Biology is however not reducible to the forces as the different ways to use the grossone math relates to different ways ponderability, coercibility, cohesibility, exhaustibility and their opposites are logically formatted per infinite division of the forms actually classified as to genus and species.

This we relate to Mendel’s symbolizations.

So we take Crick's virus as a rock. As Kant said, 22:341p111, "a rock crystal is a species of the genus "stone" in the classification of minearls -that is a hard, brittle, once fluid now transparent body, formed regularly, into a certain figure and texture, whose production we think of as originating from a particular kind of matter"

The different kinds of matter of rock crystals clearly depend on the elements involved but can be variable as to the number of neutrons insofar as it is formed

A virus as a rock as Crick thought however is not of that particular matter (with respect to its forces) even thought it is also composed of the same periodic table of elements with possible variable neutrons per atom but rather that of the all penetrative Kind that kant associated with the ether or caloric (there is a different relation between the attraction and repulsion forces per attractor and repellor catastrophes of the moving forces)

Here we think of genetics as Bateson did that a heterozygote is NaCl for Aa and is Shrodinger's aperiodic crystal in its most general sense (as used or could] have been used in molecular biology).

The "heterozygotic" force is not the same as the "heterozygote" itself. It is just the forces that move while the individual lives and dies. That birth and death can be studied ecologically or discussed evolutionarily with genetics involved (particular thoughts on the force to matter kinematic). And this is why unlike the classification of mineral forces the classification of biological forces inherited (Mendel's double parent hybrid heterozygote) the biological taxonomy in the force relations is inexhaustaible relative to the mineral and uses a particular cohesion to coerce its homozygotic ponderabilities.

That full synthetic possibility is not available to a biotic material (non life material as we know it today (there may be some others but we dont know about that yet)). The new math of grossone and the added empirical like resolving power of the infinte that is added not only helps to show this but also demonstrates how some a priori attempts to do otherwise with grossone are limited in the sense that biotic physics synthesizes different genus species relations than heritable traits do.

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

This new concept leads to the variable relation of math and philosophy from the centripetal vs centrifugal presentations of the

space and time of these applications instantiatied.

Connected perceptions exist in the infinity computer as a technology that models/can model either an ecological population (centrifugal) and/or an interaction systems of genes (centripetal) which is revesred for a biotics and together creates a natural rather than a for memory only artificial classification of the forces. Thus we are able with an actual biological grossone interface to living and reproducing matter , in a position to answer Kant’s query in the Opus 22:373p118 as to whether its doctrinal elementary system of attractions/repulsions +- attractors repellors extends to infinity or is only infinitesimal. The answer will be yes if such technobiology is designed, created and functional for the reasons just delimited and then verified (if).

Homozygotic traits are independent of its complement homozygotic (classical recessive/dominant)because there is not a metaphysical crossing of the attractive and repulsive that was why Kant had to say that there are two and only two fundamental forces and went to describe only what happens if there was only one in the hypothetical (if there was no absolute independence). It is because we do really have only the dependent world of phenomenon empricically in fact but we can describe the transitional case back to this observable worlding.

In imagining the actual use cases of a grossone numeration under the divisibility where

Nk,n = {k,k+n,k+2n,k+3n,...}, (1<_ k <_n), Uk=1 to nNk;n = N

One can think of the set of labels that these format and they appear to be arrangeable as tetrations

since we have additions (k+n, and mulitplications n*(Natural numbers)) all of which must be in N.

THus when different ks and thier ns are mixed in a total grossone system they may be divided into tetrations

classes. These classes can be used to distinguish decompositions of U as multiple approaches to the infinite]

tetrational limit. Thus the new grossone numeral structuring can be used to assign different infintesimal

approaches to a common tetrational infinte limit.

Tetrations are used with the {1,2,3,...(1)-2,(1)-1,(1)} and this is where the bifurcation must be for

any k when there is more than one food - consumer species relation.

Whether one wants to use a generic infinte instead however depends on how one thinks the independence of homo

zygoous forces are the same or different (recessive different than dominant by kind or degree).

DNA winding (with histones etc) for instance is a result of the Mendelian mechanism working in particular expandable spaces being narrowed and hence compressed as much as DNA can be twisted down in those past lines in present time. Hence is an example of evolution in process.

Closing the door on Mayr's teleogical analysis

Mary's position is that many philosophers (most) have attempted a unitary explanation of teleology in biology but he decided that there are least 5 different kinds of the concept (teleomatic, teleonomic, purposive behavior, adapted features and cosmic teleology)

Here we show that adaptive features (such as the amount of food a plant can maximize production of) when communicated through the cosmic reality of life in general can be purposive caused to change their "behavior" (amount of food actually produced) by re-programing the teleomatic law like relation between repulsions and attractions in a teleonomy of DNA computers that change the cell cycle temporality with entropic precision.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++===

So while there is no unitary explanation in general, particular implementations can indeed unify Mayr's categories such as to suggest that his synthesis is short of its object which might have been to keep metaphysics out of biology. In example, it appears that there may indeed be, a genetic mechanism for orthogenesis.

Furthermore by expanding the manipulablity of somatic programing (programmed cell death etc) through motrix matter ponderosity vs ponderability en mass cross nuclues supramolecular effects (Gladyshev hierarchies and extra nuclear cross generational exformations of the Mendel "parental" developed binomial, forces of past evolutioanrily selected loci can have opposite direct force effects (repulsion for attraction and attraction for repulsion) which move

ions

across membranes differently in different cohesions and possibly topobiologically inform where antiformations were genetically. This shows that Mayr's distinction of ultimate and proximate is not particularly helpful if exclusive, when the engineering of this new interfacial technology is under incorporation. Here a clinamatic deviation that may be designed… affects the final differentiation of the teleonomc vs telomatic processing in the behavior of some adapted life self-replicable’s spontaneity. Dividing these into macrons (physical, electrical, chemical works in the plurality for that totality as a unity or unitary teleology which is man-made beyond evolution (applied evolutionary theory).

Centripetal Circles of Life

Where Newton’s other forces and forms meets hierarchical evolutionary expansions of the Modern Synthesis within and between genes.

Organized Kinematics

This view is part as Bryan Hall remarks (The Post-Critical Kant: Understanding the Critical Philosophy Through.. p 84)of the ether as a formative power. Here this is understood in life through what had been called

the biotic potential with filiation to Darwin's Malthusian argument but now realized in genetic factors of DNA. It is the Mendelian mechanism that supplies the alternative oscillating nature of the Kantian ether as life coded transfinitely. The Metaphysics (Kant) did not provide the alternation of the attraction and repulsion but the difference of dominants and recessive or Mendel’s parent-hybrid (developmental binomial heterozygote) not yet developed by geneticists does. Thus it is not that an ether need explain density and volume relations of atoms and the relation to the interstice it is just the(in the) nature of life’s inheritance that (it) did that. Kant did not have that available in his time. This reinterpretation of physicality of Kant in genetics draws the concepts into a larger community of action such that difficulties when attempting to think of it purely in physics terms does not arise.

Constant attractions are Fisher single directum selections without respect to any repulsions but the network view of Wright brings them into play once the netural polymorphism is newly qualified. The development of Mendel’s binomial is a major part of this new embodiment for metabiology. We are able to relate the density and volume to births and deaths in a remarkably simple manner when histogenies result with complete genome doublings. Maynard Smith missed that. And the relation of speciation to population genetics requires it.

The ability of organisms to replicate in seemingly ever increases(ing) quantities is part of the formative power distinct from the motive power.

=====================================================================================Motive powers give rise to different kinds of possible material lives but the carbon-Earth bound one we presently know, uses particular formative forces in ecology transferred via development to evolution of (the) those motive classes that are not strong or weak (force-wise). That information enables one to describe future evolutions via the Mendelian bifurcations such that antiformations are not thus possible but can be outlined in various designs that nature may have used (different simulations for hetero vs homozygotes interms of true vs. apparent attractions) but will not be found in new species or changes in the present ones.

The ability of DNA to effect these motive forces proximately and thus influence the relation of these mutations to drift are part of the formative power of Kant's ether thus applied metabiologically. This is not a final causation in any classical sense but rather came out as a surprise that Wright may indeed have thought that group selection might in some cases appear. (It may) might not but it could+++++ depending the quantities these qualities return in turn categorically.

This results in as a new truly chameleonic (image and Aristotle changing) philosophy of biology as we sort out where different levels of selection exist exactly ( as in some way as Gould would have liked to have seen occur in evolutionary theory of any name). Only here the levels of selection would be correlated with actual DNA differences empirically. Tiers of time ((Gould) SETH) are thus in this quantification

Interestingly, Hall citation of "willing of an effective cause" meshes well with my rather poor experience with Provine who insisted that it was improper to consider if there was any purpose in evolution but he then insisted that there was not natural free will. This did not follow then and still does not currently. One can creatively metabiologically will an effective embodied metabiology that represents actual evolution which despite claims of creationists against metabiology does yield actual evolution possibly. Intelligent design it is not even though that might be to what Provine meant with respect to Mayr's work. There can still be a "transcendetnal" creativity that has nothing to do with this particular evolutionary format but there is no philosophical nor mathematical reason to confound this nor to think that something reductions is wrong in its place.

(see preface forward)

LIfe arose from this "ether" as lines of RNA forced through immiscibility moved into three dimensions of toehold replications and moved matter reversible in gravity.

In this fashion motive force and formative force separated via physics of penetrative and superficial forces that were matched in space by the same inverse ratio to distance function of both e-m and gravity. That this is not a "organ" but rather is there in the sense of the homologous organ idea as having arsien from supposedly recapitulatory forces. Thus old Kant biologists were not all wrong but did not separate the telonomic from telomatic for any teleology that could increasigly expanded like the relation of an exponential to a tetration to an Ackerman function. All powers do belong to nature it is just that different kinds of substantial life may not be able to communicate with their powers to another.

Oscillations of density in or out of cohesion exist in our life and could be expounded for non carbon DNA life kinds with a better quantum mechanical representation of that life on Earth as here bifurcating Mendelian systematic between attractions and repulsions under selection. Philosophers of Kant are way too conservative in their willingness to be free to agree with Kant wile correcting some of his simple physical mistakes. The idea of oscillation (binary logic as analog biology) is not one of them.

The internal vibration

Results when the attractions and repulsion cross the bifurcation controls

So on this view, we assume the original Thom morphogensis was a smooth case and thus suggest that life uses DNA, RNA and proteins via the two-dimensional torus common attractor and that the evolution of the cell resulted as a single point attractor became the torus through the circle the cells provided. (see figure at start of article).

When the entire genome is doubled in cell division this splits the torodial form and causes higher dimensional torodial type of attractor which eventually gives rise to sex and other non-symmetrical effects.

Metaphysics (superficial vs penetrative forces)(coherence)

The circle that the hydtophobic and hydrophilic forces are an environment for is the genome doubling first happening at fertilization. The existence of the small gamete is basically to eliminate the proximate effect of those specific forces. The doubling results in a circle of en mass effect in the quantity of matter and is manifested as a quantity of moving matter in the GDP of microtubules as they move the chromosomes into the circle where the centripetal force arises

This newly recognized genetical force (amongst repulsions and attractions) providers a mechanism to that might show how linkage groups are strengthed over long times through netural amino acid substitutions and thus Wright’s shifting balance is more likely to happen spciationally than had been the the previous thought where only special conditions of population structures were likely to lead to its being the way evolution proceeded or could have proceeded. Thus it may be possible finally to work on the relation of chromosome identity to those genes found in it.

Misplaced philosophy of vital forces (Crick, Mayr) are here because there is no understanding of how the dynamic measure of a quantity of living matter is only thus measureable (cannot be done essentialistically nor typologically) with life’s reproducing masses (biotic potentials)(Darwin’s need to check growths)at. There may be extra physics forces in life but this is not what makes biological life different than abiotic chemistry and physics – it is rather that only the dynamic measure applies and this dynam ism is determined not by logic of matter combinations but by actual ones. (relation of self-fertilization, to self- replication – to automata copying makes this clear (Turing machine).

Philosophical Metabiology: Evolution's Future

Ernst Mayr rightly attempted to set out the case for a unique philosophy of biology but he missed a very fundamental point. Biology is unique and requires its own philosophy not so much because it is supervienent on its physics and chemistry but rather because the way the forces categorize life leads to organizations not possible without. The instructions that construct biological concepts as an autonomous science arise from the fact that energy can take many forms (chemical, elastic, electro-magnetic etc) not because a particular philosophy is required to explain extraordinary biological dynamics here on Earth. He rejected Kant a little too soon, for here we are able to develop a new philosophy of biology by utilizing Kant's metaphysical idea of two fundamental forces of attraction and repulsion and realize that life here on Earth is due to the generalization of the forces used (that weak forces and and an unknown 5th force for instance are not operative not that a vis vitalis might be) and that some other particular classification of force utilities might give rise/have given rise, to life other than we sense it today. Future focused trilobite eyes do cause the present lens in a way that can be described exactly by the match between the repulsions and attractions selected. We can discuss this beyond analogy in the case of the salamander pheromone SPF. The future use of PRF instead delivered via nose tapping is a direct result of the geographic limit that motion of the place of release (from tail to head) achieved phylogenetically. With combined force diagrams for SPF to PMF to PRF with less force no matter the amount narrowed by cohesions one can predict what the molecular atomic structure could be for future salamanders should East meet West as plate tectonics goes forward.

Francis Crick noticed that a virus is biological but distinguished it from a rock by the observation that a virus is a very large amount of similarly ordered complexity while a rock at the atomic level is much less ordered. What he means by this is that a rock is a “more” statistical concept in that one piece is just more of a statistical average -- of any other. A virus within a given generation can be thought this way too, however. It is only when it comes to its average shape or solidity with respect to its replicability that one notices Crick's distinctions clearly. So Crick asks, “How did biological objects get this way?” and Mayr attempted to answer for the contingency with autonomy. The solution however is an embodied metabiology as the foundation of a truly changing philosophy of biology.

Math drives changes in biological philosophy rather than logic changing the physical divisions appercived of forced motions' kinematics. Work (force over distance) instructs biological re-organization at Crick's atomic level but logic fundamentally (relative to codeable attraction vs repulsion) only enters biology (life as we know it on Earth so far) at the level of cellular dynamics. Mayr had thought semantically that whatever the automatic nature of natural selection is, that a rejection of selection's positivity syntactically had occurred in the recent history evolutionary theory. We shall find that this is only partly true and that Crick's exclusion of the vital force was invalid with respect to how the complexity is copied. Organic copiers (embodied metabiological objects) are due to the directionally opposite motions that attractions flanked by repulsions can topologically be inverted into and this happens inertially within a particulate Mendelism not because of one.

The statistical nature of a virus is the same as a rock but that of species lineage is different and this is because a virus is not Turing machine while any particular living autonomously reproducing thing (possible different level of selection) is. There is no current reason to think that life here on Earth requires vitalism in any form but biology did not need to reject it to be considered a science rather it is because systematics informs the classifications of actual forces that shape taxonomies not that the Modern Synthesis statistical instantiation failed to properly bifurcate the effect of populational isolation on speciation and genetic revolutions (multiple gene pools and the origin of new “genes”).

Metabiology (heterozygosis)(volume densities)

Gould had said that the triplet code is only “ a machine language” not that through which genetic control must exert itself. Genetics being both discrete and continuous can indeed control development and thus evolution through it’s machine language when this syntactic analogy is actually a semantic process.

Metabiology provided the format in which change effected by mutations might interact with selection within this difference of superficial and penetrative forces. Kant set up this distinction of physical force. The work is to determine what are the moving vs the” resting” forces where evolutionary causation rests while developmental, ecological and all things proximate move.

In this way a genetical instantiation of Kant’s idea is recognizable and living materiality as a kind of rigidity stratifies between the genome and the pheonome. On the most fundamental derivation attractive forces are moving the rest and repulsive forces rest the moving but on a topological continuation it is the attractive that are developmentally at rest evolutionarily and the repulsive that operate ecologically and behaviorarly thereon. This is a kind of dual causation but not that imagined by Mayr. Organcisim artificially elvateds the organisms organization to orders which arise because biotic potentials “trump” the logic of force motion vs reaction force. This is not a distinction available to physics or chemistry by itself and explains how Kant’s idea has not till now found a modern use. It’s application is within the difference of the Mendelian and Biometerican debate reinterpreted from the perspective of metabiology.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------How to relate the transmission process to morphological shapes is a complicated structure in need of proper mathematical framing. What this new view does is to provide a way to think about environmental changes directly within the force continuum of the evolutionary change so that evolution’s environment is not simply to be thought of as a sorter of genetic variation that genes simply accumulated due to its transimissiblity mendelian wise but rather nature itself nurtures its own change. Lewontin’s organsism environment interaction is directly through the “machine language” of the code to some extent such that the apparent sorting is directly accessible not from “outside” the organism but indeed from within the cells themselves. This was confounded with lack of specificity of physic-chemistry because the superficial and penetrative forces were not identifiable as classes of active kinematic differences within the Mendelian inheritance system( loss of heterozygosity through each generation). The loss of heterozygosisty is part of the process of changing a repulsive dominant environment into the truer attractive prior recorded as encodings retrotranslated.

History of the new Contingency

Metabiology as a theory of DNA natural selection Evolution

Fisher made a defensible case that natural selection is a scientific topic that can be investigated on its own basis. Here we expand this science by introducing the idea of dynamic DNA legacies (which expand the informational aspects of heritability beyond the proximate DNA effectivities (into the action-reaction force structures (which can have ultimate biological content) even beyond the nucleus) by showing how a particular programmable DNA dynamics is capable of mediating a (limited) but progressive evolutionary development {contra Darwin’s opinion}. However this new construction expands Darwin’s thought in (Variation under Domestication (1868 1.6) when he wrote that "an acid has no more choice in combining with a base, than the conditions of life have in determining whether or not a new form be selected or preserved.” Operting between the selection and the preservation we show what kinds of forces or actual elective affinities (general action-reaction of attraction repulsion complexes for any such having thought acid-base pair etc).

Carsetti (Life, cognition and metabiology 2014) relates an analogy between a cell and a factory so as to indicate that cells function like factories in the a sense in which the factory(cell) sustains its’ identity via the “the set of logical programs that controls the dynamics of the factory” and that the molecular infrastructure does not thus form the physicochemical substratum of life. He considers natural selection to be the “coder” that “programs” an evolutionary process through the emergence of meaning unfolding between new formats of ever new mathematics of logical control. He does not see the physics and chemistry to be this unfolding but rather has metabiological evolutionary theory supervienent on the molecular infrastructure.

Yet interestingly this new view presented here, shows that natural selection can (to the level of the code) actually create some amount of the variation (depending on the somatic force differences of repulsions and attractions per attraction selected) which is hidden in neutral changes. Programming without a programmer is done by the physics and chemistry of natural selection. Fisher relied only on a general analogy between statistical physics and entropy and population genetical selection but here we extend the proximate force kinematical description of natural selection as the substratum of codeable selectivites

such that the back and forth between the program and the coder as energy and information transgression is the physics and chemistry of the cell itself (as an evolved and evolving entity). This difference from Carsetti’s position is due to work-power (force over a distance) “memory” being more fundamental (simply to due to “every action having an equal and opposite reaction”) than the “logical” control flows that record the “meta” data of the activity in the DNA.

Thus while it is contra Darwin’s view in general it goes to support more his reliance on Natural Selection while others of his time discourged the same. Self-reproducibility in which the entire idea of children looking like parents vs species looking like other supposedly ancestral species as materially (Mendelian populations factors since better molecularly interpreted) manifested is a simple mechanical outcome of the way the genetic code originally formed from spatial evolution of attraction loci selections where no repulsions could ever proximately change via Fisher’s theorem.

We find that Wright’s version however of a network replaced the Fisherian single directum entropic vectorization as the first cell evolved beyond the repulsions themselves -- selected --because the netural changes had ultimate effects proximately in the prior space of attraction physciochemisty that repulsion concurrently extended. Logic works metabiologically on top of this process physically that is for our life on this Earth a special combination dynamics using electromagnetic and gravitational forces (not Robinsonian etherington genetics connectivities).

Phylogeny recapitulates ontogeny rather than the other way around. This happens through algorithmic mutations in which the mutation distance that maps one organism to it’s mutated form is defined and it is found that monophyletic speciations follow the mapping of ontogenies when body of changes (starts) are supplied to any possible halting (stoping of gene expression) that are programmable within a given heritage legacy per interaction system. Our understanding of Mendelian factors have advanced significantly

Since

the Modern Synthesis and this new model shows that the binary software is not simply the two sides of the DNA helix, nor is it the simple Mendelian difference noted by Williams, but the contribution of the attraction and repulsion forces to the variations susceptible to selection.

######################################################################

Is life a copying machine?

How does life reproduce? (This is a question about the level of selection but it appears rather simple at first sight).

It is not simply a piece of matter like a crystal that remains the same

stiffness/compressibility as it copies. Instead, living things are able to reproduce in a geometric progressivity/fashion etc. because {when during fusion of the gametes} there is a minimum -- of forced binding of what is capable of replication. This new idea for dynamic DNA legacies is essentially a metaphysical possibility initiated by Kant (fundamental forces of attractions and repulsions) but empirically supplying an internal rather than external source of vibrations in realization of living forms(Abraham (biochemical oscillation). Richard Lewotin (Triple Helix) revealed that there had been some interest in an evolutionary theoretical use for Rene Thom’s catastrophe theory. This new genetical theory does so and is based on feed-through somatic forces of deviations from symmetric cell multiplication doublings often associated with sexualization. This amounts to Kant’s observation of motion of thing and motion in a thing. Sexualized activity is motion like a cask of beer in motion not the beer in the cask being in motion which are the DNA legacies’ motions overall. The theory really just exposes the forces operative molecularly but is able to frame the kinematics completely metabiologically…………..

Kant's density on this theory as intensity of att/rep force filling a given space are the genes

fixed under shifting balance where Fisher selections maintain the tightest fundamental theorem

connection. the "central" points (centrifugal and centripetal locales) are the somatic locations of the amino acid in the cells but the inertial central points are in a programmed space selection coded. This volumne is specific to the tension between the cohesion (perversions translated through RNA empty spaces back) that the amino acid soma places limit the expandability of the

central force point surface as actual force "fields". Different amino acids effect different kinetics at the sphere boundary of the attraction and repulsion space. Neutral evolution operates in the vacant intersticies that different amino acids in genes provide the changes in density for. This is better than a “corpuscular” view of density because it is not a mere accumulation of genes or factors (as Fisher thought) but because the somatic extends the Weismannian continuity to a realm that crosses the intra nuclear places. It is in this that a biology provides to math a reason for thinking of a continuum lacking in the contemporary horizon of physics dominated by quantum mechanical qubits in this ????? It is the vacant intersticies that Wright found genes to “move to the right” or left and fill up as they “fix” in populations. The final space –time of these distances is maintained by the difference between the e-m attractivity of the DNA base complements and the gravitation attractive effect when large amounts of self-replicability is attempted. The Mendelian particulate nature actually resolves the philosophical issue with Kant’s construction provided the nuclear stellar origin of elements is thought to give rise to the raw materials for a codable attraction and repulsion genetics. Kant missed this thinking of light not matter as located with the suns. Light is a part of the attraction –repulsion kinematics not a separate physical phenomenon. Kant was generally correct about heat and cold however (relative to life).

Thus Fisher was only able to make an analogy between entropy and physics and biological selection of particular Mendelism. Here we find that the repulsions and attractions force and ossilatory (network generating Wright) variance for selection and this is a binary basis on which Metabiology exists. While it was gravitational attraction which formed the elements in the stars it is the congruence of the distance relation between gravity and e-m (1/d^2) and the attraction of the e-m to specific earth bound gravitiational contingencies programmed selectivily that biological science could exist and be different than chemistry and physics. Biomatter is constructed from space and time of the different forces’ distances matching in the code so programmed constiutiviely not regulatively through the regulatiory genes! The foundational forces are only “sensed” by a given biotic potential of increase checked as Darwin intuited. They need not be phenomenal in the most general psychological denotation. They relate rather more to consciousness vs intention or how far we say plants are emotional.

Gould set out the question of/for this content fairly well, when he wrote of the interchange between Hyatt and Darwin, “After several exchanges of letters and diagrams ( with some gain in clarification), Darwin remained puzzled by the most anti-selectionist and non-functionalist theme in Hyatt’s system: the explanation of simplified ontogenies in phyletic old age by intensified acceleration, with senile adult features interpreted as nonadaptive preludes to extinction.” With an explication of the physical force organizations actually involved in origins of life, multicelluarity and sexuality, a definite notion of developmental acceleration is possible halting earlier with every start otherwise on ontogentically. The notion of the Selfish Gene does not consider the possibility that there is a coherent relation of forces that is sustained in a constant manner across the individual’s generations as Shrodinger imagined the life of an aperiodic crystal could have been for any species as a whole. Feynmann described living replicablity much as Turing and Von Nueman did for automata, that, living copies are not made by a matter simply getting bigger and dividing in half, but rather by a message instruction heritage that has within as a complement as does a hand in a glove. The copy instructions have to be inserted somewhere. Here we say where.

This molecular complementation across DNA indeed formats in the relation of the organic populations to genetic variance as found in Fisher's fundamental theorem ( and thought otherwise by others ) and this enables comprehension of the prime claim, that indeed it may be that inheritance and multiplicity in life can be comprehended as an oscillating amount of uniting strength that is maximum during approach to maturity (end of development) and being a minimum during sexual or asexual reproduction but reaching varying degrees below those minimums at death depending on how the matter is reused, consumed and scavenged by decomposers and others converting those various strength levels oscillatory potentials into their own kinetic motion of increase for the same potential morphogenesis of all of life per algorithmic mutations in a shifting balance.

Indeed living reproducibility of breeding living things is a unified potential stiffness oscillation maintained by molecules across all generations and across all changes of form, such that there is indeed be a selective reason for phyletic “old age”. Here, a DNA dynamic model where Fisher selection is an attraction amongst serially positioned repulsions provides not only a universal basis for the birth of the genetic code but as a reading and writing program (DNA toehold mediated rxns form a semantic system)(software space exploration) also a basis for which there may indeed be maximum number of reproductions for any given heritable lineage to remain monophyletic no matter how much the environment (both biotic and abiotic) change and the living plexus adapts. Evolution may avoid this state by tighter co-evolutions but the same kinematics remain simply doubled and inherited on the separate lines however. This only limits in the acceleration the amount of biotic potential otherwise capable of faster expansions and more adaptability but the halting probability does not change. Darwin did not need to imagine that a simpler explanation to Hyattt of a increased adaptation to earlier heritable states since the earlier in general might have a higher potential than adaptation could ever reproduce just as there may be other living things (not with our code) that can replace us possibly. This new idea for evolution by natural selection is a direct result of a particular algorithmic program for DNA point loci fixation that neither Darwin nor the Modern Synthesists had available since the working out of the DNA code only occurred after that. Chaitin has only recently introduced the new field of metabiology. Natural selection is not an algorithmic strategy (Zenil and Marshall 2012 Some Computational Aspects of Essential

Properties of Evolution and Life) but rather algorithmic efficiences can be improved with natural selection. The interactivity of DNA with variations selected is a computation. This was not observed previously because there was no way to understand the variation under the hood of genetics so to speak. Bateson realized the importance of this but he was operating at a more phenomenalogical level than that which appears today.

On this view, Wolpert would be incorrect to say that DNA just sits there doing nothing. Genes are not like telephone numbers. There is a much more organized relation of the introns and exons to the code per gene selectability in terms of the amount of variation point mutations can kinematically support in any particular algorithmic mutation. Neutral molecular evolution is just too simplistic to be the actual state of these things. Thus there are not racial phyletic life cycles but rather open circuits of attractions and repulsions where genes accumulate to varying amounts much like how electricity can accumulate in open circuits. Species selection can only operate within this atomic constraint. Genes can not hijack the organisms since it needs the reproductive atomic circuits as without a circuit electricity cannot accumulate. Viruses are understandable from this new idea as partial oscillatory replicabilities that exist because in what they destroy, decomposers, scavengers, and consumers of death can move in the opposite direction which in turn depends on the absolute amount of adaption the heritage of life possesses at any given time in track of phylogenetic change and can be modeled metabiologically. Contrary to Dawkins it is the organic vehicle which keeps the virus as genes alive never a meme that keeps the gene in active status. Both repulsions and attractions are responsible for the size of individual living things and memes as unified syntax supporting these semantics does not exist in non-man made biology. The status of the space of evolutioanary changes is thus increased over the memetic of Dawkins in line with the comments of Mario Tanga, Giacomo Gelati, Fausto Ghelli (2013).

G. C. Williams proposed that in explaining adaptation, one should assume the adequacy of the simplest form of natural selection, that of alternative alleles in Mendelian populations. This theory shows that this view is not necessary. Yes, the simplest would be alternative alleles in Mendelian populations but we have found, that genes as factors that can be mapped to chromosomes are not point loci but stretches of DNA that may include introns and exons between any grammateological lexicological re-reading. William’s view carried to an extreme in Dawkins’ idea is clearly mistaken. The simplest form is an alternative (inversion of repulsions for attractions in dominance vs. recessive) allele attraction with repulsions in the same surface that are stopped and posses introns and exons as well as regulators. This simplicity however exists from each start codon with every individual’s genome doublings and thus is not something that is simply a single gene unless a virus is considered a single gene, but then viruses can not exist unless other life exists. The effect of the force diminishes rapidly when not coded however and thus has been missed up till now. There is theought that programmed reading frames may not be exception found in viruses but perhaps is used throughout. The function of frameshifts seems to be to bypass the stop codon and thus get more translation for each start. Thus it effects the halting probability (as to when the reading program stops).

1) RNA repulsions coded to force of water-nonwater force-level (water-methane) (with amino acids in areas (lightning caused puddle) (limited expanadability)

2) RNA- DNA toeholds with full phornoromic repulsions (unlimited 2-D expanansions but not over reach to local toeholds in the third dimension

3) DNA gene multiplication/doubling due to use of motion across gravity as weight lifting machine. The directional nature of the copying results in only L amino acids used to lift weights. Doubling beyond the water-nonwater force results in the first cell division

4) Sequestering in the coded boundary single genome copies capable of forces back onto the original (meiosis , zygosis).

In bacteria there is a match between the 5'end of mRNA and 3' end of the 16S r RNA

which suggests that there was an initial attraction in the RNAs before the code and then

tRNAs which were abundant or not forced this matching to move one way or the other.

That explains how the starts are forced to start,starts that latter were mostly AUG.

The starts with the need for the tRNA (met) perhaps worked to move material across the water-lipid boundary by an excees of met(tRNA) or other kinds at first. It was not to form a protein but to move matter against gravity/into the 3-D dimension which then repulsive forces which extend a surface operated and with the attachement of hydroloving vs hydrohating aminos to tRNAs the combination of repulsions and attractions coded thus created the physcio-chemistry on which natural selection began to operate within that very structure (natural selection from natural selection) and eventually no longer was determined by the water- lipid boundary but rather by the translation –transcription mass copy region.

10% of yeast genes were suspected to have at least 1 programmed reading framshift which were 95% likely to encounter a premature reading frame stop. It may be that organisms possess an metabiological oracle and are able to alter their programmatic halting probability. And if viruses tend to use PRF(programmed ribosomal framshifting) to cause readings to bypass stops then they simply are operating without the oracle and simply possibly just changing the halting propability out to some unstopped)(Stoppable) state.

mRNA stability could be likely fruitfully thought out with metabiology.

Recoding mRNA works through the entire biophysics of the repulsions and attractions. It is not that there might be a selective adavantage for an RNA to encode multiple proteins in the prebioticRNA world but rather that the selection had not operated to separate out the repulsions from the attractions (not as much selection from what selection) into linkage groups/gene parts (stops and starts) and there was not a full separation of the penetrative from the superficial force which reached equilibrium as the first cells formed.

“The most well-defined −1 PRF phenomena are directed by an mRNA sequence motif composed of three important elements: a “slippery site” composed of seven nucleotides where the translational shift in reading frame actually takes place; a short spacer sequence of usually less than 12 nucleotides; and a downstream stimulatory structure (usually an mRNA pseudoknot).”

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3419312/

The slippery sites are either of one forced direction or usually two and it might be that this is simply a change of the repulsion for an attraction biophysically via a macron repellor exchanging the non wobble bases per tRNA amounts in the milieu. Using the non-wobble one gets directionality to the separation of the attraction and repulsion.

“In general, it has been accepted that the downstream structure causes elongating ribosomes to pause with tRNAs positioned at the slippery site. The nature of the slippery sequence enables re-pairing of the non-wobble bases of both the aa- and peptidyl-tRNAs with the −1 frame codons” op cit.

The GTP hydrolysis input that accompanies this may be from that associated with microtubule elongation otherwise happening between meisosis and mitosis as chromosomes move to old or new cells. One proposal is a relative shift of the ribosometRNA complex with the mRNA and thus this might be due to the attraction of the ribsosome-mRNA starts convertion via the tRNA-amino acid repulsion into the sphere of attraction and repulsion in general.

Concerns on Kant’s Opus with respect to its use here.

There have been thoughts that Kant did not get the relation of volume and density correct but here with a slightly different interpretation of his “ether” ( repulsion-attraction code no matter the material or kind of forces (nuclear, weak, e-m, gravity)) and an understanding that Kant had light slightly not correct physically then his idea of math and physics and philosophy can be understood as a four footed walk of Abraham’s five math mentalities. Specifically, mitochondria – which have a slightly different code than nuclear DNA can influence densities that seem in contradiction to their volumes when differential accumulation of energy/information and information/energy are retained in specific DNA legacies. What is critical is to realize the parralell geometry (non-euclidean) between inertia reference frames and Wrightian path analysis of factors back of that present causally. We look at constructing a hyperbolic rotation math with Reimanian metrics of quaternionic bifurcations so as to position both the classification of forces and forces of classifications of all bifurcations of the objects that do NOT appear. The key is circular chemical motion directed force vectors binding the inertial lines within the heritable lineages as coded in DNA and fixed (made permanent) through accumulating genes. There are perversions between the linear path analytical representation of rotations and revolutions that quaternions bridge for every vicariance a species bifurcates heritably.

Mitochondria have been linked to energy production and Zenil et al has introduced the idea that history of life might be thought of as the conversion of energy to information that becomes heritable. He suggests that it might be possible to think of this relation of computation and inheritance in a new way. In the Opus postuum Kant proposes a rather unusual relation of density and volume that has been criticized for being logically contradictory. Here we show how with a different set of repulsions and attractions between the mitochondria and nucleus it is possible to see how variable relations between density and volume could exist as organismal traits due to the simple difference that a repulsion reaction can physically manifest itself as an attractive action in small subset of energy to information bearing actions in the somatic space of inherited codes’ effects. Living memory in the sense of Chaitin explains the seeming philosophical challenge to the issue of density and volume relations noted by Westphal. So we are able to come up with an idea of "empty space" relative to the function of Kant's ether modified inter alia and thus it is really only empty with respect to a given extant DNA legacy but not with respect to other physical forces and particles (just not ones effective in the DNA dynamic legacy) So it really is\n issue about the experience of empty space.

We can not experience this space WITHIN heritability but can socially (cultural evolution as opposed to biological evolution). So within the path analysis of Wright there can be “empty spaces” in which non-usual relations of density and volume exist as these emptiness are exchanged between recessives and dominants but alter the forces such that there is actual changes in terms of the possible non-empty spaces but not changes in the ability of loci to fix (hence only an influence on the ontogeny and not the phylogeny). The confusion about the difference of dominance and recessive is due to the reality that there is no actual object associated with empty space but when coded by joint repulsions and attractions can seem to be so. This caused the confusion about whether dominance was a derived trait or if both were of equal logical status. Fisher’s analogy between the particulate nature of Mendelian inheritance was not able to penetrate this difference but Wright’s network idea provides a “work around” such that a closer understanding of the materiality of the Mendelian difference is possible. Bateson’s concerns that Fisher deprecated are thus vindicated to some extent and new understanding of math in biology is possible while resolving some of the ideas of Galton and Pearson in this new setting of DNA legacies rather than genetic factors which have some unknown chemical basis.

For every point mutaton there is a complex network of forces that turns that change into one

possibly selected but of its opposite. The mutation as an algorthmic mutation is the program that

reduces to Fisher's theorem for those sets of matter that can interchange the point mutation through

its opposite to its repulsion equally selected and what the set of those changes in gene frequencies are.

This involves effects within as between genes.

This new view modifies Fisher's view of sexual selection significantly. He had doubted that each "group" (

Abundant vs nonabudant species with increasing or decreasing population sizes - (effective population numbers)

could have "an equal right to be regarded as specifically distinct" because they would be "those adapted to fill

so similiar a place in nature that any one individual could replace another or in evolutionary theory any

one would threaten the existence of any other. The codes' origin in the difference between repulsions and attractions

rather effects the only operation of this mutual assured destructibilty in that polity of communal life

by which I mean to say rather each individual not only has the genomic "right" but is 1-D symmetric biased\

such that there is not threat to the evoutionary existence of the sort imagined by Fisher but rather will\

open up our ability to understand how carbon based life might actual possibly communicate with biotic

potential of a different kind of life we have no comprehension of!

The transcendental affinity of the sensory manifold" (67).

Hoofdstuk has attempted to resolve this by utilizing the distinction of physica generalis and phyisca specialis but this only part of the story. That issue revolves around the use of randomness and program generally when it is not clear if the appearance of uncertainty is due to a deterministic chaos or true choice based variation. So for instance in Metabiology. This is involved in resovling Kant's issue of filling the "gap" in effecting a transition from the metaphysical foundations of natural science to physics but it does not reach to the specific issue of the ideas of density and volume that Kant used nonetheless in filling said gulf. If the apparent randomness is actually a chaotic determinism behind then some things that seem to be metaphysical might be transcendental where neutral changes in amino acid substitutions occur. It is neutral as far as the protein formed is concerned but there are clear differences in the forces that give that same end product which in further evolution where contra Darwin evolvability does not occur through a reaching back to an earlier state but rather by an acceleration of information to energy contrapuction that a totally new attractor might appear if the general model bifurcation could possibly find such a different state not inconsistent with its past.

Zammitto distinction of regulative and constitutive in Kant is resolved beyond the gene structural regulatory distinction in why there are more mutations in RNA splicing genes and thus there is really no "loosness of organization"

Mathematics and Biology.

Determinisms vs Probalisms in Evoloution. This depends on the versimultude of the Mendelian factors and the whether logic or “memory” is more primitive biologically. The new math in metabiology which does not use differential equations suggests that logic (contra Bertrand Russell) is not the primitive biological category of choice and if this IS the generalized notion of bifurcation Abraham generalized from Thom but did not provide a full justification then the concerns of Mayr on Woodger can be obviated and Gould’s idea that math laws can indeed play the philosophical role as evolutionary theory progresses. DNA-RNA-Proteins as a weight lifiting machine which has “memory” of work (force over a distance) done replaces the notion that logic is primitive for changes in evolution. The is a kind of deconstruction perhaps as Croizat thought. Through emergence to meaning ( logic after work force reactions reaplllied) can it goes to support the idea of Cassetti (2014) that natural selection it coder however here it is the molecular infrastructure which is the physioco substratrum of life not the cell. Cells merely operate a kind of logic or algebra on the forces surrounding the molecular kinematics.

Ralph Abraham presented his idea on Morphodynamics in a small set of selected papers in the The Sceince Frontier Series. Here I show how to apply the idea of an algebra of macrons to genetics via Kant’s idea designed in his Opus Postumum that there are classifications of forces and forces of classifications that he worked out in part within the notional structure that Erasmus Darwin denoted.

And Chaitin noted that math is more biological than biology. This is accomplished by expanding the domain that simple natural selection as imagined by Fisher (separate from Evolution itself) operates in the ranges across the macrons of Abraham since selected loci are considered as pure attractions that are transcribed and translated into atomic aggregates (amino acids) (as a reversible weight lifting machine) which contain repulsions to non-base pair partners somatically.

It is not that metabiology's power to be creative in biology is due to it's disenfranchising us from the form of evolution based on competition rather say cooperation but rather because it forces us to know when information can not longer be used as guide to evolutionary causation. The only reason that metabiology does not use a "desire for perpetuation" is only that higher order representations are not needed when there is complete search of the software (programmable) places. With a grossone distribution of every kind of force specification per codeable part this search becomes specifiable but could be perpetuated should ione some other than our life be contemplated. Metabiology would then be using some other increased information that would need searching but here as we embody metabiology with organized kinematics we are not working on those possiblites nor are they currently cognizable in any way as that would require a quantum mechanical specification of the simple difference in chemical bonds and the catastropher represenation (Thom on Vander wall s forces etc) of them per Bohr complementation in the different kinds of Turing machines.

We might some day get there but that is at least a couple of decades off I would say. We have used the principle relation that the base 2: metabiological software is the attraction and repulsions per each 4 natural software bases (ACGT) and with this distributed as forces between hybrids and true parentals we can dissect genes in ways that imply there is no selfish gene at all in evolution when the subroutines are particularly useful (to survival) weight lifting expressed sign wise with proteins. With the first cell the organisms were born to replicate the same as the software that exchanges information for energy in the difference of the asymmetries per symmetry made spatially incongruent when doubling during ontogeny and hence phylogeny recapitulating ontogeny rather than the way it had been thought in Germanic biology. The creativity of course is to reach higher order representations by mutation but this only happens when the interaction systems can shift and thus adapt sometimes requiring a change in the environment (O2, global warming, new tectonic positions) before it can happen. This is an infinite problem but does happen in our finite material world because equal and oppposite forces directions can match be different force kinds and at the same time not destroy the space (organism) this is done in.

This new genetical stoichology will be analyzed for a generalized horizon of evolution of amphibians and the new mantra that phylogeny recapitulates ontogeny will be expounded as one reaches back from Kant’s view in the Opus to that in the Metaphysics of Natural Science reinterpreted in post-Fisherian genetics that incorporated the genetic code and Feynman’s notion of a reversible weight lifting machine for Darwin’s mental movement away from his grandfather’s thought for/of DNA expressed life post synthesis. A more general view of living systems will be consequent and proposals for how to search for non-DNA – carbon life will be methodologically provided.

Chaitin simply was not able linguistically to take his idea that life is software evolution/archeology far enough. Mayr knew that the new techniques being developed around computers had to have some influence in biology and genetics and he managed to attempt a synthesis by describing the genetic “revolution” that occurs when species form by founders and he narrated his analysis of teleology around the notion of a somatic program that was responsible for instance for how birds like squirrels and other mammals could “remember” where they placed food before the oncoming winter. We can go further than Mayr’s nominal innovations with Chaitin’s random walk in software space, starting from a random walk in somatic programming evovability but we need not find that the traditional continuous mathematics of Fisher-Wright-Haldane are no longer adequate. Instead we see with new attempts to model infinity on computers (Sergyev- groosone) that one can have both the continuity and discontinuity. This need has been the cause of the failure of theoretical biology grow into a unified discipline from the Serbolloni conferences in the early 70s. No one had been able to get beyond Waddington’s simple analogy to language. Thom’s ideas in Abraham provide a means that can be incorporated in the new math of Chaitin and yet reveal the very basis of the Modern Synthesis only we now see not only that mendelian factors evolve but we see how they are organized to vary and thus evolve as Darwin saw it in general.

So when Chiatin wrote in the book on Turing he did not need to castigate the Synthesis. Instead one simply needs to realize that biological creativity in his sense has been caught between the telonomy that affects DNA –RNA – protein motions and the teleomatics that organisms apply when operating in individual life-times macrons, which in the case of man include teleological feedbacks onto the very genetics and cell activities that affect levels of organizations – the organons themselves no matter the method/function. Here we go from understanding the changes in gene frequiences in response to selective pressures to pressing the genes themselves to reveal the forces that the selections can create gene frequencies of themselves.

We show the Wesimannian germ continuity in a more detailed way and use continuous math to keep track of this plenum that chains of ancestry bind. This continuity is one that Cantor mused about when thinking of the cardinality of the continuum and here we find it responsible for the creation of new genes themselves. As Cantor noted there can be continuous motion in a discontinuous space and it is this discontinuous space that is where natural selection and evolution operates. Whether this need be later realized in some quantum mechanical or other physical way remains to be seen but by then the simple notions of teleonmy , telomatics and teleology will be not mere words but actual use case in various new techniques, technologies and means of nature investigations that a better physical handle will only improve--- that which would have happened. We locate the mutation distance within the gene rather than between them and thus provide a mathematical decomposition of the genetical notions of recessive and dominance biopysically and suggest new basis other than the Wright-vs Fisher position on the physiological (active-inactive) of those genetical properties.

Bertrand Rusell could have used the ordertype of Cantor in this way but he had a very particular physical reality he was describing, one that did not take into account the particulare nature of mendelian inheritance as its foremost goal. Von Neumnann did not use them this way – the way they appear in grossone uses (effective infinitesimal to infinity of generations (evolution evolinnmg)) and thus Biology has not been able to resist fully (except by fiat (Mayr etc)) the logical positivism and Marxist philosophers who have dominated metabiological discourse. It IS the ordertype that enables one to navigate the volume- density relations in Kant’s metaphyics.

The Amphibian Ear, Aural concussive Macroscopes, how particular forces in classifications become classifications of forces.Abraham considered the a vibratory dimension orthogonal to space and time and thus initiated the study of macrons and their combinametrics a priori but here the vibrations are fully contingent biologically and are evolved classifications forces so the forces of classifications that Abraham designed vary somewhat from those defined here. We expand Abraham’s bioplasma coupled ossilators with forces energy retained and informationally was a latent variable back of the current path analysis.

Currently our physiological perspective on the physics of the ear is that cochlea operates via eddy currents as observed by von Bekesy but Abraham considers this an artifact and that the ear as a natural macroscope functions more in the category of a simmering macron otherwise experimentally obtained with a man-made macroscope. Here we take Kant’s categorality back to selective forces responsible for the differences in the amphibian ear amongst the extant lineages of Anurans, Urodeles, and Gymnophinans and notice that Darwin’s idea of sexual selection is not the default classification of the forces when the proper/proposed forces in the classification is hypothesized.

Gould set out to investigate the historical relations between ontogeny and phylogeny and when all was said and done Mayr could not say that no recapitulation had ever occurred even though it was recognized that this saying was overly trite and somewhat gratuitous. Amphibians posses rather complex recapitulations that involve both from ontogeny in phylogeny as well as in phylogeny from ontogeny. This expansion of the Hackielian neologism arises from the empirical force based dissection of the Kant’s distinction amongst forces and classifications (side by side) genetically ramified by attractive loci selection amongst somatically divisible repulsive material extensions of heritages. We find that the biotic potential is not simply a geometric mensuration most often biotically limited and nutritionally checked but rather is a tetration (at least) that can accelerate growth and development because both the attractions and the repulsions are inherited by the fixed code, between the forces in the base pairs and the classifications in the proteins (and vice versa on the case by case basis already evolved and capable of recapitulation). I use panbiogeography to show how Darwin’s idea that adaptation to earlier phylogenetically passed states is not a simpler interpretation than a vicariant bifurcation into a limit of death in chaos that appears random but is simply the consequence of the feedback from the forced classification on the categories of force per particular forces (e-m, gravity) used/involved. And show how Darwin’s ideas of this sort caused a misstep in the development of historical biogeography. Furthermore we develop examples where vicariant time expresses chaining interaction systems of salamander pheromone adaptations with mappable area effects and dissect Wright’s concern that most of these differences have remained unresolvable and falsely argued contrarily by elimination (Volume III Experimental Results and Evolutionary Deductions page 466).

This is a new era for Biology that Thomas Huxley explicated avoided. Catastrophe theory does apply to extinctions of early amphibians that gave rise to the three current groups where the teeth have a non-cacified middle region (which enables sense of prey motion recapitulated repulsed selective forced classifications onto loci attractions of classifications of the same distributed forces but no notion of absolute space and time is involved here. Wake et al suggest an idea that since Latimeria posses a basilar papilla the loss of the same in urodeles and gymnophonians represents a regression caused by lack of adaptability environments terrestrial. I suggest that it is progressive adaptation total ear macron for chemical influence via pheromones and tentacles that need indentify with total ear body motion macrons which is not used by frogs where sound itself (rather than chemicals) are used. This is part of the algebra of macrons suggested by Ralph..

The Heritage of evolution's horizon – Speciation as chaotic dissection

i)preface (Possible Thesis topics)

1)Phylogeny in General (Metaphysics and Metabiology)

2)Species in General (Mutimodel Panbiogeography)

3)Individuals-Populations in General (A Morphodynamic morphogenetics)

4)Phylogeny Specifically ( A catastrophe model of extinction)

5Species Specific ( A macron application of ear evolution)

6)Population Specific (social vs sexual selection in salamanders)

7)Individual Specific (Estimation of Anuran densities by sound recordings as “traps')

Hypercyles, RNA world, Origin of codes

(The prevailing view is) that life arose from RNA through }Eigen hypercycles..{ but we see with the space expanded under electromagnetic repulsions if already selected, by loci located point forces of any force manifestation, true attraction rather than simple replication is the base condition for living reproducibility. The fundamental physical force differences of attraction and repulsion determines, the kinds of life that can exist. Life does not have to be made up of carbon translated from RNA transcribed DNA, but the linearity of chromosomes must be built by some kinds of bonds or physical equilibrium that is capable of the 7 frieze groups where repulsions and attractions are sustained in some matter. Future work in this idea will result in interfaces that may enable our life to communicate/work/exchange powers with other to be hypothetical living things, which might be subsequently encountered either here on Earth or as we explore…. It seems unlikely that there are “aliens” among us but there might be otherwise odd chemically constituted life even just over on Mars or where solidity environments are not prohibiting sequencing to repulsions and attractions from elements originating in stars.

On this view living DNA bases as opposed to ones simply being replicated exist because they attract their opposite (A-T, C-G) but also because there is some space during the copying for the repulsions to the opposite. The process of development and differentiation sustains the repulsions but gets extremely complex as the entire genome is doubled. The reason there are only up to 15 doublings is due to the 2 base pair 3 for repulsions to code and 3 intermediates (DNA, RNA, Protein) 2*3*3=12. Life can not grow without evolving with more than about 15 cell embryological duplications. Thus the genetic code is structured mostly with XCX but in those instances where the form is XC1/2X or other, the other half of the third X marks were repulsions are shared per selection a priori and thus constrains and effects differences between mutation, immigration, chance affect generalized selections. It also indicates how different genetic codes can arise from prior codes and effects locations for introns when related to stops codons. The physiological relation of heterozygotes to homozygotes is not principally one of inhibition or exhibition of activity but rather due to ability to convert the first and third Xs without altering the formality of the stops to the introns. Repetitive DNA is needed when the chromosomes become divided due to forces back on the DNA from Microtubules that otherwise separate them in order to prevent (find e-m reason of GDP?) the inversion of homo and heteros from dissembling an already evolved gene structure which nevertheless is still being simply copied.

Our coded Life originated as A attracted Ts across a netural soulibility place and G attracted Cs elsewhere (from or to a smaller location). Before their was linear incorporation there were locations of miscibility and imissibility being bridged as aggregations grew from locations within or without but were smaller(at Cs) in fractal dimension than the boundaries the water-nonwater provided. Water was necessary for the life we have to have evolved but it was in the ability to connect locations smaller than than the tangent to water boundary that enabled life to arise. RNA may have provided the first lines across these boundaries but they would not have been subject to phronomic kinematics. It was only when DNA became involved that efficient repulsivity inherent initially in the hydrophobic or hydroloving expandable lines of RNA became decoupleable to permit full phoronomy that life arose in those spaces that incorporated both hydrophobic and hydroloving regions (Cells) where the repulsion was coding something beyond these intial pre-life boundaries. Those DNAs that started and stopped the lines with effective forces that could push the shape of the water-nonwater boundaries around in such a way to accumulate more small areas and other lines was the origin of the first genes which even then possessed a recessive and a dominant version (repulsions in the opposite direction to the true attraction for an expanabilitiy). When the genetic accumulation became capable of growing big enough to manipulate its bounded environment enough enough to split and still find all its other opposities in the same topological environment it was able to self-reproduce and individual life began to accumulate a genetic heritage.

Here we find Kant's Postumum "unit of matter and experience in a unique, original and self- active substance" to be DNA as software which one example of life due to selected attractions with pleitropic repulsions. Kant's ether is the generalization of our life to any life with different forces and different actual matters. There may even be life based on vital or no force but we can never know that. we may be able to know something by negation if we knew an infinite case of different lives but now we only know the one we know.

Within the context of information then available Wright (1968) made a somewhat reasonable assumption that genuine pleiotropy does not exist. He suggested that as far as anyone knew the parts of a polypeptides were not known to have different effects. Thus he had reasoned that each gene has one “primary” effect – “the synthesis of a specific kind of polypeptide”. So there was no two physiological effects being traced to a single gene which was the definition of genuine pleitropy following Grunberg (1938)(Wright 1968 p60). He did note that populational genetic pleitropy is however broader than this because say in the case of sickle cell anemia where a single amino acid substitution results in two different natural selective effects (anemia and resistance to malaria) there are two effects from one intra gene difference. Now he also thought that because both that there is only one primary effect of each gene in its putative physiological affect while there is near universal populational genetic pleitropyj between genes and the superficial characters organisms use forces with in action and reaction with their conditional environments that natural selective value is a function of the system of genes as a whole rather than being due ot individual genes which went along with his reasoning that it is the genes as whole in quantitatively variying traits where additivity was.

But here we see that natural selective value may indeed vary with the individual gene. The gene is not selfish in Dawkins regard in this sense but what is favorable and unfavorable for a gene depends on the path of causation to the specific amino acid sequence that it posses mutationally. While this does not change the large effects it does alter in significant ways some cases and establishes genuine pleitropy of the single gene type. The fact that proteins express the repulsion as well as the true attraction means that when populations are selected in two different directions due to the pleiotropy physiological and populational can have the same target if the neutral evolutionary drift had not moved the repulsion off the otherwise positional location of the attraction (per total macrons).

The natural selective value is much more complex relation that heretofore imagined and while no value can be absolutely assigned to a particular gene relative value ranges within and between genes can be described when one knows how the classifications phylogenetic organized the forces as the forces made the classifications. This idea of Kant’s now has a use in bridging the physiological and populational genetic differential concepts of pleitropy. In so doing it provides genes with primary effects and secondary ones independent of the individuals that bear them but dependent on the individuals ability to express them.

What is "transferred" between nucleic acids and proteins is not "information" as Brenner connoted in PNAS 1957. was within the nature of the then called 'coding' problem.

Brenner

Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1957 Aug 15; 43(8): 687–694.

says that in this problem there is an 'excess' of "information" because there is not an isomorphism from the 4 DNA bases to the 20 amino acids unless 3 bases are somehow used to as representatives for the 20 amino acids which would give 64 possible targets and thus said "excess" of information. Again this whole field espcially as thought by Gamow Nature 173, 318 (13 February 1954 was one of relation to language where that problem was one of thinking of words out of a four digital system? This framing of issue makes it impossible to look for different ways that genetic heritages could utilize the material basis of heredity. In the case just noticed, it would not be thought possible that there might be any function for said "excess" or if ambiguity might serve a purpose otherwise uncognized. One might think for instance that DNA provides cardinality and proteins ordianlity or with a bit of difficulty even the reverse (with RNA functioning as ordertypical). A less strained concept might be rather that proteins are ordertypes based on cardinal RNA which is ordinally arranaged in DNA. It is just that by only thinking that the material nature must be related to lexicology and grammetology is just a bit restrictive in so far as language critcism existed during the beginning of molecular biology. Gamow's diamond with spaces in the helix could still have meaning for our understanding of DNA legacies.

In the idea presented here , overlapping of selective causation of the DNA to the proteins is the basis for the expansion of the notion of natural selective value. The overlaps express prior differences in the forces (holes in the DNA spiral) that affect these same as selections but are alternated by attractions flanked with repulsions. Thus a reading frame shift is a real thing and not an error of the "communication" system and is reflective concerning when a repulsion might become an attraction provided the holes do not equally and oppostiely force out. The overlap is a physical constraint that arises simply becuase repulsions and attractions are only distinquished by difference in direction but the space repulsions extend (regardless of its overlapped attraction) is different than the penetration attractions can friably mediate given any amino acid repulsion affect or effect.

Thus the forces were overlapping but the "code" (between the DNA and Protein -- RNA) is not. Of course this notion of code is not the same either. It seems prudent to investigate if the RNA attachment of triples to amino acids is not a simple phonormics of the degeneration of the forces with the actual physical chemistry of the holes and hydrogen bonding etc. The supposed restrictions that overlapping codes introduced to the amino acid sequence as discussed by Brenner 1957 may explain how amino acid size is related to hydrophobicity as an orthogonal parameter to the attraction repulsion directum evoltutionarily. Thus the current view we have of the genetic code is highly depapurate for our intuition of the paths back of the heritage of genetic information we presently posses. The mistake has been in thinking that the code is a language which signs in the end for the proteins. That what makes a fly a fly is just the sum of the proteins expressed when it is really the motion the protein make and what moves in reaction to them which also moves the RNA and the DNA. This internal interactivity as part of self-replicable feedback is depressed in the current sytnax of our understaning of the genetic code and was artifically imposed by writing up the work as closed language issue rather than a kinematic to dynamics construction. The "code" may be more frutifully be recieved as a control over the interaction system of attractions and repulsions accumulating genets back of which may be chaotic dynamics of untold potentials but not undiscoverable. It may have been that there was a too strong reaction against teleology, vital forces for the organs these might have developed, and religion which had nothing to do when it was simply a matter of language analogies.

So it seems that without having to think that the digitial software nature of DNA is in the 4 bit to protein word trasciption and translation imagery but rather one of two fundamental forces with overlapping causation it might be possible to advance Cantor’s work by thinking of the RNA forces as a cardinal the ordinal of which is expressed in some “well ordering” (order of gene expression during development) having a cardinality that is in terms of the DNA (each cardinal class can have many ordinals) that cardinality of which is expressed as the evolutionarily acquired DNA sequence of agiven organism which is a reversible weight lifiting machine possessing its ordertype in the amino acids that are bearers of the load. The RNA cardinal ordinal pair is the first “shelf” on which the weight is moved but is supersetted by the general DNA cardinality of that which overlapped the past attractions selected into the ordinal gene mapped chromosomes ordinality that expressed proteins as its ordertype lifting the weight phylogenetically as recapitulated ontogenic process.

The law like ness is only in the the relation of cardinals to ordinals to ordertypes and phlogenies are free to diversify by encoding of the forces in higher cardinal ordinal sets. This gives rise to the discipline that fuses physiological , populational, and behavioral genetics with evo-devo of epigentics and leaves room for such new ideas as social selection. I never really understood why Thomas Huxley did not want to think of the forces of evolution but of course my hopes were dashed after an immediate reaction that perhaps Sober did that. Evolution is a theory of forces it is not “as” a theory of forces. What this means is that applied metabiology is much meatier than Chaitain’s likely thought on “subroutines” and love.

Hein van den Berg Kant on Proper Science: Biology in the Critical Philosophy and the Opus postumum

“In his 1788 essay on teleological principles, Kant treats the classifications of Carl Linneaus as systems. He states that Linnaeus’s systematic description of the vegetable kingdom was based on the principle of the “persistence of the characteristics of the parts for fructification in vegetables”…as a principle for classifying plants. Van den Berg offers to interpret Kant on Linnaeus as “on how to construct systems of concepts” aka per genus et differentiam specificam.

What will see is that the forces in classifications and classifications of forces are not going to be the kind that Kant would have worked with” Moreover, in the appendix of the third Critique, Kant reveals himself to be a strong supporter of a very specific position in the modern debate regarding animal generation: the epigenesis of his younger contemporary Johann Friedrich Blumenbach (1752–1840), who had advocated the existence of a fundamental force – the Bildungstrieb, or “formative drive” – in matter that explains reproduction, nutrition, and regeneration.” 5 - Blumenbach and Kant on Mechanism and Teleology in Nature: The Case of the Formative Drive pp. 355-372 buut rather are combined gravitational and e-m forces bonded chemically through inheritance. The reason Kant said no one was going to be a Newton of a blade of grass did not mean that one could not figure out the forces types (strong, e-m, weak, gravitry)but rather that a blade as a particular kind of grass could not be explained by precisely what actual forces caused it (attraction or repulsion). A certain amount of biophysics is possible and is actually required on Kant’s view.

What we see is that Kant’s position can be squared with this one simply by the forces being internal to the form (biology). They are particular bioplama macrons which alter natural selective value from within while also being subject to force without. Thom’s space of external paramaters are external to the change of shape or ordertype but are not incompatible with non physics (vitalis etc) forces. How much changes in gene frequencies and how far new genes can arise by this internal forced selectivities remains to be seen but it is not necessary limit Kant to teleology per say in biology. This is true for the knowledge in artificial selection but as Wright said using some form of that in a lineage will likely over many years simply be irrelevant to natural selective value. That value however does depend on the path analysis of the changing gene substitutions. My view is in direct opposition to Mark Fisher’s (“Generation and Classification of Organisms in Kant’s Natural Philosophy) (“Matter, motion, and the fundamental forces of attraction and repulsion that give rise to these are alone sufficient for understanding neither the ultimate historical origin of organic beings nor the actual functioning of empirically given individual organisms.”) Kant’s “epigenesis” proceeds from the genetical variables back of differentiation resultant with complete genome doubling on these “internal” forces which are external to the individual as to it non-evolutionary identity. No “preformation” in the genus occurs only individual selection or perhaps intergroup as Wright qualified. So rather than see Classifications of forces and forced classifications as two different things the Opus presented a way for each to reciprocally inform each other. This is the new informational state that biology reaches by bringing our use of computers into our understanding of evolutionary theory! There is no worry that vital forces may operate in the metaphysics of nature. Here we only discuss the purely biological organization of forces which are not part of physics which gives the forces in the first place.

Formative power existed in the RNA lines that eventually with cell division across the forced areas evolved virus supportable reproducibility. It is the formative power (atomic reproducibility constraints) that permit virus to survive only within live living as a whole. Genetic information arises as repulsive matter selected spreads ,,,out what otherwise attraction could only point to. It is because the point catstrophe becomes a wobble coded genetically. This life is in-formation. I can make biological sense of Kant’s metaphysical use of vital forces. Here biologically vital forces do not posses the ability to move themselves relative to masses. This assumption has lead to all kinds of false analyses of the concept. Kant can use them metaphysically because this restriction doe not keep certain relations of general attractions and repulsions from existing imaginatively or formatively. It is only when one empirically decides on what forces are actually being used that one must confront if the attraction say was electromaganetic rather than gravitational or if it was strong rather than weak or whether vital forces can be repulsive etc. this is not a part of this view of biology here presented . This only really became clear as we sort out the Galvani - Volta debate and notice that say thermal currents might exist uniquely in biomatter macrons. This shows that there still could be a non-physical type force in biology that was not recognized by physics or chemistry as in-formation of form-making but this continuum does depend on the mass (atoms) (not by strong or weak forces)and thus is not purely metaphysical in any way.

"The primitive forces are attraction and repulsion, which-united, to be precise - both occupy cosmic space(by attraction) and fill it (by repulsion) without which no matter would exist." (22:478 Forster 135)

So here we have recognized this matter as the matter of something that is living either the life we have here on Earth or some other and we realized the nature of the genetic code as united attractions and repulsions. The combinations of attractions and repulsions form systematics of nature for experiences' sake which we biologists expereince as evoltuionary phylogenies as organized taxonomies of the coded inheritance specifically.

“Forces in empty space (attraction,Newton) presuppose bodies, not mere matter (actio in distans) - ether, repulsion through which space can become a sense object; and [as such] does not contain bodies but merely matter.” (22:124 Forster p 205)

This idea makes clear, that a differences in forces thought in Kant's time, say the irritable vs sensational forces are differentiated by the notion of spatial evolution. Biology is not supervienient on physics and chemistry matter (actio in distans matter) but rather contains bodies which may sense the space of their own motion or the matter of non sensationally connected materials which may even be also in the living thing (irritable matter (plant or animal).

Linnaean natural history classification systems may be artificial for memory only but since life as modeled here is a memory system of reversible weight lifting against gravity causal (sensed"") only by it's own biotic potential, the extent that the artificiality man- made creativity within a taxonomy expressed this biological innate ability it is possible for the systems of classifications may have more intuitable quality than mere memory trees or memory theaters which simply form symbols that may have not grammetological connection to the linguistic objects denoted in anyway. The enumeration of the members of the classification have to have an ordertype that is not merely the ordinal and thus express something relative to continuity as it exists amongst a combined cardinal and ordinal aposteriori thing.

The idea to use Kant's ideas on Linnaeus result from his division of Naturae scientia into

-rerum naturae (things of nature) called by Linnaeus "system of nature" when well ordered amongst themselves posses in that man-made coordination simply an ordinal or ording of the things (the embodied forced susbtances named) and laws of nature (evolution as mostly thought is not thought to possess special laws itself (there is no idea that orthogenesis is actually there say) This is Kant's idea of the "systematics of nature"(22:501) ("the formsin action and reaction of forces in space and time")

But here we find that there is Linnaen systematics of the forces that actually organize evolution and forced classifications of the actual forces that provide the variations in the forces in which any laws might exist should/if they/ when they do (some of the laws are also of\a temporal nature) which is not the case in physics (the gravitational constant does not depend on time).

So a short hand rewriting of those formal principles of antural science that can and shouldbe presented completely on this view would be something like "the division of physical forces ((penetratie-superficail)(attractive repulsive)) ordertyped into biophysical matters that move as bioplasmas morphogenetically and thus sensicale evolutioanarily. In kant's time, the force of irritability a displeasure sensically inner might be caused by electro-magnetic forces. When cardinality is retained then it is possible to say why the RNA localizes the empty space that viruses solidify connections in the neighboorhood of.

Thus what remains to be explained is how systematicity is divided clearly into constitutive vs regulative per form in the natural selective values of different DNA sequences per change in base pair morphodynamically.

Six subordiante kinds of formative power representations supposedly "sensual":

FORMATIVE FORM FORMATS

Abbildung (re-formation) - creative generation/production of representations (in the present time

Vorstellungen der gegenwartigen Zeit -)

Nachbildung (post-formation) - capacity to reproduce representations of the past time (Vorstellung der vergangenen Zeit)

der vergangenen Zeit)

Vorbildung (pre-formation) - anticipates representations of the future time.

Your attempt to preform information reformationallly failed with respect to it's Nachbildung temporality. That hurts a lot. The DNA

Ex-formation is something that no Vermogen der Ausbildung can inform in the way you represented it. I dont see any other way.

Subordinate kinds of spontaneous"" sensual capacity (nominally 'formative power')

Capacity of in-formation (Vermogen der Einbildung)

Capacity of anti-formation (Vermogen der Gegenbildung)

Capapcity of ex-formation (Vermogen der Ausbildung)

Genetical inertia flows between/among the spontaneous whatever the representations are. They do this in plants as well as animals. In this case what they were. The original chemical macron of DNA,RNA and Proteins is coupled to other bioplasma macrons algebraically and thus life’s macron informs others by exformation of separate physical, chemical and electric macrons. Evolution uses antiformations of these proximal algebraic coordinations through differential couplings which ultimately reach back to the original morphogenesis mathematically. The ear is a combination physical electrical macron mediated by that original chemical one.

Ina Goy is unable to relate the ontological to the epistemological use of Kant’s formative power and refused to attempt to relate the biological uses coherently. This is all possible. It provides a conceptual nexus for applied metabiological research.

The constitutive vs regulative aspect of judged teleology has only to do with the 7 frieze groups per linearization connected to some temporalization. There is no absolue perfect difference of force with constitutive and organ with regulative as suggested by Gambarotto (2014). Instead our notions of homology have been molecularized. Modern creation science already indicated that this will be an increasing issue, one certainly as applied metabiology embodied gains natural selective value in particular orthogonal represenations that are not reducible to attempted vector equivalents no matter the environment.

Levels of cognition

Mensch thinks there might be "transcendental imagination" vs. "voluntary" agency of the formative power

Kant's Organicism: Epigenesis and the Development of Critical Philosophy p 117

There are not "levels' of cognition but rather a process in which either antiformation is taken from exformations to reveal information or else information is created in the present

The "levels" arise when logic is applied to this process but then the rulings are simple logical stratifications however real. One can never forget that both the understanding and sensibility can be contigent. So when the space inside a virus is realted to actual forces amongst RNAs what was past is no longer the any future control of viruses would be present. There is nothing 'abstract' about the common angles in this space that physics would have differentitated. There may be abstract differences in different mathematical models but the object is the same. Logic can give different representations of the subject but reality only gives one presentation. As Wittgenstein realized rules in judgement and rules of judgement are different (no matter the physicality of Russel’s applications) – no less for philosophy than in the philosophy of biology. In the end sensibility is not reducible to the "five" senses but rather is in the forces the senses have already evolved no matter the purpose or use we put them to. There is a biological notion of the voluntary vs involutary happening of these "faculites" that does not square well with the words as they are used in the medical regulations and thus there is still some exformations to be exhumed in nature. So as our understanding evolves with applied evolution we will figure that out!

There is no issue with using the applied engineering discipline in technobiology as Sloan wrote (2012). It is only a matter of the quality that teleonomics affect through teleomatics per any quantum complementarity within the directions of forces as a further step in understanding particular phlogenetics from natural selected gene decompositions.

Hall (Post Critical Kant p 78) does wonder whether or not the forces(attraction and repulsion) must be thought as merely coming from the phonoromic possibility for matter or not but thought not. I do not think this is correct because as soon as one attempts to combine 3 phonormic lines of action, without both attraction and repulsion of these points he will not be able to think metaphysically any farther about abolute and relative spaces a priori except in reference to some particular empirical situation.

Of course because no one else has taken this further thought back into relative inertial freameworks one simply denies any future retrotranslation work for absolute space which clearlly Netwon had thought when he thought that a bucket waterlines' shape (curve) was in our common community of observation because of absolute space. So the shape of line from linearity and any geometry thereof (especially since Non-Euclidean) for Kant needs the forces because of the fact of opposite motions phonoromically (as soon as there is more than just two) if they exist in some matter as to that matter's boundary which can be forced on(f=ma) and have a tangent etc.

Self-reproducing matter however expands this bounded relativity as a form but this it can notdo without being made of specific matter, atoms. So insofar as phronomy does underlie the origin of cellular level software in its nucleus and en mass this shape that Newton thought and Kant provided forces for exists genetically where physiological and populational genetics concepts can be unified. In cohesive genome doubled life there are non true attractive forces which instruct the physiological genetics which were acquired as true attractions in it's populationa past. These however offer different opposite motions to absolute space coming out of more than 4 lines of possible causation inertially and would depend on how for instance the within generation sums of Rougardian social selection affect via Mendelian cross generational heterozygosity the phylogenetic resolution of particular births and deaths subtracted from the gene doubling present embyrology and whether this is still a matter of individual selection or rather if it is causal with other higher levels of selection since it might logically be so. There need be no clear biophilosophy that absolute already distinguished Phythogorean and Aristotleian mutations say.

Hall simply did not have a deep enough biological intution since he could not (given ether oscillations) imagine how or why solid bodies could not change their shape as easily as fluid bodies given that both arise from oscillations in/of the ether. The difference has to do of course with difference of the kind of chemical bonding (covalent vs ionic vs vanderwalls etc) as a morphodynamics that outlines a partiuclar view on the classes that can divided allometerically relative to the hard (bone,kertain) parts of living things.

This not something that be thought outside of living thing in a pure abiotic world. It could be thought or non-biologica matter if we knew of some other kind of self-reproducing life like a Turing machine with liquids on moon of a planent not water but then we would need to know a lot about how the cohesion there can be the kind of piston that always reaches the bottom where our gasses do for what solids and liquids we have forced here on Earth. Genetic penetration would need be described for those materials where here the Mendelian bifurcation exists. So for instance a slightly modified Biometric (Galton, Pearson) infinite kind of trait inheritances through the frieze groups could possibly be pathed to provide a cross translation between the ossilations of our life and that matter where and why solids simply do not change as easily as liquids given a common gas virial for either else a new view of phase transitions would result in a different physics than we have at present where non-Mendelain penetrations obtain. I can not say exactly how one is to non-biologically think of the fluid "ether" as this depends on a more refined notion of the quantum of force action where hydrogen might be compounded of fundamental infinte sereis of light coded in a self-reproducing entity into any element and provide the parts for dissection between the attractions and repulsions in that matter.

I have not carried the analysis this far as of yet. The infinite regress can be approached but I am not prepared to do that just now. It is enough to know that one required simply the cohesive body which is independent of the phonromic velocities and accelerations that occur with forced motions no matter the formative. It may be that Bohr complementarity (as expressed by Pauling etc) supplants the simple particle vs force quantum mechanically but that the field is different than the matter is true to the extent that the math is not going to be any way expressed as a vectors but only as orthogonal multidimensional birfurcations decomposed via the different basic physical forces but wehther life can cut orthogonal to this entire representation would depend on whether this becomes a matter for cardinals or ordinals and I am not sure of that at this time.

Force and Mendel’s Developmental Binomial double parent- hybrid heterozygote

Forces and Mendel’s Double (parent-hybrid) developmental heterozygote

New Style of physiological- populational genetic- ecologic investigation modes

Teleomatics (Gravity vs Brownian Motion) in positional homeostasis) effective ponderability/ponderocity (concussive motion affecting)

Teleonomics( Plant’s ‘senseing’ on coming storms via e-m field inverstions with “programming” lenticle capacitance

Purposive B ehavior (social selection infrastructure increases) with the ear as quaternionic 3-D force transducer enabling multiple physical continua per organ (mechanical, e-m) (turtle ear and fore claw waving with purpose to increase social selection’s neural correlate)

Adaptative features – Seeds as adaptations to fall to the sun via the earth’s gravity. Growth in trees to sun either from inside or outside the branch. Relation of inertial frames to parent vs hybrid towards homozygotes.

Cosmic teleology – why two sexes when more than one cell (eucaryotes )per lineage heritage (circular vs linear strand DNA per perversion) but multiple with one (bacteria) (birth and death in replacement of single cell doubled) (relation to biotic potential) (Darwin’s use of Malthus- Fisher use of Malthusian)

In obeyance to the Mendelian principles the energy form is declared first for the gametes.

Most information energizes the zygote instead. So when one speaks of the gametes of any or all Aa Bateson noted the (force) character proper to Aa will not be born in the zygote but instead the forces actually areredistributed (whatever that means (see representation with grossone below)) via pure A and pure a the descendents have a pure Aa as the "parental" GAMETES were. They have the same force (attraction or repulsion and set aggregations of) of the parents while signed conservatively (there is no sign for directions but forces have them)

In other words the force in the gametes is retained through fertilization and population mixing and no matter how much plurality this process results in materialistically the Aa (no matter whether Aa or aA) produce equal (on average- statistically)A and a embodiments/signs. This is a much more complex process than the one imagined through the union of DNA strands to idea of Aa or aA. The full possible genetical imagination has failed since the dual heterozygote that is both parental and hybrid force wise

This has not been ontogenetically described in any way. Population genetics has tended to derive the average statistic from the level of mixing of the zygotes as reproductive adults breeding rather than the morphogenesis of the gametes themselves splitting differently informed (the force representation of the gametes can get the same results as the HardyWienberg mixing from the zygotes but is much more cumbersome) transmissible force fields. That focus was on what may penetrate forcefully but need not be merely motive.

In other words the population genetics may not explain formative superficiality so far and this probably is what underlies Mayrian type contempt for "bean bag" genetics and Roughardian need to explain social infrastructure in a non traditional populational genetic way.

It is only after formation of a zygote that one can distinguish the hybrid from the parent (hybrids have 1-D force directions opposed, pure are in the same directum but this directing only affects countour of the sphere of total attractions and repulsions distributed ({+++,++>,+>+,>++,+>>,>+>,>>+,>>>}) and this occurs ONLY IF THE PURE AA and aa forces are already denoted. These forces are in the att/repul and repul/attr of the prior set weight lifted. What recessive and dominance means comes first. This is what divided Wright and Fisher. The physiological and populational genetics must be together on this and with the directions of these forces the kinds of hybrid force possibilities can be derived. This is only this complicated because life can exist with different kinds of force strengths provided the distances the forces cover can be matched in the reproduction through any and all repulsions and attractions of the matter being copied by the complementation. Knowing that our life uses carbon and matches e-m to gravity makes the specification of dominance and recessive easier.

The logical reason for this is that there are two different kinds of 1- symmetery (having nothing to do with the difference of artifical and natural selection for instance)++ and >> which depending on how the repulsions and attractions are related to these forms can totaly unifty different directional blinking fractals for Aa and aA assymetires in the force fields. One can work with the names (heterozygote vs homozygote) but one can really only go as far as Wright did with just the distinction. One remains at a loss otherwise to explain the increasing plurality that continually occurrs as evolution (as changes in gene frequencies) proceeds. The hybrid can present/appear in any of the forms but parental heterozygote can only produce those as relative to the particular one dimensional symmetry actually antecedent generationally. This new theory models this distinction so far left out of genetics.

That was why Bateson said the from knowing that there is a "mule" form on can not predict what the gametes will be. If one knew the parents of the mule then one could....Bateson proposed that there is Mendel binomial law here described forecelly in Kant's formative terminology analogically like that to which the periodic table of elements provides to the atomic combinametrics. False continuity vs discontiniuty and personalityh factors prevented this from developing into Fisher’s time and by the timeDNA was suggested no one attempted to return to this more complicated thought process but instead organismic biologists just got mad at molecular biologists.

We are now on the cusp of describeing and predicting directly and symmetrically the outward and visible characterization of the force morphogensises no matter the trait combination.

With grossone numerals we can see that Mendel’s view IS comprehendable only we have not been nuanaced enough in our thinking about genetic constitutions and hence where genes come from. We can stick to the idea of the numbers coming from the “adult” form but as hybrid or parent where these same “adults” share the same finite number grossdigits but may have different infinitesimal and infinite digits depending on the three blinking fractals composed in the particulate Galton law like expression.

There are many other than one particulate system that is open to differently coded life.

Each adult form is a c0 grossdigit attached symbolization. The history of whether the factor/character divided by the past adult form or hetero/hybrid is a distribution symmetric around the m=k=0 finite number into the infinitesimal and infinite powers provided by the triple blinking fractal places. Thus the separate character types are fundamental to the basic blinking fractals and that is why there is not a clear separation of factor and character. This arises when there is some variation in the blinking fractals for dominance, recessiveness, heterozygosity relative the basic positional difference of all three together. That is all that is behind Fisher’s fundamental theorem.

in any given reproductive living thing. These increasingly symmetrical force relations of gametes and zygotes are infinite but different and thus can be drawn out stastically through the use of blinking fractals of Sergeyev. Perhaps in the nim math of Conway. But by simple differences in the Wrightian path diagrams.

We can use grossone in organized biokinematics because no matter how much reproduction occurs (metabiologically) it is never more than what can be forced by repulsions or attractions selected in some series though some temporality as some trait combinations live and some die. It is very hard to think backward from the whole organisms morphology (with infinite divisibility as to future form-making) to the divisions within the chromosomes (linkage maps) that could have been selected differently (point loci locations) and selected either for their repulsion or attractions especially when the population genetical pressures of immigration and drift can have no effect on the actual physiological genetic consequence (force x vs force x-delta X still gets the molecules close enough to interact) and only requires slightly more general energy for the same information. Here it appears that gravity/e-m is dominant and e-m/gravity recessive but that is just an feeling not based on the full difference of antiformation , exformation and information. The idea that there might be infinite twin primes leads to these new formations genetically and supplies a new tool in which Mendelian populations both from the zygote and gamete can be investigated. It would be interesting to see if viruses exist where boundaries of infinite twin prime instantiations per closest attraction-repulsion(s) were.

To defend Mendel's claim to the gene concept geneticists have indulged in special pleading thus: 'It is but an abridged way of expression. It was perfectly clear to Mendel that those elements occurred paired in homozygotes . . .' Or: 'throughout the papers (and even in his later correspondence with the botanist Nägeli) he has described the three classes of individuals in an F2 as A, Aa and a, evading the unproved doubleness of the "homozygote" AA class.' “(Olby 2)

It is no “mistake” of Mendel to avoid this use – Mendel was not referring the gene of today but to “force parts” of today’s gene ideation which can be modeled as different infinitesmals and infinites PER A GIVEN finite number attached to the individual which Mendel already noticed was double depending on whether it is the hybrid or the parent in the history/ancestry of the molecular gene part trajegtory THROUGH the generations.

We have confounded the substance and forces that move the same not clearly delineating the internal and external relative to the phylogenetic node shapes. We would have been well to have understood Kant better and pursued algebra more. Mayr tried but did not go beyond the sublimity modern creationism had imposed into the conversations.

aA and Aa are equivalent in the sense that physics does not care which way it carries the product

but the evolution with such is subject to different directions of force relative to the population of

individuals body surface.

So while NaCl is the same as ClNa for ALL forced relations (to split or join rotation does not matter) this is not true in

genetics.

Why didn’t Mendel use the a^2+2Aa+A^2 generical symbolization numerically?

Mendel used a+2Aa+A because didactically it would be confusing to use the squares since that would predetermine the ordering of the recessives and dominants when combined with more than one trait. It would predecide what linkage groups there were empirically or how many chromosomes a given creature would have. The squares can be obtained by geometry given that recessives and dominants of any one trait are linearly related with the recessives being positionly less of before the dominants (phonoromically) and given that there are only two kinds of 1-dimensional symmetries (>> and ++). The two DIFFERENT hybrids (parent and hybrid) provide direction of both symmetries and that is why it is dual AND developmental (between gametes and zygotes) didactically speaking. What has been missing in embryology is the algebraic conunterpart to the geometric procedure of finding the missing homozygote signage as Newton used geometry to prove forces. This is why the notion of the wild type IS needed despite attempts to remove it from natural history. One needs to track the >> symmetries in the population and divide them out through the heterozygotes that exist per effective population size. This has not yet been done. The wildtype is not an “ideal” notion but is the total possibility of all symmetries for all traits of a species NO MATTER THE POPULATIONS actually existing for the given species or evolved lineage (there can be higher order symmetries all the way down to the individual ontogeny or developmental hybrid of all parental heritages) logically. No actual population of wild individuals posseses these butall possible reproductions of all existing individuals can be algebraically found just as geometry finds say the opposite angle given an angle and two parallel lines. This is how math and biology find a common hermeneutic. Both Bateson and Robinson made this mistake. Woodger tried something not specific enough to the forces and substance difference within the same context or story.

Ruse on Purpose, First Cell Theories, Intefaceing with DNA computers

Many chemical melilius can be imagined. Did/do cells change their chemicals over time? Certainly plants have different things in them than animals.

What happens to the chemicals when a single cell divides? Does one cell "die" and two new ones arise or does one continue to live and the other one is a new born as if like from a parent? What about the forces that chemicals move in and with – Is there some connection of action and reactions that transits the discontinuous community of cell divisions such that one might speak of “ancestral” vs “decendent” forces? Can a virtual force preformation transfer or split during cell division as information that equally and oppositely acted (antiformation) on the other or next cell (exformationally)?

DNA computers can be built to mimic any logic relation (“and/ors”) provided the DNA changes that engineer this logic are extended over long times entropically. Is it possible to use the energy of the toehold relations to permit some aspect of the cell cycle to inform the DNA computer such that its native antiformations are altered and new exformations become created by that design?

Michael Ruse wrote a somewhat unlikely book (Darwin and Design) and introduced the idea that biology certainly moved away from the view that the Niagara Falls exists to produce rainbows so as to line the pockets of the local honnymoon hotel franchise owners. My grandfather (an evolutionist) proposed to my grandmother from Buffalo on the Canadian side of the falls indeed and I learned my evolution first from him. Ruse analogized that if Stegasouras plates were thermoreguloative that it might have been the thing to say that the plates exist ino order to produce heat regulation. He said this function talk went out. But if force information doe3s transit cell division and the coincidence of Cantorian continuous motion in a discontinuous space with MEndelian symmetric mechanics related to force action-reaction formats the same then indeed it may be that some actions and behaviors of cells and wff that can first cells is functional and for the purpose since these relations at least at the general level of the difference of the parent vs the hybrid HETEROZYGOTE can be changed without breaking the continuity nor the information. So perhaps Ruse was correct to try to point to the argument to complexity. This is complex stuff and also stuff that can be metaboiologically interfaced to DNA computers. That is organized complexity while what nature does is adaptive complexity but there is more to it than that. If we can make a DNA computer alter the food production levels of the plant by the logic of of DNA toeholds onto the opposite forces informed on cell division and thus switch the effects of the difference in the homozygotes but only in the heterozygotes can not multigenerationally operative machines not goaled and do we not want to use function talk in these cases?

This new technobiology would be done because during evolution through sums of births and deaths in cell doublings (variable with different histogenies) exist for each individual and these can be interfaced in real time to logic to replication constructs provided the applied evolutionary theory is designed in. If we succeed in creating this new technological category it would definitely show that plants exist for animals in the sense that Kant intended it. What could be better than if Man could engineer all of life to increase its actual from its biotic case by case potentials.

Cell doubling genomic asymmetries

Particulate inheritance can however be understood in multiple physical forms than that suggested by Fisher ‘s fundamental theorem but then the forces relative to sex need to have already been demonstrable and demonstrated. This is showable by using the within individual variation of plants that have mean, variances, skewneww and kurtosis with grossone (1,2,3,….@-3,@-2,@-1@).

Each gamete can transimit ALL THE CHARACTERS of the hidden b-d but not all of those related to sex alterations’ effect on the embryology of the b-d. This was not c lear in Bateson’s time and resulted in a failure to followup his idea of duals which is possible in the divergence of the quaternion space of the forces vectorized and is visible in the embryogeny of dutersomes vs protostomes.

So Bateson wrote, “The character of Aa is not regarded as a heritage transmitted to it by A and by a, but as a character special and peculiar to Aa, just as NaCl is not a body half way between sodium and chlorine or such that its properties can be predicted from or easily stated in terms of theirs.”

We now understand this differently and recognize that organcist imperatives of emergence are unnecessary organ wise when not individual wise. We now using grossone can separate Aa as NaCl as if 2Aa from Aa as being originating from AA&aa .

Traditional population genetics works from an h /s system:
Genotype: A1A1 A2A1 A2A2

Relative Fitness: 1 1-hs 1-s

This view tends to think that the difference of A1 and A2 are purely alternative of the type dominance vs recessive.

But Mendel had thought of A 2Aa a where each A and a trait had its own heritage while 2Aa was a hybrid –parent kind that had a heritage from the parent and a hybrid effect. This can modeled in the above as the Cantor set which thus becomes some kind of expression - for the distance –

between the loci on the DNA and the distribution of the genes onto different chromosomes (combininbg some forces as coded through amino acids and the corpuscular substances of the different chromosomes).

There is no heterozygous “effect” but a heterozygous state that may be its own allele or gene historically acquired. The origin of genes comes from how mutations change a heterozygous effect into a heterozygous state.

When

that

happens the A1 and A2 are not purely alternative in any way but have instead the mergeing of their hybrid background with their partental similiarity heritage (pure) and are interchangeable in the species or higher order category but not the population from which the transition occurred (volumes independent of densities?).

It can be said that Mendel’s ‘adult form’ is a generic finite composed of infinitely structured bred heritages (mating system representations expressed). The generic finite is represented by the finite grosspowers ….

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

We are able with evolution to clear up the interpretations of grossone as a generic fininte only or as an infinite divisible by n. It is infinite divisible by n when the lineage is given (sack, truck, warehouse , graneriery) but only a generic finite symbolization of that when the species is not known and only the population is available much as Kant separated Linnean classification per substance and forces that created the classification itself (infinite classified systematic with finite population genetics in one metabiology).

Darwin thought that the missing transitional forms were to be explained by geology while here we see that in there really is no “form” between 1,2,3… and @-3,@-2,@-1,@ . Rather there is only the population as a fininte n or the phylogenetic lineage with infinite @. Sure there are forms inbetween but they must be such that they expressed that. The reason we cannot count down from grossone one to a finite number is the same as trying to extract the meaning of a family to a species in the same way we do a subsepecies to species . If we knew the transitions we might be able to do it but without….

Organized Complexity designed progress with Grossone

Chapter 3 Progress in Evolution

This new mode of genetic synthesis suggests that in fact it is possible to describe and discuss progress in evolution both the progress made conventionally through the use of the new modeling tools as well as progress itself in evolution. Some will surely not agree that this work has helped to progress our understanding of evolution in any way but whether or not evolution can indeed make “progress” in the sense of nonrandom directionality with respect to its stochastic generator variable or permanent existences is empirical. To what extent the substances of evolution determine the forces or the forces the substances remains to be fully taxonomized.

Gould had thought that progress was available in deterministic view of evolutionary change but that it is not found in stochastic representations. Here we see that even there the same “progress” or direction that could be seen in Darwin’s coral of life is possible in real evolution. We will find however that this progess can be achieved via “a mechanism” that Darwin did not consider. Darwin had thought that because the food supplies can only geographically increase summationally while the reproductive potential of any given living thing might potentially increase multiplicatively, the deaths would always overwhelm the births back to the addition possibility no matter how good a multiplier was applied within the changing lineage. He further thought most of this was due to biotic rather than a biotic factors. No one knows how large the hidden b-d terms cellular differentiation doubles are relative to the equilibrium of births and deaths that Darwin thought but it is possible that chaotic changes in the death might unveil a birth trajectory much larger because the b-ds were individually developed but latent so to speak of the full work out in genetic alebgras of grossone applied to to Mendel’s not Fisher’s numbers.

In this way Darwin may in fact have been mistken to suppose that food would limit the biotic effect on potential increase if “food” is passed forcefully (trees have different period doublings than duetersomes vs protstomes because the forces are gravity and chemicals from light not food being chemically decomposed by passing between the mouth and anus) to effective substance through the generations (following Mendel’s “law”)as such.

This is possible and Darwin (nor anyone since as far as I know )never had this thought. It opens up evolutionary adumbrations to sums, multiplicatives, exponentials, tetrations … and who knows what else (only these higher measuring sticks must be within what already evolved not what might evolve andf perhaps be the metabiological continuance of evolution itself). It may be that we observe better fits for tetrations for life on Earth and other Ackerman functions for life we might observe off Earth differentiated into differently inferred if implicated origins for life molecularly described here today.

Darwin had thought of evolution through its constraints - here we think of it through it restraints and the constraints our understanding of the origin of life and code has on it motion.

Regardless of how evolution does it, this is not “a coral” birthing within Darwin’s naming legacy Gould suspected.

This progress will prevent mistaking latter lineages into past lineages - no Wilson eusocial dinosauriod forms for instance,

since we cannot know the k+2n without knowing the entire modeling system.

Wilson in effect “counted” the k,k+n,k+2n… series without specifying what the seed, sack,…granary was.

This can be made clear by considering the anuran voice. It has been induced that sound varations in voice are uninformative beyond the Genus level. On this conclusion it is not possible to put all anuran calls for a family into one sound, play them back against the sounds of another family compounded with the sounds of all of that families genera and tell which family one is listening to. If one could do that then one could use the “granary example” with individuals = seeds, sacks= species, trucks = genera, granaries = families. One needs to specify the higher order classification with forces before one can decide on the series of substances (k, n, elements) that make it up. Each phenotype only presents a given Nk,n not the entire infinity from which it was structured.

This is why we study evolution, to better describe, delineate and draw out the set of (1)/Ns for each thing we can discriminate as different/variable.

Relatively Refined HOMOLOGY with Grossone ….

permits relative importance

Homologous part (H may be gill, inner ear, or lateral line system say)

S1(k)=1+1+1+...+1(k times) = FISH PARTH value1 of K heritages

S2(n)=3+3+3+...+3(n times) = FROGPARTH value3 of N heritages

If k>3n then the fish part> frog part (it may be found to have more energy, be able to interact with existing or specific bio technology better, it may have a larger algorthimic mutation representation etc)

If on the other hand S2(n)/S1(k)>1 then we could say that there has been “progress” in evolution. The tympanum and the gill may be homologs and the frog may have progressed infinitely beyond the fish (all frog ears may have more energy(both potential (ultimate)and kinetic (proximate)) than all fish ears.

Thus when we attach different infinites to formed traits, factors, elements etc we have a new phenetic capability

Let us take a morph number attachment for grossone of diatoms

3+3+3+…. k times

4+4+4+… l times(

5+5+5+….m times

.

.

.

We can then create a model of evoloution by altering the the k, l, and m number and how they selection works on the traits numbered.

3,3,3(2(grossone)) = 6,6,6,(1(grossone) = same fitness

So if you double your mutated value but in the mean time the lesser value forms doubled their total output that mutation is not any “better”

Let’s say it works soley by increasing the number. 3+3+3 forms survive for a long time (k) before a mutation happenes to result in 4 individual that then begins to divide and reproduce l times but it survives more since it is worth more and starts to reproduce , we assume each 4 has the same probability to mutate back to a 3

Now since this form has arisen from an ancestor k is an infinite number and l is the same infinite plus or multiplied expoentitae dot tetrated from before.

We can do metabiology in this space.

Thus we start with 3 phenotypes that reproduce and mutate but most often they never halt and just keep producing 3+ phenotypes contrinuting to the number in k other wise. Thus if k is the same then we use an oracle to discount these mutations even though these continue to reproduce

When it mutates to 4 then this is an algothreimic mutation. \

We want to know how fast 3->4->5_> grows to grosstwo. We know that each population could be made up of infinite number representations (with finite parts equal to those in the finite reproducing) and this power itself might be infinite so there is a lot of space iin which the mutations can grow the populations that mutate forward and backward

If we had the whole computer experiment we could see which mutations we need to pick to get to grosstwo soonest. We could try all possible ones at random (which does not take into account that 3 went to 4 first) or follow the path of algorhimic mutations

Searching all possible organsisms – searches all paths forward and backward to find the ones that survive ( excluding those that might actually have died

ID searches only those that go from 3->4->5 etc

So the organism has a number due to it morph value and past number reproduced before it as well as the past morph values and their projected forward numbers

Every tiem we get the morph value to increase we add ½ k bits to the halting probability

Cancer may be highest grosspower numbers without structure of relation of numerals

Algorthimic mutations might be id’d with stem cell variations and/or where they appear per differentiation paths. An organisms that can distribute stem cells to more locations might create more potential for individual level variation to affect population fitnesses in geological time. Cancer cell doubling time characteristics may also be related to alogrhimic mutations that affect the relation be tween the genetic doubling and surface of all embryongenic doublings. It is possible that cancer is itself an algorhmic mutation dissociated from the relation of the b-d doublings and the sex asymmetry the histogenic compression normally bind ing both and determining if sexual selection or social selection was operative.

Hyperbolic Infinity and its use to model diatom value configurations.

These are Nk,n sets but the algorthimic mutations can be understood as the number of b-d per doublings through the Sergeyev interger monotonic increasing function with the doublings perhaps being infinite with respect to prior lineages.

Using grossone to calculate splitting of morphology over generations.

Metabiology is not a discipline that seeks to model biological evolution using computer programs rather it is the idea the evolution by natural selection is itself a computer program. It is programming without a programmer, in other words programming with the evolver evolving the software. Software is the truth not the model of evolution on this view. It may seem odd to think that evolutionary theory must be so thought. It was not so long ago that Mayr struggled to think about the “genetic revolution” during speciations as being related to computer programs and thus coined the term teleonomic to make the link specific. This linguistic turn however did not mean that evolution was in toto software, only that somatic programming was likely a part of behavioral ecological influences in evolution. Now we are offered different information – namely that evolution runs a programming language and it can be written by humans. Metabiological simulations of evolution are approximations to the way evolutionary theory works and these simulations are surely going to draw on computer programs that attempt to model biological evolution but none of the models are ever going to be the technology that can fully interact with the biological software simply because they are not of the same substance –force relation as the software-hardware of evolution itself. We may some day build these kinds of programming semantics and engineer better syntax but till then Metabiology can only draw on computer programs of modeled evolution for particular input.

Jeffery Shallit review of Chaitin

Shallit suggests that Chaitin made up a rather arbitrary and capricious idea of evolution, that he put in it just what he wanted to get out of it (an oracle and then another oracle rule not to use it all the time) citing that it is possible once one has the oracle one could use that info directly and only use those programs of length N weeding out those that don’t halt. And Shallit suggests that whether man-made design this is… it has nothing to do with actual evolution –

Well think again –

Here we use grossone numbers to scale both the then length and fitness and find that when birth and death are futher added into the model that there are specific biological reasons for this seemingly ad hoc ruling. Sure you could simply use those that don’t halt but with grossone numbers one can have a set of numbers that with forward and backward mutation such that those that don’t halt may later give rise to more fit forms. There may be no halting for grossone (3+3+3,4+4+4) but if the system gets beyond into grosstwo forms(by a statistics of individual kurtosis and skewness of homozygotes into the heterozygote state from the effect) then these might have happened from those that don’t halt simply because enough of them survived that other mutations occur with more time. This is a combination model of Chaitin mentioned so it was not fair to criciticze the original idea for this failure to find the biological relevance. There are plenty and there will continue to be more.

Grossone as a generic finite natural number only works in the artifical classification and/or where

the most physical fundamental catergories apply. It is applicable at the level of investigation where

technobiological interfaces are designed or its use with divisions of macroscopic macrons. There is no' need

to fully relax the original Sergevy approach. The generic finite is used for instance to store the

result of the oltp and olap tinkerpop messages passages as ordered by the infintesimal to infnite in the power

ball. As more uses of the technology occurrs larger generic infinite are used as labels to store the increased

data recieved.

this specific understanding of the generic fininte is clear when we look at the tetrational use in population osof living things that have a genetic back even or odd tetrational increase to various infintesimals. The even and the odd operate differently when the genetic and ecological are combined in one system. The only quesiton is how that can be symbolized through technology or if it falls rather in to the case of grosstwo etc.

There is a limit that the a priori math ability works with these systems which have to have acutal synthetic advances in order to advance the analysis back into further divisions of infintesimals.

The possibility of metabiological algorhitmic mutations can easily be cognized. Every multicelluar embryo under goes a certain quantity of cell doublings. An algothrimic mutation in Chaitin’s sense may be those genetic changes that affect the entire doubling distributed across all the cells undergoing the doubleing and particularly so if these mutations have more fitness than any that could be achieved by the sexual organ development that is asymmetyric to all of the cells otherwise so having doubled.

I just don’t understand why people criticize things from a lack of inution than rather speaking only from a first idea of why the idea might be correct.

Just need to show the bits in the grosspower digits per organism subject to mutation. Algorthimic mutations might be id’d with stem cell variations and/or where they appear per differentiation paths. An organisms that can distribute stem cells to more locations might create more potential for individual level variation to affect population fitnesses in geological time. Cancer cell doubling time characteristics may also be related to alogrhimic mutations that affect the relation be tween the genetic doubling and surface of all embryongenic doublings. It is possible that cancer is itself an algorhmic mutation dissociated from the relation of the b-d doublings and the sex asymmetry the histogenic compression normally bind ing both and determining if sexual selection or social selection was operative.

Homologies exist with common cell doubling relations across lineages. If one part is more progressive than an other then it may be that the algorithmic mutations for that homology in that lineage over duplicates its complement in the other lineage in terms of biotic potential (additions –subtractions). If this goes too far (beyond what the sexualization asymmetric force fields can support) then cancer results whith the cells duplicating regardless of the motion sex would have imposed on the hidden b-d to doublings.

In the diatom example there is not multicelluarlity where this is happening but instead it all happens between the mutation effects of the girdle vs the valve as passed down in different heritages. It may even explain how like in sex linked multiceullarity centric and pinnate morph forms result and occur because of an orthogeneiss which otherwise is histogenically the same as multiceullular b-d doubling.

Divisions give evolution but finite generics of grossone give genetics based on the “size” of the grossone set (different for generic finite and Sergeyev)(parents all have same size but hybrids may not)

We show how this genetic basis works out as commutative linearly compounded algebra with genetic realization in the diatom grossoneMETABIOLOGY morphology case 3+3+3, 4+4+4… a COMMUNTATIVE duplicate. Here we specify a mating system in an infinite population that can be grossone minus some number. Dependson if random mating or how grossone affects relatin of mating system to path analysis.

Progressive grossone metabiological evolution is a hybrid of natural computing and interactive computing with that view that computing is evolutionary in situ. Depending on how we decide force phronomy =substance physics, the information on where new genes come from, we can determine the insicion of where the copy instruction is insertable by us and we can bring some certainity to this rather varied means to compute biologically. We become able to write downward causation as downward computation and show how the levels of biological organization create the levels of natural computation available. Mutiple level selection is stretched to its limit with this notion but it will be the basis of the next trillion money technology as we find the best levels to operate what algorhtims. This will become clear when we remove the telephonic analogy to brain functioning and brain ideas of computation – plants can compute with within individual variations properly interfaced. This is independent of whether the traits are blended or alternative across generations. These subsymbolic versions are very hard to conginze at present with little thought having been given on where human symbolization creativity which is positive ends and kinematic reactive forces obtain dominance no matter the substance living.

Chapter 9- Progress in evolution and the next multi-billion techno-biological precipice. Post Script- Cornell Tech and bioinfinity computation – the case of for a new model – making infinity computer affordances (powerball input means to select grosspower components of different numbers)

Power ball as a grossdigit recorder

Use of the Powerball@ to operate with grossone numerals.

The fact that both zero and infinite torques are passed kinematically as one accelerates

The power ball provides a means to use the dynamics of the hand-power ball interaction

To operate with grossone numerals kinesthetically. This is a new way to do math in which muscles function where our brains have so far. Provided that a fst enough infinity computer is connected to the out put from human manipulate powerballs , programs can be written in which various kinds of mathematical functionalities with infinitesimal and infinite numbers are possible. It can be used with Graph Databases to pass message transactions in the Tinkerpop stack.

One can control the nutation torque

But amounts needed to accelerate the device can be 0 or infinite as one moves through one period of motion.

Different infinitesimal and infinite grossdigits can associated with these values and if

An intime computation is calculated another device could be attached to ones wrist to alter the total torques on the device such that one is able to do grossone computations “by hand”.

This can thus popularize of the grossone numeral system since one is able to manipulate the numbers with the help of software.

Once we have the multiple discrete aggregation versions of Fisher fundamental theorem (applied to new r potentials on hidden b-ds) then we can make this ingress.

References

Andrea Gambarotto Part A, December 2014, Vital forces and organization: Philosophy of nature and biology in Karl Friedrich Kielmeyer, Volume 48, Pages 12–20

G. Gamow , 1954, Possible Relation between Deoxyribonucleic Acid and Protein Structures Nature 173, 318 (13 February 1954) | doi:10.1038/173318a0

Margenstern Maurice and Yaroslav D. Sergeyev 2015 ON EXISTENCE OF INFINITE PRIMES AND

INFINITE TWIN PRIMES http://arxiv.org/pdf/1501.03051.pdf

Michael Ruse, 2003, Darwin and Design, Harvard University Press, Cambridge

Phillip R. Sloan, 2012, How was teleology eliminated in early molecular biology? Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part C: Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences Volume 43, Issue 1, March 2012, Pages 140–151

2013, Synthetic biology and its alternatives. Descartes, Kant and the idea of engineering biological machines Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences 44 (2013) 181–189

Vital forces and organization: Philosophy of nature and biology in Karl Friedrich Kielmeyer

Andrea Gambarotto

Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part C: Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences

Volume 48, Part A, December 2014, Pages 12–20

"The historical literature on German life science at the end of the 18th century has tried to rehabilitate eighteenth century vitalism by stressing its difference from Naturphilosophie. Focusing on the work of Karl Friedrich Kielmeyer this paper argues that these positions are based on a historiographical bias and that the clear-cut boundary between German vitalism and Naturphilosophie is historically unattested. On the contrary, they both belong to the process of conceptual genealogy that contributed to the project of a general biology. The latter emerged as the science concerned with the laws that regulate the organization of living nature as a whole. The focus on organization was, at least partially, the result of the debate surrounding the notion of “vital force”, which originated in the mid-eighteenth century and caused a shift from a regulative to a constitutive understanding of teleology."

How was teleology eliminated in early molecular biology?

Phillip R. Sloan

Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part C: Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences

Volume 43, Issue 1, March 2012, Pages 140–151

This paper approaches the issue of the status of teleological reasoning in contemporary biology through a historical examination of events of the 1930s that surrounded Niels Bohr’s efforts to introduce ‘complementarity’ into biological discussions. The paper examines responses of three theoretical physicists who engaged boundary questions between the biological and physical sciences in this period in response to Bohr—Ernst Pascual Jordan (1902–80), Erwin Schrödinger (1887–1961), and Max Delbrück (1906–81). It is claimed that none of these physicists sufficiently understood Bohr’s ‘critical’ teleological arguments, which are traced to the lineage of Kant and Harald Høffding and their respective resolutions of the Antinomy of Teleological Judgment. The positions of these four historical actors are discussed in terms of Ernst Mayr’s distinction of ‘teleological,’ ‘teleomatic,’ and ‘teleonomic’ explanations. A return to some of the views articulated by Bohr, and behind him, to Høffding and Kant, is claimed to provide a framework for reintroducing a ‘critical’ teleology into biological discussions.

Synthetic biology and its alternatives. Descartes, Kant and the idea of

engineering biological machines

Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences 44 (2013) 181–189

The engineering-based approach of synthetic biology is characterized by an assumption that ‘engineering by design’ enables the construction of ‘living machines’. These ‘machines’, as biological machines, are expected to display certain properties of life, such as adapting to changing environments and acting in a situated way. This paper proposes that a tension exists between the expectations placed on biological artefacts and the notion of producing such systems by means of engineering; this tension makes it seem implausible that biological systems, especially those with properties characteristic of living beings, can in fact be produced using the specific methods of engineering. We do not claim that engineering techniques have nothing to contribute to the biotechnological construction of biological artefacts. However, drawing on Descartes’s and Kant’s thinking on the relationship between the organism and the machine, we show that it is considerably more plausible to assume that distinctively biological artefacts emerge within a paradigm different from the paradigm of the Cartesian machine that underlies the engineering approach. We close by calling for increased attention to be paid to approaches within molecular biology and chemistry that rest on conceptions different from those of synthetic biology’s engineering paradigm

Letters to Nature

Nature 173, 318 (13 February 1954) | doi:10.1038/173318a0

G. GAMOW

Possible Relation between Deoxyribonucleic Acid and Protein Structures

G. GAMOW

George Washington University, Washington, D.C. Oct. 22.

"IN a communication in Nature of May 30, p. 964, J. D. Watson and F. H. C. Crick showed that the molecule of deoxyribonucleic acid, which can be considered as a chromosome fibre, consists of two parallel chains formed by only four different kinds of nucleotides. These are either (1) adenine, or (2) thymine, or (3) guanine, or (4) cytosine with sugar and phosphate molecules attached to them. Thus the hereditary properties of any given organism could be characterized by a long number written in a four-digital system. On the other hand, the enzymes (proteins), the composition of which must be completely determined by the deoxyribonucleic acid molecule, are long peptide chains formed by about twenty different kinds of amino-acids, and can be considered as long 'words' based on a 20-letter alphabet. Thus the question arises about the way in which four-digital numbers can be translated into such 'words'."

Re-evolution of gender in the body of Woodgerian cytoplasmic theory

Now Roughgarden would like us to think about what is so good about homosexual and transgender traits that they not only evolved but would reevolve if they were eliminated. To many this just seems like cultural relativistic nonsense but given the developments I described so far this is very far from the truth.

If it is indeed true that large gamete and small gamete are due to catalytic networks that proceed to infinity in opposite directions , one of catabolism and the other of anabolism then the reversed hermaphroditic development of different species of fish – some from male to female and others from female to male implicate that outside the catabolism and anabolism on the basin boundaries of involved macrons the Woodgerian taxonomic to zygotic genetic information squared by impossibility embryogenic irreversibility ( something with entropy and energy) between taxonomy and the zygotic genetic information structure that there exists another structure materially in which the genders that arise along with transgendering. Further more if we supposed, as I have done so far, dominance is associated with chemical absence in a elemental chemistry of enzyme moved cycles of reactions away from these absences then there must exist electrical/chemical/physical macron realities external to the gendered material architecture within that spans the developemental duration of transgender expression histogenically. This externalized macronic nonindependence of embryogenic irreversible differentiation should find molecular bases most easily in the study of plant inflorence locations relative to Fibonacci growth sprials. Different plant genders might be described as different sets of Fibonacci numbers resulting in different numbers of inflorecnces per inertial lines to sun vs earth. This exogenous macronic reciprocity ( which must exist logically since embyrogeny never actually can go in reverse for all physical processes that in contains) mirrors and articulates ( since it is based on motions to chemical presence) another physiologically genetic macron set from the larger morphogenic whole in which sexualization ( like Rene Thom diagramed in 1972) exists. And additionally because I have supposed that these chemical reaction networks evolved homotypically because of differences in subindividual variation then we can explain the Fodorian coextension of these inside and outsides we can finally say what Bateson meant by discontinuous variation and show how segmentation in worms, hermaphortism in fish and pollen and stigma per plant parts related to leave subindividuallity are unions of correspondences of catabolic and anabolic knots. We might even suggest that homosexuality and transgenderism can return in a lineage when these knots get too tight that coextensive traits associated can not separate as the biophysical nature of the macrons of electrical/chemical/physical format breach catastrophically the subindividuation that underlay the genders themselves. With this we are in a position to explore who the cooperative notions of Novak can be related to Roughardens theoretical proposal. The resolution of this capacity might be described when the genetic information gets doubled cellularly in development which it does so by a certain kind of cell division which gets around the entire union of macrons capable of forming the genders.

With plants because evergreens are in line from within the branch , evergreen genders based on fib number pairs as to the relation to the body do not depend horizontal chemical transfer between sprials. Insofar as horizontal cross phloem/zylem chemical exchange in histogeny changes morphology of pine cones may affect externalized traits to the spiral relations.

In decididous trees, in which the cell layers at the apex does influence the line to earth-sun, and thus in which the cross chemical exchange will/may be directly involved and one can make a taxonomy that involves topological inversions of form that are not present in evergreens.

Leaf subindividuality which is more common in deciditous trees rather than evergreens may be related to genders there while in evergreens the genders only coming from a more external place have relation on the the number of needles grouped along the branches.

Do evergreen trees have different correlations of needle groups to fibinoic spirals in male and female cones.

Political Evolution: Towards Radical Enskillment through Agro-Ecosystemic Transformation

(Only repulsions have reflexions (gives an achirality property to amino acids) (reflection through the line in the first base and glide reflection (reflection- translation) in the third of each triple’s base. The attraction loci imagined by Fisher are strictly in the second position. This achirality of amino acids and its accompanying non-orientable nature means that development due to orientation and some kinds of chirality can utilize proteins constructively without affecting form-making (morphological shape) in the process itself.)

So we will be able to ask if there is not some kind of thing as a limited progress in evolution in way that organisms are indeed moving more and more outside of the solar system and if they really do have the force structure for future dispersion beyond our Sun as it begins to die. It may be that we answer this most forcefully if and when we find other life and figure out how to make our life grow and reproduce more with it rather than without it. It is time for evolutionary theory to move on just as it is time for creationism to give up its spontaneous reactivity to the notion. Seed that falls on good ground grows and yields it’s fruit.

So now that we have the manifestation that perhaps morphologies of plants and animals might indeed be weddable to adaptive teleology or at least organized complexity it is perhaps time to think if indeed we can also go beyond Darwin and investigate the truth of heredity a bit and determine a little more closely how the variations that fit in the inertial physical order. What we need is a technology that will force its own changes (via extant functionality) not a changing technology driven by different business plans. The new metabiologically inspired techno-biology can plan for such a futuristic purpose by intending to create living affordances functionally coupled periodically to biotic generational reproducibilities and actual reproductions. It also resolves the Biometrican/Mendelian debate within a topology undiagramed. And thus with the adequacy of this technology and the general homological inertial morphological form-makings we supply what was missing from Thom’s added model hypothesis that lacked in its application to celestial mechanics only i.e. – when Solar life is considered we have a clearly stable possibility that offers us even more positive insights as humanity struggles to get a handle on its own growing population. And finally one furcation at a time the philosophy of biology provides a clearly genetical friability to that speration imagined by Ralph Abraham which happens as information overwhelms the commiunication channel between physicists and mathematicians. It has been so overwhelming that the entire new potentially mult-billion/trillion $ tehcnometabiology has been completely uncognized till about now.

This marriage of morphology and physics has an exciting consequence especially for the plants where it is not the direction of forces per say but is in the dual difference of the seat of action. The Fibonacci spiral might not be the only thing explained on this view. It is possible to construct a specific statistical stoichiology in which the multiplicity of repeated structures in the same individual plant might be explained by and through the difference in the shapes of the directions of gravity fall to and from the Earth and Sun combined. This is the oscillation between the plant generations and the shape of the gravitational field as a macron.

Plants posses similarly repeated structures in which the distributions of the variations in the forms might also vary. This makes describing a comprehensive statistical system to measure variance regardless of trait difficult. Perhaps this repetition might be phenomenologically similar to the serial variation in vertebrates and cline perhaps as does say the vertebrae and thus present a homology with a very odd distribution of variability? With the idea that plants might be under selective pressure both to fall to the Sun (via the Earth) and to fall to the Earth itself (without respect to the concurrent position of the Sun) suggests that a Wrightian path analysis of nature and nuture might be created wherein the environmental influence is divided into {Sun,Earth,Other} and then combined with macron of oscillation between the homozygotic types (recessive and dominance) under normal population genetic kinetics (also divided into Sun and Earth factorizations).

Abraham introduced the idea of coupled macron ossilation which might be denoted in the standard cross-generational populational genetic change in homozygotic classes. This bioplasma macron could then be heritably connected to different combinations of amounts of past falls and adapted future fallings to the difference of the paths that fall to the Sun and the Earth. The structure of the gravitational field between the Sun and Earth might itself explain some of the non-normality in trait variation distributions of repeated structures. This suggests that specific repetition forms could be thought directly as homologies even though they contribute different outcomes towards gene fixation potentials. This would add the appearance of design to plant anatomical investigation but would be merely an appearance caused by a lack of appreciation that despite the difference in direction (to the Sun versus to the Earth as correlated with structural difference) both directions are selectively equivalent when the entire population genetic population is synthesized to (HW)equilibrium. Thus what is visually and morphological plural is singularly the same given the specific inerntial system back of the variable genes that format the traits evolved in the fall. Here we provide a new theory for individual variation in plant morphology and extend the description Herrera began. And it is with this new statistical tool that one might begin to think of dissecting the genetical force-factors WITHIN the genes themselves that yield often larger within individual than between individual variations. We are lead from the outside to a new insight into the heterozygote or more specially as Mendel imagined a dual parental and hybrid trait highlight that names the division between two different forced directions – in this case to the Sun or to the Earth! Thus Pearson and Bateson are not really conceptually all that far apart and there is indeed such a thing as a true biotic adaptation.

This new statistical instruction shows how the relation of mean to variance can yield different measures depending on both standard fixation differences between heterozygotes to homozygotes which macron wise track different morphogenetic trajectories with different cycle repetitions between the Sun and the Earth. This quad coupled ossilation macron is seperable by probabilistic graph models using path analysis but also has some smooth manifold shape constraints that inform separation of the visually inspectable differences in the mean to variance relations and thus relates somewhat to Pearson’s ideas. Thus a new macron statistics replaces the descriptive statiscs of Herrea with an inferential methodology that has mendel developmental binomial algebra of macron classes in the path of the causation back of the forms evolved. More variation occurs within the individual than between them when the traits developed posses characteristics that adapt falls simultaneously to both the Earth and the Sun in the same form-making than if the physiological genetics were to specify the traits’ functionality independently BETWEEN the Sun and the Earth. The genetic code with its decomposability as weight lifiting machine apportioned to repulsive and attractive force directums enables this selective bifurcatability when molecular adaptations support coherent multicellular gene interaction systems and histogeny.

So in the case of “Geometric morphometrics of corolla shape: dissecting components of symmetric and asymmetric variation in Erysimum mediohispanicum (Brassicaceae)” the algebraic groups are related to the macron classes with a consequent reduction in the number of variables needed to explain the difference between asymmetry and symmetry. Specifically the division between symmetry and asymmetry masks differences in the between earth-sun classifications and instead an different macron statistical mechanics relates certain amounts of constant symmetry to different components of adaxial and abaxial asymmetry which revealed (will reveal if true) that symmetry itself is an important part of heritability but was not apperceptible because the correct apportioning of different amount s of ad-ab axial symmetry to different amounts of axial symmetry were not divided out before hand. Nearness to the axis or farness from it might be either to the Earth or to the Sun depending on the place next in sequence from the fibonnacci spiral reflecting divioning in the directions. Here we introduce Croizat’s use of cell cut ratios (1/2. 2/3, 3/5, 5/8) etc to apportion symmetry to asymmetry distributed across all symmetry groups and thus apply Conway’s 3-D orbifold generalizations relative to a specific prior fibonnaci sequence matching to the shape of the homozyogotic coupled macron oscillator with the number of falls in the past births and deaths either to the Sun or the Earth (falls to the Earth without the sun = death in zygote, falls to the sun via the earth without the earth =death in gamete).

This provides a new division for HW equilibria wherein otherwise a death to the zygote is the same equilibrium wise as a death of the gamete given sufficient population. Bateson had called attention to this possibility but no one has been able to construct a specific kinematic stoichiology in which the difference could be manifest and appecieved a posteriori. We have thus bimodal HW equilibrium to divercated attractor which without the specifics returns in on itself and thus had gone unnoticed and unregarded as Mendelian genetics replaced Lysenkoist thought on the relation of the plant’s environment to the difference in its hybrid past and parental future. This is also reversible logically.

The increased within individual (to between individual) variation arises when the traits involved are developmentally associated with transitions to larger and larger total embryological cell doublings as each complete genomic diffentiable doubling results in an exponential increase potential (2 for the 2 classes homozygotes with 2 for the 2 fundamental forces with 2 for the Sun or Earth directionality) divided between the same set of not dying gametes to zygote populations. This generates the serial blinking fractal appearce of multiply repeated structuring in plants when the galtonian trait is tranmissed.

The CV approach where the mean and variance must be related by a straight line continues only this straight line is not actual that but rather is the macron osccilaiton of the parental heterozygote developed both to the sun and earth. This may explain why there is not a clear linear relationship in the mean and variance for those subindiviudal traits studied. Furthermore this perarsonian mersitmatic idea generalized to animal embyogeny also enables one to find that clonal variance is heritable in certain forced situations where the physics provides two locations for the same selection (say electromagnetic electrolysis locations of both the positive and negative kind but while there is no material difference in the chemical effect at the location of the oxidiazed and reduced locales) (this substitutes for the difference of the Earth and the Sun). Ostracod galvanism could show this empirically (if true).

There is this theoretical distinction between and among the single individual and its component population that Bateson was unaware of. The homotyposis controversy does directly involve Mendelian heredity in so far as Mendel’s dual heterozygote has physiological genetic reality that correlates meiosis and mitosis. To argue emotionally has Provine has done and did on this topic is just a continuing case of the same personality issues that slowed the theoretical population genetics in the first place.

Provine wrote on page 60 that Bateson could have "devastated" Pearson's theory because he felt that Mendel's experimental conclusion of differntiation in/of the germ cells meant that Pearson's a priori assumption of sperm cells and ova being undifferentiated was false factually. But in truth Pearson only needs the sperm cells and ova to be undifferntiated as the meristem or a clonal lineage is and this is simply in respect to the total genomic doubling potentiality whether acquired by embyrogenesis or monophyly. Mendel had held that what we call the heterozygote was dual being both parental and hybrid and Pearson only needs that the undifferentiation is simply a heterozygote without determination with respect to the parental or the hybrid which is to say without clear classification into recessive and dominant traits. Provine wrote, "The offspring of the hybrids were differentiated because the germ cells were differentiated. One germ cell was different from another because it had different combinations of differentiating elements" Again, Pearson ony needs relative differentiation with respect to the same HW equilibrium whether derived from gametes or zygotes but if there is some differentiation in the sperm or ova caused by different equilibria attained when the gametes are used in the calculation or if the zygotes are used then Bateson would not have been able to marshall the Mendelian discontinuity against the seperable meristematic and germ cell locations homogentity (continutiy) required for Pearson's idea to go forward. Whether this latter possibility is true or not determines if Mendel's view of the developmental binomial is real and his conclusion cited by Provine in this context that"we must further assume that it is only possible for the differentiating elements to liberate themselves from the enforced union when the fertilizing cells are developed" is really the case. Differentiation or undifferntiated states do not seem to be things that can have liberation between them but if there is some causal path such one can imagine very different kinds of "enforced unions" times but regardless this union must be MORE forceful whenever the entire genome is duplicated whether by speciation or during histogeny. Liberation would thus become more difficult concommitantly during phylogeny but also if the embyrogeny involves increasing number total genomic duplications (cell divisions). The fact that HW equilibria can be calculated equally for zygotes and gametes suggests that this kinetics can be measured if livning things do actually show differences in death of zygotes vs gametes for the same paths of total relative genomic content. This means that Provine was incorrect to reason that "the differentiation that occurred in the development of a single plant was not diffentiation in the germ plasm. That occurred only in the production of germ cells. " The zygote could have two different parental contributions (sun or earth) which EITHER are hybrid or pure. That was Mendel's rather odd idea but Provine thinking of a genetic factor as implying a single locus and being material rather than an entire gene with introns and exons implicated the indivisibility of matter rather than the possiblity of different forces in different places caused by different matters (or even "vibrations" as Bateson had it). None of this was available to the logic of the debate prior to DNA being found to be its carrier and coder. Mendel's theory is not absolutely contradictory to Pearsons!! Variation in a single plant may or may not be different than variation in the offspring of the plant. These variations are clearly not necessarily "fundamentallY different"(Provine The Origins of Theoretical Population Genetics page 61)

It is possible to pursue Pearson’s homotyposis correlation biometric investigation where the growth period depends only on whether it is caused by selection to fall to the Sun or to the Earth. If plants can be found to have subindividual variations that largely only depend on this difference than it will be possible to identify the total genomic cell doubling properties (whether a cell divided is two new ones or one old one and one new one) that lay behind the differentiations and thus then pursue to the question as to whether this is effected by differential survival of the gametes or zygotes or both.

Like Undifferentiated Organ(isms) and their algorthimic mutations

Chaitin introduced the unlikely concept of an algorthimic mutation which seemed destined to go the past way of Pearson’s homotyposis due to a lack of empirical data in support of the concept but rather nicely it appears that both complement each other to an extent in which both can become recognized as formally realistic when not fully explanatory of many objects of thought and reflection when not study and experiment.

Particulate inheritance can be understood in multiple physical forms than that suggested by Fisher ‘s fundamental theorem but then the forces relative to sex need to have already been demonstrable and demonstrated and Pearson’s homotyposis empiricized. This is showable theoretically by using the within individual variation of plants that have mean, variances, skewneww and kurtosis with grossone (1,2,3,….@-3,@-2,@-1@). Where the infinite represents a change in homotyposis and the infinitesimal that state undifferentiated. A mathematical organism with no problem put to it.

And can be simulated in silicio by considering the genomic cell doubling condition of homologous organism to be directly related to the number as counted by grossone, two three on the external facie of the diatom otherwise one need investigate the celldoublings themselves physiologically so as to present an equivalent to the busy beaver problem simulated.

Each gamete can transimit ALL THE CHARACTERS of the hidden b-d but not all of those related to sex alterations’ effect on the embryology of the b-d. This was not c lear in Bateson’s time and resulted in a failure to followup his idea of duals which is possible in the divergence of the quaternion space of the forces vectorized and is visible in the embryogeny of dutersomes vs protostomes.

So Bateson wrote, “The character of Aa is not regarded as a heritage transmitted to it by A and by a, but as a character special and peculiar to Aa, just as NaCl is not a body half way between sodium and chlorine or such that its properties can be predicted from or easily stated in terms of theirs.”

We now understand this differently and recognize that organcist imperatives of emergence are unnecessary organ wise when not individual wise. We now using grossone can separate Aa as NaCl as if 2Aa from Aa as being originating from AA&aa .

Traditional population genetics works from an h /s system:
Genotype: A1A1 A2A1 A2A2

Relative Fitness: 1 1-hs 1-s

This view tends to think that the difference of A1 and A2 are purely alternative of the type dominance vs recessive.

But Mendel had thought of A 2Aa a where each A and a trait had its own heritage while 2Aa was a hybrid –parent kind that had a heritage from the parent and a hybrid effect. This can modeled in the above as the Cantor set which thus becomes some kind of expression - for the distance –

between the loci on the DNA and the distribution of the genes onto different chromosomes (combininbg some forces as coded through amino acids and the corpuscular substances of the different chromosomes).

There is no heterozygous “effect” but a heterozygous state that may be its own allele or gene historically acquired. The origin of genes comes from how mutations change a heterozygous effect into a heterozygous state.

When

that

happens the A1 and A2 are not purely alternative in any way but have instead the mergeing of their hybrid background with their partental similiarity heritage (pure) and are interchangeable in the species or higher order category but not the population from which the transition occurred (volumes independent of densities?).

It can be said that Mendel’s ‘adult form’ is a generic finite composed of infinitely structured bred heritages (mating system representations expressed). The generic finite is represented by the finite grosspowers ….

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

We are able with evolution to clear up the interpretations of grossone as a generic fininte only or as an infinite divisible by n. It is infinite divisible by n when the lineage is given (sack, truck, warehouse , graneriery) but only a generic finite symbolization of that when the species is not known and only the population is available much as Kant separated Linnean classification per substance and forces that created the classification itself (infinite classified systematic with finite population genetics in one metabiology).

Darwin thought that the missing transitional forms were to be explained by geology while here we see that in there really is no “form” between 1,2,3… and @-3,@-2,@-1,@ . Rather there is only the population as a fininte n or the phylogenetic lineage with infinite @. Sure there are forms inbetween but they must be such that they expressed that. The reason we cannot count down from grossone one to a finite number is the same as trying to extract the meaning of a family to a species in the same way we do a subsepecies to species . If we knew the transitions we might be able to do it but without….

Algorthimic mutations might be id’d with stem cell variations and/or where they appear per differentiation paths. An organisms that can distribute stem cells to more locations might create more potential for individual level variation to affect population fitnesses in geological time. Cancer cell doubling time characteristics may also be related to alogrhimic mutations that affect the relation be tween the genetic doubling and surface of all embryongenic doublings. It is possible that cancer is itself an algorhmic mutation dissociated from the relation of the b-d doublings and the sex asymmetry the histogenic compression normally bind ing both and determining if sexual selection or social selection was operative.

Thus when we attach different infinites to formed traits, factors, elements etc we have a new phenetic capability

Let us take a morph number attachment for grossone of diatoms

3+3+3+…. k times

4+4+4+… l times(

5+5+5+….m times

.

.

.

We can then create a model of evoloution by altering the the k, l, and m number and how they selection works on the traits numbered.

3,3,3(2(grossone)) = 6,6,6,(1(grossone) = same fitness

So if you double your mutated value but in the mean time the lesser value forms doubled their total output that mutation is not any “better”

Let’s say it works soley by increasing the number. 3+3+3 forms survive for a long time (k) before a mutation happenes to result in 4 individual that then begins to divide and reproduce l times but it survives more since it is worth more and starts to reproduce , we assume each 4 has the same probability to mutate back to a 3

Now since this form has arisen from an ancestor k is an infinite number and l is the same infinite plus or multiplied expoentitae dot tetrated from before.

We can do metabiology in this space.

Thus we start with 3 phenotypes that reproduce and mutate but most often they never halt and just keep producing 3+ phenotypes contrinuting to the number in k other wise. Thus if k is the same then we use an oracle to discount these mutations even though these continue to reproduce

When it mutates to 4 then this is an algothreimic mutation. \

We want to know how fast 3->4->5_> grows to grosstwo. We know that each population could be made up of infinite number representations (with finite parts equal to those in the finite reproducing) and this power itself might be infinite so there is a lot of space iin which the mutations can grow the populations that mutate forward and backward

If we had the whole computer experiment we could see which mutations we need to pick to get to grosstwo soonest. We could try all possible ones at random (which does not take into account that 3 went to 4 first) or follow the path of algorhimic mutations

Searching all possible organsisms – searches all paths forward and backward to find the ones that survive ( excluding those that might actually have died

ID searches only those that go from 3->4->5 etc

So the organism has a number due to it morph value and past number reproduced before it as well as the past morph values and their projected forward numbers

Every tiem we get the morph value to increase we add ½ k bits to the halting probability

Cancer may be highest grosspower numbers without structure of relation of numerals

Hyperbolic Infinity and its use to model diatom value configurations.

These are Nk,n sets but the algorthimic mutations can be understood as the number of b-d per doublings through the Sergeyev interger monotonic increasing function with the doublings perhaps being infinite with respect to prior lineages.

Using grossone to calculate splitting of morphology over generations.

Metabiology is not a discipline that seeks to model biological evolution using computer programs rather it is the idea the evolution by natural selection is itself a computer program. It is programming without a programmer, in other words programming with the evolver evolving the software. Software is the truth not the model of evolution on this view. It may seem odd to think that evolutionary theory must be so thought. It was not so long ago that Mayr struggled to think about the “genetic revolution” during speciations as being related to computer programs and thus coined the term teleonomic to make the link specific. This linguistic turn however did not mean that evolution was in toto software, only that somatic programming was likely a part of behavioral ecological influences in evolution. Now we are offered different information – namely that evolution runs a programming language and it can be written by humans. Metabiological simulations of evolution are approximations to the way evolutionary theory works and these simulations are surely going to draw on computer programs that attempt to model biological evolution but none of the models are ever going to be the technology that can fully interact with the biological software simply because they are not of the same substance –force relation as the software-hardware of evolution itself. We may some day build these kinds of programming semantics and engineer better syntax but till then Metabiology can only draw on computer programs of modeled evolution for particular input.

Jeffery Shallit review of Chaitin

Shallit suggests that Chaitin made up a rather arbitrary and capricious idea of evolution, that he put in it just what he wanted to get out of it (an oracle and then another oracle rule not to use it all the time) citing that it is possible once one has the oracle one could use that info directly and only use those programs of length N weeding out those that don’t halt. And Shallit suggests that whether man-made design this is… it has nothing to do with actual evolution –

Well think again –

Here we use grossone numbers to scale both the then length and fitness and find that when birth and death are futher added into the model that there are specific biological reasons for this seemingly ad hoc ruling. Sure you could simply use those that don’t halt but with grossone numbers one can have a set of numbers that with forward and backward mutation such that those that don’t halt may later give rise to more fit forms. There may be no halting for grossone (3+3+3,4+4+4) but if the system gets beyond into grosstwo forms(by a statistics of individual kurtosis and skewness of homozygotes into the heterozygote state from the effect) then these might have happened from those that don’t halt simply because enough of them survived that other mutations occur with more time. This is a combination model of Chaitin mentioned so it was not fair to criciticze the original idea for this failure to find the biological relevance. There are plenty and there will continue to be more.

Grossone as a generic finite natural number only works in the artifical classification and/or where

the most physical fundamental catergories apply. It is applicable at the level of investigation where

technobiological interfaces are designed or its use with divisions of macroscopic macrons. There is no' need

to fully relax the original Sergevy approach. The generic finite is used for instance to store the

result of the oltp and olap tinkerpop messages passages as ordered by the infintesimal to infnite in the power

ball. As more uses of the technology occurrs larger generic infinite are used as labels to store the increased

data recieved.

this specific understanding of the generic fininte is clear when we look at the tetrational use in population osof living things that have a genetic back even or odd tetrational increase to various infintesimals. The even and the odd operate differently when the genetic and ecological are combined in one system. The only quesiton is how that can be symbolized through technology or if it falls rather in to the case of grosstwo etc.

There is a limit that the a priori math ability works with these systems which have to have acutal synthetic advances in order to advance the analysis back into further divisions of infintesimals.

The possibility of metabiological algorhitmic mutations can easily be cognized. Every multicelluar embryo under goes a certain quantity of cell doublings. An algothrimic mutation in Chaitin’s sense may be those genetic changes that affect the entire doubling distributed across all the cells undergoing the doubleing and particularly so if these mutations have more fitness than any that could be achieved by the sexual organ development that is asymmetyric to all of the cells otherwise so having doubled.

I just don’t understand why people criticize things from a lack of inution than rather speaking only from a first idea of why the idea might be correct.

Just need to show the bits in the grosspower digits per organism subject to mutation. Algorthimic mutations might be id’d with stem cell variations and/or where they appear per differentiation paths. An organisms that can distribute stem cells to more locations might create more potential for individual level variation to affect population fitnesses in geological time. Cancer cell doubling time characteristics may also be related to alogrhimic mutations that affect the relation be tween the genetic doubling and surface of all embryongenic doublings. It is possible that cancer is itself an algorhmic mutation dissociated from the relation of the b-d doublings and the sex asymmetry the histogenic compression normally bind ing both and determining if sexual selection or social selection was operative.

Homologies exist with common cell doubling relations across lineages. If one part is more progressive than an other then it may be that the algorithmic mutations for that homology in that lineage over duplicates its complement in the other lineage in terms of biotic potential (additions –subtractions). If this goes too far (beyond what the sexualization asymmetric force fields can support) then cancer results whith the cells duplicating regardless of the motion sex would have imposed on the hidden b-d to doublings.

In the diatom example there is not multicelluarlity where this is happening but instead it all happens between the mutation effects of the girdle vs the valve as passed down in different heritages. It may even explain how like in sex linked multiceullarity centric and pinnate morph forms result and occur because of an orthogeneiss which otherwise is histogenically the same as multiceullular b-d doubling.

Divisions give evolution but finite generics of grossone give genetics based on the “size” of the grossone set (different for generic finite and Sergeyev)(parents all have same size but hybrids may

Progressive grossone metabiological evolution is a hybrid of natural computing and interactive computing with that view that computing is evolutionary in situ. Depending on how we decide force phronomy =substance physics, the information on where new genes come from, we can determine the insicion of where the copy instruction is insertable by us and we can bring some certainity to this rather varied means to compute biologically. We become able to write downward causation as downward computation and show how the levels of biological organization create the levels of natural computation available. Mutiple level selection is stretched to its limit with this notion but it will be the basis of the next trillion money technology as we find the best levels to operate what algorhtims. This will become clear when we remove the telephonic analogy to brain functioning and brain ideas of computation – plants can compute with within individual variations properly interfaced. This is independent of whether the traits are blended or alternative across generations. These subsymbolic versions are very hard to conginze at present with little thought having been given on where human symbolization creativity which is positive ends and kinematic reactive forces obtain dominance no matter the substance living.

So now we see that we can extend the biometric mendelian debate and show when and where variation and differentitation agree and or differ. Differentiation is not different than variation when whole genome doublings are concerned provided the forces increased do not alter the code’s effect and to answer this final aspect we need the idea that code itself is built of both attractive and repulsive parts. In this way we can fully ameliorate the words of Bateson and quantification of Pearson in the evolutionary theory of the 21st century and begin to explore how levels of selection are related to direct vs indirect levels of selection in levels of organization, differentatied by whole genome doubles. With this decomposition into attractive and repulsive forces under gene expressivity we can understand why Bateson stressed symmetry such that Pearson could not relate to similar and simulataneous variation. Repulsions add similar variation which are simultaneous at the level of the amino acid. Bateson’s rhythmical vibrations are simply the bioplamsa coupled macrons arising from the specific forces influencing themovement of the amino acids and their chemical associates as they affect the generalized symmtetry of entire transcription and translation process. Morphogenic macrons provide names for different distributions of deviations that associate with change in type of the mean from one species to another. Pearson did not have a way to do this but with groosone sacks etc we can and then see what kind of limite progression regression possess. Homotyposis does bear on this subject of discontinuous evolution of mendelian traits only it occurs from a very symmetrical situation and particular force environments. We are able now to understand what appear as heterogenous distributions (subindividla variation greater than cross individual) as oddly organized homogenous distributions with peculiar genetics. Thus the different groups of chance causes (such as sun or earth or anode or cathode) in the repulsion and attraction are related to the differentiant variation via the heterozygote to the homozygotes in the sphere of attraction repulsion on the genomic doubling constraint. What we have in this theory is that things can be NOT correlated because of selection and that this confounded the discontinuous of Mendelism from the devitations necessary continuously for the biometrician which failed to be able to find the cause. We no longer have the theorm of Pearson for the effect of selection on a group of organs in which the selection on one results in all the others as if of one size. Andthisaccounts for the subindividual variation being possibly larger than the between individual variations. Selection is dependent on the total geonomic doubling embyrogeny and differentiation and thus can sometimes lead to type changes. Direct selection always occurs at the level of the repulsion and attraction but indirect occurs at higher levels of organization serving to contain those forces. Direct selection manifests itself on these macro levels particularly when the traits depend on specific cell doubling sizes in which the particular repulsions and attractionsoperate. Why no one has used Pearson’s direct and indirect selection or in this case indirect selection from direct selection in nature is anyone’s guess – I guess because no one thought the biometric –mendel debate could be solved if just get rid of intelligent design!! Constancy of correlation for local races can be matter of the physics of the encoded proteins when selection can not discover the difference due to the physical nature of the code itself no matter how duplicated. And in this sense the marverick theme of evolution by math and physics is an important part of the 21st century evolutionary biology. This happens when distances of gravity match distances of electormagnetism and in special cases where the RNA middle forces match those ofDNA vs Proteins.

Organized Kinematics: The Legacy of DNA

[Image above: One example of how hydrophobic interactions can be found is in how DNA base pairs on the two strands are drawn together to form a double helix. The basic structure of a DNA molecule is a hydrophilic backbone and a hydrophobic inner region of nitrogenous bases (adenine, guanine, thymine, and cytosine). These molecular hydrophobic forces repel the water between them which drives the bases towards each other.]( http://engineering.ucsb.edu/news/520)

As early as the mid eighteenth century, living creatures were generally referred to as ‘organized beings’ or ‘organized bodies’. However, ‘organization’ still implied no more than an unusually complex arrangement of parts of the visible structure: the existence of a hidden structure had to be postulated only in the context of the Newtonian physical universe. In the Newtonian mechanics of matter, secret combinations of particles underlay visible combinations of surfaces and volumes. The intrinsic qualities of bodies and the properties of substances were determined, not simply by the nature of the atoms that composed them, but also by the relations of attractions or affinity between these atoms. The attributes of living organisms were, therefore, necessarily determined by the nature and interrelationships of their constituent particles. For organized beings, just as for inanimate objects, the visible structure rested on an arrangement of particles, united through the action of a force comparable to gravitational attraction, which gave coherence to the whole.” F. Jacob p. 75 The Logic of Life

There has been a steady increase in our knowledge of these hidden relations, especially since the discovery of DNA as the bearer of heritability, but no organon or instrumental means to systematically acquire this increased understanding exists. We are pretty much relegated to describing the particles and the possible chemical activity imagined in force-filled milieus. There has been no change from simply comparing this action to gravity, no coherent organon of organ organization in evolution is on the genetic horizon. It is still hidden, if it even exists.

Well yes we can do that as well if we use a particular mathematical model with quaternions for the transition in inner ear shape in fish and propose a particular spatial separation mechanics (the moon caused tides) for the vertebrate sisters -the lacelets et al - as they evolved a lateral line system and then their linked descendents --- hard vertebrae.

1) Inertial Systematic (plants)

2) Animals too!

3) Morphogenesis and Stability (relatively unlimited resources (for biotic potentials))

4) Parts (replicatory –vehichle philosophies) (cell doublings is a new definition of vehicle relative to ANY defined replicator and is independent of the idea of the
individual)

5) The Argument Organized Kinematics

6) Natural Selective Value Added Morality/Ethics

7) Consequences (grass move more to Earth (max photosynthesis?, bee waggle dance (remove Earth from Sun direction, different genetic codes, other perhaps life)

3) Unlimited Resource = Stability Morphogenesis and Stability (relatively unlimited resources (for biotic potentials))

Moon tides are essentially stable for motion with the Ocean

Here we break from Darwin a bit and do consider geographic homology as coming from the causes (bifurcation between attractions and repulsions as vicariant attracots adaptied.

Sun’s energy for plants = relatively unlimited

Oceans’s motions for animals = relatively unlimited\

Vicariant speciation = actually unlimited

4)Parts

5)The Argument

To design (by way of complexity)

“a critical distinction between the argument to adaptive complexity and the argument to design. “Adaptive complexity,” or simply “complexity” (with “adaptive” assumed)” Paul Nelson noticed this and it is in the assumption so he said that lies the need for both “to complexity” and “to design” by focus on adaptation over variation there is no way that adaptations themselves are the design even though they give suggestions otherwise. They appeared that way because there is variation adapatablity uses that can be technologically manipulated and hence result in man changed adaptations that were designed if we do do that but there is complexity of the technology first then designs on the prior biotic adaptations which are intricated engineerable. The history of evolutionary literature had question the existence of truly biotic adaptibilty but there was never any question biologically that designs no matter how we humanize the subject need not be the same as the complex process that yields natural adaptations (not acquired by artificial selection of the pouter fantail for instance). This seeming unorderdness of the forces must not substitute for lack of actual statistical dicisions of the material activity inovled or possibly involved.

6)Natural Selective Value Added Morality/Ethics

Here we expand the sc ience of natural selective (value) and show that accumulation of genes is in part and accumulation of value added selections resuting from coincident force overlaps caused by confluence of distance relations that exist be tween gravity effects and electromagnetic affects provided protein expression is not corrupted. This is a physical presence caused much as elecricty accumulates (is active in Darwins sense) in circuits and thus there is a science of complexification THROUGH natural selection not without it (as recently suggested by McAShea) furthermore as medicine enters the ability to design personality medicine Darwin’s thought that humanity operated against evooution is shown niave caused by lack of genetic understanding and that rather to the contrary 21st centry technobiology is poised to use evolution rather than simply conceptually detract from it. Thus while Darwin was not really a romantic through and through this new kind of forced technological ability does require a review of our understanidn fo biolinguistics since we generally do lack words for the scope of this phenomenon that unlike the rather supposed unkind God of Malthus the design of this technique of birth and death developmental interfaces to tetrational population ecologicies is a warm hearted doctor by trade but cold thinking physicist by practica;l implementations. This enters the realm Darwin did not tread – to see that selection does have a value like a God selecting (we can show this with electric cathode selection in ostracod behavior). Self-organization is not contra Darwin just contra CODA. The means that biology uses to generate complexity is via the different space effects that repulsions vs attractions have while the penetrative genetical force (heterozygotic asymmetry) goes for infinitesimal to infinite in the macron attractors and repelllors that get involved as interaction systems balance a shift of surfaces at. This shift happens automatically since distance effects (1/d^2) scale equally for grav ity and e-m (chemical bonds). This however is quite different than Darwin’s cathedral as imagined by DS Wilson.

Political Ecology of the Biomass productivity

Thus political ecology can still be found to be deeply ecological and evolutionary in a very particular way and the relation of ecology and society are very closerly causally connected. This is discovered in the attempt to design a structure that will support Indigenous views of nature, increasing food support for an increasing population, and as an advance beyond a wholy relativistic understanding of all peoples.

New questions are perforced raised , as to what exponential growths humans ( who, where and how) will be on going off the Earth towards, what tetrations are actual in the genetic space of ecologies, and what genes exist between the forces moving the odd and even gene contributions to cell tetrations macronicall on and with.

When discussing whether to be on Earth or Mars it will be well to think about how much we can genetically engineer diverse plants to grow higher and make more niches for animals and more seed vs. simply growing a lot of food in one place.

This will probably happen as we learn more about the boundaries and how different sets of species can exponentially increase together in different ways.

This proposal enables one to still consider ecology and anthropology without having to utilize adaptation (Steward) or equilibrium views( Rappaport etc.) but one is not left with having to overdo the importance of politics. Sure there will be a need for a/the use of the global community but it will be from the local information that informs just what projects( what food systems) the global system creates. In this way the concern of Vayda and Walters (“ Against political ecology” ) can be worked with and developed.

While the particular structure developed here does not mean that all complex and contingent interactions of factors must necessarily be found and utilized it is hoped that there will be some effort to try to attain to them ( raise all indigenous species populations levels simultaneously rather than politically determining to only exponentiate some ( by not unifying the total tetration). This proposal clearly answers Vayda and Walters (ref) as providing a politics with ecology and it does so quite explicitly. It supports that increased emphasis on gender and the environment and helps to increase the profile of rural livings noted by Rocheleau,

“The overall spatial and conceptual separation of biodiversity and production, and the alienation of both from 'home', has undermined the biological basis of rural peoples' livelihoods.”” What does this imply for the daily practice of science and the development of practical alternatives that incorporate gender into the science of biodiversity? To incorporate gender fully, in the sense implied by a feminist poststructuralist analysis, is not to 'add women' but rather to redefine biodiversity in broader, more inclusive and even fluid terms. It implies a definition based on the diverse experiences and the distinct sciences of many different groups””

In practical terms this approach starts by identifying along with R-

1 the multiple uses or values at stake;

2 the multiple actors, the relations between them and the diverse organizations that mediate people's relations with the surrounding ecosystem;

3 the physical and spatial relation of both to the landscape; and

4 the distinct sciences of life that guide various groups in their daily land use practices.”

We are left with developing the eventmental or event ecology of biomass productivity by top down distribution of resources and bottom up directing of knowledge with a research and development function in those parts that are not in the field.

But here event ecology will not be about explaining indigenous evenmental activities and recreating the event ecologies of their consequences.

This proposal is geared towards removing the asymmetrical relations of political ontology ( Blaser 2009) Through the development of this proposal various means of

enactment, stabilization, and protection

will need to be developed – this is how the politics of scale can be converted into a scale of politics.

Here we will develop how the boundary of local food increase systems must involve both holding everything together under the set of genes that influence the growth of populations with the mutual divisions of the cell behaviors that are found to be able to give rise to the different genes themselves.

This theory enables one to no longer sideline indigenous people in conservation management as being “out there” out of sense of cultural relativism but instead creates the a unified culture and success for all humanity by bringing them world to them. And changing the world together.

By making a particular claim about the relation of ecology and evolution via chemistry and cell divisions it is possible to instantiate a real world case of Latouring factishes. It enables society both to draw out coherences where prior cultural processes had made them invisible and it enables conservation biology to find a much clearer object of its preservation, those species capable of having the largest tetrational kinematics regardless of the individual potentials of each individual species.

As the different sets of even and odd divisions arise and are variously socially selected we will be able to keep the divides in culture that the many different local people possess and we can constrain those who do not want to live with the creatures and plants themselves to take their reproduction towards another planet by pursing growth in extreme environments where no indigenous people are and then using those mutations and genes towards further growth and development off of Earth.

This recalls Kant’s great grand project of the relations masses only now it is biomass. In other words we do not move in the direction ever of subordinating our global world to others rather we find a way to use be a part of all of those different worlds such that we can grow our /the global world beyond itself. It is possible that the particular causality of natural selection invoked here is not determinative the causality involved in which case perfect avoidance of equivocation would be impossible but it seems like at least from the global perspective some more work on the idea should invested in because it does offer a solution to a problem that continues to bother humanity deeply. As the idea is developed we will be able to draw out directions of different ontological groundings out into the solar system.

Here on Earth this will result in more conversations on the value of the land ( especially in relation to what might be conducted on Mars) but here value should reflect all natural sources of population growth potentials ( Blaikie page 5). This is not a value created by labor but by labor discovering genetic histories of ecological import.

Political ecology and ecoscarcity – towards a cultural niche of increased food productivity.

“when it was first offered up in Malthus’s 1793 formulation, the ecoscarcity argument was presented as an explicit justification for social policy. In particular Malthus insisted that since famine and starvation were essential to controlling runaway human populations, such events are “natural” and inevitable.”robbins 2012

However if horizontal transfer of genes and changes in ecological relations rather control development and offspring raising behavior evolutionarily and fitness wise not only is social policy to control human populations unnecessary but it absolutely not the case that such events are natural.

This is a kind of repatriation of anthropology in the sense that it offers some correction by troubling the conversation between politics and environmentalists but does so not by collapsing the separation in anthropology between theory and practice but rather by expanding both the practice and the theory ( Dove 2006). Here I agree with Rappoport that “The concept of the ecosystem is not simply descriptive…It is also ‘performative’; the ecosystem and actions informed by it are part of the world’s means for maintaining, if not indeed constructing, ecosystems ( in Dove p 56)

Here we break from environmental managerialism ( Brosius 1999) but where Western science will speak with but not for the earth and thus cooperate with indigenous people. This is not a sustainable management but something much more consequential – applied evolution.

Cooperative symbiotic origin of all life – ( Mitochondria, Edicarian -metazoan, Plant vs animal)

Viruses, giant viruses and chemical tetrations.

We will have a new way to understand the unique genes of viruses through an equation of negative concentrations with a different way around right and left as determined by DNA. Poincare’s octahedral group of a sphere with two handles is the way to describe the viral gene chemical concentrations ( left and right into the sphere from each handle from which the meet in the external space as DNA structured).

Cross Negative Sytrophic Biochemical Networks

It is a standard practice to assume for chemical reaction networks that a negative cross effect expresses a physical impossibility since it can be interpreted as consumption of a species when the concentration is zero resulting in negative concentration quantities (refs). By coupling a chemical reaction network to a generalized Lotka-Volterra equation and invoking Kerner’s passing suggestion that a Noetherian charge and current exists for a change in the predator and prey it is shown how syntrophic canabolic and anabolic biochemical network equations support negative cross effects. The conservation of mass achieved is used to explain how syntrophs may be regulating their aggregated growths.

Here a change in the predator or prey is assumed to indicate that there is switch in which syntroph is the catabolizer and which is the anabolizer.

We present a reaction network that displays these properties by introducing a Possion manifold ( Lie algebra) that links the Lotka Volterra syntroph cell population numbers as determined by the amount of free energy the biochemical reaction network producess to the redox equation rate constants as bifurcation parameters via polynomialization of Kerner andBermejo and Fairen

Conservation laws in biochemical reaction networks have been discussed

http://users.ox.ac.uk/~engs1301/papers/CRN_Darboux.pdf

For example, let us consider the Lorenz equation (1.27) x =-U(x-y), y = rx-y-xz, z = xy-bz (c,b,r E R+). This equation is not a kinetic equation as it contains the term -xz. This term expresses the fact that y decreases in a process in which it does not take part. Such a term is said to express negative cross effect. With this notion a simple characterization of kinetic differential equations within the class of polynomial ones has been given (Hars and Toth, 1981) and applied many times (see, e.g., Toth, 1979; Dancso and Farkas, 1989; Toth and Hars, 1986a,b; Farkas and Noszticzius, 1992; Poland, 1993). THEOREM 1.10. A polynomial differential equation is kinetic if and only if it does not contain terms expressing negative cross effect

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Janos_Toth4/publication/247864021_The_efiect_of_lumping_and_expanding_on_kinetic_difierential_equations/links/59a80cda458515b33b5a42ac/The-efiect-of-lumping-and-expanding-on-kin2.2 Kinetic and nonkinetic functions In this subsection, nonkinetic functions are defined, and further notation for kinetic and nonkinetic functions taking the mass action form is presented. Definition 2.7. Let f : R S ≥ → R S be given by fs(x) = P r∈R fsr(x), where fsr(x) ∈ R, for x ∈ R S ≥, s ∈ S and r ∈ R. If ∃s ∈ S, ∃r ∈ R and ∃x ∈ R S ≥ such that s ∈ suppc (x) and fsr(x) < 0, then fsr(x) is called a cross-negative term, and function f(x) and ODE system dx/dt = f(x) are said to be nonkinetic.etic-difierential-equations.pdf

A crucial property of the kinetic equations is a lack of so-called cross-negative terms [2], corresponding to processes that involve consumption of a species when its concentration is zero. Such terms are not directly describable by reactions, and may lead to negative values of concentrations. The existence of cross-negative terms, together with a requirement that the dependent variables are always finite, imply that not every nonnegative polynomial ODE system is kinetic, and, thus, further constrain the possible dynamics, playing an important role in the construction of reaction systems, chemical chaos, and pattern formation via Turing instabilities [3, 5]. A trivial example of an ODE with a cross-negative term is given by dx/dt = −k, for constant k > 0, where the term −k, although a polynomial of degree zero, nevertheless cannot be directly represented by a reaction, and results in x < 0.

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1510.07205.pdf

2.2 Kinetic and nonkinetic functions In this subsection, nonkinetic functions are defined, and further notation for kinetic and nonkinetic functions taking the mass action form is presented. Definition 2.7. Let f : R S ≥ → R S be given by fs(x) = P r∈R fsr(x), where fsr(x) ∈ R, for x ∈ R S ≥, s ∈ S and r ∈ R. If ∃s ∈ S, ∃r ∈ R and ∃x ∈ R S ≥ such that s ∈ suppc (x) and fsr(x) < 0, then fsr(x) is called a cross-negative term, and function f(x) and ODE system dx/dt = f(x) are said to be nonkinetic.

Fodor’s view.

References

Allmon, Warren D., Morris, Paul, J. and Ivany, Linda C. 2009. A Tree Grows in Queens: Stephan Jay Gould and Ecology in Stephen Jay Gould: Reflections on His View of Life. Oxford University Press. New York p.147-170.

Coyne, Jerry. 2010. Dick Lewontin reviews What Darwin Got Wrong. https://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2010/05/07/dick-lewontin-reviews-what-darwin-got-wrong/

Fodor, Jerry and Piatelli-Palmarini, Massimo .2010. What Darwin Got Wrong. Farrar, Straus and Giroux. New York

Gibbs, Josiah Willard (1902). Elementary Principles in Statistical Mechanics. New York: Charles Scribner's Sons.

Lewontin, Richard, and Levins, Richard. 1987. The Dialetical Biologist. Harvard University Press

McCabe, Terrence, J. 2011. Cattle Bring Us to Our Enemies: Turkana Ecology, Politics, and Raiding in a Disequilibrium System. The University of Michigan Press: Ann Arbor

Danny MacKinnon University of Glasgow, UK Reconstructing scale: Towards a new scalar politics Progress in Human Geography 35(1) 21–36 The Author(s) 2010

Rocheleau, Dianne, E. Gender and Biodiversity:A Feminist Political Ecology

Odling-Smee, F. John. Laland, Kevin, N. and Feldman, Marcus W. 2003. Niche Construction: The Neglected Process in Evolution. Princeton University Press : Princeton

Vayda, A.P. 1989. Explaining why Marings fought.J. anthrop. Res. 45, 15

Blaikie 1987

Ecoevolutionary Algebra

Stable modes of ecoevoluionary dynamics can be defined as macrons.

The symmetry of the predator-prey relation conserves the ordertypic configuration of attractors and basins of macron organisms.

The structural stability of ecoevolutionary dynamics is bounded by the evo to eco vs eco to evo effects that physical, chemical and electronic macrons add algebraically to one another kinematically.

Thus the morphogenesis of stable ecoevolutionary dynamics depends on the morphodynamics of phase transitions of coupled genetically identifiably macrons probabilistically uniteable into a population genetical statistical-mechanical theoretical extension of population genetics of complex macron hierarchical organizations.

This means that one should be able to construct a cross species genomic correlation of sequentially more complex atomic attractor hierarchies that cause evolution of algebraic relations amongst organisms which underpin eoevolutionary interactions.

This will provide a foundation for understanding ecoevolutionary stability and will help to reveal cryptic ecoevolutionary dynamics.

This design expands on the start Ralph Abraham made to understanding how evolutions of form arise from chaos and also provides a base from which credible biological anthropology can be recognized.

There need be no prudent predator nor high level selection nor group selection in the Price additivity as that adds additional equilirbrial states that may n ot exist in the connections tht higher order morphogenesis of the genetic relations of macron associated gene for genes build.

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

Multicellular energy adaptations – how genetic homeostasis overtakes ecological equilibria.

How plants and animals originated by overcoming operative microbial genetic feedback.

The endosymbiotic origin of plant chloroplasts and animal mitochondria is considered by many to be the correct interpretation of the molecular evolution in the DNA found within multicellular things. Here I develop the hypothesis that this evolutionary event was caused by extirpations of extant microbial genetic feedbacks via biotic adaptations in complex biochemical reaction networks reversing the relation of capital and surplus energy in the balanced economy of feedback evolution establishments.

Pimentel has advanced the idea that feedback evolution operates in conjunction with natural enemies, competition, spatiality, consequentially, in the establishment of lush vegetation where herbivores do not overconsume their plant prey. Here I extend this idea to the origin of multicellularity and consider microbial genetic feedback to be a common form of relation amongst microbes ( nano arhceaic forms to larger ones) that has been extirpated by multicellularity through the establishment of biochemical biotic adaptations that reverse chemical reaction directions by non-Euclidian protein influenced cell cycles and embryological reversibility of projection geometric lines pointed against viruses otherwise upholded by microbial feedback below environmental carrying capacites. The cooption of mitochondria and chloroplasts are viewed as biotic adaptations that exploit the carrying capacity of individually evolved genetic feedbacks by overdominance in multiple alleles changing the direction of chemical equilibria of sexual diplotic ecologies. The origin of sex is thus a prerequisite to multicellularity. The idea that diploidic sex is the result of biased chemical reaction directions towards anabolism and catabolism is considered a conclusion of the genetic feedback hypothesis extended to microbial evolution. The genetic feedback hypothesis is thus theorized to be built allelewise from the effect of the direction of chemical reactability that resistance allele expressions create in the native biochemistry of exploiter-victim systems. Another category of genes beyond structural and regulatory are suggested – those that influence energy associated causally with replication and cell expansion - not noted by Eigen.

This theory suggests that endosymbiosis is of the nature of “enslavement” rather than mutual cooperation and occurs as capital is used by sexual exploitation of biotic adaptability. If the capital is completely converted into surplus then the endosymbiont is converted from a feedback dominated contributor of environmental balance to a transmorgifed genetic organ of higher order inherited cellularity.

This language was too strong because the general relation of energy and entropy was not written in. On this view of evolution the macrostates of ecoevolution depend on the microstates of genomics but do so in way that has gone unnoticed. I contend that the microstates of multicellular creatures are the macrostates of bacteria and viruses. We are macrostates of microbiome. On this view evolution does not merely originate new species but it does so by populating bacterial and virial micro states and interrelating energy and entropy in the process. Sex allows the sorting of and populating of more microstates and thus quite the contrary endosymbioant rather enslave macrostates of multicellulars.

In the case of aphids – the bacterial endosymbionts evolved resistance genes with heterozygotic overdominant superiority which enabled the aphid to occupy it’s niche survived energy form transform. These energy transforms support complex population dynamics with ants and spiders – all based on genetic feedbacks. Buchnera aphidicola produces essential amino acids that the aphids can not catabolize by eating only sap. Buchnera has developed (by theory) resistance genes to extraction of its amino acids and this has caused the evolution of the aphids to only eat surplus protoplasm and hence surplus amino acids. This surplus extractive use has resulted in loss of many other genes in the host as the complex bacteriocytes differentiated in the population controlled numbers of aphids through individual selection of amino acid resistant to taking genes in B. amphidicola. Thus there exists a morphometrics of cellular development in which the population fluctuations of the aphid caused by feedback evolution affects different cells in the population differently – depending on the energy transform forms. These transform forms effect the relation of replication to lipid forming vesicles and thus the loss of genes are related to the increase in vesiculationizability within. Genetic feedback thus can result internal populations of cells that are intrasomatic equivlents of whole populations of predators provided genes are moved to the nucleus. This is caused by the relation of the excess alleles vs. biochemical productivity in the establishement of overdominace dominating otherwise dominante and recesive exchange of alleles.

HW ewquilibria

This overdomience plays out in the cellular process that transfer Buchnera from mother to daughter and is the place where the start of the resistance genes might be experimentally recovered.

Buchnera inside a bacteriocyte which displays upregulated amino acid biosynthesis gene expressions.

The biochemistry of glutamate, serine, aspartate, glutamine, proline, alanine and asparagine anabolism and catabolism direct this extirpation by aphids over their bacteria. By providing a different biochemistry of the theses substances the bacteria resisted but because the aphids only took the surplus of other essential amino acids from Buchnera the balanced econcomy of these amino acids had increased surpluses that overcompensated?

Wolbachia species and Hamiltonella defense are also in aphids. The latter protects aphids from natural enemies and is thus an example where geneotypic feedback affects the proportion of population effects due to natural enemenies vs competition in spatial areas??

The extirpation by vesiculation has resulted in loss of defense genes since the resistance genes dominated the dynamic selections and in the increased population numbers per replication in the host.

The transform forms of energy exchange thus extripated the feedback by the biotic adaptation of anti-microbial peptids which were responsibility for the reversibility of the catabolism and anabolism.

That would be one example of the aphid – bacteria endosymbiosis. If the peptids are fromother bacteria it may be that feedback is the whole phenomenon??

Can plasmids function equivalently to heterozygotic overdomiance advantage?

The energy transforms via macrons permit the environmental selection to be functions of the genotype specific density dependent selection pressures with catastrophic transversals at different densities. Thus environmental seletion may be constant for a range of population phenotypes but become correlated with predation caused selections under some mutations but not others.

This opens up the theory of feedback evolution to a level of intricacy well beyond simple invocations of including predator frequency dependence and density dependence in general since the environmental selection is external to these. It is in studying the extant biological , chemical and physical macrons that enables the extirpation to exist. Thus it forms the basis from which prudent predators, group level selection and multilevel selection can come to be.

With a path analysis of lines of macronic relations under feedback one attends not to a supraorganismic notion of the genetic homeostasis in ecology ( Wilson from Emerson) evolutionized but rather an Ingoldian non-blob sociality of non-humans ( Wright + Abraham).

Path analysis thus can be used to define a social superorganism of correspondening energy relations of different species evolutions.

This is what sociobiology got wrong.

“There is a whole family of predator-prey models with single-locus genetics beginning from Pimentel (1961). In his "genetic feedback mechanism," evolution in the prey prevents unlimited growth of the predator population. The fitness of a prey genotype depends on two separate factors. General environmental selec- tion on a prey genotype is a constant, and predation causes a density-dependent and genotype-specific selection pressure. Predator population growth rate de- pends on the genotype of the prey, so it includes interspecific frequency depen- dence. The main problem with this model is omitting predator genetics and prey density. Levin (1972) analyzed the genetic feedback mechanism and found the condi- tions for the equilibrium to be stable. Lomnicki (1974) modified the model by including frequency-dependent carrying capacities of each of the three plant geno- types. His graphical analysis of the model also showed that, for at least some parameter values, the system can be stable. Schaffer and Rosenzweig (1978) is the only pre”

A Coevolutionary Predator-Prey Model with Quantitative Characters Author(s): Irma Saloniemi

The macron addition makes the gene for gene idea of parasitism a part of the genetic feedback hypothesis and provides a theoretical outline for a systematic molecular biology of resistance prey and pathogenic predotor/parasite genes. The connection to energy enables one to predict the likely hood of new parasite genes and predator genes in the genomes of future populations and can be used to show how virial effects will can retrodict future changes by altering parallel and series relations.

Liminicki challenges the existence of the feedback loop – here we define the feedback knot.

In constrasdisction to Eigen’s approach.

He said” . The term "genetic feedback" seems to be misleading. If there is a feedback, it involves not only genetic but also density changes within the syste” the loop is genetic but the knot has the density – it is through the feedback looping and insertion in its middle that knot and the density comes to be. Thus it is that the mechanism can cause density without being density itself. By use of quasi parallell heritibilities.

The confusion of where the mechanism ends and model begins is belied by the reliance on the notion objective notion of the things that flow rather than the flow itself. It is by being with the flow that knot arises from the loop turned inside rather than the and of the turn on turn and on turn and on turn with a given objective curvature that after a number of ands results in a density as a knot rather than the motion being seen along with turning in on itself on the inside. Because the cells differentiate different ways to triangulate above 180 degrees with total genomic doubling … It is the density as an articulation vs the density as the flowing together. A fuller use of Abrahamn morphogenesis will show how the latter view is inherent in the genetic feedback and thus it is all the genetic which can be any population . Fisher made the mistake of thinking that genetic population was like the theromodyamic in a very particular way with the variance. This is not how the phenotype and gentoyrtpe are related to the ecology of age, spatiality etc in the rate of population increase since it does not decide on what dominance and recessive are. That is why they can not be related to particles as it depends on the bifurcations of between the patricles - the inbetween – not the between on which the phenomenon rests.

Viruses operate at the non-elastic constraint on rate of increases ( see ref Lewontin units of selection) and surivie when they do not drive the rate of increase per host selectiondown. The unique genes of viruses are various ways to compose the non-elasticisty. Wright had seen how space does this in general but viruses and their genes are in this space as an elastic but restrained physicality. They are able via their genes to alter their absolute fitness in the relative fitnesses of their hosts.

The study of eulid’s chaos theory is only in biology here.

As such individuals should not unifiy eco-evolutoinary dyanmics but instead some kind energy transform to rates of increases with multispecies evolutions will.

Biophilosophy: towards a resolution of vicariance and dispersal in biogeography.

Heads rightly asserts that no panbiogeography ever thought that dispersal is philosophically unimportant but there is a philosophical position in which the current biogeographic data can be used to dissect the past orbits of speciations.

The primary datum of biogeography is the geographic latitude and longitude. When the these data are combined with a taxonomic division vicariance biogeographers are finding that the bauplan logic of the taxonomies are correlated with the spatial connections of the pegged lat and long data. Each day these datums move and each year they move as well. The view of biogeography is that no matter how many revoluations and rotations the Earth accomplishes the past movement of indivudals as they speciatred can be observed and dissected from the present distribution patterns observed. Croizat was the first to detail this methodologically but vicarance as an expression that this Earth and Life evolve toghehter provides a very specific means from which this view can be gainsaid.

What is lacking is some way to associate the supposed matches of phylogenies and geographic disgtributions to series of rotations and revolutions of the Earth.

There is a way in which this can be accomplished such that the geographic patterns being uncovered can be related to the times back from the present.

Each collection point can be classified with a track width, a node shape, a mass density value, and baseline direction off Earth and in this way each collection locality can be linked to actual revolutions and rotations of the Earth.

The findings that enable this relation to be displayed is don e So by rejecting speciation by chance dispersal. By comparing those distributions that can be so displayed from those that can not enables one to estimate the amount of chance dispersal that may be going on.

When multiply different taxa all possess the same hierarchically expansive set of correlatied distributions the contributions between rotation and revolution can be further divided out into the slight differences in the distributions that are possessed. This enables dispersal to be applied to geographic distribution data that appear static. From here one would then use the classifications to further explore how the cross taxa dispersal can be accounted for by individual lineages differently. This may be due to common climatic changes or geological changes but also may be due to coincident similiarites in dispersals amongst different groups.

It is possible to separate geographic from ecological speciation in say Eurycea by showing how the distribnution of E lugifuca and E longicauda are sisters but have different track widths, nodes, masses per baseline ( Eurycea is all in one baseline). While both live around caves some live in theme and some nore near than in. It may be that they have dispersal to and other to dispersal from.

What we are seeking here to show how the wayfinding of the two species are different even though they are generally sympatric – that the geography can be used to separate even ecological species. This has relevance to bringing life to Mars and will inform how species may evolve there differently than on Earth.

Darwin wrote of instances “in which each district has a representative [allopatric] species, filling as far as we can perceive the same place in the economy of nature ( Stauffer, 1975: 202).

Darwin did not have a wayfind idea of biogeographic space because he saw the speices and individual as simple isolated numerable things that fill up space like bacteria growing exponentially. He did not differentiate our perception of the environment from the areas that places make up. He saw each larger area being filled as much as the different econcomies of nature are filled to full. He did not think of how the wayding of an ecological specieation can proceed within a larger allopatry as all being divided in the same space ( district to places filled).

The genus Eurcyea thus inherited a niche conservatism of the of Ozark towards Applachaina as to how the places in the economy of nature could be filled . But the large and small species which filled this slightly differently also displayed ecolotical speciation within and did not follow directly the same phylogenetic niche conservation. This is expressed in the different bauplans of all.

We thus will associated the niche conservatiism to the track width and then the failure to follow this with node angles which possess common mass densitites differentitated across the width conservation.

Finding the relation of the mass to the track width for different node angels is thus the empirical theory of panbiogeography using vicariance biogeography.

In this particular instance the small Eurycea may show similar mass differences to longicauda rather than lucifuga because they have conserved the niche relation with the ancestral state that like wise derfine the linear relation of tynerensis to spelea. Becusae there are no two lined small sals in west but rather tin the south – Texas and quadriggita the entire theory can be brought together by using the same maths in all of these places.

This is the same question as Pearson had for differentiating homotyposis from indiviudla enviorment and growth.

Speciation may be less about ecological speciation as it is about ecological change to niche conservatism by community alteration in sets of different communities of kinds of interacting multicellularities of extant ecologically assocating species and to how this relates to ecosystem described herein. This may be how habitat and distribution are related - neither one by the other but rather by the association with different sorts of multicellularities. This can be studied further by relating IBD and IBE to rotation and revolutions.

We can thus use the maths designed to data warehouse the range of longicauda outside of lucifuga and by doing so if we find that this mapping also retains the track width for the small salamnders in this same region then we will have found the niche conservation in face of climate alterations – else a futher tweak would be needed on the level of the basline vector which may cause some possible conflict with further incorporatations in the generalization beyond Earth f

Agro-Ecosystems

Volume 3, 1976, Pages 55-65

Genetic feedback and the evolution of plant resistance

William J.Sydor

Here it is necessary to work out biochemical details to study energetics around plant resistance genes, host immune defenses, prey defense genes.

How many plants or plant parts can be removed without the plant evolving a resistence gene?

Do herbivore differentially feed of of subindivudal variation wihjtout eating all of the parts?

Same question for parasties and hosts.

How many bacterial or cell parts can be removed by a virus before a the host evolves an antiviral or antibactieral gene

Same for predators and prey –

Can Predators target particular subinndivial ..behavioral variations in prey without the prey evolving counter measures?

What are the eco-eovlutionary dyamics of this?

Levin attempted to relate community non-equilibrium via Thomian transversality and possible multiple attractors asymptotically in time to temporality by describing space in a three fold way with respect to space as “local unqiuenss, phase difference and dispersal” He considered this framework to apply to the integration of evolution into ecology and hence included geneotypic and phenotypic variation along with age… In so doing he did not directly describe situations in which community composition and extinction depends on spatial distribution of differences of geneotypes and phenotypes and thus thought that attractor transist could always be cognized as differences in rates of processes. The decomposition of morphogenesis as applied to ecosystems in the view of Abraham however which see phase relations purely in the relations of macrons as based on the chemical, biological and physical materials may have space and not time be in the eco – evolutionary feedthrough.

It is possible that dispersal has a different pre and post reproductive influence. Where animals and plants move to before maturity and where they move to after. The evolution of this may mean that disturbances in dispersal/geographic variation could have catastrophic effects for community and ecocysystem composition. Further by defining space categorically in the way that Levin has done does not account for cases in which phencopies have a significant effect on ontogeny.

What is needed a different suprastructure of space relative poplations than that utilizing the temporalized prioritiattion that Levin invoked.

What one needs to do is to relate the additional spatial extent of the environment to the surplus energy economy of Pimentel and view spatial effects as the energetic structure resistance genes to predation. One needs to find the energetic transforms that relate traditional effects ( predator -prey) and spatial patchniess etc as part of the same energetic transform and the Abrahamic macron provides a dissectable concept that be associated with a larger theoretical structure that includes space, ecology and evolution as one.

Thus we can see if we confine phase difference to every and any macron interaction, with dispersal the movement of biological levels of organization without regard to macronic compositions and local uniqueness the macronic compositioning in the system then we can combine the spatial ecolocial and evolutionary.

Applied Evolution: Reverse engineering the genetic feedback principle

David Pimentel created and elaborated the genetic feedback principle over 40 years and has influenced both the theoretical and practical applications of ecology. His idea of genetic feedback combined with other mechanisms underpins the simple observation that herbivores do not over-consume plants. By reverse engineering the feedback it may be possible in principle to artificially increase local biomass productivity. Here I sketch an outline of new discipline of applied evolutionary theory in which the adaptive constraints ( relating energy to cellular replication) on lower trophic levels are reversed by genetic engineering thus permitting large increases in predator populations which when combined with targeted trophic cascades and harvest/dispersal management programs cause globally marginalized surplus kinematics to become converted into regional increases in consumable food productivity without causing extinction of the species involved. Applied biomass evolution is suggested as a new technology that can decrease our reliance on the agriculture of monospecific crops.

What does it mean to say,

“the prey gives up it’s protoplasm to the predator?”

How can an individual decide what parts of it’s body is disposable and can be given up?

Does the prey give up its body or does the predator simply take it?

Is the prey being considered to the replication and protoplasm the cytoplasm?

Is it teleological to think the prey can decide what parts to offer to the predator?

Did the prey have to have evolved some kind of communication with the predator prior to decidoing to give up some amount of its body to the predator?

If the aij are symmetric in terms of predators and prey does that model imply that their may be a Noetherian law does the “deciding” and never either the predator or the prey themselves – via what Levin called “limiting factors?”

Pimentel anthropomorphically suggested that since it makes sense for humans to not over harvest their food supply that however the decision is made by predators and prey because they do not over harvest them either that the predators simply use the suplus of the prey and not capital. Who controls the capital? The prey or the predators? If the LV equations also apply in addition to the feedback does it make sence to consider the prey only as possessing the capital -surplus quantity undergoing transaction?

Does a regulative Kantian stance apply? To the forces in classification and classification of the forces?

Rougharden social selection?

Other game theory??

Pimentel sets up three possibilities –

Farsighted prudent predators

Group selection

Indiviudal prey selection

Again – could the energy balance be supplied by simple physical law of the reversal of predator and prey in the symmetry of the aij of LV?

What does the threatening and exploitation? The predator or the prey? Or the environment – that results in a “highly exploited population”?

Pimentel proposed that the simplest explanation for the balanced lack of over consumption of plant prey is that a genetic change in one population regulates a second with the selection coefficients of the first depend on the density of the second.

Thus the prey is only threatened/exploited because the density of he second effects specific selections on the prey but it is the selection coefficents (evolution) not the predator population (ecology) that does the “threatening”?

Pimentel assumes a correlation between the population growth rate of the predator and dependence of predator under the same genetic equilibrium on the particular prey.

It is an assumption that genetic equilibria in prey populations and genetic equilibria in predator populations are linked as to the relation of the indiuvdla and compositite genetic equilibria to the rates of increase of both. Can this genetic association of the two genetic equilibria when exploited and unexploited populations are considered still be linked by the Noetherian switch of predators and prey?

How does the LV aij support the Pimentel genetic feedback mechanism.

Are the two Pimentel “basic axioms” the result of the Kerner aij noticed symmetry between predators and prey?

Does the conservation of predator-prey energy result from the symmetry of the interaction?

The question has to do with how does the rate of population increase relate to genetic equilibrium of fixation of genes and do specific phenomenon causally yoke the procees in systems of predators and prey?

How does the genetic fixation of the polymorphism relate to the genetic fixation process in the predato - r density by the basis of simple mendelian difference even without a polymorphism – fact of mendelian inheritance regardless of polymorphism?

How is structural stability related to the relation of the genetic equilinrium to rates of population increases in symmetry affected predator prey? Are swappings of Aij all found in transversals?

Levin 1972 assumptions of Pimentel

general model. We therefore assume: 1. A predator population genetically homogeneous with regard to pa rameters of interest, and of variable population size N, feeds upon a prey population whose resistance to that predator is controlled at a single locus. No predator evolution is allowed. Predator population size can assume any real, nonnegative value, though nonintegral val ues are in obvious discord with reality. 2. Both predator and prey mate randomly, and generations are non overlapping. Generation time is identical in predator and prey.

145

This content downloaded from 68.175.135.161 on Fri, 18 Jan 2019 08:03:20 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

146 THE AMERICAN NATURALIST

3. Total prey population size remains constant from generation to gen eration, so that mean fitness is always one. Pimentel achieves this experimentally by actively controlling the total prey population size. The natural situation would be one in which the overall prey popula tion is limited by factors such as available resources, rather than by the predator. The predator, by controlling the growth rates of popula tions of the various prey genotypes AA, Aa, aa, and hence of the prey alleles A, a, determines relative frequencies p, q of A, a by determin ing, in effect, which individuals first use the limited resources.

Application of genetic feedback to endosymbiosis –

Prey microbes and Predator hosts – the endosymbionts evolve resistance to the extraction of the energy from the hosts.

Archea and nano archea (the host evolves resistance to the nano use of the system.

The genetic change in the plant/host necessary to reduce the herbivore/parasite population itself is determined by the nature of the environment.

When environ mental pressure is severe then only slight genetic change is needed in the plant/endosymbiont to reduce the herbivore/multicellular parasite population. However, when the environment is highly favorable for the herbivore, the pressure on the plants becomes more intense, and the change in the plant has to be significant to reduce the herbivore population to a point of balanced supply and demand.

There need be no prudent predator nor high level selection nor group selection in the Price additivity as that adds additional equilirbrial states that may n ot exist in the connections tht higher order morphogenesis of the geneic relations of macron associated gene for genes build.

The genetic feedback principle in microbial consortia.

The relation of multiple species of microbes involve a complex set of relations which are variously categorized ecologically. Genetic effects of the relation are complicated due to the relation of the chemical reactions and energy relations. The genetic feedback principle which was investigated largerly with respect to herbivore – plant relations was also recognized as a possible means by which populations of the host and parasites may evolve into systems that are stable with respect to genetic changes in the host with population numbers that stabilized through time below those that could have occurred if the parasite was to utilize all of the energy in the host.

Here I consider applying the mechanism to generalized relations of microbes, and derive a general relation of energy extraction and genetic change through combined chemical equilibria of the host and parasites with genetic change in the host ( endosymbiont) to resist energy extraction in the parasite (multicellular organism). Here the bacteria is considered the host and the multicellular or other host is the parasite. I show how the multicellular population is regulated by the resistance alleles in the bacterial population and apply it to moluscs and tube worms.

Polyphyletic superorganisms – genetic correspondence and the future of conservation – a new population genetics of selection pressure resonance.

Path analysis can cut out superorganisms that have evolved by coordinated gene fixations paraphyletically. Communities of such lives in the making may be a better target of conservation efforts than species specific designations which seek to use reproductive isolation specifics rather than population regulation relations to reserve. By protecting population regulatings communities these are also one that are reproductively isolated but not ever species has equial reations. By targeting species asociations that regulate population numbers below carrying capacity permits future applied evolutionary teleomatic programs that may increase total population numbers by aritfical projected adapations. Final decisions about just which reproductively isolated species can be made when the regulated popuatlins are related to total earth energy via effect of molecules on replication to division process in cells. This is necessitated by a cellular theory alongside that of the gene that links zygotic genetic structure to ontogeny that is affected by population caused changes in taxonomy. There is a whole new since of developmental morphogenesis as it relates to applied eco-evolution that may be able to direct both conservation and medical improvements at the same time. With a better understanding of the relation of zygotic structure to cytoplasmic connectinilties in non reverserable ontogengies one may be able to incorporate the result of viral disease affects on future evolutionary adapations andspecific gene fixations and thus help to advance epidemiology. Correlating genomic structure with high throughput squenceing can acceralte our understanding of the cystoplasimic to zygote linkages.

Levin 1972 assumptions of Pimentel

general model. We therefore assume: 1. A predator population genetically homogeneous with regard to pa rameters of interest, and of variable population size N, feeds upon a prey population whose resistance to that predator is controlled at a single locus. No predator evolution is allowed. Predator population size can assume any real, nonnegative value, though nonintegral val ues are in obvious discord with reality. 2. Both predator and prey mate randomly, and generations are non overlapping. Generation time is identical in predator and prey.

145

This content downloaded from 68.175.135.161 on Fri, 18 Jan 2019 08:03:20 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

146 THE AMERICAN NATURALIST

3. Total prey population size remains constant from generation to gen eration, so that mean fitness is always one. Pimentel achieves this experimentally by actively controlling the total prey population size. The natural situation would be one in which the overall prey popula tion is limited by factors such as available resources, rather than by the predator. The predator, by controlling the growth rates of popula tions of the various prey genotypes AA, Aa, aa, and hence of the prey alleles A, a, determines relative frequencies p, q of A, a by determin ing, in effect, which individuals first use the limited resources.

Application of genetic feedback to endosymbiosis –

Prey microbes and Predator hosts – the endosymbionts evolve resistance to the extraction of the energy from the hosts.

Archea and nano archea (the host evolves resistance to the nano use of the system.

The genetic change in the plant/host necessary to reduce the herbivore/parasite population itself is determined by the nature of the environment.

When environ mental pressure is severe then only slight genetic change is needed in the plant/endosymbiont to reduce the herbivore/multicellular parasite population. However, when the environment is highly favorable for the herbivore, the pressure on the plants becomes more intense, and the change in the plant has to be significant to reduce the herbivore population to a point of balanced supply and demand.

There need be no prudent predator nor high level selection nor group selection in the Price additivity as that adds additional equilirbrial states that may n ot exist in the connections tht higher order morphogenesis of the geneic relations of macron associated gene for genes build

The genetic feedback principle in microbial consortia.

The relation of multiple species of microbes involve a complex set of relations which are variously categorized ecologically. Genetic effects of the relation are complicated due to the relation of the chemical reactions and energy relations. The genetic feedback principle which was investigated largerly with respect to herbivore – plant relations was also recognized as a possible means by which populations of the host and parasites may evolve into systems that are stable with respect to genetic changes in the host with population numbers that stabilized through time below those that could have occurred if the parasite was to utilize all of the energy in the host.

Here I consider applying the mechanism to generalized relations of microbes, and derive a general relation of energy extraction and genetic change through combined chemical equilibria of the host and parasites with genetic change in the host ( endosymbiont) to resist energy extraction in the parasite (multicellular organism). Here the bacteria is considered the host and the multicellular or other host is the parasite. I show how the multicellular population is regulated by the resistance alleles in the bacterial population and apply it to moluscs and tube worms.