dear Hal and Stephen,
I wanted to complete my response to both of you when at the point below a
blip in the juice blanked out my internet-connection and kidnapped the text
I had to that point.
I don't complete it right away, read first whatever comes in - to
 facilitate a more comprehensive post.

I can include now that Hal stepped out of my 'domain' by - seemingly -
restricting the 'live' to this planet while I extend it to everything that
has a 'response' to relations (if you still think in a 'physical' world:
el. charges etc.)
I like to imply even the still unknown/unknowable infinite existence.
That's what I call "EVERYTHING". (I cannot, of course, but I accept my
ignorance).
John M


Dear Stephen,
I did not promise answers to questions arisen by my thoughts.
Agnosticism gives you such comfort. However I try...

First: I am not sure what to call the "Selective" aspect. In my view the
change (mutaton?) is selective in two ways:
1. In lieu of a RANDOM walk: The given circumstances provide a potential
(including those* we don't know about* as well) with unknown trend which to
accept and which not. (In this part I still hesitate with newer ideas (free
will, force of prayer and other widely believed marvels not picked up by
myself) whether a 'mental(?)' *urge* ('m-energy?) can influence even
facilitate the acceptance of one particular potential way over another?)
((random walk could include our *evolution* back into trilobites AGAIN.))
 -   a n d   -
2. Whether the variants i.e. results of the ongoing mutation are viable in
the circumstances they get into (= fit enough to survive?)
----------------

The 'shaping' of polymer molecules raised a question in my mind - even at
the time when I beleved in (and exercised) synthesis of such: kid peptalk
mentions 'secondary forces' (van der Waals?) of which we have vague ideas
but speak a lot. The multitude of carriers of such 'forces' MAY well
overwhelm the skeleton-firmness of primary valences - who knows?  In such
case the 'shaping' and 'form' is subject to effects still unknown: those
additional influences from outside our 'model' that seep in over the
millennia. (Mad Cow disease may be in such domain.)
I am very hesitant to make statements where the still unknowable effects
may have a role. Conventional science applies statistics of the KNOWN.








On Sun, Nov 4, 2012 at 12:09 PM, Stephen P. King <stephe...@charter.net>wrote:

> On 11/4/2012 12:09 AM, John Mikes wrote:
>
>  snip
>>
>
>  ## to 9 I have objections. I cannot imagine (maybe my mistake) evolution
>> without a goal, a final aim which would require an intelligent design to
>> approach it. (I may have one: the re-distribution into the Plenitude). My
>> way (as of yesterday) is the ease-and-potential path of changes allowed by
>> the available configurations (relations) when a change occurs.
>> NO RANDOM, it would make a grits out of nature. Even authors with high
>> preference on random treatises withdrew into a "conditional random" when I
>> attacked the term. Conditionality kills random of course.
>> So in my terms: NO random mutations, (especially not FOR survival) I call
>> 'evolution' the HISTORY of our universe. The unsuccessful mutants die, the
>> successful go on - science detects them in its snapshots taken and explains
>> them religiously. (Survival of the fittest - the Dinosaur was fit when it
>> got extinct by the change in circumstances).
>> I accept ONE random (in mathematical puzzles): "take ANY number..."
>>
>> Your "lower, but not upper bound" is highly appreciable. Thanks.
>>
>> I apologize for my haphazard remarks upon prima vista reading. The
>> list-discussion is not a well-founded scientific discourse upon new ideas.
>> Most people tell what they formulated over years. A reply is many times
>> instantaneous.
>>
>>  snip
>
>> [HR] 9) Now add in evolution which is a random walk with a lower but no
>> upper
>> bound.
>>
> snip
>
> Dear John,
>
>     I wanted to make a remark on just this part of your post as I need to
> ask a question. Why is the Selective aspect of evolution almost completely
> ignored? It is easy to talk about mutations and models of them, such as
> random walks - which I favor!, but what about the selection aspect? what
> about how the Tree of Life is almost constantly pruned by events that kill
> off or otherwise blunt growth in some directions as opposed to others?
>
>     My question to you is specific. How do polymers mold themselves to
> local parameters that influence their molecules? What determines their
> shape? Is there a deterministic explanation of the shape of a polymer?
> Would this explanation work for, say, DNA or peptite molecules?
>
> --
> Onward!
>
> Stephen
>
>
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To post to this group, send email to 
> everything-list@googlegroups.**com<everything-list@googlegroups.com>
> .
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscribe@
> **googlegroups.com <everything-list%2bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com>.
> For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/**
> group/everything-list?hl=en<http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en>
> .
>
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Reply via email to