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<email@example.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 firstname.lastname@example.org. 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.