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
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 <>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<>
> .
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscribe@
> ** <>.
> For more options, visit this group at**
> 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
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
For more options, visit this group at

Reply via email to