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.

Table of Contents
Forward/Preface
DNA Legacies
Motrix Matter
Formative Forces --Force and Mendels Developmental Binomial double parent- hybrid
heterozygote
Aa (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 askem to simply make more food for animals.
Lewontin was right that we didnt 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 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 formation.
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 life.
Motrix matter is that which moves everything in life but is not itself moveable in mass. It does
not exist subsitentely-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)). 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 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 Kants 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. DNA winding (with histones
etc) 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 selfreplicables 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 Newtons 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
Mendels 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 lifes 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 Mendels 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 nonsymmetrical 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 Wrights 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 lifes reproducing masses (biotic potentials)
(Darwins 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 reorganization 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 its 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 Kants 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 Kants idea has not till
now found a modern use. Its 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 evolutions 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. Lewontins 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 Darwins opinion}.
However this new construction expands Darwins 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 Carsettis 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 Darwins 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 Fishers
theorem.
We find that Wrights 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 its 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 Thoms
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 Kants 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 Kants
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 Hyatts 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 individuals 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. Williams 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 individuals 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.
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).
Concerns on Kants 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 Abrahams 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. Fishers analogy between the particulate nature of Mendelian inheritance
was not able to penetrate this difference but Wrights network idea provides a work around
such that a closer understanding of the materiality of the Mendelian difference is possible.
Batesons 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.
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 Goulds 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 Kants 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 Kants view in the Opus to that in the Metaphysics of Natural Science
reinterpreted in post-Fisherian genetics that incorporated the genetic code and Feynmans notion
of a reversible weight lifting machine for Darwins mental movement away from his
grandfathers 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 Mayrs nominal innovations
with Chaitins 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 Waddingtons simple analogy to language. Thoms 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 Kants 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.
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 Kants 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 Darwins 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 Kants 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 Darwins 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
Darwins 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 Wrights 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..
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 selfactive 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 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 Kants 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): 687694.
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 Cantors 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 Chaitains 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 Linnaeuss systematic description of the vegetable kingdom was based on
the principle of the persistence of the characteristics of the parts for fructification in
vegetablesas 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 (17521840), 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 Kants view.
What we see is that Kants 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. Thoms 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 Fishers (Generation and
Classification of Organisms in Kants 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.)
Kants 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
Kants 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 lifes
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 Kants 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 Russels 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 Mendels Developmental Binomial double parent- hybrid heterozygote
Forces and Mendels 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( Plants 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 selections neural correlate)
Adaptative features Seeds as adaptations to fall to the sun via the earths 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) (Darwins use of MalthusFisher 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 Fishers 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 Mendels 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 Fishers
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 Ngeli) 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 todays 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 didnt 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 1dimensional 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 Batesons
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 Mendels 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 Darwins 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 Mendels not Fishers 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 Mendels 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 Darwins 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

Lets 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 k bits to the halting probability
Cancer may be highest grosspower numbers without structure of relation of numerals
Algorthimic mutations might be idd 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 dont 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 dont halt but with grossone
numbers one can have a set of numbers that with forward and backward mutation such that
those that dont 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 dont 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.
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
Chaitins 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 dont 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 idd 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 1220
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 140151
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) 181189

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 1220
"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 mideighteenth 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 140151
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 Bohrs 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 BohrErnst
Pascual Jordan (190280), Erwin Schrdinger (18871961), and Max Delbrck
(190681). It is claimed that none of these physicists sufficiently understood
Bohrs critical teleological arguments, which are traced to the lineage of
Kant and Harald Hffding and their respective resolutions of the Antinomy of
Teleological Judgment. The positions of these four historical actors are
discussed in terms of Ernst Mayrs distinction of teleological, teleomatic,
and teleonomic explanations. A return to some of the views articulated by
Bohr, and behind him, to Hffding 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) 181189
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 Descartess and Kants 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 biologys
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'."