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 LifeThere 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 ContentsForward/Preface DNA LegaciesMotrix MatterFormative Forces --Force and Mendels Developmental Binomial double parent- hybrid heterozygoteAa (and) Hybrid | Aa (or) |aA Parental (new level for genetic analysis)Centripetal circles of lifeOrganized KinematicsHistory of the new ContingencyOrganic Copiers and Metabiological Reproductions Grossone distribution of forcesCell doubling genomic asymmetriesOrganized Complexity designed progress with Grossone

DNA LegaciesDNA 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 lifeWhile 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 KantThe 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 dimension3) 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 division4) 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 analysisMary's position is that many philosophers (most) have attempted a unitary explanation of teleology in biology but he decided that there are least 5 different kinds of the concept (teleomatic, teleonomic, purposive behavior, adapted features and cosmic teleology)Here we show that adaptive features (such as the amount of food a plant can maximize production of) when communicated through the cosmic reality of life in general can be purposive caused to change their "behavior" (amount of food actually produced) by re-programing the teleomatic law like relation between repulsions and attractions in a teleonomy of DNA computers that change the cell cycle temporality with entropic precision.+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++===

So while there is no unitary explanation in general, particular implementations can indeed unify Mayr's categories such as to suggest that his synthesis is short of its object which might have been to keep metaphysics out of biology. In example, it appears that there may indeed be, a genetic mechanism for orthogenesis.Furthermore by expanding the manipulablity of somatic programing (programmed cell death etc) through motrix matter ponderosity vs ponderability en mass cross nuclues supramolecular effects (Gladyshev hierarchies and extra nuclear cross generational exformations of the Mendel "parental" developed binomial, forces of past evolutioanrily selected loci can have opposite direct force effects (repulsion for attraction and attraction for repulsion) which move ions across membranes differently in different cohesions and possibly topobiologically inform where antiformations were genetically. This shows that Mayr's distinction of ultimate and proximate is not particularly helpful if exclusive, when the engineering of this new interfacial technology is under incorporation. Here a clinamatic deviation that may be designed affects the final differentiation of the teleonomc vs telomatic processing in the behavior of some adapted life self-replicables 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 KinematicsThis 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 vibrationResults when the attractions and repulsion cross the bifurcation controlsSo on this view, we assume the original Thom morphogensis was a smooth case and thus suggest that life uses DNA, RNA and proteins via the two-dimensional torus common attractor and that the evolution of the cell resulted as a single point attractor became the torus through the circle the cells provided. (see figure at start of article).When the entire genome is doubled in cell division this splits the torodial form and causes higher dimensional torodial type of attractor which eventually gives rise to sex and other non-symmetrical effects.

Metaphysics (superficial vs penetrative forces)(coherence)

The circle that the hydtophobic and hydrophilic forces are an environment for is the genome doubling first happening at fertilization. The existence of the small gamete is basically to eliminate the proximate effect of those specific forces. The doubling results in a circle of en mass effect in the quantity of matter and is manifested as a quantity of moving matter in the GDP of microtubules as they move the chromosomes into the circle where the centripetal force arisesThis 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 re-organization at Crick's atomic level but logic fundamentally (relative to codeable attraction vs repulsion) only enters biology (life as we know it on Earth so far) at the level of cellular dynamics. Mayr had thought semantically that whatever the automatic nature of natural selection is, that a rejection of selection's positivity syntactically had occurred in the recent history evolutionary theory. We shall find that this is only partly true and that Crick's exclusion of the vital force was invalid with respect to how the complexity is copied. Organic copiers (embodied metabiological objects) are due to the directionally opposite motions that attractions flanked by repulsions can topologically be inverted into and this happens inertially within a particulate Mendelism not because of one.

The statistical nature of a virus is the same as a rock but that of species lineage is different and this is because a virus is not Turing machine while any particular living autonomously reproducing thing (possible different level of selection) is. There is no current reason to think that life here on Earth requires vitalism in any form but biology did not need to reject it to be considered a science rather it is because systematics informs the classifications of actual forces that shape taxonomies not that the Modern Synthesis statistical instantiation failed to properly bifurcate the effect of populational isolation on speciation and genetic revolutions (multiple gene pools and the origin of new genes).

Metabiology (heterozygosis)(volume densities)Gould had said that the triplet code is only a machine language not that through which genetic control must exert itself. Genetics being both discrete and continuous can indeed control development and thus evolution through 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 ContingencyMetabiology 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 samestiffness/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 genesfixed 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 thecentral 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 EssentialProperties 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 dimension3) 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 division4) 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 self- active substance" to be DNA as software which one example of life due to selected attractions with pleitropic repulsions. Kant's ether is the generalization of our life to any life with different forces and different actual matters. There may even be life based on vital or no force but we can never know that. we may be able to know something by negation if we knew an infinite case of different lives but now we only know the one we know.Within the context of information then available Wright (1968) made a somewhat reasonable assumption that genuine pleiotropy does not exist. He suggested that as far as anyone knew the parts of a polypeptides were not known to have different effects. Thus he had reasoned that each gene has one primary effect the synthesis of a specific kind of polypeptide. So there was no two physiological effects being traced to a single gene which was the definition of genuine pleitropy following Grunberg (1938)(Wright 1968 p60). He did note that populational genetic pleitropy is however broader than this because say in the case of sickle cell anemia where a single amino acid substitution results in two different natural selective effects (anemia and resistance to malaria) there are two effects from one intra gene difference. Now he also thought that because both that there is only one primary effect of each gene in its putative physiological affect while there is near universal populational genetic pleitropyj between genes and the superficial characters organisms use forces with in action and reaction with their conditional environments that natural selective value is a function of the system of genes as a whole rather than being due ot individual genes which went along with his reasoning that it is the genes as whole in quantitatively variying traits where additivity was.But here we see that natural selective value may indeed vary with the individual gene. The gene is not selfish in Dawkins regard in this sense but what is favorable and unfavorable for a gene depends on the path of causation to the specific amino acid sequence that it posses mutationally. While this does not change the large effects it does alter in significant ways some cases and establishes genuine pleitropy of the single gene type.The 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 postumumIn 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 timeVorstellungen 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 DNAEx-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 be