A Quantitative Way to Differentiate Species [was On the need for 3-D energydynamics [and still is]]

kenneth collins kenneth.p.collins at worldnet.att.net
Fri Feb 25 22:49:50 EST 2005


"kenneth collins" <kenneth.p.collins at worldnet.att.net> wrote in message 
news:YjFTd.279676$w62.209737 at bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
| [...]

I must devote most of what I'll do online this
'night' to doing some other "Heavy-Lifting",
so my comments in this thread will be shorter
than I'd expected they would be.

First, a bit of personal "history".

I learned everything I knew about "protein
synthesis" from a Lecture that was given
at an AAAS Conference that I attended
back in the 1980s. The topic was "Protein
Folding", and the Lecture was =Brilliant=.
Not that it matters to this Lover of Marie
Curie, but the Lecturer was a Woman
Scientist. I Apologize to Her, that I do
not, presently, recall Her Name. It's all
Documented in NDT's archives.

The Lecture was so Brilliantly done that
it enabled me to See the 3-D E ramifica-
tions of "proteins" clearly, and, in my
current reading in my Intro Molecular
Biology Text, nothing yet has contra-
dicted anything that I Saw in the Shin-
ing-Brightness of this Lecture.

It'll be a while before I can properly
Credit the Lecturer by Name -- I've
no idea where the particular archived
material is within my "pile of paper"
[it got "jumbled" every 'time' I had to
move from one 'home' to another],
but the folks at the AAAS should be
able to clear that up in short order
because this Lecture was one of the
main talks at that 'year's Annual
Meeting -- so there aren't that many
lecture titles to sift-through to find
the Name of this Brilliant Lecturer,
and I hope someone will do that,
because She Taught me the mol-
ecular 'side' of "3-D E" right then
and there, and She Deserves the
Credit.

Here is this night's "deep insight" into
3-D E. [Because I saw that I'd have
to work on another Problem this 'night',
and wanting, very-much, to "polish" a
"rub", I flipped-ahead in my text and
read-some with respect to "transcript-
ion.]

On p. 229 and 232 of the text, the
different "rates" of eucaryote and bac-
terial amino acid addition in protein
formation are addressed -- 2 and 20,
respectively.

There seems to be an "efficiency-dif-
ferential in-there, no?

Nope.

What it actually discloses is a "show-
stopper" within bacterial evolutionary
dynamics. It discloses an evolutionary
cul de sac -- a "dead end" -- an evol-
utionary local-energy-minimum into
which bacterial evolutionary dynamics
"fell", and from which they can't extract
themselves. It's an evolutionary branch-
ing point that discloses some of how
and why the "branching" is instantiated
and maintained -- a form of "biological in-
ertia", right-there, plain-to-see.

The differential rates derive in two ap-
proaches to an instance of molecular-'level'
3-D E.

And why the eucayotic version is 'slower'
is that it's doing 3-D E more-powerfully
than is the case in the bacterial version
of the 'same' molecular-dynamics type.

This points directly back to the stuff of
my earlier discussion of the way that
genetic enhancements must be spread
throughout "the genome" via relatively-
small refinements. Which is also 'just'
3-D E.

The differential rates disclose the relative
workloads that the correlated genomic-
complexity differential impose within
protein formation within the two organism
types.

In the differential rates "ontology recap-
itulates phylogeny" in a clear, and highly-
quantifiable way :-]

Eucaryote protein synthesis has to "walk"
the 3-D E complexity, which gives it the
appearance that it's so-"walking" slower.

But that's just an Illusion because, when
one understands 3-D E, one sees that it's,
right-there, that an exact measure of phy-
logenetic "complexity" is disclosed.

It's a whole new way of Classifying Species :-]

[Note: I expect that the rate differential is
not linear with respect to "complexity",
but shows some [how much?] nonlinearity
that, when understood, will disclose that
the eucaryotic rate is actually considerably-
faster, with respect to overall information-
content, than is the bacterial rate.]

[Note to my Colleagues in Neuroscience:
The stuff I've discussed above maps dir-
ectly into the "ER Engram" hypothesis
that I discussed a few 'weeks' back in
another thread, and constitutes complete
Verification of =a portion= of that hypo-
thesis. I'm not asking anyone to "agree"
with me, on that -- because I've not, yet,
discussed all that's entailed. I just thought
it'd be appropriate to Declare that it's so,
here -- and offer to discuss it, in-detail,
in-person. If anyone's interested in it.]

It's a Joy that, in my reading in this text,
I can't read anything without this sort of
deep-3-D E stuff just "jumping-off-the-
pages into my mind. I =really= need to
get together with Molecular Biologists
so I'll be able to Share all of this with
them.

But there's also Sorrow in Seeing that it's
so -- it's causing me to reevaluate the
Consequences inherent of my discussion
of 3-D E.

If I continue, the result will be more stuff
being 'borrowed' and 'held in secret', by
folks who 'do science' for 'profit', and
that imposed 'secrecy' will controvert the
Purpose that underpins my discussing
3-D E, and which would 'just' 'bury' NDT,
more.

It's an Immense-Sorrow that this sort
of Negative-Consequence even needs
to be considered.

But my experience has disclosed to me
that it does.

And, Experience Matters.

Even when it's Sorrow-Filled.

I see that I must Stand-Against the 'Dis-
honoring' of Truth.

I should be just having-Fun, but it's fallen
to me to have to Lead with respect to
Honoring Truth.

The Burden, inherent, is Terrible.

k. p. collins 





More information about the Neur-sci mailing list