Skip to main content

Axiomatic Panbiogeography

offers an application of incidence geometry to historical biogeography by defining collection localities as points, tracks as lines and generalized tracks as planes.
About Us
Contact Us
Site Map
Member Login
Incidence Geometry
Composite Construction
Craw's Ratites
Grossone Social Evolution
Quaternion Algebraic Geom
Primate Vicariances
Individual Track Construc
Generalized Tracks
Main Massings
Track Analysis and MetaCo
Martitrack Panbiogeograph
Replies to Criticism
Multimodel Selection
Search Encounter
Track Analysis beyond Pan


Fisher's equation dM/dt + M/C = W - D is not precise in the tetrational modeling environment.  The dissolution of the constant into a variable might interestingly be a cause of the difference between Fisher and Wiright's computations relevant to the evolution of dominance.  It would not be the case that the differences in their mathematical approaches had no bearing on the differences in estimates they determined.  The log reduced situtation of Fisher is approximated in the tetrational organon instructing the irreversibilty interface otherwise more simply narrated rather than modeled but not properly presented.

Roughgarden's question about whether or not  a general theory of community ecology logically in parallel with evolutionary theory is possible within Panbiogeography.  Her difference of a supply side and an interaction side can find conceptual nexus with Croizat's formaking  in independent mobilism and dependent immbolisim ruled by vicariance across the board.  The cross genus similarities in geographic patterns I am showing on this website (going back to the genus Eurycea originally) goes to indicate that Rougharden's distinction of diversity of communities replacing diversities in communities is proceeding  in the correction direction temporally and spatially  no matter the form. There is a biogeographic place for this logically cognized community.  Man will not change this community notion except insofar as the geography has been determined as to a different biogeography.  It is not clear this cannot be done tetrationally but there will be plenty of time work out man made effects (ecosystem eningeering) since irreversible affects (climate change) are more likely to intervene before any nefarious specs could even be cognized ( a general thoery of communities dependent on backward times to the Jurassic say will not be able to rule programmatically in the short term future intensionally in any easily practical way in any way at all. No not likely at any versimultude in the logic probabalized. Tetrational superlog calculus will have to be developed in the environment Fisher thought was ruled logarithmically before this is even thinkable. It is true that a non-Malthusian economic is so implied  but what the non-Libertarian equilibrium denotes may not even be in principle possible in a Mendelian world of future biology.

Wright's response to Fisher that included reference to a  supposedly needed understanding of "sub-division" is needed contra
Frank  2011.  The linear statistical power of path analysis can not be simply geometrically parallleled diffentially.  Vicariance in the sub-division is not the same thing as subdividions of vicariances (no matter the metric parallelable) given a mendelian as ooposed to a pure Galtonian heritage inheritance heritable.

It does not matter that Fisher was long dead when Wright so argued.  This will become clearer as the moving forces stratified in the tetrational frame is further designed for the parallels using grossone from infintesimal to infinte accounting of abundances PER CAPITA.  This is not confound intergroup selection with group selection.   It is inviduallyl based but is subdivided temporally in tetrationally rather than exponential ways for the compounded attractions and repulsions per pressures (mutation, immigration and selection) particularly.

It is not necessary to “believe” (Cole 1954) with Sadler (1830 Vol.2, p.68) that his so called- geometrical “ratio of human increase, is nevertheless, an impossibility.”  Instead,  it is possible to use a practical infinity actually with tetrations to show the difference of resistances (separation vs. displacement per solid penetration) that Darwin thought could “check” that increase.  Selection need not necessarily push the age of first reproduction to its physiological minimum as the age classes can be variable even in a fixed life table account.  The semelparous/interoparous distinction with infinite reproduction per infinitesimal variation in time for all of life (tetrated) shows in protein expression forces a grossone documentation that is true to the letter when resistances are defined for mutations that increase the iterogamous habit and attractions those alleomorph changes that result in larger fecundity per single reproductivce pulse.  These evalutations are computed form grossone life histories independent of Wright’s effective population number but show up in his population sub-divisions.  Both Cole and Lewontin were mistaken. A new grossone analysis enables these statements to be derived for biological intuitions that tend to preplant notions of multiple selection level evolutionary theory.  Instead things like plant annuals are relized as non gravity(earth) -- Sun affected falling of gametes otherwise in annuals and trees etc. The tetrational reality through cellular differentiation shows that time and age classes have been confounded by cohort syntheses.  Things that are by sun revolution age of different times are reverse ordered per time to gene expressions regulated in some cases and thus time and age classes are not parallel universally when the coded attractions and repulsions are stratified out per density in different volumes.

What is happening between the individual qualitiative differences per gene (sometimes double biophysical continuua per moving force) and the per capita population increase is that the disproportion between two age classes is under cohesion that stresses (D’Arcy Tompson) elastically the separation for a given individual’s gene frequency under different strains of translocations (linkage groups).  Wright’s use of individual’s  gene frequencies  across all genes and a populations gene frequency distribution in the same landscape are two ends of this strain and stress (per chromosomes DNA being material bearer of genetic factors having been computed).  This is intelligible!  Furthermore cooperative (true attraction) genes under social infrastructure selection can yield a yet studied phenomenon of evolutionary change.  Trees drop seeds to the sun by falling with gravity to the Earth that happens to be falling to the Sun.  They grow and reproduce thus to the sun.  The physicality of this tetration is smoothed in annuals that seed otherwise obviated. Cole was not using the trajectory of the Earth to figure in his equation of absolute gain by annuals changing to perennials (motion of solar system in the galaxy).

Ernst Mayr has often stressed population thinking to the exclusion of otherwise essential ideas.  This emphases is clearly called for when developing interactive intuitions based off of life table data.  There is no doubt that use of the natural rate of increase of a population has resulted in good understandings.  Gould's notion of punctuated equilibirum relies on the Taylor expansion derivatrion of  an  equilibrium between r and N into dBN/DT where some N is implicated but there *could* be the same equilibria with N = 0 rather than r = 0.   That sounds nonsensical but it may eventually be possible to bring an extinct species back to a a positive population size (cloning into another species).  I wonder if viruses are able to "resurrect" extinct species of bacteria by comediering another bacterial species.  Perhaps ameoba can do this within a particular lineage.

Darwin's reliance on Malthus resulted in a focus on absolute negative checks to keep the increase down and he sided with biotic rather than abiotic causes.  This is how ecology got to be so fruitful.  The realization however that Mendelian inhertitance dominates and the DNA is a coded substance of such heritability opens the way to understand the natural rate of increase in a manner that harkens back to Fibonaci.  It will appear that the simple dichtomy of biometry vs Mendelism was too restrictive for future biological understanding that has brought on molecular and direct physical forces in the physiologies considered.  This is how Mayr thought to separated proximate and ultimate and Gould could step above it.  Both appear mistaken on this view of natural increase that is replicated through the genetic code force expansions rather than simple population numbers attached to counts of the individuals involved.  This is not  Dawkins' reductive selfish view idea either though.  Population dependence still occurs (especially when density-dependence seems called for) but it is in the distances of the moving forces of the genes with the matters around the inheritable substance  (which is a difference between the transmitted genetoype and an expressed copy locally) and thus is actually abiotic not biotic (much as Fibonac's rabbit cage is no alive.  Mayr would have been better off to still insist on the a definition of life.  In this way he could keep separate what Kant always did.

So given this history it has always been supposed that the human population can not intrinsically continue to expand. But think about it for a minute.  Could the Fibonaci series apply to the future of human population growth?  Can humanity grow numerically from 1 to 2 to 3 to 5 tp 8 Earths worth of people down the line?  Is the current exponential fitting of the human growth curve but the incipient beginning of a future tetration?  I explore the possibility that the rate of natural increase is not an exponential under economic resistance but rather is a tetration compressed somatically.  Expansion away from the flesh not with it is the cause. This is not a religious concept.  It is a moving force classification from the forces themselves that need not be tied to all specific kinds.  It can work linguistically with differently coded and different physical distances forced with different proportions of gravity, e-m weak, strong etc. There is a difference and the decoupling of evolutionary biology from its social origin is a very good thing.

Imagine each rabbit cage as an Earth.  Fibonaci assumed no rabit dies as each pair makes two more in each time interval forward.  There will be a time when there could not shoulder to shoulder be room for more people.  What if we are able to a keep some constantly increasing group moved off of Earth into Space.  Then if we could replicate the growth of the human population on Mars we could absorb this growth as the extra Earth infrastructure is bieng built.  Since there is no life on Mars( we could modify this blueprint if we find some extinct traces or even living entities) it does not matter what geneotypes we greenhouse there to grow food.  We will use the community constants of abiotic gene parts (cut the Dna  here or there ) vicariant to given geologies to mathyc those on Mars with the goal of sending increases to the population off of Earht - to Mars and then onto asteroids.  Humanity will live on Asteroids with engines moving them to the outreaches of the solar system and beyond as the human exponential growth goes exponential up from 1 to 3 times and then 5 to 8 times etc as the solar system is explored, colonized and extirpated.  The key to the tetrational increase will be the genetic abiotic connection of attractions and repulsions linked differently genetically that is where Darwinian theory that found only r =0 and not N=0 an evolutionary possibility.  All hope is not lost for the future.  20th century biology was just one dead rather than two wrong!!.  How much this intended expandability depends on DNA computation  and not on natural increases remains to be written.  Why stop at tetrations if more is even possible?

There appears to be a discrepancy between the apparent random appearing effects of the environment and the complexity   of internal processes that govern the population numbers.  The tetrational prespective is meant to provide a larger enough theoretical place where the stability of poulation oscillations and flucutations can be related to genetic variance of individuals.  It provides a means to define effective age, expressed age and temporal age permitting the age structure variance to be causal with genetic drift and selection in numerous ways as the divergences below rT genetically are converged to developemntally Ess wise populationally.  Contra Cole it is possible to regard the human popuilation growth and other natural species growth trajectories as natural. Time in the equation Cohort = year - age however is no longer linear but dependent on Wright's fixation of  a gene as moves left or right theoretically.  Again this is not group selection but a way to understand natural history and natural life history as one both genetic and population projections.

Individual gene expression differences in behavior and development provide the stability that was a straw man arguement between Cole and Van Valen since there cooperation as well as competition goes towards the compuation of species replacement rates.  Again higher levels of selection intuitions are not needed here.  Gould may want to do so but the evolutionary force decompositions (to attractions and repulsions within genes across linkage groups) further researched are more likely to suggest other intuitive ways out of the Darwinian heritage he essentially afforded. Chapman's biotic potential evinroment is simply expanded within the cell where the attractions and repulsions kinetically operate on biochemcial constituents. There are not economic equilibria designs but syntheses of blinking fractals recursively. Infinetesmal differences in the distances between the repuslions and attractions per gene part (amino acid coded locus) tetrated to infinite reproductions per life history table grossone provide a further expansion of the modeling space that Roughgarden opened up under social infrastructure selection.

Tetrational Orbiting – Stepping into a Future

Is there a positive natural perspective for humanity’s tomorrow?  It seems not.  Ever since Darwin economic thought that checks or restrains potential human growth has become the intellectual and popularized status quo.  Especially since the 1970s,  it has become the norm to think that there is a limit to our growth and that we must morally and ethically do so.  Luckily we are past the eugenic stage of this form of thought on this topic that suggested race based extermination and sequestration. There still remains some existing local ethnic conflicts though.  Nonetheless, the thinking has led to some forms of directed population controls.  Are these necessary? Is there some way for the human exponentially modeled growth to have itself actually grow and do so without destroying natural genetic diversities but rather requires instead an even  greater appreciation and preservations of them than we have under the current doom and gloom scenario.  Sounds like pie in the sake paradise regained but is it at all probable.  It might be.

In the early 1830’s Sandler sought explain the data on human population doubling without relying on an economic premise the likes that Malthus did.  He attempted to devise ad hoc means to get the same data without assuming an exponential growth.  He did seem to rely on density dependence however.  Is there some other way?  Recently (since 70s) mathematicians started to become more comfortable with the idea and relations of tetration which is exponentiation  exponentiatied.  It is now possible to conceive of  hand made constructions where human growth doubleing can be modeled without assuming exponential growth but rather tetrational growth however one can do this by not using density dependence  but rather evolutionary independence (where equilibria are created with N = 0 not r = 0) when more than one genetic variance is involved.


We learn about this by exploring the thought in 1202 of Fibonnaci and realize that his concept relating math to biology ca be used to see a tetrational future for humaninty.

In order to make room for cooperation as well as competition we are going to assume that Chapman’s biotic potential (whatever it is that reduced by the environment (both internal and external) is modelable with a tetration rather an exponentiation. Thus cooperation can be found to have finite values of the tetrational height when in equilibrium with competition. Pure cooperation would lead to infinite power towers. That there can not be a complex number of the finite tower operations may be indicative of the difference of a NCE and an NBS where do both reach an equilibrium but could not if the a proportion to the square root of -1  were added.  In other words the continuous motion in the discontinuous space supported cannot support complex numbers making up the connections in the  continuum so inherent. Competition can win over cooperation when the nest exponential subtraction overwhelms the tetrational number (competition/ environmental caused changes in the base compared).  Thus a new field for equilibrium exists where dN/dt = 0^^n through the infinitesimal limit of x^^n as x>0 where x is the cohort = year – age.  This gives the difference of the repulsion and attraction geometry per gene part independent approaches depending on whether n  is even or odd and reflects the physiological difference of recessive and dominance generally.  When competition changes the base to a complex number higher order catastrophe set topologies are stressed and strained in the gene attractions vs repulsions already evolutionary retained and thus the life history traits bear directly on the evolution of dominance in these cases.  The current natural life history theory exists for infinite heights within a limited base range that converge.  This is the reason that this theoretical notion for other ideas that suggested that the exponential is not the only curve to fit the biotic potential was not reached.  In reality the populations don’t reach infinite size and the external fluctuations were confounded with internal cooperations and that exfolded.  The convergence region is e^-e to e^1/e.  Some of the confusions in interpreting the evolutionary conseuqnces from ecological considerations are thus resolveable.  It will be possible to think of net reproductive rate and average generation time as generally bounded by .066 to 1.44 depending on the alleles under consideration.  Implications for multiple sexes follow. An interesting speculation is whether the belt trick behaviorally developed can be used under cooperation to foil the effects of competition induced population cycleing between species.

Gregory Chaitin in his "Proviing Darwin Making Biology Mathematical" page shouldn't expect this theoretical mathematical biology to ever become as realistic as theoretical physics".  On the contrary it can  and it will.  He continues "it remains to be seen how relevant metabiology will ever be to real biology".  I think I have seen it it the different tetrationally extanded effects of mutations that affect repulsions differently than attractions in amino acids.  The power of his mutations can find a place in  this new model for ecology - evolution.  Darwin did not see this because he used only a particular example rather than a generalized mathematics.  He we subsume the entire ecological theory exponential within a broader tetration of component exponentiations which contains Wright's individual's gene frequencies and a populations' gene  frequency distribution  as sums of stable and unstable equilibria grossone connected by Chaitin like mutations. Equilibria points unlike the particular modeling thought that Darwin used and is present in economics the stable and unstables are linked by a division of properties individual /population and population /individual when N =0 and N=K with r = tetration to infinity.  Variations are grossome accounted for and thus contain the Chaitin oracle.   The grossone numbers relate the the complent of dN/dt equal to a negative to those that lead to unstable equilibria   The new concept is an individual carrrying capacity N which although seems to be population parameter is a function of individual variation already selected against the threat point. The sum of all individual N exponentiations is a tetrational of which only a mode is realized by the population.  This relates the perspectives of Wright that Provine asserted were unintelligable and it also allows thethe kind of presearch search that metabiology populates except that it is done by increasing r tetrationally (as if r =0 from the population perspective.) Thus stability has two parts the Individual's poulation potential and the populations N = 0  equilibira as the sum of all actual indiivudals in the finite grossone number part. These are different possible convergent vs divergenet sereies of -r and posstive r as mutations on repulsions and attractions within already coded gene amino acids.   The new math appears where r is both framable at 0 and infinity and the population continues (Wright vs Fisher etrc) with negative and positive r convergeing and divergin through the individual = population = 1 to the 1 to the 1...complepted infinity unstable inidivdual but stable population equilbria compounded projectively from unstable <1 to e^-e Ks ONTO a stable exponential negative r for dN/Dt from the tetrational complex searched via grossone numbers infintesiamally6 to infinitly.

Tetration ((((2)(2…

Y = e^rT (time effects bracketing and r depends on individuals, populations and whether tetrations or exponentials are inside and whether or not populations are aggregates of individuals or strict sequentiation of genes (these two perspecitves gave rise to the Fisher Wirght controversy).

What if you do some exponents left to right inside the tetration bracket and other right to left to get the convergence divergence differences? And create a set of exponentials that equal a tetration? Use belt trick to convert divergences to convergences between individual tetrations and population exponentiations??

(2^(2^2))*2 = 256  Individual quality 1

256*256 = 65536 aggregating a population of quality 1 and 2 individuals (2^4 = 4^2 contains hetero homo zygotic differences)

2^2^2^2 = 256  Individual quality 2


2^(2^(2^2)) =  65536  Population quality 1 (tetration inside)

2^((2^2)^2) =  65536   Population quality 2 (exponential inside)

either an even or an odd (placing of brackets goes to 1^^1

2^(2^2^2) = 65536 Individual 3

The convergent and divergent even odd rebracketings (either way) = 65536!

Population quality 4

There are 4 different populations and 7 different individuals possible with gene frequencies per individual and population distribution differences for 2 as biotic increase and starting population tetrated  to 4 times for a standard population max of 256.  The tetration is a combination of the gene distribution in the population and individuals that have those genes which is a larger number than the population size itself since it has to do with how the genes can be recombined to form another population of genes (amino acids etc).  Number of possible populations are always less than the number of individual types genetically determined. Two repulsions and one attraction per amino acid permit the shifting brackets.  This is how one reduces the tetration model to the current exponential values and shows how the rate of biotic increase which is modeled as an exponential is tetration with component exponentials inside. Full theory requires tetrations that converge for infinite sums.

So by combining all bracketings the 256 effective population size is actually 65536 gene individual population  tetrational decomposition.

This new modeling framework for ecology and evolution is clearly a form of metabiology.  Grossone numerology enabled me to reduce the universality of cantorian ordertypes as thought biologically in Woodger's older functors to the computational complexitty envisioned by Chaitin when he wrote of experimental metabiology.  I was able to find this route because like him I rejected the need for quantum mechanics as direct inspiration for zero sum games as applied in biology but unlike Chaitin I was able to reason from Roughgarden's difference of the NBS and NCE (via threat points)) within a double Cantorian continuum PER PHYSIOLOGY without different levels of selection. Goin\g the Nowak way is not necessary of to realize DNA as software.  Instead I thought through the entropy per level of oranization using the younger Winfree's DNA computers in the elder Winfree's biocycle as recapitulated somatic program of Mayr under a Roughgardian pleasure gradient.!!  I used my old statement "phylogeny recapitulates ontogeny because brownian motion is not reciprocally independent of gravity fall" and realized that a finite nesting of looping could relate a metabiological software experment if grossone numbers (infinitesimal to infinte) held the parallels between the exponential and the tetration of limitied finite height (65,000--> 250).  Oracles are not needed any logner for the metabiology of Kant's general physiology (forces classified between the phenomenon and the mechanics).

Some aspects of Ecological Orbits appears in this framework,  but whatever 2nd order differential equations can be derived from the discrete computation experiments in this metabiology,  they are not derived from a view that the environment is the only outside space expanded into (as suggested by Marvin Chester 2012)("The effect on the environment of a population's success is to alter that environment in a way that opposes the success" some of this opposition comes from within but the tetrataion is a larger expandability anyway).  This is the place of panbiogeography in distinction to Darwin's dispersal but it is from a biomass rather than a birth and death perspective that fill out under immobilism and mobilism those spaces that theory presupposed (Holt 2009).  It is not lineland but generalized track land in which the theory resides (not Island biogeography) but from a gene part biomass perspective of the inertia.  The future genearlization is not in this direction but rather to other higher hyper geometric operations so as to account for life that may not use carbon in its code.

Chaitin thinks that while the human genome has 3*10^9 bases (in 4 billion years) only an "infinitesimal fraction of the astronomical number 4^3*10^9 have been tried.  The tetration model shows that this number is actually much larger than Chaitin supposes.  Development and growth are not the same things.  Cellular differentiation tries exponential explorations of tetrational forms of Chait's "astronomical number" by compression beyond  a limit  of a certain codable substet of the 4 base combinations making it possible to move though the larger numerical space faster. Panbiogeography (which Darwin could never arrive at) provides the places in which this tetrational growth can and does occurr as in addition it applies off Earth (but maybe not on Saturn in the current iteration of thought). Metabiology is fully re-(ap)provable in this sense.My version got well beyond the Faraday flame in my last website. Reproduction was not independent of actual biology - neither there nor here.  Nowak simply got the sequencing wrong.  It was not 1) mutation, 2 )selection 3)cooperation but rather 1) selection 2)cooperation 3)mutation or without Fisher's elastic vs inelastic gas comparison it is mutation (different atoms)1) cooperation (repulsion + attraction) 3) selection.

Rather than the busy beaver problem (largest number calculated)
we use the gremlin traversed graph size
The program computes larger and and larger embeddable graphs already
traversed that fits the distribution points to a species and molecular tree.
Each collection locality is "mutated" from its old traversal graph's 3 angled representation
as a new metagraph is produced. When this formalism is combined with indiviudal rs to population rs
then the panbiogeographic space becomes that in which evolution filled.  This is how metabiology was
already contaied in axiomatic panbiogeography (using the older Hilbert  but
deriving a computational grammetology (Derrida on Croizat) lexos within a somatic program of social vs sex
ual selection population dynamics recapitulatble.  The closed biomath opens out onto the metabiological
RDF scrapped sematics.  That will describe the probability per versimultude for each 3 anglge program per postualted
pop dynamic kinematic. Time complexity binds the probabilites toa given path anaylsis through the latent hidden differences.

Cooperative Gene Theory-

This is a new theoretical framework in which to think about evolutionary change. It was created in part to respond to the issue raised by Wright when discussing evolution and human nature with Rougharden as Joan attempted to explicate within social selection her notion of social infrastructure selection.  At that time 2009 Rougharden had pointed out that she is working not on gene cooperation but rather on individual cooperation.  This framework does have a bearing on how individuals may acquire some actual cooperativity from gene cooperativity. 

Gene Cooperation has had a history in biology that is not directed and focused  and results in statements that are extremely varied , not only in their content, but also in the causation supposed to underlay the phenomenon being described.  The mathematical framework instructs how to pursue a particular kinematics that binds genes to cooperate.  This framework enables one to discuss the cooperation without having to know the precise distances of forces and the work that is going on while the genes interact together.  Epistasis, pleiotropy and gene interactions have been known for a long time but now there is a mathematical means to explore effects of changing interactions on population  parameters of life histories that selectable.  It turns out that the notion of natural selection relying on artificial selection was too restrictive.  Natural selection is much more diverse in its causes and Fisher’s attempt to view the difference of blending and particulate inheritance worked to blur this theoretical development.  It is as if the virial of the gas determines a distance that is then written as factor not that the unknown factors are to be understood as gasses inelastic or elastic.  Contray to Provine the apparent unintelligibility of Wright’s dual landscape presentations (individual ‘s gene frequencies and gene frequencies in the population) is simply due to a failure to explore a different means that natural selection effects changes.  Charlesworth was correct that Fisher’s view had kept changing age structure effects out practically and this evolutionary biology organon provides a remedy but it has to give up the  attainment of a stable age structure on interation.  The exponential part of population curves are suggested from stages of gene cooperativity


This is not a reductionist theory. On the contrary it is standard individual Darwinian selection without multiple levels of  selection. It avoids the problem that the history of cooperative gene ideas have displayed because though the actual distances of the gene parts physical forced spaces are not computed directly the physical genetic atomic substances are what actually determine the values the framework computes.  Some interpretation is necessary but it is far better  than the present praxis which seems to require training in postmodern literary theory just to understand what is being said.  Past theory relating ecology and evolution is seen as a limiting case of this one mathematically and that is what purely exposes the benefits that this approach provides.  Future molecular biology of the atomic/molecular forces moving and the expanded classification of the forms of these possible forced expansions heritably sustantied will provide a new means to interface DNA computation and the future of technology to food consumption and offer humanity a very different proposed way out of its current inefficient use of materials relative to human body physiology.

This work should not be thought of as a light in the darkness but rather a sober realization that metabiology may actually be our technological future.  Where we saw limits we were seeing through non-organic eyes only.  Much work remains to be done just to get the idea cycling let alone proving that cooperating with it is better than competiting with it.  It does have a potential to orient our built environments more towards healthy living that contains the communication techniques we currently have externalized.  Though the most proximate motiviation for designing this theoretical structure came from trying to imagine social infrastructure selection in particular lineages it really traces in my personal intellectual history to embody Croizat’s notion of orthogenic vicaricance in Wright’s population subdivision.  I was able to think about this more directly thanks to the class of Evan Cooch where Wright’s reference to Lotka’s “supplemental space and time information” finally became clear enough for me to think about physically. 

The evolution of dominance is case to be applied here and so are the individual’s qualitative contributions to a population’s average.

In Evolutionary Genetics, John Maynard Smith 1989 tried to narrate a difference between a microscopic justification and a phenomenologically  justified equation.  Here we dissect Smith’s microscopic vision and show that his difference between the individual replicating and the replicating individual are one and the same.  The framework enables one to go back and forth between these two.  The fundamental concepts are attraction and repulsion not microscopic and macroscopic.  When Darwin and Walllace thought that some selections were necessary to reduce the exponential potential they did not think that the genes by virtue of what ones can physically interact or not actually do some of this selection themselves.  Dawkins simply mistook the mechanics for actual increase.  This can not be accsssed directly intuitively because both the attractions and repulsions are orthogonally combined. The theory enables one to do this automatically so that the differences are not needed to be kept in mind continually while one is building the model.  There is a different message here. Roughgarden’s attention to individual cooperativity that encapsulated any economics helped to see that much or my older thoughts were not out of line here. I just needed to figure out how the genetic code converts the potential energies into actual ones (with motion).

I have not completely figured out how to relate the individual rs to the population r. One idea is to use quantum like particle interactions rather than Fisher's elastic /inelastic analogy understanding that Fisher did not consider say a mass that interacts (gene factor parts that have his version of evolution) but not genes as a whole (including their regulation inheritance).  It may be possible to use locality and uniatarity to define the relation of the indiviudal tetration r to the exponential population r via a biological least action principle where the ancestral backgrounds of each individual r are subtracted out of the tetrration to the population r within a total length of repulsions and attrractions massed across any population within a Galtonian historical hertiage. The difference in the potential energy of background heritages and current population kinetic energy may be related to the false thinking about analogies in the DNA complementation with computers.

Feynman made the point that Chaitin brings up by pointing to the influence of Von Neumann's software = DNA paper when Richard said the key idea to reproduce and organism was to have a complement the glove and a hand. He had assumed with Von Neumann that an organism was just and instructed lump of atoms.  Atoms could not reproduce by growing and divide in half but a thing and its complement could seperate and then reconfigure into two.  This  is the basis of quantum feynman diagram locality and  unitartiy where the particular interaction splits into two or gets larger.  Von Neumann however thought it ok to just have the instruction inserted anyway into the automaton.  But this only works from Feynmann's view that fruit fly is nothjng but the sum of its proteins expressed.  In  other words that the instruction for what a fruit fly is is nothing other than the simple sequence of base complements that express a sum of proteins and molecular interactions.  Metabiology however makes the mutated organsims as this software however to depend on the alogrythmic mutation as input to the intrsuction Von Neumann had seperated into the vat.  Some of this is in the masses Fisher did consider but some of replicative ability (tetration) comes from the way the genes are decompsed into baes thatrepresent  neigherst neighborr amino acids AND the extra alia interation of amio acids with themselves other biotic and abiotic chemicals (either in the vat or in the organisms).  This Fisher missed but metabiology provides a the begniing of an intution for.  Vicaraince had this all along.  Each protein has different selective forces for different decomposition codes of the reading frames.  The same protein with different neutral substitions when placed next to another gene with a diffeerent variant of netural codes can give rise to a different ancestral background that affects the moving forces that Von Neumann vat of chemicals either has particulares moving with elasitc or inelastic effects.  Thus Fisher's thought was too interalnalized.  Pewrhaps a least action of light scattering anology will make this clearer.  Chaitin does not want to start over with a different program but the infinity computer provides that possibility sa we imagine a technological future where are computers are parts of us and perhaps quantum computers rather than relics of the Maxwell-Faraday era.

Chaitin at first attempted to prove Darwin by using point mutation or single bit/basepair changes
as the mutation but was only able to get his idea to work when he considered algorthmic or high level
with already extant computer lanugages mutations.  A very interesting result is wehther there are such high
level mutation in extant organisms.  This is easy to comprehend panbiogeographically as slight changes in the
track^node^mass^baseline coeffients under changing generalized baseline representations of all of life.  SO a
consequence of continued work in metabiology may conclude with conventional biogeographers being convinced that\
the longer time frames of panbiogeography are actually correct as the species and gene trees are combined and compared
with those algorhimic mutations needed to fuse the trees when the baseline represenation is supersetted.

Now this notion of mutation (Chaitin) is connected specifically with the insertion instructions as DNA back in the organism.
Von Neumann said it did not matter where the reinsertion occurred. To get an algorithmic mutation you must still be
able to get any algorthm compuatble from the new place implanted. But Chaitin uses a full organism not an egg.
This is not what biology does. It goes back to Bateson's idea against Galton using Mendel about gametic vs zygotic
purity. So we can only get this mutations when we know where the inseration atomically can occurr without the egg or
zygote specifically.
What is missing is a clear view of the HARDWARE how the DNA expresses any algorithm.  The energy does not fully take care of itself.

the cellular differentiation is an exponential subtraction (not of the background but the foreground) in each cell of the
instruction which gave the development.  This may be mediated informationally via tracking of one of the four
bases and seems likely to be cellularly distributed by microtubules transporting guanosine. Anyway it is not simply
the reinsertion of the Dna that gives the next organim randomly but the reinseration and specific subtraction from the tetration
that matches the species made up of the population.  There is a chain of leveled effects that must work to the earth ecosystem
level that is implied in the Von Neumann notion of DNA as software.  Chaitin simply wonders how var metabiology
will influence real biology.  It will be extensive and particular but by this time macrothermodynamics will be relevant to t
he time form-making takes to create "new" genes.

The crucial final element of this framework is the application of suggestion that for binary fission one may think of this either has the birth of one new individual or the birth of 2 with a single death.  This is applied to cell number doubling embyrogenically to reveal that there are many hidden birth=death relations within developing life.  This enables one to directly link the individual r to the population r.

Axiomatic Panbiogeography enables one to do precisely as Chaitin suggested
(to add an algorithm to a "little" organism") and I had thought this before
reading his work when imaginig an example of social selection based on somatic
programs in panbiogeographic space.  A detailed algorithm inserted simulation of a axiomatic panbiogeographic
organism is possible by using a social infrastructure kinetcs in the changing collection
locality scoped by a mutatable track^node^mass^basline function of alpha beta and gamma angles which
plot the population locations of the socially selected individuals.

This also implies that K and r selected species is a false dichotomy.

The hidden (b-d) terms provide theoretical space to enable genetic switch insertion and control by non-coding regions. This allows one to related development to evolution THROUGH ecology otherwise NOT combined.

This new framework brings the study of population's growth from ecology through life history applications and fitness as increased r to development.  In this way evolution,ecology and development can be theorized in one process.  This is not being done today.

Grosstwo and grossthree modeling (where compression narrows expanstion for any penetration (between and among demes)) will specifiy when a  gene switch can be repositioned (in the place where the b-d=0 was.  These b-d terms determine the spaces that are needed in the genome between genes and thus will decide amounts of junk dna needed for any given compounded evolution, ecology and embryology.  One may thus conclude that noncoding regions (including gene regulators) accumulate during the evolution to multicellluarity, with the growth effects due to/correlated with development to a particular level of cell doubling, and due to the actual number of cell doublings itself.

With DNA, ‘Simple’ Cells Perform Acrobatic Feats of Computation

"Every human gene also seems to consist mostly of gibberish -- so-called junk DNA -- which scientists speculate may play a crucial role in the regulation and evolution of new genes. The ciliates, however, throw out most of their junk, "popping out" only the presumably useful material for retention in the second nucleus, said. The ciliate "has thereby solved the riddle of junk DNA. Having had a few million years longer [to evolve], it's possible they've come up with a more clever solution than the vertebrates."

On my view it is not that ciliates have had more time to evolve and thus have found away around the presence of Junk DNA ( explained as side-effects of assembling complex protein functionality over time) but rather that the ciliates acommplish what humans do with biochemistry more than biophysics.  Humans and other metazoans exert more compression per gene than ciliates which with only two nuceli have only 1 compression per evolved genomne.  The work is done by the biochemistry which gives rise to bilaterality as a result of the kinds of genes penetrative (two directions of repulsion for all for each attraction of a given expressed gene).  In multicellular organism this activity is encoded in the junk DNA itself as more and more cell doublings occurr before the penetrative expression.  Thus in higher organisms different genes are expressed at different times (embyrogenesis of histogenies) which ciliates lack.  Thus it is inaccurate to compare the funtionin go the JUNK""DNA of ciliates and humans.  Regulation of genes is different than the hieriachicial structure. A given regulation may occur in multiple hierarhices.  Which hierarchy is exposed depends on the metabolic activity of a the different (b-d) =os evolutionarily acquired by the different populations (one ecology (biochemistry) in ciliates (no division of biophysics (two directions of repulsions), many in metazons (one biophysics across multiple biochemistries).