General fitness, health and nutrition · Public discussion

Four out of Five?

Started by Tomhendricks474 · · Last activity · 6 posts · 408 views

← Back to General fitness, health and nutrition

Thread navigation

Jump through the discussion

Go to the original post, the replies on this page, or the latest preserved contribution.

01 / Original postFour out of Five?Tomhendricks474 · 22 Mar 2004 02 / This pagePosts 1–6Page 1 of 1 · chronological order 03 / Latest replyPost #6Jim Menegay · 26 Mar 2004

Thread details

What we know about this thread

Original section
General fitness, health and nutrition
Published
22 March 2004
Last activity
26 March 2004
Original author
Tomhendricks474
Posts
6
Discussion status
Public discussion
Total views
408
Views / 30 days
0

The navigation and discussion metadata provide context. Posts remain in their original chronological order.

Showing posts 1–6 of 6
Posts remain in their original chronological order.

Text size
  1. Original post
    Tomhendricks474
    Archived post
    #1

    The other day I was making a list of h-bonding

    1. mRNA h-bonds to tRNA
    2. In the secondary structure of proteins, both the a-helix
    and B-pleated sheet have secondary structures of h-bonds
    3. double helix has h-bonds in W-C base pairing
    4. RNA can fold and connect with h-bonds (such as tRNA) But
    5. tRNA to aa's is NOT an h-bond.

    I think to fit in, #5 should have h-bonds too. I don't see
    how all the rest of the list can be built on h-bonding in
    the OOL and #5 go a different route.

    My idea of an h-bond world seems 4/5ths right. That's why I
    look for that tRNA to aa's h-bond connection in its history.

    It's the missing link - or its gravity, the last force to
    be unified.

    Ezra Pound said about art, "Most arts attain their effect by
    using a fixed element and a variable." I think life does too
    with the fixed element being covalent bonds, and the
    variable h-bonds

    So why is #5 out of step?

    Comment?

    Report
  2. Jim Menegay
    Archived post
    #2

    [email hidden] (TomHendricks474) wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

    Quoted message said:

    So why is #5 out of step?


    Because 4 is the magic number. Unless you convert, that is,
    to the Quintarian faith. You should read "The Curse of
    Chalion", by Lois McMaster Bujold. Best sci-fi author ever.
    "Curse" is more fantasy than pure sci-fi, but it still was
    shortlisted for the Hugo.

    Report
  3. John Wilkins
    Archived post
    #3
    Jim Menegay said:
    (TomHendricks474) said:

    So why is #5 out of step?


    Because 4 is the magic number. Unless you convert, that
    is, to the Quintarian faith. You should read "The Curse of
    Chalion", by Lois McMaster Bujold. Best sci-fi author
    ever. "Curse" is more fantasy than pure sci-fi, but it
    still was shortlisted for the Hugo.

    Quinarianism - William Macleay. Everything exists in
    osculating circles of four within one.

    Note to moderator: This is actually on-topic :-)

    [moderator's note: I never doubted it for a second. - JAH]

    --
    John Wilkins [email hidden]
    wilkins.id.auwilkins.id.au "Men mark it when they hit, but do
    not mark it when they miss"
    - Francis
    Bacon

    Report
  4. Jim Menegay
    Archived post
    #4

    [email hidden] (John Wilkins) wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

    Quoted message said:
    Jim Menegay said:
    (TomHendricks474) said:

    So why is #5 out of step?


    Because 4 is the magic number. Unless you convert, that
    is, to the Quintarian faith. You should read "The Curse
    of Chalion", by Lois McMaster Bujold. Best sci-fi author
    ever. "Curse" is more fantasy than pure sci-fi, but it
    still was shortlisted for the Hugo.

    Quinarianism - William Macleay. Everything exists in
    osculating circles of four within one.

    [moderator's wait a minute: Did you MEAN "osculating"? Not
    "oscillating"? I have to look this author up.... - JAH]

    Yes, I see it! In fact, it stands out like a sore thumb. Can
    we look forward to a new synthesis of Nash, Hendricks474,
    Bujold, and Macleay?

    Report
  5. John Wilkins
    Archived post
    #5
    Jim Menegay said:
    (John Wilkins) said:
    Jim Menegay said:

    [email hidden] (TomHendricks474) wrote:
    > So why is #5 out of step?
    Because 4 is the magic number. Unless you convert,
    that is, to the Quintarian faith. You should read "The
    Curse of Chalion", by Lois McMaster Bujold. Best sci-
    fi author ever. "Curse" is more fantasy than pure sci-
    fi, but it still was shortlisted for the Hugo.

    Quinarianism - William Macleay. Everything exists in
    osculating circles of four within one.

    [moderator's wait a minute: Did you MEAN "osculating"? Not
    "oscillating"? I have to look this author up.... - JAH]

    Osculating. Macleay's idea was that everything was naturally
    arranged in groups of five (my mistake, I said four above)
    which could be represented as circles that touched, or
    osculated (kissin' cousins, sort of) - it was a kind of
    Goethean numerology, and inspired Owen to suggest that there
    was a relationship - homology - that did not fall into the
    trap of misleading analogies such as Macleay and his
    follower Swainson made out (tigers and zebras were analogous
    because they both had stripes and were hard to train!),
    although the third site below suggests that Owen was
    *following* Macleay.

    He was very influential on the subsequent debates in
    systematics. Darwin and Huxley both read him closely,
    and in their reactions were influenced by both his ideas
    and mistakes.

    rjohara.net1988IOC.html
    rjohara.net1996Milan.html
    nceas.ucsb.eduMacLeay.html

    The Quinarian and variation systems are well discussed in
    this book:

    Nelson, Gareth J., and Norman I. Platnick. 1981. Systematics
    and biogeography: cladistics and vicariance. New York:
    Columbia University Press.

    Quoted message said:


    Yes, I see it! In fact, it stands out like a sore thumb.
    Can we look forward to a new synthesis of Nash,
    Hendricks474, Bujold, and Macleay?

    Why not? All old mistakes are made new again in each
    generation...
    --
    John Wilkins [email hidden]
    wilkins.id.auwilkins.id.au "Men mark it when they hit, but do
    not mark it when they miss"
    - Francis
    Bacon

    Report
  6. Jim Menegay
    Archived post
    #6

    [email hidden] (Jim Menegay) wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

    Quoted message said:

    [email hidden] (John Wilkins) wrote in message
    news:<[email hidden]>...

    Quoted message said:
    Jim Menegay said:

    [email hidden] (TomHendricks474) wrote:
    > So why is #5 out of step?
    Because 4 is the magic number. Unless you convert,
    that is, to the Quintarian faith. You should read "The
    Curse of Chalion", by Lois McMaster Bujold.

    Quinarianism - William Macleay. Everything exists in
    osculating circles of four within one.

    [moderator's wait a minute: Did you MEAN "osculating"? Not
    "oscillating"? I have to look this author up.... - JAH]


    "Osculating" is right. At the risk of trespassing in John's
    field of expertise ...

    To a certain kind of mind, pattern in the presentation of
    the data is as persuasive as the bare pattern in the data.
    Hence Nash seeks additional instances of his double
    dichotomy and asks "Who is the Watchmaker?". (It is not a
    metaphorical watch, it is cut glass. And Nash need look no
    further than his mirror to find the craftsman.) Hendricks474
    fails to fit a datum into his system and immediately
    suspects the solidity of the datum. Menegay notes a pretty
    self-expansion property in the Price equation and has since
    been exclusively fascinated by those evolutionary models
    that can be explicated using this framework. I suspose it is
    fair to note that sometimes real progress can be made by
    utilizing this aestheticly guided habit of mind. But not, it
    seems, sustained progress. A balance is needed between
    selecting the data to match the theory and selecting the
    theory to match the data.

    Report

Keep exploring

Browse the sectionGeneral fitness, health and nutrition Return to CyclingForumsStart at the home page Search discussionsFind another thread

Active in the last 60 minutes

Active in this thread

0 users · 0 guests ·0 bots ·0 total

No signed-in users are active right now.

No known search crawlers active right now.