A LAUNCCH FOR EXPECTATION THEORY IS A FREE LUCH-- Selection is understandable but to will a wedge, that is another question remarked opinonated or what?
One could have expected that no matter the Castle of Pascal's King that the first Darwininan revolution really owed less to Malthus rhan any biologcal materialism would title. William Provine (SEWALL WRIGHT AND EVOLUTIONARY BIOLOGY) insisted in more tha a unitary place
p293 "I think instead that Wright had excellent reason to believe what Robson and Richards were saying, both because they were following a strong tradition and because contemporary evidence supported their view(Provine 1983)."
p269 "When I first tied the hypothesis on Wright in out interviews, he indicated agreement but with none of the certainty he typically exhibited when he clearly recalled an event. I was convinced, and shared the hypothesis with audiences at several univeristies."
p303 "For example, Wright answered Mayr's 1959 foray immediately (Wright 167) and continued to answer it over the years up to and including 1984."
p43? "Mayr also replied to Ford saying that "the whole matter distresses me greatly" and that the reason he had returned the paper was "certainly not because the opinions expressed in it were unacceptable per se" (Mayr to Ford April 14, 1949)
p455 "Nothing in my own background has been so essential as the constant interaction with both Mayr and Wright and feeling the tension between their historical interpretations."
ONE OF WRIGHT's teachers is in my own background. At most, this is typological for me but rahter I would read Levin's bath water. The tension feel is really between my Mother (Chrisitan) and Grandmother (Agnostic?) as my grandfather passed in my second failed attempt at marriage unawares to me.
I know Willknows the difference between change and multiplication evolution but the Mayr duo with Will does not make finding out and I was removed from even being able to TALK with these audiences but bu web, what orthogenesis COULD mean very student accesible nor what it may in word actually mean in the sam connotation that Crick did with the vital force but by limiting best biology (in this way) to authorized anti-Micurianist theory-empirical colelciton protocols (Lewontin etc) what is need in "the biology is not physics" climate of academia is rarely achievable (Kaufmann et al) but is a different relation to math depts thanPhyics has enjoyed IS IS IS IS NOT. Pascal knew this. Huygens and Leibniz no matter the Chomsky do not seperate SPATIALLY the possible f2 difference to any Port Royalist yet information or game theory is not on target either but THAT is all secularists such as Provine had to work on working with. But Pascal's point graphed geometrically of geometry apparently even in the space age had not soaked even with small continuous effects into their collective Changeux brain that even topology was not definitionally available for any wrongly taught taxogeny in evolution classes. This is not essentail ism, Monod's chance, or typology but at what levels of organization variousl (o,1) concpets enter the bioloigcal modeling (Please recognize that the philosophy of this relation of thought to pratice is not merely a philosophy of pattern and process as some bioloigsts have it writ as) whether by pen and papaer ow with electrons, whatever the materiality no matter the naturalism.
Weismann then interpreted, only, is lined with Provine dynamics or rather phase transition even more narrowly which for me is the "diagonal" of the Matrix presentation of Pascal's triangle when not illustrated specifically in a Mathematica Front End. I could start with reproduction as a sink of genetic variation under distribution of hot spots but then saptially I may have missed something so I will remain as constricted as Nerodia is not Natrix being the assignment not of a baralipton but the tea honesTly. P413 "
Of course, this switch is exactly what Wright would execute as systematists became more and more adatptionist in their outlook." Provine only "killed" Kaufamn's motivation of blinking lights, no mine. Nor is it Gates' "ecosystem' lookin.. I do not base this on religous committment, though I am free to do so, but on our rather more modern (post-Cantor) understanding of infinity (hence reason I may not be exactly in an ICR lineup) that was not open to Pascal but perhaps spirtually ( I say nothing of the Catholic understandin of the same). This means that Mary has set up a social antithesis just as Wright accussed Fiher/Ford in the either/or logic. \Simon Levin (probably no Liebniz) would not give this kind of multiplication even the applied math day (which I felt Hilber's program was sufficient justification to not devolve me into specifically Kantian ornamentation for any allometry)(yet Cornell STILL threw me out), so why would one expectan even less mathematically inclined historian to offer the sudent a mentor will to split Pascal's hair between arithemetic, geometry and mechanics by not denying Newton's GOD (WILL PROVINE HAD OPENLY DONE THIS-- THIS IS WHY I ASKED TO ADMINISTRATION FOR SOME ONE ABLE TO OVERSEE THIS--- THEY CALLED WILL UP BUT THE j u d icial administrator was able to percieve the legitimacy in the complaint and I merely wanted the same passed on to the president (RHODES) who had writ a book for the kid on evolution only unknowing both on the phone and in writing my messages were sent for judment smaking of psychiatry and to the medical offices of the university (Rather than NYC)) nor Maxwell's electrotonic state. The secular pedagogy failed the student in this regard and creationists need more legal power for other new age reasons that interdigitate even the fish of digital number >5. Newton may have deined this point to Galileo but genetics changed the stakes. US law did not see this coming. I hope you all see me going at most. I t was neither as high nor as wanting as Bill Clinton said. Pascal's speaKS TO this station which without field lines can be likely read from Chinese documents as well.
Mayr's scholarship PREVENTS as best I can tell, the kind of interaction with math that the Cantor Infinity beyond Bolzano that I understand was communicated to the Pope before 1900 is not phenomenology strictly. Mathematicians questioned Mayr et al over the "parameters" in evolution thinking and he seems to have not been able to live this down. I have not been able to 'extract' any math from Mayr which is not strictly fied to actual ecological reasoning so it is possible any Croizat I do for what is actual criticism of Mayrs science may come down to tests of neophenogenesis and character geography gradients in herpetology that may be pointing to a different Wright diagram than the one I read on thinking of Croizat's Tucans and Hummingbirds bot not Ostriches say but when Mayr (ONE LONG ARGUMENT p34) pens "The clear statements about mechanisms of speciation that we now can make more than 125 years later are based on out understanding (as far as it goes) of genetics." I am willing to work ALL of Pascal's combinations within for demonstrably this is not arithemetic as Pascal concieved or one would want to do with transfinite arithemetic for instance one to one and onto any of would be Newton difference between mechanics and geometry for every thus Wright's geometric progression which in the spriit of Pascal could have been doubled (need to read some Chinese Numbers perhaps) that Cantor may have reduced or abstracted ( as we do not yet know what this physico-chemically would be to not mistake physiological genetics with transmission genetics. I would rather read fro Gould's typewriter than a genomic database in this regard. Pascal's double rather works better for creationism than evolution because common descent always works back to a conceptual binding at least while it is fra from clear if a created kind is a kind of this double physico-chemistry of an actual orthogenesis or merely a theroretical advance on the standard lines of mere statistical refinement as per Wright senso stricto of any latitude.
I am not worried about Nietschze as U can read II Poe however the Postscript of Kierkegaard is also not Gates' translated printer so as to what support infinity could even denumerable post-Quine I leave to my even rather sideing with Russel on the plurivocal (ambiguous in Quine's state) denotations of word "order" till 'ordertype'(Cantor) be either by consensus word "exponent" or some other number of Faraday Field LInes through the Chinese Model by any other internal, central, centric as writ prior etc as if not to change when going beyond Hydrogen fundamental series application precievable in flame spectra for any reciprocal illumination from/in New Zealand panbiogeography.
Precendently, THE MIND no matter Rene Thom etc is not uniformly red Agustine's, Descartes' , Pascal's, yet be minded is activity that not even the power of movement in plants is cardinally larger enough to, mask the so-called paradox of certaintiy without an act of faith. There is a creation/evolution illusion and this is not my opinion or backside only. When is 2+2=5 the same as 4 minus 0? 0 minus fourth?? Pascal's triangle has more biological space than extracting any infinity from the mouth parts of a mosquito rooted in polynomials nor is this Johnson's "nominal" Christianity. The difference with respect to the 1303 or earlier Chinese Triangle depends on graphical techniques (software testing metrics + morphometrics) o fPascal's section or the other way around for which at least linguistically Pascal can be read to have doubled all the points (please note these need not be {0,1}. The connection to accupuncture may not be electroronically counter indicated but the bioloigcal theoretical equality (for all the propotions to be granted) of Pascal's and The CHineses' traignles MAY BE ????? completely within the advance of the infinite in modern set theory by criticizing Quine etc yet the highest lights in the biological authority still prefered Chomsky to any Roman Road I may still be walking the telephone line extension on. Can you hear me now! I pray people will understand sooner than later so I can come into my own and my own come into me. This has not happened. Time for dinner I seem to have rotated lunch out. This should clear the way to reading in the creation Kierkgaard's "unscientific" as "scientific" in creation science which Western Bias continued to see religion where Islam was but it is science only post-Cantor and with John Paul 1996.
™ Version 4.2
