For now I will very cautiously venture out into cut and paste land becasue:Max WellSaid-"explication or complication, I must leave to the metaphysicians"
If this is too much for a single message post please let me know as others have responded such and I will refrain former to latter the same.
The only thing I have said/done (not clear since it was during involuntary application of law) that even mildly felt I mislead was using the word "medium" in a stronger sense then my mind at the time posseses (simply having more advertisments than parents I guess).
It is now my feeling that Galelio no matter the impression before may have had a sense of cardinal and ordinal numbers' effect on nature (time) that Newton avoided in creating distinction of absolute and relative space and time that Einstein narrowed the scope application of but sought expansion back to biology in same no matter whether Aristotle be rejected in sensu stricto or lato for in any worthwhile creation/evolution discussion the summary may be contained lexically as the above grammer would detail out Galelio's De Motu "For. pray, do not the following two propositions merge into one. Forced motion is slow at the end. Therefore, natural motion is slow at the begining."
It seems furthermore to me that that this devolution is not contradictory to HM Morris who writes out in the DEFENDERS Study Bible "Miracles of providence operate within the framework o fthe two laws bu require control of process rates or timinings " . I think the change as it changes below the belt between forced and natural motions in Galelios sense that cleaned up c/e goings on Galelio,"we see therefore that the lighter a thing is, the more easily it is moved; but the less does it retain the impetus it has recieved. And so, since the air as was shown, has no weight in its own proper place it will be moved very easily, but will not at all retain in the impetus it has recieved. And we shall show below why light bodies do not retian this {force penetrante(what Mendel genetics added to people after Darwin)} impetus.
The entire Fisher-Wright thing can be read as the "natural motion is slow at the begining" with Fisher and Wright disputing about how slow the begining is and to what futher effect while the the evolutionist exaustion with creationism due to not completing the circle and only viewing the interpreation due to Forced motions (without rereading and reworking the science (which the creationists do but usually reactively)..
This should be clear to any one seasoned in creation evolution debates. If it is not the mistake comes from what Hume was rather indifferent to and I am in this sense though I reject Hume completely on this point. I would rather awake with nutty day reading Kant.
Will Provine says and influences graduate students that no creative science emerges from the Fisher-Wright correspondence but he simply has thick epidermis rather than bluntly rejecting (He did "debate" Johnson in Alabama) creation science as some other 1/2 evolutionists in SJ Gould sense word some do and say I reiterate but I digress not.
This is more or less what I mean when I speak about A-B C/E giving more to evolution as bait and also likely the ontology behind philosophical attempts to comprehend scietific creationism epistemology. Notice this is LARGER than intelligent design. I will write more on this as I renew comparing plausible inference and plausible structure.
Oct. 19 2000 TAXACOM "I have not found any museum server providing a file of point data for" taxa ranked (but see
www.groms.de) point data for migration birds
Assembly language and GIS technology for topography USING HEIGHT insisiting on articulating a realational database to a GIS for equalled geodesic transformed to arrary of circles ("Hot spots" are a part of form-making not a part of topography rather components in morphogeny) on surface-sphere-geometry or grid analysis as the height available by GPS + specimen labels towards co-ordiante system construction reducing this co-ordinate system by finding inertia thus increasing co-ordiante take from lat/long to lat/long, scalar(above sea level) the momentum discusses to black as white and white as black to sea basins/trenches geosynclines two process and criticism of DIMENSION not range technology suggest is DISTRIBUTED in geography of planet Earth as Earth and Life evolve together pressing the stress-strain motion minded beyond the old material basis, as the former thought this a priori but not Kant's Prussia NOR Berkely's Newport! lacks an enemy not an understanding!!
issue of trinomial of no use unless rank left unspecified-despecifying rank claims for trinomials (especieally in herpetology) for use in special effect affordaces of input for GIS also otherwise technology implementation from FROMER database designs
organization and levels of selection a means to differentiate populations that may have colonized in different groups though within the same co-ordinate system whether slightly or more so if not at all distorted by human manipulative efforts orienting the data distributed from the DBMS Intergraph would have used 2000 for the pure math they said would have to come from academia point datum thought to mingle with (to panbiog italic pxiv) the controversy
GIS distributional maps and predicting phylogenetic relationships from panbiogeography on the presmise of geographic and chromosomal out of Chatper "Towards a new regional biogeography ( the revival of biogeographical classification) " presented by chromosomal botany and dispersla evolution principally believed to result from location as in Lerner The Genetic Basis of Selection further Henderson's like Mendel place of offspring in neighborhood of parent no dominant/recessive vs epistasis in Bateson's work difference found here for former variation continuous contra discreet with conservation founded on external variable caused extinction probe not FOUND IN LINEAR LINKAGE OF SAME GENES PER UNIT INTERNAL TO BOUDNARY defined by said topology.
Cogent revision by viewing GIS distributional maps of taxa distributions beyond support from conservation biology by spin off funds the technology plys for mineral distribution, economics geography, etc. not modelled SPATIAL distributions (e.g. less discontinuous) post German technique of mapping dispersal summing significance of vicariance fullfilled and orthoselecting a difference between artificial and natural seleciton for grammer in the chemistry a la mode for mobile zones South of Teythian geosyncline.
Praise for the "damage" creationism has had since the 1960's helps to sort the limits suggested by Croizat 1958 between ecology and zoogeography still unrecognized by in notion in Creationism where ecology achieves a specific description in terms of a uniform time (not forever in duration) of ecological zonation what would not be boundary (Croiat attempts to DElimit.
Thus GIS technology in this historical debate enables the extreme between a rattling drive of Croizat constantly supported by logarithms, digrams etc. to reach all the branches of biogeography in the most repiticious manner this apprehensible ecology provides the adhective for.
Thus Croizat's criticism in general by which certain birds happened to reach certain islands or horzianism in the very first place not under water rather than interested environmental factors which acted on these birds in situ cuts the same way for the creationists as well as the opposition to the "geographic distribution" of Darwin and Wallace and the "zoogeography" of Mayr, Simpson, Gould, Nelson etc. being interested in the environs factor which acted on these birds AFTER they reached those islands anyway. This ecology may be substituted for one which implicit will explicitly express a reproductive ratio in terms of an expanded range reached not me extension in some line (plane size) not more plane from line induced to these deduction admittedly partial).
The hisorical issue was not dependent on my reading in history as per above but rather that tension or stress was generally (today we would say popularly) was a "poor-man's" vision of what Henri Poincare wrote in a note on The Future of Mathmatics.
Clerk Maxwell thought it quite difficult to keep both all the physics and math in the head at any one time. Today's evolutionary biologist has an even harder time keeping all this stuff "mental" without being accused of being Mad. That mathematics has a future with evolution thinking material pedagogy has been forgone (since 60s-70s?) for years but it has been philosophers not mathmaticians that have added to the course requirement of the biologist (IT age is changing this but leads more to diveristy than some one's unity). Noqw this was too much. Add to that the social consequences of creation that one finds in the popular culture and who let the dogs out.
It is the responsibility of genetists (contra Dunn) to try to consolidate this future so the student is not thrown out as a statistic with Simon Levin's patched bath water (Statistics needs to start to constuct more tools etc). But the math currently applies has so many needed relaxing variables it is hard to imagine others will ever be ablt to be up to Richard Lewontin's challege to not deconstruct the evironment with organisms erecto-set strange change machines especially as Gates says "ecosystem" is something on a creation/evolution web board.
Poincare asked for the direction to the future and I have been hammering away at the keyboard on this till the illegal mass results as a result others have yet to find fit to try to keep all this on one hyperlink or in one brain cell etc. It seems likely that physics has made some POOR choices, math has accepted too much philosophy prematurely and biology has been unable to equate (Lavoiser=Darwin=Galileo).
Meanwhile as a matter of fact I think that if it is true that the imponderables gave rise to Either "vital force" or "vital spirit" through suppresion of eITHER Darwin's gemmules or Buffon's force impenetrante then it is clear as it was to my teen-age popular science educated mind (investigating piezeoelectricity) that Faraday's contribution makes two directions of these as of one BOTH stress and strain. Waddington's canallization seems TO NOT support this historical reading and current opinion is against me in BAD way which is not to say I am wrong. I do not think so.
This is what I was concerned about when I wrote my UNDERgraduate thesis but Will Provine would not hear to this snake's ear. The reason simply is that develop(and I suspect developmental psychology as well but I have read none of this but headlines)ment is not concieved in this expanding space while growth prima facie so quids the squid thereof. I guess it is fear of death that is too strong a presumption to overcone within the grounds of the university ( as if I needed to quote NY state law for you).
BRAD McFALL
™ Version 4.2
