a poison for anti-evolution ID theorists

I have never seen ANYWHERE in biodiscourse a Einstein's discrimination of a "clock" VS a "rod" and yet if there is a consistent and persistent epistemological exchange of space and time in the cause of any correlation suppposed AS SEEN then when it comes to answering questions (Dyson Origins of Life p2 "What is the physical strucutre of the molecules that are duplicated when chromosomes divide? How is the process of duplication to be understood? How do the molecules retain their individuality from generation to generation?" may fail for anglosaxon philosophical heritage the continental bias of Poincare against Cantor that only ? applies to the ROD and NOT the CLock ONTOLOGICALLY in the same confidence or motivation. That's only a guess. I have my own preference for Boscovich. Newton proposed against conspiring motions but since statistical physics we have not made these questions simply material remonstrations (because of an EXTRA symbol in Macrothermodynamcis). I doubt they should be but that does not mean we should not try.NN-the second to last senetence here should have been rather suggestive than declartive as there are likely outside my own thought other possibilites. Sorry, if my lazyness may have misdirected you if such was the case.[This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 10-08-2003]

nice point and so rare to see here. Good job W

The flesh is already there- you simply need to know (scientifically) that one can imagine the agent to entrain a common dynamic with two different kinematics either by electromagnetism or biometabolickinematics else Warren seems correct to me.If you THEN wish to distinguish an ID from and non-ID one one needs the acutal kinemtics or at best the dynamics itself short of a further collapse of revoutionary evolutionism (aka whatever can be humanistically yoked) to Mike's... There can be core Darwininan liked individuality without chance or there can be chance randomness that underlies the dynamics EVEN if some plane in the kinematics is constant so I do not see how Mike "did it" as you said. If I am wrong for not reading in detail the link then feel free to say so - but please try and do understand the discrimination I am making about teleology and the LACK of it in the GROWTH of biological thought- THAT i think is the mistake in any attempt to make a revolution in to an evolution- even Mayr's kind!!