"You are not really a scientist. You are a biologist"

I find it is quite the opposite, that biology is more open-ended than physics (aka Penrose etc). What is "stuck" is the 'economy' and its relation to biology. Feynman once said that some institution had as many equipments as there were facts in physics which made that place quite endowed. This is not the case for individualistic biology since Darwin. History is the fact. Everyone posses it if they dare to say so.Gould could easily have written,"You have a problem with "these" ideas, Richard, because you are not an interactionist. You're a molecular biologist.Can Richard be pigeon or button holed? Sure, we have done that even here on EVC. Does Barrow really mean anything here other than biology is stuck as is politics with our economy??Yes, Lewontin made it clear in "Biology as Ideology" that for him at least there is this thing between 1700 and 1800s (I quote that here) but I am pretty darn sure this all changes with Cantor and Russell (around the time Mendel was "rediscovered")and since Bohr was only able to encourage Delbruck (and this only got virus biology etc.) it is still the physicist's fault that biology has not found itself able to get unstuck with better maths. It can not be the case that biologists have to alter the whole of economics every time they do some work. I am sure this did not happen because of what Godel and Einstein were talking about.But really if Barrow is so concerned with "variation in constants" then he would need to see how the suggestions I am making actually drive towards a biology that is beyond physics. For if (I am reworking my argumentation here )it is the case that Darwin used w.2, w.3,w.4... for food productivity immanent arithmetic increases while reproduction is exponential transiently(confusing the two principles of generations of numbers infinitely PER SPECIAL CREATIONS (hence the relation to creationism)) then he would find that biology can result in new laws available for physics (as I started to say in more detail here(how Gladyshev's work relates physiological and biochemical orthogenesis)yet to come).Both of my brothers are less open-minded than me (scientifically) and they are physicists. I now work with a Mensa(175 IQ)Engineer and I find the same thing yet again with someone else.It is the social surrounding of biology not biology itself that Barrow railed agasint. I wish I had the privilege of making statements like that and being heard. I never felt a need to diss Dawkins because his "Selfish Gene" book did it for him by his own words. Gould knew that. Only if Barrow has designs to rid biology of its individuality could he be correct. I am not living to see that day. Dakwins could be correct but then both my grandfather and I must be wrong. That is much less probable than just me being off.Look here is some data I collected that shows that the ostracods I have are cathodic. If one reads Jacques Loeb one would find that he considers this to be a “forced” motion. Is it? By what forces of physics?? It is not an easy question to answer. Barrow surely would not find vitalism here (which was what Leob was writing against).(I do not have any other info on the possible endosymbiotic nature of the liver of these guys as the prof at Cornell had some problem with his equipment, is building something more sensitive to light, and forgot to get in touch with another prof with a fluorescent microscope which would enable us to get an answer more quickly).

I have responded to you here.http://EvC Forum: All about Brad McFall II. -->EvC Forum: All about Brad McFall II.Brad.