Evolution vs.PE

Thanks much,
I did not know that I was going to get this response from you. I took down a few notes and got to reading but I found a predictable short cut where I will PREdict my own future reading. I have never failed in this so far.I will argue that continuing with Gould's *earlier""* image of "one tiny worm, or ten tiny worms, crawled across the Cambrian boundary" CAN BE USED AND DETERMINED WITH CUURENT SCEINCE should we have peace and work together (within the confines of knowing anything absolutely). I will go on to write that the reading IS POSSIBLE by reading the "creationist's tendency" to write science in short time frames thru the tissue at issue in the same sense of Gould ONE or TEN worms gives a co-ordinated literature and those that survive this lingusitics will speak its marks term by word in trait to either multipolarity or a simple dual. This will be accomplishable if done by not VALIDATING macroevolution but the non-disambiguity of Cantor quoting Newton "hypothesis non fingo."If I can not do the as a reading I will merely work on the notes I sounded off on reading what Mammuthus posted and then go on sans my claim to simply communicate with the poster whose friend's name I recall not but do the conjunction's function instead!!! Logical & is not AND. This post is not meant as a rePLY for the response will ply the trade of aexion clocks etc etc ... I just wanted it known that it may NOT depende on the technical terms of genetics but rather on investment in informatic solutions. My guess is that no change to genetic understanding will be recalled in any XML call but THIS I do not predict. We will simply see it. And this is not a dodge as Randy may still think he reads in me for I in response I need to summ up all of herpetology in some form and that is does not even get to the unemployment of an arthropod appendage I think Gould failed to not pink slip but let me off ss7 the phone these creatures can not junction. M paid in full.

quote:

---

Apparently you don't need my help on this one.

---

Sure I do-- NO ONE is taking your side.------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

It would help if S could explain the competition for THAT would lessen the amount of research I will need to do. It is hard to compete with every living form.

Hi Brad,

quote:

---

I did not know that I was going to get this response from you. I took down a few notes and got to reading but I found a predictable short cut where I will PREdict my own future reading. I have never failed in this so far.

---

The Lenski paper should be available free from Science as it is several years old. If you cannot access it and are interested I will summarize the results and post some figures from other sources that described the results (to avoid copyright infringement).

quote:

---

I will argue that continuing with Gould's *earlier""* image of "one tiny worm, or ten tiny worms, crawled across the Cambrian boundary" CAN BE USED AND DETERMINED WITH CUURENT SCEINCE should we have peace and work together (within the confines of knowing anything absolutely).

---

Since I am approaching this more from the molecular biology side and you appear more interested in the paleo side, as a starting point, do you agree that the bacterial experiments are an appropriate model system for examining PE or do you disagree?

quote:

---

I just wanted it known that it may NOT depende on the technical terms of genetics but rather on investment in informatic solutions. My guess is that no change to genetic understanding will be recalled in any XML call but THIS I do not predict

---

I will keep the technical jargon down to a minimum. The arguements in this case do not depend on understanding really obscure features of bacterial genetics...the experiments were actually very simple and elegant so no worries there.

quote:

---

Gould failed to not pink slip

---

Actually Gould failed his classes in courtesy and humility...I saw him lecture shortly before he died and thought he was pretty sharp but an insufferable pompous ass....there is also a fairly bitter debate at the AMNH regarding whether it was really Eldredge who had the PE idea with Gould popularizing it with his name more prominently attached.

No, I am interested in the mole bio side of things but I needed to get some of Gould's good notions scripted before I could engage this PE v NeoD. I did not know that about AMNH. Gould's position on validiating macroevolution ?could? construe PE away truth should one- biologically closed electric circuits exist and I name the worm nervous system etc etc but it may be needed if such does not retain to show that his philosophical approach to geneic selectionism is accountable and pretty much right IF biologically closed electric circuits do not exist. Nonetheless this "factoid if" is not mutually exclusive to WRONGLY dividing biologists into PEers and CoreNeoDarwingers.The molecular biology of bacterial competition is likely where any such discussion would eventually end as long as our knoweldge of viruses is so depauperate and I have not written directly onto the critics of PE because I kinda wanted to finish reading Gould though this correspondence and as he, SJ has some thought on the little guys I wanted this to get all wrapped in.My notes were so far: Numerical Approaches to the NExT mutation of Kaufmann's stochastic approach to the edge of a Wright landscape is likely to denotatble with Lenski's paper (which I have not looked for yet). You know I have MANN LIBE if I need it for "stasis is not the same as no change"
"Owen vs Darwin on evolution replays Geoffroy vs Cuvier on morphology == relative morphological conservation"So PE is not in conflict with evolution"== Gould's chapter 10 'The Integration and Adaptation (Structure and Function) in Ontogeny and Phylogeny : Historical Constraints and the Evolution of Development'"living fossil" Across Africa = "relic""semantics of game" = Game Theory +- philosophical chemistry as per my c/e video.Feel free to give me a head's up on my prior orchestration of this threaded discussion.What I will be headed for is in Gould's core Darwinin extension to show that INDIVIDUAL Darwinain Unit Deaths via a certain accounting of group vehicle geneic selectionist slanting IS ONLY AVAILABLE to the baraminologist. Why you may ask?
1) telic characterizations appear not much at all in science anymore
2) even hard core science such as Macrothermodynamics maintains a lexic split between molecule and macromolecule that I will try to show is unjustified grammetically.
3)nanotechnology is likely to become safer BY NOT figureing this out.These last personal bullet points may have shot me in the foot for I am not open to discussing them in detail as of yet for their are a lot more than conducting a thread that needs to be read not red first.This will depend on how much science has overvalued the word "program" in the tissue of apoptosis or programmed cell death. There has been a trend to FUSE notions of cell death IN PLANTS AND ANIMALS. Gould did not make thIS difference clear enough before he passed and his extensions to biological lingo is not as it reads subtle enough to catch it. I have to "read" to see if by implication it is flexiable enough to derive it. THEN I WILL BE FREE to take any text any mole biologist wishes to say is appropo. It matters not to me at this point if PE is more Gs or Es.[This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 09-24-2003]

quote:

---

The molecular biology of bacterial competition is likely where any such discussion would eventually end as long as our knoweldge of viruses is so depauperate and I have not written directly onto the critics of PE because I kinda wanted to finish reading Gould though this correspondence and as he, SJ has some thought on the little guys I wanted this to get all wrapped in.

---

Actually viral evolution is also well studied for some viruses. But a direct test of PE was done with bacteria by Lenski's group.

quote:

---

This will depend on how much science has overvalued the word "program" in the tissue of apoptosis or programmed cell death. There has been a trend to FUSE notions of cell death IN PLANTS AND ANIMALS. Gould did not make thIS difference clear enough before he passed and his extensions to biological lingo is not as it reads subtle enough to catch it.

---

I am not sure one could model PE with programmed cell death. But as to fusing the notions for plants and animals I would not be surprised if there are common underlying mechanisms of apoptosis for example herePlanta. 2003 Jan;216(3):377-86. Epub 2002 Oct 08. Related Articles, LinksMolecular characterization of two plant BI-1 homologues which suppress Bax-induced apoptosis in human 293 cells.Bolduc N, Ouellet M, Pitre F, Brisson LF.Department of Biochemistry and Microbiology, Life and Health Sciences Research Building, Laval University, Quebec, G1K 7P4, Canada.To date, few homologues of animal programmed cell death (PCD) regulators have been identified in plants. Among these is the plant Bax Inhibitor-1 (BI-1) protein, which possesses, like its human counterpart, the ability to suppress Bax-induced lethality in yeast cells. As the role of BI-1 in the regulation of plant PCD remains to be elucidated, we cloned BnBI-1 and NtBI-1 from cDNA libraries of oilseed rape ( Brassica napus L.) and tobacco ( Nicotiana tabacum L.). The analysis of the deduced amino acid sequences of BnBI-1 and NtBI-1 indicated that these proteins share a relatively high level of identity with other plant BI-1 proteins (73-95%) as well as with animal BI-1 proteins (26-42%). Comparative analysis with other available plant BI-1 proteins allowed the establishment of a structural model presenting seven transmembrane domains. Moreover, transient co-transfection of Bax with BnBI-1 or NtBI-1 in human embryonic kidney 293 cells revealed that both proteins can substantially inhibit apoptosis induced by Bax overexpression. Localization studies were also conducted using stable transformation of tobacco BY-2 cells and Saccharomyces cerevisiae, or transient expression in tobacco leaves, with the fusion protein BnBI-1GFP under control of the cauliflower mosaic virus 35S promoter. All transformants showed a fluorescence pattern of distribution typical of an endoplasmic reticulum (ER) protein. Results from differential permeabilization experiments in BY-2 cells expressing BnBI-1GFP also showed that the C-terminus is located on the cytosolic side of the ER. Taken altogether, our results suggest that BI-1 is evolutionarily conserved and could act as a key regulator of a death pathway common to plants and animals.

quote:

---

It matters not to me at this point if PE is more Gs or Es.

---

You are correct that it is irrelevant to the issue of PE. It was just a point of trivia..and I found it strange that upon Gould's death that the AMNH (which had a long standing relationship with Gould via Natural History magazine) that it was the astronomy department that commented and not Eldredge..

Eldredge's or Gould's version however IS NOT irrelevant when it will come to how the data is REpresented electronically (aka DBMS in tables or hierarchies) as to FURTHERING any criticism of PE ITSELF!! but as you asked NOT to bring in the technical contraints as invariants of discussion let us leave the communica aside. I thank you for letting me know...) Or rather I should have said, for me, it is and will not be irrelevant when I redisplay what I know I have read about geneic selectionism and the ONE hierarchical optimization Gould propounds vs the MULTI heirarchies of Williams VS ELdredge but once again I AM NOT READY WITH ALL THE INFO (this much does not depend on "data") to discuss a lack of symbiosis in lichens on the photobiont side of things xenobionts could compete across levels of organization at but which may? be selectively restricted if not by mutations then by necessity of flucutating water, light and 02....but I divert my eye from the time I was TAUGHT what"" symbiosis IS(sic) was was was was was....You and I will not get to first base even with the data, I have not read the paper, until FIRST you assure me that YOU, Mammuthus, ARE NOT using EVEN RHETORICALLY Gould's recrimination of an "uncoupling" of descriptive and causal punc eq. THAT is why I have been equivocating for so long. I fear that Gould has abused English but I am not ready to come out with THAT. The passage that concerns me here is p 783TSOET "Finally, the role of punctuated equilibrium in establishing an independent an independent field of macroevolution includes both a weak and a strong version. The first, undoubtedly valid as a genearality, "uncouples" macro from micro evolution as a descriptive necessity, while not establishing independent causal principles of macroevolution. The second clearly regulates many cases, but has not yet been validated as commanding a high relative frequency; this second, or strong, version establishes irreducible causal principles of macroevolution."If you are merely quoting and citing the literature to seed this "field" then we can stop it right now. You are correct. I however prefer to read more and side with Croizat's notion of "ecisis". That is a concept in botany. C/E reading never takes less than 7 days. Well that sentence is disputable at least. I think it true nontheless.
I assume you meant the strong kind?-------------
Einstein- the scientist must commit the crime and THEN solve it.the forensic sceanscreen looks like this you said

quote:

---

f distribution typical of an endoplasmic reticulum (ER)

---

but NAMED it "protein" but if you are as well read as it sounds then you should also have noticed that a NUCLEAR ER has been proposed (visualized with calcium) which changes the reading up to your word "conserved" as far as I can read 'your game'. But let me not dispute with you Quincy (is that snuff's side kicks' name??) until I get the my Q@a returned. I can always fall back to the civil side of these things. Ya know.[This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 09-25-2003]

quote:

---

You and I will not get to first base even with the data, I have not read the paper, until FIRST you assure me that YOU, Mammuthus, ARE NOT using EVEN RHETORICALLY Gould's recrimination of an "uncoupling" of descriptive and causal punc eq. THAT is why I have been equivocating for so long. I fear that Gould has abused English but I am not ready to come out with THAT.

---

I don't intend to follow Gould really at all. I would rather debate the tempo of evolution as based on experimentation and its underlying mechanisms when discussing PE versus gradualism. Would that be ok?

quote:

---

If you are merely quoting and citing the literature to seed this "field" then we can stop it right now

---

To my knowledge, Lenski's group is the only one really working on the molecular biology of PE so I will stick to that. My intention is not to spam you with references but Leski has done some very elegant studies that I think are relevant to this issue.cheers,
M

Ok, I can follow that. Feel free to send in more Lenski- info maybe then I will really get to your specific contribution. My interest arose out of John's post to which I responded that it would be "bad" (just look at Dan & MHambre right now) to divide BIOLOGISTs' THIS way AS it would be to so have ID divided against itself. Gould's Philosophy of time however MAY not remand the people are split but rather in "tempo of evolution" only the ontology may be. I had to relie on this possibility that I could have had to face from any unnamed poster. Now seeing that you are not about all that, I may be able to get to some "brass" tacks. TEMPO"" already does presupose the "fact of evolution" but nonetheless I may be able to give it go nonetheless. Mean while we can laugh it out with the bad boys of EvC.This may have been why John didnt think that anyone was really addressing what he asked for?I started to look up Richard Lenski's work out there in Michagan and found that included such choice quotes from Gould such as "its some of the most exiciting stuff in evolution" says SJ Gould, Gould-"Of course your looking at a different world at a different time scale". There was another quote here that said "You have the luxuary of making a prediction, and then you can test it. It's almost like physics" Well...I need one question answered that may be revealed to me on my own a I continue to "mine" this topic (Lenski's 11 year 24,000 E.Coli expt that showed differnt size variations in different lineages over this "time" but I DO need an answer to it before I can not divide biologists and only temporally caused ontologies. My guess is that no one has answered it yet as of now.First the questin and then the reasoning between humanans and in this case E.coliThe question is, "Is there an energetic difference in life in the gravity for/with cells sizeed larger than E.coli? In other words, does the apparent lack of a gravitational vector and suseptibility to Brownian motion in baceterially sized objects contribute to the inheritance of nature vs nurture?" George Nace at Ann Arbor has done some calculations on the sizes of cells that can be torqued by graviational gradients.The answer to this question is crucial for determining if this thread is looming people or pus. I do not think Gould is correct to say that we "see" a different "world" here. What he meant was that we ought to be able to shift our point of view to the level of organization and discuss biology on that level but I am unconvinced we are not simply talking as John asked to be answered of evolution vs PE instead. This only works in horseshoes and handgernAds for most of all it has to be computational equivalent (the science) to physics as this IS Wolfram's message. I am not a reductionist as the Wolf man may be but I am also not an organicist as Mayr's historical swtich from Lamarkianism seemed to have remanded for the oldest generation under the scope of the experimental philosophy.So that will conver if we are really talking of the biological change in taught evolutionary thought at all but even this is not guarentteed in my questionless world as for what I can contribute. I have been utilizing the metaphysics of Matchette, as if no one noticed, and Matchtted said of Goethe (p.56 OUTLINE OF METAPHYSICS) "Fundamentally, the concept of Polarity marks the view that nature is an internal unity - a unity which reveals itself necessarily under the final form of multiplicity. It is Polarity which expresses the immanance of the Absolute in the world. As Goethe put it, " what were a God who only impinged externally, and turned the ALL in a circle on his finger? It becomes Him to move the world in its interior, to cherish nautre in Himself, and Himself in nature, so that whatever lives and moves and is in Him nevermore lacks His power and His spirit ." This is a clear statement of our own view - replace the God of Goethe by the Absolute, and this states a close parallel to our own view."Now Gould wrote of Goethe STURUCTUREOFEVTHEORYp286-287 "If Goethe's system really advocated, as often misportrayed, a simple and exclusive concept of the archetypal leaf, his theory could stake no claim for interesting completeness - for this...arrows of direction and cycles of repeatability ( I called these conjoined principles "time's arrow" and "time's cycle" in my book...We must in any temporal process, be able to identify both sources of story and order: vectors of change (lest time have no history, defined as distinctness of moments), and underlying constant or cyclical principles (lest the temporal sequence proceed only as one uniqueness afer another,leaving nothing general to identify at all). Goethe faced with observations of both direcitonality and repeatability up the stem, reconized the need for both ples of this dichotomy."I had found an old zoology text of my grandfather where the crux of the argument for natural selection depended on the size changes of protozoans, cellular life larger than E.coli. It appears by common sense and the ability to read that Gould is attempting to use the Goethe "circle" which IS NOT TIED but perhaps to the Power of Motion in Plants to animals ( in this case bacteria) WITHOUT FOR ONCE SHOWING THAT HE HAS ENGAGED Croizat's Principa Botanica that for well reading MAY ( I SAID MaY"") permit such and yet this same "circle" is a LINE in Mendel of "node" of Wolfram... Now you have a choice, one follows up Matchette or Gould (not "some guy") but equal time should be given to these alternatives in biological teaching finishing schools for how else will the students find these things in the library when they use increasingly electronic tools and I am the only known student of the stuff to bring this up only. Thank goodness Mammy, that M doesnt want to involve this thread in this expanding volume else this thread may have terminated Huffinton's husband himself here. I however wrote the sentence, "Ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny because brownian motion is not mutually reciprocally independent of gravity fall."(myCAPSforword)All and I left out a "()" in the original.[This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 09-27-2003][This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 09-27-2003]

quote:

---

This may have been why John didnt think that anyone was really addressing what he asked for?

---

I asked Shimbabwe to support the ( inferred ) claim that Darwinism and PE are different theories. Does this mean that you believe them to be different theories?BTW, I've noticed a striking similarity between your posts and Finnegan's Wake... weird. ------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

I wont know until we see "phyletic anagenesis" in creationist terms. The terminological expansion of monobaramins etc at a Discontinuity conference provides a taxonomy TO BE COMPARED with IF STASIS=LIKE KIND that is a start to wake up the natural historian in all of us. Gould is convinced that no matter how his "taxonomy" (holotype) etc are used that it PREVENTS interpretation gradually with electronics. I simply found THIS lexicology in error. The grammer needs to be investiagted all the way to the only issue currently technically being a remote sys call in objection but the subject could be carried on independent of the current baraminological understanding if you and others found only a way to read me back to the 60s even if I prefer the 40s and before.In so far as Gould insists on a social punctuation he may have put his cards in the go fish pile too early which aside from the dispute with Eldredge could show Punc Eq to be both seperate and different than Darwininsm should the Dawkinsish meme remember more than Von Neumann in the future of bioinformatics for any biodiversity informatics. But I suspect the selfish gene is only selfish. I did not read Gould to be this way. I can not however find the science of the Helmhotz opening of the closed electrontonic cirucut which will be able to sepearte the capacity to write metaphysics and the interest in using capacitance devices to do the work of behavorists. So NO, I do not think we can say they are seperate today (and I doubt Gould in his best core extension would have wanted them to be so referred to...)but THEY ARE NOT SEPERATE FOR THE VERY REASON THAT Intelligent Design IS seperate from Standard YEC dialects. The unconditioned apporoach however applies to Panbiogeography and all the English incarnations from New Zealand that return issues really of molecular clocks and this IS NOT what I take Matchette to have meant with:
p.61-2 "That is, there is no other motion, energy, force required than those which were originally stored in potential form in the Zero-Unit, the unit of all relative entities. This essential and central point may be made clearer by an analogy. Consider a wound clock. At every tick a part of the energy originally stored in the spring by its winder provided and placed within the spring itself. It automatically unwinds istelf by virtue of its urge to rid itself of its wound-up tension."More attention to his quote of Maxwell is recalled instead
"In the literal sense of the term, atom, the Zero-Atom Unit is an atom. It is ultimate and indivisible. Why an atomistic hypothesis? Surely this is the direction of the discoveries and researches of contemporary physics. Even as early as 1873, the great Maxwell said: "Natural causes, we know, are at work which tend to modify, if they do not at length destroy, all the arrangements and dimensions of the earth and the whole solar system. But though in the course of ages catastrophies have occurred and may yet occur in the heavens- though ancient syustems may be dissolved and new systems evolved out of the ruins, the molecules out of which these systems are built - the foundation stations of teh material universe - remain unbroken and unworrn.^5 If we replace "molecule" by "atom", the point of view is clear and contempory."p34My criticism of Gould remains within the MacroTHERMOdyanmics of these ATOMS OR MOLECULES but there is more socially to this than the static remote object call. I doubt we get a full house or even a fullstraight by doing one more substiutino and use Newton's word "black body"...so rather than dreaming all this once again this post merely said what Matchtted did in MORE METAPHYSICS that you/we/me can be a "cartesian" in a sense or R A THER a NEwTONian. Iam therefore I think is the correct way around. This must have been what Dr Dobson meant when he interviewed Phillip Johnson and spoke of either a brick or a clock by a "monolith" Granite it was/is not. The difference of kinds of rocks however -- it was, and for you may still be-- for me? well,....Matchette may have been labouring under the philsophy of "potential theory". I dont know that much about the Hotel. I know that the rooms are not an example of Russel's classed paradox however.I paid less than 20$us to the city of Providence to regsiter that I BRAD MCFALL trade in Aexion CLOCKS. Matchette's and Dobson's are of similar art. Please dont rib me with the equality. that is an assignment "==" instead of rip off of Boole's Rules for Blues Clues.so class????? what does DNA and a spring have in common? = ====> to the torision rooooom please. Substitute Matchette's word "tension" with Provines' and you have the whole script kiddes.

quote:

---

I need one question answered that may be revealed to me on my own a I continue to "mine" this topic (Lenski's 11 year 24,000 E.Coli expt that showed differnt size variations in different lineages over this "time" but I DO need an answer to it before I can not divide biologists and only temporally caused ontologies. My guess is that no one has answered it yet as of now.

​

First the questin and then the reasoning between humanans and in this case E.coli

​

The question is, "Is there an energetic difference in life in the gravity for/with cells sizeed larger than E.coli? In other words, does the apparent lack of a gravitational vector and suseptibility to Brownian motion in baceterially sized objects contribute to the inheritance of nature vs nurture?" George Nace at Ann Arbor has done some calculations on the sizes of cells that can be torqued by graviational gradients.

---

Hi Brad,
The reason Lensk's work on bacteria is applicable in this instance is he is looking at the genetic basis of adaptation i.e. DNA mutations that show PE or are beneficial (another focus of his work). In this case it makes no difference whether you look at bacterial DNA, human DNA or yeast etc. The advantage of bacteria is that you can look at tens of thousands of generations within the lifetime of the experimenter which you obviously cannot do with animals that have a longer generation time.cheers,
Mp.s. I will post the other Lenski papers for you tomorrow when I am at my work computer and have access to them.

quote:

---

I wont know until we see "phyletic anagenesis" in creationist terms.

---

So, you are not taking Shimbabwe's side, but you might?------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

If I can show that stasis IS NOT data on the reference of Mathcette about the static atomism of a materialistic-mechanism dialectic then absolutely. That would be big news. But even if I can not show this there is still some "wiggle" room in my mind to go in a particular direction that I still remand to Matchette's notion of changing divergences from a rock to a plant to an animal to a human. THIS LAST, is not the "chain of being" affilated to Kant but just what non-Buffonian mould it was is hard for me to project the plane that can rotated in. THIS PARTICULAR INSigHT WHICH i wrote as thesis to will provine (who said that the text was "random" thus proving my point) under college scholar COntract at cU attempt to futher the lexicology BUT NOT THE grammer of it. I was suitably impressed with Derrida's reading of Husserl to hold off on NOT refering to the grammer as well. I did not, nonetheless.To answer your question and not my interest or motivation rather than is then if the claims of Gould to "stasis" is an artifact of the late appearence of the philosophy of biology as a discipline. (???) You see, the proper response is quite expansive still. A sound bite like "DNA is a torision lessing system" will not even remotely work here even if we were using any and all current technology to communicate with. I can also discuss Gould's attempt to bring the Python to the Plane of an Insect body. It is still a matter of the tail and not the head.

Back to you,It may in fact matter,
My preliminary feeling is that it is the property of distributivity and not associativity across multiple commutations that dynamize the relation to speciation but I do not find any one generation to mark time crucial to witnessing if a punctuation breaks any phlyletic anagenetic kinetic.Even if stasis is activity in this sense as I said, it may indeed depend even actually on what DNA is used ( I have 'issues' with Methylation for instance) for Gould has quite adroitly read the conservation of Hox genes by coring out the left bacterial wall that only governs the claims to primativeness and says nothing of an unutilizaed ("unemployed") affect effecting a benefit etc...My suspicion is that here (no matter the molecular biology addressed) was two dipliod-haploid layers united by Einstein causaLity NONASSOCIATIVELY that are transitively commutative but assymetrically noncommutative in which air, water and DeVriesian (vector directums) expressed genes from the nucleus occurr(ed). That is why I supposed and need answered a relevant graviational field and IT IS precisely (which we can thankfully wave sans Gould) because most of the literature that Gould was able to "conserve" (diffent connotation than prior here) by his writing without the older generation of biologists focusing on the physiological genetics of bacteria decisvely (why I didnt post in the evolution of the eye thread) because of different genetics than any othe kind-may limit- the generalization as to if or when Darwinism can be reliably segregated or simply sequesterd from PE by the very geometry conserved itself DurinG the acutal time of any Hox conservation. But that's "on you" because this is not a Sez me Treet theard? I could have written this para with a little less force. But my guess is that you can read it as i thought it up.