Punk Eek for Redwolf

I sometimes think that it was more innocent for Gould at first in that he was "embarssed" about NOT including Croizat in his work while seeing a logically extrapolatable and potentially statistcally testing outworking of Huxley digrammetic use of anagenesis no matter how he came to re-write it in his "final" years. NO ONE CAN READ Croizat and then DO biology without refering to him and Gould asserted he did "read" Croizat in grad school. I think he found he could get away with not reporting on his reading and to this day few people even know that there is such work to be read that does not give one a straight anagenetic view of biological change but neither must one NECESSARILY associate with Gould's final put out the spandrel space which it was not for me.

I d0- soley on the basis of the TOO MANY XML heirarchies that can be experimentally proposed in natures diversity. G Gladyshev IS sending me information from Russia by snail mail so you can be quite assured this is not a fluke of my own naming despite the possible disagreement on the lack of tree nature that Dobshanksy had already reasoned. I KNOW that the two "?" marks that Huxkley added in his 1957 diagram of vertebrate anagenesis IN SYNC with grades even if ALL EXPANDING FAILS ON SIMPLE DNA SIZE enumeration of apodians vs the SLANT he added for salamders. HE HAD TO DO THAT IN ORDER TO DEFINE A CLADE between birds and mammals. This seperation is ONLY assumed cladistically while panbiogeographers on the other hand must insist on a geological correlation as well. Gould simply maintained this as a conceptual seperation but you and or others are correct to note that it was done at the expense of Creationist Criticism NOT NECESSARY in my generation of biologists and others interested in form-making biologically. The difference of opnion between GPGladyshev (if any exists) is over the abstract nature of the gap that ROTATES between clades and grades. Micro evo CAN be criticized if the theories give different angular momementum measures of any torque involved. For some reason PROVINE refused to write back to me when I pointed out that Wright's shifting balance theory is open as to effects of the Earth's revolution on local rotations and as computers have made the tree making ability of humans much easier this is often done aglogritmically without true or due regard to possible dissections of morph space by group rotations. Gould however left PE in testable state in this regard as far as I understood it but it is not the only alternative to gradualism as CANTOR had already formally shown continuous motion in discontinuous space. Gould simply fomalizes a MINIMAL "line" width tru this space"". The panbiogeographic track width as I have communicated with Grehan in Buffalo IS STILL Undefined so should any WOlfram or other "matix" exist in this abstract space this would apply to Macrothermodyanics while the inverse problem of deriving geographic distributions from DNA info"" may also be possible however like the social c/e consequences this is more difficult to discuss because humanity has no obvious notion of EXACTLY how hierchies in time relate to spatial distances. I will stick with Wright's change thru isolation by distance only. Macrothermo might for instance instruct a more direct way than my way dissecting the "small diffusive effects" by TWO different timeable causal processes but let me stay on topic please.Micro evo can be questioned precisely (the above was approximately) to the extent that species selection DOES NOT EXIST (ie we ALL come up against the natural history of relative frequency determinations in truth in fact).I hope this helps. It is not meant as a polemic.