S.J. Gould Dies

I had read the "landed" article when it first came out. Now is not the time to go over all the land GOuld travelled indiscrimenately but I will note with respect to this link for now that the "space" may be under competition between the the novel behvaior contirbutions to the common space of offspring and parents between transmission genetics and physiological genetics and whatever economically is anthropologically equivalent that molecular nano techonolgy will produce in nano-ecology. More later. I now feel free to move beyond Croizat's claim that he had "stewed juice" for Gouldinan Idea and to my own understanding of molecular adaption etc:: is: as to ... but for now time to mourn.

In Gilbert Gottlieb's INDIVIDUAL DEVELOPMENT & EVOLUTION, the author recoginzes the desceased in Chapter 5 on St. Mivart and I will refrain from writing about Gould as Cuvier did Lamark. The point I want to make is that invariance is not incommpressibility. That is all. Back to you Richard. I do not believe when I die I will rot. d^2 for some environs of this wake is not only NECESSARILY heritibility as the author continues with. I agree I meant the color not the shape of the sea snake tail when I spoke with Dick Lewontin. There was a superfluidity of excess that shows that Carl Zimmer is no S. J. Gould. I knew both.

On a thought from SJ GOULD:biochange acrosss levels (no matter the selection) is only analogical is Gould's idea from Wright which Gould took to mean that it was OK to view species as "irreducible inputs" to macroevolution. The only way this induction from Wrigt's work can absolutely be true is if I am able to actually in mind and in a teachable biology keep seperate influences physically compartmentalized functionally lines of force, imaginary nmagentics, and bipolar inductions. In the past I simply avoided this kind of thought for whatever chance/necessity is superfleous diagnostics etc etc to leave this reasoning of Gould as besides that/this point which could not create an simple economics for my own survival.The analogy that is criticized in Derrida writing would be one and the same but the difference between what those questioning Derrida and myself could do with this word is really going to have to be at two ends of any Derrida spectral color line. There is a possibility that Realism cannot be the simple assertion of actual electro-magnetisims but I am granting that reality only in a negative sense and such products as electropollution bioassays income no matter the sociology of the goleum science or not but rather I positively can percieve a possibility that a description in terms of "irreducible input" is not only not false but true even without changing physcis fundamentally only doing a bit of unexpected analytic chem but beside the point the analogy in the sciences supports this and this thought process ought to be communicated.Any irreducibility in this light will be liek that what/who thought atoms( molecular science) put on conceptual speculation in natural philsophy that say even Russell purported to import etc WHILE THE AETHER WAS STILL AN O P E N QUESTION but in analogy sensu this/that would be the same thing as saying that Gould did not know what Croizat meant of central, internal and centric for what he does know of Wright.See- I can think of Stephen Gould.