natural selection is wrong

That makes sense if it was a consensus opinion but if there is found some relative freqeuncy need to have selection results apportioned across levels of magnitude (lighting tends to strick certain objects within a given size range etc) then incorporation you suggest may need modification but that is not against your logic. I did not really get much futher than the isolation of predictive fitness in the article as it seems undefined just what the SIZE of any parts such numerically there MIGHT be. That is why it would be some time before your idea would be a consensus if it could. I did not read to the point of it being against natural laws but recently I have been reading IN PHYSICS (not biology) and I am suprised how lightly physicts use language to try to get their own partisan points of view across. Langauge seems more precise to me in the better biologists but maybe its just that I know that better.

Dan I do not know what kind of computer you use but I did find myself in agreement (a long time ago) with S in an area but I know that if you and I had kids you would not be able to get custody from me if I lived in Florida so I would not try out the old Superbowl commerical again in this line of thought in which I too agree with WK to an extant.

Sorry M, I didn't know anyone was listening. It is nice to see you are not the Riddler, this-time.

I know there is no reason why you must need to have been following my own course here on EVC but if the spatial differences in geological terrance indicate via macrothermodyanmics an actual value of brithplaces apriori on Earth by mechanism of dominance and recessiveness due to rotation casued thermal contanct then where natural selection FITS in DOES matter. For this particular suggestion of mine of Georgi Gladyshev's law and principle would THEN limit the amount of artifical selection due to the metric of the geology that domestic breeding would be unable to mimic with say what I will later write down (I have some of the stuff at home already and sparcely on the net) as ecosystem engineering displacing Eldgridge's anti-creationist criticism with some more sholarship on agrigulture and the reflective mind whether by God or Man and God or just Man etc etc etc.I would guess that becuase Provine tried to use the unbounded nature of artifical selection against Johnson there is likely some literature that specifies what WK was suggesting???

The problem as I see it is that the Darwinian ACTION of the individual which is like toooo many angels on the head of the pin that one ends up in HELL can not tell the difference between the seperation of SEX (male and female) from the any small jiggling of the egg or see whether caused by Behavior of an ACT of GOD. This seems to be how it could come about that there is no field as of yet of deductive biogeography while if there is continuity of reproducation AND change there should be. ONE, just one more egg changes the number in a population and I dont think it can be demonstrated that even one more egg NOT FERTILIZED can have absolutely no effect on the population either. Darwin's insistance on the wedge in tooth in claw economcs is probably come up against the information techonology of today. I really see no way around it but dividing up (wrongly) I would suggest as Slathe did the economic and geneological hierarhices sneaking the SPECIES out of what goes for money today (the ecosystem etc). But that is only my opnion. It seems possible that INDIVIDUAL observations such as WK has together might COME BACK in Vogue (even beyond Russel in the ways I dontlike) due to Wolfram's simple program but as long as the sublime is not appreciated the inventions of man in this regard might always be trumped by a few anteaters tracing the South American Pampers.

I guess this must have been what Ernst Mayr MEANT by "population thinking" but for me was just a paper on Salamander Distributions in the Carolinas etc while Ernst was not rigorous enough in his public discussion IN same regarding the philosophical approach. So for instance he chasitized me for "typological thinking" when questioned on using a unique numeric sign for individual attachment WITHIN a given population (using the divergence of some series segemented so as to incorporate gain said thought etc etc) but this line of re-questioning would not have been able to seperate (P.)Kitcher's vs Brad's ideas on mathematical biology.There is a little (not) inflated notion of Faraday's that only "bipolarity" and not multipolarity existed (Physiologically) which I have always wondered if that an not a simple pair was responsible for the remanded "couple" you indicated prior to any force being calculated.