have not the time nor have I actually done the homework but it seems academic to me that Mayr's revolution and any gentics one wants to find universal from his growth is critically dismantled by the 2-D physics of Wolfram's for it has been my position up to now, and now would be a good time to criticze me in it, that Mayr's founder, which Croizat seems to have writ off to a colony WHICH I may have misappropriated from an Illustration of Wright's as geographic distribution as was expressed in 1-d (i think 6 times by Wright) if used to the 2-D form of Wolfram's Naturalism avoids much of the excessive new words Mayr wanted biologists to grow used to. I have never had an excuse (Figenbaum only gave the infinte point not the deviation from a Kant systematic constitution) to recuse my self from the undoubtly great? ornithologist Mayr is and was (I have no way to judge this) but without the 1-d reasoning and being less than a 2.5 display no matter the fractal dimension I think that BSC and much else Mayr did goes to the title Mayr vs Croizat Croizat vs Mayr but to specify this interms of my own redition of c/e
ICR vs geology
Biology vs technology
Wolfram vs Intelligent Desgin
Would likely impy I desist from posting scatterd and devote a whole web site. FOr which I would rather try to program univerality search indicators instead for the creation side etc.
Reproduction COULD be subject to Maxwell internal FORM that became Internal Field ( in modern Physics) but no dismantling of the standard fare of c/e will approve of a move even an inch in my preferred direction unless it is shown as I think the days will bear that WOlfram is mistaken as to computational irreduciblity but my notion of haptic operation of objects is a bit broader still than needs the focus to be concentrated as reaquired for now.
I just collected a fungus that has different varigations depending on whether the dead matter is upside down or not and seems to possibly be modelable with celluar automata etc.
™ Version 4.2