SIMPLE common anscestors had fewer but MORE COMPLEX systems: genomics

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Mammuthus:
[B]You are forgetting that there are subsequent duplications, changes in ploidy, and divergence of sequences subsequenlty and variably along different lineages. Evolution does not propose that the common ancestor contained all possible pathways that were then lost. What is maintained, generated anew, or lost will in large part be determined by the environment (selection) i.e. cave fish losing vision etc. and by drift.[/QUOTE][/B]I noticed you seperated "&" by 'drift' off. Is this intentional?For my part what is maintainable anew may be that genes as local structures of say class 4 cellular automata make understanding of gene-differences as Huxley thought underlay Fisher's approach to NATURAL SELECTION more accurate able to better predict when combinded with Wright's approach to dominance mathematically becasue Pascal already operated at least textually with Cantory actual infinity and that *pre-ceeding* with Galton's notion of Pascal's triangle and Wolfram's software as A SUBSET of Cantor's "ordertype" and Pascal's "orders of numbers" the scored position effect (see Huxley THE MODERN SYNTHESIS) being thus projectable by exploratory database software visualization hardware that the physical limit of selectability is apporached (Fisher's genes like kinetic gas analogy (homologially?)) where the trait dIFferences recieve a means to bring classifications (baramins or any other pet project etc) into better taxonomies by a metric thus output (bugs and all) which would have facilitated the a posteriori natreu of the gene differences in terms of anlges only for which the chemistry would be needed to specify any projection from the limit (with or without Wolfram) (with or within Gould)into a plenum that represents the pedagocial point of dispute between creationists and"evolutionists".In any respect, if genetic recombination is rigorously analogous to combinations of NUMBERS then technology of the sort will advance the simplistic division of heterzygotes and mutants per population (new grammer up and coming) that (DRIFT??) had been maintained by crude stats (no demon etc) under prejudice of symmetry over transitiveness NO MATTER THE irrevesibility or increase quantitiavely. Croizat's contribution may be used to extend this line Wolfram started but it may be possible only from begining to READ from WITHIN religious content. That is only a guess.

I am not going to put my arm in the mouth of fish.. but. there seems to be a difference of approach IN HISTORY between the darwinists since Aggasiz and the the interest that say Mendel displayed with regard to "domestic" species. If one concentrates on the INVARIANCE in the variance may not?? be the same thing as variability of the variance but even to get here one must be able to reduce the error to a discussable amount that is agreed on not to disburb the correspondence yet this does not seem to be happening here.??Dont know. only worth 2cents the above is at least as thick as a dime. I judge not. Brad.