Darwinist Creationists comments invited

Can you tell us again then how with a clone you are going to get away within some history of Mendelism without variation for BIOLOGICAL CLONES for when I referred to closed curves and equilibria (chemical or otherwise) I had no specific materiality in mind that was subject to natural selection or not. I mean simply asserting some such complemntary(Bohr) philosophy and a recipe for nanotechonology of Macrothermodynamic sized stuff does not answer in the set of questions I have provided variously throughout this board.I would love to have the shools teach biology in Mayrs sense of it as its own discipline but this seems years if not decades off for a leading evolutionary institution such as Cornell and I have no way to concieve how net education and hyperlinks would change this since it would not be something that Croizat could be applied semantically to rather depending on the naturalism actually in the case and then some.

When Will Provine wrote his book on Sewall Wright and Evolutionary Biology and I was a student of his at Cornell he was searching for something that Wright asserted but Provine's seems even subsequently to no have appreciated that was reading more math into the theory of shifiting balance then it currently contained. Most likely Provine was looking for THREE levels of statical randomness but only found one.I do not see how to reach your interpretation SYAMSU from your position even if stocastic phenomena are fancied in any way for though not necessarily providing a "contradication" there is no reason to think that Wright (say on Wolfram's notion) could not be understood A PRIORI to exclude the possibility you seem to be jockying for. At this point I would prefer the use of vital forces and altering the glossary of this site to stess less "non-mystical" natural selection. I also agree with JOHN. Really the only position I can see coming from your abstraction of evolutionary biology is one that is so hyperFORD/Fisher that you would have to eject the very real MOTIVATION that my grandfather had to do genetics and teach evolution. It may be that he was wrong but without this motive I would never have gained the knoweldge I now posses to post this response to you. It does seem to me nessary that some relation in one's biological "mind" must deal directly with population issues becasue with statitics we CAN indeed do something with them. I am however much for understanding if there are alternatives but again with the acutal understanding of history of population genetics I do not see how to further your notion but by confidence of individual systematists and THESE guys could not manage the middleware necessary to exchange biodiversity informatic info. I would be remiss if i did not try to incorporate what can be done into what could be.