What's complicated??
...that Gish would only pass the torch to someone who would permit his or her daughter to date a monkey with relations to nannas? It is simple as I see it. The notion of "relation" fails to be worked as far as it can be thought, on either side, of the peel.
If evos contiune to slip up by not having control of the work coming out of their own camp, (Neither Provine nor DS Wilson were familiar with Kitcher's book), it will only be Dawkin's lament that biologists have to endure socially what physicists do not that can be heard.
The reason for that is that Kant's differences of mathema and dogmata apply biologically (to a given object not a given material) while they need not to any particular work with a GIVEN amount of materials. Why? the materials control the actual relations. Biologists working with relations have to deal with multiple "material givens" (at different times in history). The attempt to solve this difficulty with the use of language (theoretical biology of 60s, the genetic code, computers) only makes the notion of relation that may not apply to biology more intricate. We still have the same bannana tree, no matter what is up it.
Edited by Brad McFall, : superfelous subsistence