Guess what, I am not this time going to rush to print toff, but you? talking to me too?
The issue of evolution thinking has to do with the surface we are thinking about. I do know that what Cobra said is true and it is striking that the first illustration of rattlesnake fangs drawn curved were rejected by the "editors". Noam Chomsky latter went on to try to have cast by his handlers and/all public access TV sound bit as the fangs ofa tiger. That was still a snake not a bounce nor the product in the dryer as made for TV in NYC but I do not want to make another simple Mayr polemic on c/e boards, so unless it is time to ask again which end of the machine you move less are you sure you want what you just said to stand?
And I say this as speaking about what can be prooved as opposed the constantly undeviating opinion that c/e boards that insist on quality have only been able to generate up to date (1948?). For instance are you more in favor of a reserach program using Wright's Isolation by distance or Ford's ecological Genetics. I do agree with Provine on this point, that these days work in population thinking needs to fancy the interchange between Fisher and Wright more and more and not less and less and yet I do not see how creating this next test beyond balanced selection can be anything but designed. I do not drip venom out of both fangs of my wisdom. But sign with the best. BRAD At one time in my study of evolution thinking I had wished I was on my way to NZ but since then I have realized that there is Moss between Aust. and there as writ, nor did the opp materialize.
™ Version 4.2
