Show me the intelligence ...

It might Mouth but consider this paragraphy from John Maynard Smith in a chapter immediately after Gould's on if there is or is not a new emerging evolution theory with the note that Gould thought Smith vs Goodwin was the same perhaps as Fisher vs Wright AND Paly vs Aggasiz from the book BUT IS IT SCIENCE THE PHILOSOPHICAL QUESTION IN THE CREATION/EVOLUTION CONTROVERSY for I for one am not completely sure how to read the questions for an answer at Smith's title "Did Darwin Get It Right?" onto page 198 said, "The question of stasis and punctuation will be settled by a stastistical analysis of the fossil record. But what of the wider issues? Is mutation plus natural selection within populations sufficient to explain evolution on a large scale, or must new mechanisms be proposed?" I hope this helps. Best Brad.

I'll even GIVE you THE (a) mechanism!! It's constuction will depend (if it can be done) on NOT getting over creationism as one may or would like to get over Lamarkianism... I have a paragraph but it will probably confuse as so instead I will just ASSUME MY athority. The opposition would be Wolfram Science which asserts that there is not physics here. I will hang my shingle that there IS. At worst I will have to explain why I DONT think like the web experience design expert Jackob Neilsen when he described "creation vs evolution" design but this is as much then a matter of presentation and not architecture and we have here people who have gotten past this issue SO I will assume and any frog should and can challenge me if they like...I was so suprised to find this answer. Faraday illustrates a device in his sixteeth series "On the Source of Power in the Voltaic Pile" in Figure 2 PLATE XII which I will interpret to OPEN up some debate about intelligent design where Daniel Dennet accuses in revealing Chomsky's cell the bald calim that Edleman did not know what a computer was. The striking thing that I recovered was that it is not necessary historically to need to be concerened with the comparison of the frog leg motion and the Leyden jar gold foil electric charge dynamics and I will use this lack not the idea of GOD to motivate the claim which can only get more involved as we know or learn to know more nanotechnology. I'll go thru the names if you like but for personal reasons you can know that I was influenced by Penrose early on but the Faraday equipment I will interpret changes that and hence enables me to comment. The ONLY thing I add is Wey's notion of two different kinds of 1-D symmetry. The assertion of design will be that this device as used by Faraday to argue against VOLTA IS an image (not a mere analogy between a frog leg and a condensor or leyden jar as it was)of a MECHANISM that Gould DID NOT find punc eq to detail.The design mechanics are ON a theory about all forms of rapidity on any scale or level in biology and the kinematics form form ahead of function which is a newer way to think than has been historically the case so far in this subject of the value of any creationism. Creationism in its current form may loose and some may be vindicated but it will no longer be possible to assert that it can not help benefit all of science. I can be wrong only if Ameisen's biological "
weapon" concept is correct as well as his notion of a coupled evolutionary arms race and orginal sin which I will attempt to use this stucuture of form ahead of structure to show that these are merely wrongful comparisions of Lamarkianism willed creationism.The device has the space between fluids in my current understanding as either the baramin seperation or evolutionary topobiology but that selfish notion can be divided by the gene will be available. I know I am rushing thru all of this. More details later. The interpretation merely requires that one consider Faraday's a,b and x as locations of DNA, RNA and protein and the effected of signed 1-D symmetry appearing at these places in the organic equivalent.Faraday found that with only a small change in temperature a current would flow and it will be my carrer to show that Tetrahymena macronuclear digestion with survival of the cell though today spelling a "trait" of an 'excutioner' is a recycled genetic information instead. At least I will be able to support Newton's absolute space time and force here and so get ID ALSO as the relgious part.The error in thought will be that one tries to THINK of biology and phsyics as both different and the same. Wrong. Just consider the device and the mecanics will be the difference of apotosis between plants and animals if I am correct to the letter, give or take a word.Ok I know this is incomprehensible but I know how I see. I will describe it better later.

The issue likely factually is if HMW DNA fragments (please this is not "wmd") can even explain any recapitulation of cell death to multicelluarity by a means of deflating a bit but not entirely Gish's probalistic argument to Stebbins. But the close comparision of Gould and Jean Claude Ameisen I have not been able to seperate from "rape" claims of waterfowl by some sociobiologists. I was however able to cobble up a sentence, "The earth my revolve because of the shape of the solar system's systematic constitution as Kand facutatively provided around morphometric tangent reference form point sets' disttributed rotable 3:1 Mendel ratios taxogenically constructed by summation of cell deaths and this may be what De Vries was getting at systematically between Lineanons and Jordanons but did not control for in his attempt to calculate a coefficient of mutation in Oneathera." If I am correct to any Saussare as I indicated concurrently this explains why what I wrote was incomprensible by introducing to biology but not evolution the notion that not only do mendel ratios exist but they can also rotate. The probalistic argument of a 200 part organism by Gish then becomes not about molecular biology parts but dyad vs triaads vs tetrads only should the Faraday scaling acutally constrain futher experimental philosophy sensu Netwon stricto in Croizat's view avoided by Gould in his notion of Simpson (balance).What you found may still work for me even if I do not open up a notion of centripetal vs centrifugal netrualization logics perhaps even with Kripkes natural kinds should baraminology make enough technical strides to inform the "facet" taxonomy that XML will not provide to evolutionists between Gould and Ameisen on hoxology, conservation, and the complexity in an eye.