Why is uniformitarianim still taught?

In the sample you provided it appears the need was to retain some notion of "landscape". I'll stick my tongue out and say that uni still is because there is no clear relation of topography independent of EARTH geography. The nice pics from Mars however have changed my own view of this and instead of arguing cosmologically as I have here awhile back I now can think the same thing in this "landscape" no matter how global economics or a continued ILLUSION of c/e affords transmissions. This is not me lol.

what's weird??????SJ Gould"s whole truth and nothing but that, as far as I can see in and know, HINDGES, on Darwin's denial in like time, of "progressive development" Hyatt maintained in the same building Gould did his work in, that Dyson laughed out loud about not knowing how what beyond popularization it was that Gould did while he was working. I see something else in Hyatt's plate of German snails than dark places but reverting to any only throw back also may not be "weird" for me neeither "or" neither. There is an interesting paper by a New Zeland man named CLIMO who "psychoanalzed" the same snail statistcs that Gould rests his pe case on with 10 dimensions. It was published in 1989 (NZ J OF ZOO???). NOW EVEN THE LANDSCAPE of the NZ terranes or sea between NZ and AUS for any "bermuda triangle" would not even be "wierd" if I attempted to progress the general argument under the issue in panbiogeography of "landscape ecology". Climo is the one writer of panbiogeography I have really no idea what he is saying outside of alpha taxonomy.

If a reevaluation (via Croizat's sense of Uniformitarianism (with or without Glacial Creationism)) finds instead of ("The one exception to this claim is the possible presence in an ecosystem of dead-planet or biologically uncontaminated abiotic -> abiotic links, which have never previously been affected by any interactions with biota. However, after four billion years of life on earth, it is doubtful whether any dead-planet abiotic --> abiotic linnks_exist anywhere in the biosphere."(NICHE CONSTRUCTION 2003 Princeton PAGE 224.))a differnt value for the topological relation of any viscosity CHANGE and CHANGES (likwise) in ionic titration equilibria (for instance by an expolartion to discover (if discoverable and then discovered) use of fossil ancestor fossil differences in exoskeletal divisions of the rock for "nesting" as a niche positive resoource cummulative witness etcwedgeprotectionetcnoncovalnetbondetc) then the either or nature of the kinematics would not necessarily ONLY remand cellualar automata OR Maxwell's demonIZED Switch. Furthermore the seperation might be apporachable baraminically whence current cladistics AS SEPERATED from the panbiogeographic method CAN NOT FIND. But this though doable by a human individual is more than I can find the time and lesiure to approach. But to assert ON THE BASIS OF BILLIONS('years) not this would be logically less competant. There is a difference in the way of "looking" only and this has been stressed time and time again by ICR. Should this difference in perceptive approaches return for the Gibbian based INFORMATION obediant to Gladyshev's LAW COME from the creationist perspective than it doensnt matter which topography the landscape/habitat was "viewd" from.....Futhermore on the supramolecular level much discussion about the "dead-planet" remains and since Mars last year we should all be prepared to think the discussed similiarity when not the same.Fuethermore, the Gladyshev (water)INDEX would be relevant numerically.

The major diffiuclty is straightening out any KINKS that the revolution and rotation of the Earth creates passively across generations whether this is learned semantics of simply a consequence of action WITH reaction. I take it that Croizat's method DOES apply in this CRITICISM of Seberg whom I analysized (personal result panbiog wise) where he failed to appreciate subtle difference of plant relations to any "homology" where in Australia Croizat cited "dotting of the ground" (Principia Botanica) which Grehan DID NOT rewrite here (Track homology
"
Seberg (1988) vaguely refers to Oreobolus as a component of an undefined 'generalized' track that is, perhaps not surprisingly, of a 'size' and 'extent' that is difficult to establish with certainty. While Seberg (1988) failed to establish the generalized significance of Oreobolus biogegraphy, track analysis using the minimum spanning tree technique provides spatial evidence supporting a Pacific homology for the distribution of this taxon (as indicated below for the orientation of tracks away from the Pacific baseline). The incorporation of phylogenetic information presented by Seberg (1988) suggests a spatial structure " Oreobolusbiogeography )The way I see it is that Grehan had ORIENTED AND USED THE BASELINE (square in the linked pictures) where I find rotation and revolution Gladyshev wise. For some grammetological position of New Zeland Grehan does not seem to use panbiogeography around Antartica this was which is simply the biogeographic division ornithologically of Siberia. I have mentioned this in the past here and will explain more later.This message has been edited by Admin, 08-09-2005 09:31 PM