From Robert W. Marks, "Negative Malthusianism: The Mathematics of Maximized Abundance""The required human functions thus become relegated more and more to top level desgin operations; that is, to invention, research, and concern for social applications of industrial product. Activities of this sort are not qualitatively different from the practice of philosophy." This is Will Provine of Cornell's mistake in thinking that ~1930s genetics TRICK was justified based on physics. This trick which is not a way of thinking in physics unless generally Einstein's and particularly Borhr's aquoistity along with more work IN the electro-tonic state (and all this without ANY change in the math being put on the computer etc no economic sidebars taking workers away from the goal, no Lornez threat etc etc etc) would then be a game theory of cards castle falling down in a jail cell that could make a Russian transition between vegatation and reproduction in all the 5 kingdoms...
My own position however leads eventually to a differential in the rates of this "evolution" of Provine and will offer in Provine's shift (shifting between metaphor of wedge or fulcrum) (history) discrimination @ isolations of Gould's vs Mayr's view (AS PROVINE HAS THIS RELATED TO WRIGHT). All of this qualitative discussion can chage as the quantitiative difference is spurred on by abuses in nano-techonology as there is little support socially to develop this view even within the univeristy academia environment as I was sent to doctors rather than deal with my physical claim (I had two brothers who got advanced degrees in physics so my claim is not to be with a palm reading) and the cost of lawsuits class actionable under the contract as torted or broke.
Equally creationism will gain as HM Morris said during the time given to the abstraction of trick correctly sequesterd and isolated to plants animals and microbes rather than the former in discussion of a state office of eugenics and all of this with at least new numerical empriical math techiniues though I could replace at any time in the philosophy some transfinites for Mendlian math practive ( I have not done this). Instead of the population as NEON would observe we still work on stem cells and the baby of this idea for good reasons. Yet creating babys for body parts to cure diseases will not help in the long run if we run out of food. The wedge will move over to the fulcrum.
The the early 80s at the end of high school in an expository writing class I wrote a paper I titled then "The evolution of evolution" while Carl Zimmer was advancing in his control of English on the Hunterdon Central Lamp newspaper staff editing machine and my father, who wrote on Manhatten Press Releases for ATT when ever staff was fired and replaced for machines justitfying (a brother and sister up on the Hill behind me rather) I simply compared a multiple fast punc eq to a slow classical Darwinin thought and decided that one or the other must go and that I doubted for reasons adapted that it would be punc equilibrium that would end up "extinct". I still do not expose my empitical understanding in narrative/prose acceptable to a press release of the sort that Robert Marks would probably apporve but what I am runing from is a catastrophe and not a uniformity that I have repeated clued the reader into. Since Carl and not me got the job of the writing per se it will be my warnings that need only a bold title that may eventrually be dissmemated to the same audience once more abuses of nano-ecology are preveted or invented baselines to prevent disasters that could precipitate the concerted begning of biomass producitivity in the place of agriculture for Provine's Intelligence on actual understanding of animals breeding with supplemental insight from Eastern Work in Mendel's home town on plants and other Soviet Creative Darwinism properly in the fold.
While searching this web not WE or the other search engine around I found the following sentence either being justified by a contact person at Harvard UCBerkely and it said:" In molecular biology, nanostructures are the fundamental machines that drive the cell - hisotnes and proteosomes- and they are components of the mitochondrion, the chloroplast, the ribosome, and the replication and transcription complexes"
I challenge any living person who wants more than one pot shot to tell me that dyads were not in the scientific literature More "fundamental" no matter which Wright surface one may prefer in choosing between Gould and Mayr than ANY NANOSTRUCTURE. There is a confusion of topology and topography in this sentence and it relies on the Analogy of atomic and genetic materiality. Thus there is working below the individual level a grammer machine that Derrida never wanted a nose of it that can with elite such funding precipitate in Conant's "concepts" an even worse effect on society than Hitler where the problem could be identified to a man where we "dry" up the food source specifically by the way diversity is handled.
I was unable this week to get beyond use of a simple defintion so one can imgaine justifably that the age and area error had gone from the central tendency that should moderate our engineering in this ecosystem which still found not a territory but Bill Gates. That one can trust these sources I have none for I found the history being written in the ivy before the growth was completed such that the student was confused with the law.
My specuclation on absolute and realtive space and histones gets so far from the ability of people to read without proper editing machines and secretary that I do not dare to start to discuss the centromere in Kalmus's genetic sense of where genetics went to rather than where it came from as was the position of historian William Provine who had invited me and once was I there to his home.