A thought on Intelligence behind Design

I'm a bit confused as to how Gould would intend his miltons and franlikns to cash INTO your question to the exclusion of Gould's view on geneic selectionism for Dawkins said in BUT IS IT SCIENCE eds Ruse"I agree with Maynard Smith(1969) that "The main task of any theory of evolution is to explain adaptive complexity, i.e. to explain the same set of facts which Paley used as evidence of a Creator." I suppose people like me might be labeled neo-Paleyists, or perhaps "transformed Paleyists." We concur with Paley that adaptive complexity demands a very special kind of explanation: either a Designer as Paley taught, or something such as natural selection that does the job of a designer. Indeed, adaptive complexity is probably the best diagnostic of the presence of life itself."and yet Gould DOES NOT give GALTON's TIPPED% polygon any meat in his extension of the core Darwinian logic aka extending NS which to me he should to meet Dawkins head on without A PRIORI Prejudice. It may be merely that Gould refuses to think of Morphology as a CAUSE of constraint even in the positive sense.I suspect however that this is a fau confusion for when ONTOGENY AND PHYLOGENY was out and being read I simple could not find that Gould *saw* Conants Eastern Herp Newt Plate in the correct colors. I guess I had agreed that you *understood* this explanation. It is true that some may not be able yet to "follow" Gould's discussion of the inverted vertebrate/invertebrate nervous system aka Geoffroy but I certainly have seen and stated on the web that books tend to make me look at skin cells as turned with respect to any nervous system picture and it is not "crazy" to which Gould could it that instance of a pargraph gainsaid and cut down on the txt. I hope this helps. Best Brad.

For one IT CAN Not be THAT DOCTORS CAN involutarily commit believers because they ( docs taught by elite biologists) TELL the patient that it is THEIR CHEMICALS to which the patient assents WITH INTEREST and the DOCSPHD continue to modularize the chemistry AGAINST this physchial claim for then one has a covert means of religious persecution and oppression (sociobiology passed in textu) as IT DOES currently EXIST in the US and was not declined by Gould as he passed on out of this living life we lead. Simply arguing the difference of Gould and Dawkins does prevent third parties or states from acting against the power of the people even if thought to be in best interests.

There was some quip by Pascal's brother about the "reason" behind Pascal's device but admitedly this would not speak for any computation device analog and digitial together.But when it comes to Pascal's division of THINKING in terms of geometry, mecahanics and arithemetic less thought is currently given to this than Leibniz's take which can either intellectually end run with relativity theory or ... well others already say the alternative.

Yeah, is that a "statement" or a "question" for as to the post I should know, I BSM, wrote it without any knowledge of any changes between my fingers and your screen.