Behe on organismal evolution

There may be something to this "thesis". Heterozygosity may be a symmetrical electrotonic state and have ABSOlutely nothing to do with "correcting" Mendel's A+2Aa+a inTo AA+2Aa+aa. The diffulty of seeing the "design contraint" in a goldenGouldchannel... seems to arise from NOMENCLAUTURALLY confusing homozygous inversions {A-B-C-D-centromere-D-C-B-A,A-B-C-D-centromere-D-C-B-A) with Heterzygote characterized [in the evolution of dominance]{A-B-C-D-centromere--..., D-C-B-A-centromere--...} etc in a single transmission genetics for ambiguously described physiological genetics in some higher order catastrophe set such that WITH THE SAME CONTINUITY there is only a Numerical Difference in the kinds of catastrophes per comparision (before the aforesaid "etc"").Mendel was misunderstood because translocations and inversions were sperated on the Morgan paradigm of DeVries Mutation Theory rather than unified between boundary values and intital conditions. Everyone knows McClintock even after the fact did not get her due. Flybase did not address this disambiguation problem that can be resolved with the perverted model I began to outline.If cab is junk the case history is closed. Please try to learn.[This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 01-17-2003]

well,"one fell swoop" might mean historically-
some of the first discussion of Newton as to if a rock fell in China and West isnt Newton still correct..to any number of these metaphors recently.
&
"species appear fully clothed" might express a former DARWINIST cover-up that Aggasiz noticed but reformed with sophisticated philosophy of chance removing by incidence (which needed to have been congruence)the lack that THEY ARE NOT FULLY FORMED (obviously)!A record is not a fact. SOOO a hypothesis of the affect of gravity (rather the inertia of change) in theory creates a record (in the accounting sense) but need not horizon the few facts that support the economics driving the changability or rather the previous change but if one did not see modern forms as temporal entities but simply more diversifications then where the split occurs can not be yet recorded even if the fact is there. Gould did not.

inform us of what?
my "problem" arises if one intends this" what" to be a *change* in total morphospace. The thing is that no matter the fossils in the history of biology AND c/e (as to recording "evolution") is irrelevant if one's subjective extent of morphospace is not comprehended but instead people think instead that there are temporal adjustments rather than database warehousing involved in the same describitve attributions.So it does make a bit of a difference what you EXPECT the FORM to be even if ONE accepts whatever the forms made are what was made during the duration of form-making (by nature not man).