The Creation/Evolution dividing line

Percy is as fair as E.Scott but the word here would be "collatoral" no matter how spelled. I'm not sure this applies to playtpus eggs IF the it's bill' electros are genetically determined by my own symmetric imganiation as one of the kind, so I wont go for this as I would like instead to think of bird/mammal not twomaMals. Croizat limited to any place this in the NWUS, and I have not, seen better biogeography anywhere.

Again, I could have picked "warm-blooded" but instead the problem came into the literature AFTER the 70's Creationism that HERPETOLOGY was not a legit discipline within phylogenic divisions so that IF I EVER ATTEMPTED to SUBTRACT from any vert lineage a HERP with mutally exclusive categories (lizard/snake, frog/salamander) so as to have cold blooded -(lizard-legs or snakes+legs) which I could think in terms of ideas on homology (which IS NOT THE SAME prob of ancestor of mammals) then by the current literature this division would be illegit. I had started to think about this LOGIC in mammals given Young's book but I just am not as familiar with them as with herps AS A ONE with mutually exclusive divisions Agassiz already noticed were being misgraded by neodarwinists but this level of organization being one remove ABOVE the data seems to get lost in discussion. Talking about the same for mammals is MORE THAN the one remove in HERPS!!Instead I guess I will have to open another teaching thread on higher ordering in macrothermodynamics in terms of detailed physico-chemistry. Yes RM&NS are a dynamic duo but I think that Gould's notion of Hominids history(old parrallels vs new orthogonalities etc) will be revamped as I, at least proceed.At that point, it might be possible to get the mammal's issue, but since we are part, I dont see it as-likely, unless, say--; everyone here focused-in, on, your thread.This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 10-04-2004 12:15 PM

I am going to say that the evidence that kinds exist in the mammal lineage is found in Gould's Contention that SPANDRELS (AS HE, SJG, SAW first in a CHURCH architecture space) ARE the sentence in Jefferys below IF the limited number implicit (Ill discuss if I have this correctly interpreted) logically cuts the baramin discontinuity OR if the defintion of baramins remains empirical (hybrids etc) and I am correct about DETAILS of downward causation via macrothermodynamics. In the latter case the information has to do with say if electrotonics CONSTRAIN what is independent in such a way as to explain Gould's perceptual field as a missensed constraint mathematics but in the former issues the clear possiblity that heirarchical thermodynamics will not forever support any kind of baramin disscussion. But without knowledge of independence I CAN NOT SPEAK in the mammal lineage about the logics that the following sentneces would historicize on the groud that this if/then were comprehended by another mind. That is trice now, why I can not participate in this thread even though I KNOW somethings about it. This can not be the reason that I could/was (be) kicked out of school because if I went to the same Church as Gould I would have seen the same space/place.By H.Jeffreys "Methods of Mathematical Physics 1950 Cambridge (my favorite so far in this book is Mittag-Leffler's however)"These are Langrange's equations. They are usually obtained in text-books on dynamics by direct transformation of (2); but the derivation from Hamiltions' principle explains also why the left side has the characteristic form of the calculus of variations.Now it may happen that in the actual motion certain relations between the xsubri, and therefore between the qsubs, are specified. The most important case is where many particles belong to the same rigid body, and the coordinates can vary only in such ways that distances between particles of the same body remain unaltered. Another is when some coordinate is constrained by external force to vary in some prescibed way with time, as when a part of the system is made to moeve with given linear or angular velocity. Such constraints do not prevent us from considering variations dqs such that the constraints are violated, and we can therefore still treat all the dqs as independent and equate their respective coefficients. Then (15) remain true. But their physical interpretation is altered. Whereas in a system of free particles they are differential equations ... the time may appear explicitly in the kinetic energy. This does not affect the form of (15), but it will affect the first integrals."I will be giving an updated tutorial on geological and experimental time sorting in macrothermodyanmics soon, but now I am two removes away. I want to provide Tony his just due.I will have argued that GOULD mistissued "Then (15) remain true." with is vision of the muralization of the church. I have not explained how Lewontin went along with it however. The simplistic "MODIFIED" descent remains unlatered howreadever. I dont. E.Scott misthought this. Gladyshev did not. I have gotten fatter. QED