Praise for the RATE Group

Good bat-lets see you fly now! man, you got wings. I am not "retarded" either but individually we all are.

I see JP, a problem with a word again. OH WELL.

There are not sides> look there is NOT black"" between my eyes either.
Instead, I can write- animals "see" Galelian regions but plants only USE"" Lorenz transforms no matter the alegbra.[This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 03-04-2004]

Is it because you dont have a green marble?My guess it is BECAUSE Gould's "stair"step can be deconstructed. I had not thought that the RATE groups' work will bear on form-making in biology but the interesting thing I would like to live to know is if the logic of evolutionary theory is ever going to be shown to be of inferior quality even if this comes about NOT by Creationist influence. I will bet that RATE group work WILL bear for Gould for instance said HE DID NOT THINK like an Einstein but the whole issue of radioactivity and time was for AE but an issue of WHEN matter is considered as an integer while in his/same thought he could consider Imaginary Numbers bearing in the same physical reality. Gould dealt with this all rather conceptually and not materially beyond the staircase which I think is rather ingenious but not likly reality no matter the relative frequency?Why and how can the RATE work bear on this??Well, the amazing thing is that I had not been able to figure out why I was focused on Vavilof,s Medawars' andD'ArcyThompson's diagrams and I am not certain exactly why Lorentz and Poincare rejected (or did not understand (sic!) special relativity but looky here at the stair in this case. YOu have to take the step. Einstein might be mistaken but his thought process that sees GOD in nature's laws IS NOT carried over into Darwininsm?? OR is it?? DID Wright already do this??? Could it be possible that when Wright spoke with Provine on the phone in early 80s and TOLD Provine that he would need to look at the "phenotype" that *this* was a diversion to keep WRIGHT (AND GOULD) at bay? Could creationists be correct that a homogenous universe is nonsensical ideology in general???? IS IT not possible to derive the shifting balance theory OUT OF TENSORS? Is not RNA(differences) but Einstein's clock in a box? Was it not because Bohr was more for biology than Einstein was against it that Russel's exclusion of Cantor's limiting process was not bound by Fisher but by ananlogy to the 2nd law of thermo? Is is possible that D'Arcy Thompson can be used to see how changes in rates of change biologically exist by USING Einstein's use of Gauss??? Is not the thermal current an indication that there is NO rigid rod but there is a genotype?? welll I could continue to ask questions....What impressed me with Einstien's thought process and that of God-fearing creationists' when I understand it is that one does not bring the geometry to bear until after the matching processes had occurred in the mind. The creationists generally match evolution to something else. But Einstein's thought process may be applied to explain not only how Gould rejected D'Arch THompson generalization (from surficial to volumetric forces via transforms) but why Wright is not really being worked on. I will not comment on Madison Wisconsin.Einstein was able to think of place independent of direction which I think IS the thought needed to bring biogeography into its own (Croizat). And Einstein's explanation of Gauss via general relativity explains to me at least how people (including myself) have missed the outworking of D'Arcy Thompson Transforms. I am quite proud that Stuart Kaufmann told me explictly not to stop thniking about this even if he was unceratin just what I was thinking about. The theoretical inovation that I will attempt to leverge to get an answer to these and other more physical and less biological questions will be to apply Thom's catastrophe theory TO distributions of tensors and elimiate the concept of the "phenotype". There will be bats, and birds and montremes but no thermophenes... more later once I see if Einstein mineral integer holds up in this rate thread or else someother weave and bob.I got what JP said.

The standard of writing actually PReVENTS discussions that can be had. On fourms like this we need only maintain the ability to forumulate truely scientific compositions. The problem is that science itself is becomes divided beyond the specialist notion and literarly standards are being substituted in some content of these papers. I see clearly how Carl Zimmer is simply writing from my high school newpaper in these journals and yet the details and operations I propose here on EVC are still being thought to be NOT SCIENTIFIC at best. I would not like to be editor at one of the MAGS but if the entire current editorial establishment is preventing the kinds of things that JP said -across the board- then it is not an issue of max likely hood to succeed. For instance, Karl Hopkins, was published in Science but instead of HIM having any interest in the acutal affect of IONS on fish conductor representations behaviorially he assumed the brain of a fish contained actually and AND gate! The consumer could think that BECAUSE (not inspite) of the editorial policy that there IS a better likelyhood of thinking of fish with &gates than it is to think of what is lacking in the article but without the expert knoweldge the reader wouldnt have known what was potentially NOR acutally lacking. I did becuase I did some of the research behind and before the typing copy was done!! It is not fair to pit a lack or omission against future benefits. THAT:S NOT parity either.[This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 03-31-2004]

John Paul's point was that there is some kind of "under handedness' going on. With that I had earlier agreed. You started with "p"R"A"I"S----e so it would be best to keep it ALL this way. I am no admin. But if as I indicated in my last post there is wrong DYNAMIC then this would apply to threading on web sites as well. It is too big for even all of us as EVCers to correct even IF WE were all one. I'going to the coffe house on this one!