Darwinism and Nazism

It can and should be reformulated. I guess I understand your point now, P; it is possible in whatever this now to be known "structure of evolutionary theory" that NS will come out on concetual TOP. I doubt it and it will be the evidence that tells. The problem is that there is not enough momentum in the biological community dedicated to this problem but also it is because the evolutionists who know enough to actually attempt this (the motivation of Gould and Eldridge etc for the generalization of such an attempt so far etc from a nonadaptive etc etc perspective ...)are happy enough with their chairs' endowment and current ongoing protocols to attempt something as radical as finding a forest of trees with same root system but different gene flows.It may take being in US to see that social Darwinism need not be only harmfully attached to evolution think. I have NEVER thought this point of Percy's to be a problem. There are SOCIAL problems and will continue to be ethical issues until the science is better worked on and out. This is why the c/e repose IS of some benefit to society. The issue of getting the anthropology as unified as possible really makes enough sense to promote only after the physico-chemistry is in its best order but the biological community is so divided that perhaps it will not have to take bioweapons to change this. I PRAY.

P, as you probably know I am "lost" at this point. All I can make of it is that it is a "filler" for discussion before the point is made again. It may be due to cultural differences I suppose but when (I one) really wants to discuss the biology of it the circled wagons close in too fast to get an idea of what is even factually meant.It seems odd that with both p and b confused or fused as I intend in this case to be that man behind the words has another BIOLOGICAL intent seems else such is disclosed highly unlikely. There are possible cross posting reasons but these kinds of things become impossible for the non system ad to minister to.It not that it is "not fair" that someone posts this way but if delecting other non-responded to posts when this is what I am responding to is realy unfair. But that I addressed to the MOOSE.

There is a limit to the depth. The neat thing about experienceing C/E boards is that both sides have seemed to"update" in sync. It may be that we have come to an end. I can see lots of room to discuss some "species level" thing but I NEVER THOUGHT this was something to do when RICHARD BOYD offered this to me as a possibility there was so much alpha taxonomy that needed to be done rather than speuclate but I am beginning to understand that Gould's insistence on it is tied to larger unread but available since mid 70s stuff of Darwin's he left out. But as soon as one is into this one could EASILY accept my claim that PASCAL enables one to reintroduce the structuralist history back to Aristotle and Plato that Gould is recalling in part when calling on thinking of Darwin as having *actually* thought on the species level. You do seem to "get" the idea that the organism is VERY important. That is also a point of Gould's.But by introducing Pascal's Double in Wolfram's sophistication I would never EVEN IN REVERSE have to accept Gould
s question as to if FISHER/WRIGHT SMITH/KAUFMANN is merely two different theologies rescripted. They are not and that indeed is the message of creation scienc when not ICR's itself. Gould takes more ground than he needs to try to geological horizon out for size.So far I did not say if the organism or the species is more important heiracrhically. We all have struggled to understand your organicism which being ONLY that could be BARAMINC as well and this P may have found harder to swallow than me.