General Theory of Evolution

Pretty much my physical INTERPRETATION of evolutionary theory tries to concieve any population homogeneity (the existence of which is what is actually in population thinking in question)*has* been able to turn around my contractural obligation with Cornell University to investigate levels of organization by "downward causality(Cambell)" in particular material terms of upward evolution (using the last word in Lewontin's constructable sense of "involution"). These terms for use with protons, electrons, magentrons, nanotechology in the final blue print may not work but the specification seems to warrent use of such word as "upward causality".In this philosophy I have tried to go beyond Hume as I think Richard Boyd thought really but I am doing this from an interest in Kant and not from some theis-anti-thesis except perhaps the actual accusation between Fisher and Wright.Perhaps I do not count in this line of threaded lists but I do not know if you intended to speak for my posts as well??This is not an obligatory question and can be slanted without slander as rethorical for the time being.

This is the kind of interaction for interactors that WIll provine claims is not possible to mediate between Fisher and Wright. This kind of difference is available to be resolved by science if we could JUST get past the rhetoric. Good Jop you two.

Anne, if you try your *mind* at reading the references to religion in Criozat's voluminous pages it does not appear that he is part of the "lunatic fringe" that Francis Crick sentences to a molecule yet the chages necessary in the evolutionary establishment are not forthcoming while it is the Creationists AND THIS GOD that seems to be keeping the pressure on this pressure cooker. Unfortunately 9-11 happened and it seems like the older generation miscalcuated on making all our kitches have microwaves. For me this devise was a "strange change" machine that I put a plastic square in, pluged in the "betty Crocker Oven light" and out came the SHAPE of a dinosaur. This is merely the word "reconstruction" and paleontology has not beetered. I understand some one in my town got BO CUE $ to invesitage PREHISTORIC BEHAVIOR but if we can not even get the idea that a rock could have more information on this earth than a virus that has less because its host has more how can you be so certain that the bread is not the rock? I used to play BOTH papar siscors and rock as well as the animal vegatable mineral game. NOw which combination when not the land of the lost is it not the generalized 3-D. That is not a riddle. I had an answer that was not a tiantothere horn but even the simple scanning of data was disallowed to me before your love is a reference to GOD infront not yours or mine, if only Kelly could have it sung right. She was better the 2nd time in this regard. Sincerely, Brad.

meaning is full-- entropy is not irreversibility. The russian Gladyshev knew this and added an extra entropy term to Gibbs' formalism, whether logical or not I understood the post so what is meaning does not mean "owning" up to it. If I know that there are aliens on mars and this is not a TV show I can REFER without the connotation being the denotation though we know even without the equations that it is the other way around. think twice before you use any implicable double c/e jepordy the standard needs to be higher bar than a Georgia politcian.