Where are all the missing links?

Is the question, can one find the missing-links if the data was spread into balanced trees's structure?? IE, that ordered input (only one person in the chain to the next which unbalances a tree), is put instead into red/black-2,3,4 trees instead??If so I would have to say that one will not be able to reconstruct the message (missing link) as I have noticed (in bovine reproduction) at least embryologically that the strucutre is to internalize the links cellularly rather than rotate to an outside. I suspect this applies phylogenetically when body size is allometrically contained in the same cell mass.1
10
0110
01100110
0101101010
etc or the opposite way (one has to notice that the symbol shape and hence difference of left and right does not matter) but by now the economics of cell block enterThe advantages of IT can not find the anatomy!

quote:

---

Observations cannot be falsified. Your attempt at rebuttal is incoherent.

​

Then why on one hand does Dawkins admit design is obvious then assert it is an illusion ?

---

I'll make a stab at answering that.I can read clearly in Weyl (throughout) "Philosophy of Mathematics and Natural Science" a designed intention to move or transition from a lack of evidence for

quote:

---

G. Mie and others have tried to modify Maxwell's equations of the electromagnetic field in such a way that they possess only one or at most a small number of static spherically symmetric solutions.

---

p288
---------------
to a claim such
--------------

quote:

---

"A profound mystery, however, is the evolution of life on earth. The idea of organic evolution (conceived long before Darwin) was raised by Darwinism to the rank of the most dominant scientific issue of our times. Does it really deserve this position? The nineteenth century...In attempting to answer it, let us first repeat a previous remark to the effect that the stability of molecules depends on temperature and other environmental conditions and that a molecule will in general be..."

---

p295
.
If Dawkins is always going to try to rewrite where Weyl wrote mneme(I'll look throught the whole book if you really want me to find where he wrote this. He did.) as "m"gene mnemonically&mimetically, I woudn't put that past Richard D, then ,despite the design possibility that someone WILL answer Mie with a finite number of spherical solutions RD will THEN show how That is a meme and not mere law of thermometers etc. I dont know what goes on behind the scences really though.
And I think this is rather a somewhat more delusional possibility than an illusory one because I dont see how no one is smart enough to use Gladyshev's law to follow up Weyls suggestions rather than Dawkins'. ICR creationists would be happy enough if someone gave the blueprint for the transformations and it is no way obvious that baramins do not survive Weyls suggestion . They probably do not survive Dawkins' as I have mastered it in terms of Weyls' axiomatic comparison of Hilbert and other applied areas.