Creaton Waves and Morphogenetic Fields

Does he distinguish an "undulation" from any 'steady motion' that would be more than mere "hand waving" if one was to be able to so, in time, 'extract' the kinematics. Seems this distinction would be necessary before a general DYnamics was supposed. I tend to doubt "morphogenetic fields" myself and prefer the idea of network space now that Wolfram has left the building. When Cornell kicked me out I went to this new facility that was not there when I was at that school and asked for someone who could stand on their legs and tell me what OFFICES had my files. SO that I could give the info to a laywer for a suit but instead once the meeting was arranged an UNDERCOVER cop from downtown escorted be back to CTB. Instead I saw Stephen Wolfram standing there.

No this may be an alternative to morph fields however but relies on some notion of Particle Physics that may not be true.Think it is cheaper thang going to Harvard.Stephen Wolfram on page 824 of ANEWKIND OF Science;2002: attempted to print IN FACT "almost no other" that can only be @ fact if this was wrote to motivate TO fact (getting across (outer totalistic code 204)) and not FROM the same on indexing genome vs genetic material with, "And as one might expect from the intuition in this book, even systems like the one below with remarkably simple rules can still manage to show self- reproduction-despite the fact that they bear almost no other resemblence to ordinary living systems." It seems hard for me to believe that it is only an inability to read and one writing teacher (Will Provine) produces such a senetence as authority but please re-read.When "Wolfram"'self-reproduction' appears in the difference of Mendel's A/a OR a/A in the pollen/sperm or egg ~ no matter the "evolution of dominance (provine Etc.) ~ the EVEN (number of chromosome repetitive DNA...)seperating chromosome art parts of 3:1 truth in the body being transformed physically duing this odd process of the square root (possible? in some day-lily triploid clones) in A x (non-universal group theory)Aa x a at least for A/a=a/A as per Mendel that acquires Hemerocalis taxogeny by activity when not a law of growth, any other orthoselection etc.becasue of triploid gametes with a EVEN NUMBER OF SETS morphogenically may express using Wolfram's "204" code histogenically for instance if, let us say, "the pattern" is some reciprocally figured trait into (or out of?) Mendel's double (hybrid +- parent) signification signed "A" or "a" that is torqued onw way with respect to the fan from which a second spiral is associated with vascular metrics to flower-bud position{s} and by projection a distance of reciprocal trait seperates the A, a between but not among any symbolic computation 'not "among "(would be "spatial evolution else (while?~?)) of A/a (perverted or not) as Mendel asked the reader to adjudicate, then by radial statistics; one:: may with computer support categorize Flower Biometry such that different "patterns" (what Day-Lily enthusiasts look for in a plant (flower) or strictly Mendel's stem length ) could input become once again, against Mayr gaining Croizat etc to the generation experiment wihout the double by using a perversion of Pascal's triangle gearing up for Galton's difference of organic and molecular units in Cantor Domain etc that may not be the Chinese equivalent even if within Gladyshev's notion of Macrothermodynamics etc etc/ etc...eTc.Other possibilites do exist, I guess. It seems prelimiarily that this is possible for squamates,day-lilys and echinoderms so why I was prevented data acess at Cornell remains a mystery.

You would think but now Julian Humphries is doing the some signifincant biodiveristy informatic programing in Kansas (which is where I wanted to go the herp school before I decided to try climbing the IVY etc) and was one of my independent advisors being the Cornell Museum curator at the time. He insisted that BEFORE requests were sent out for Carphophis across the country that the statistical procedure to be used in analysis be decided ahead of time. This had to do with his narrowly phentic at the time notion of "encoding" of data. I was not well aware of the differences between cladistics, phyletics, baraminilogiy to be, phenetics (and I also had a concuurent indepenedent study on Croizat etc that was needed to be worked into the final paper/thesis). He had agreed with me to get the speciemens recieved at Cornell at the beginning of 87 fall sememeter and willing signed on and I waited till the last day to request this course be changed hoping he would return to his decision at the start of the year. He never did. I determined that at least for the Fall I did not need to decide how I would treat ANOVAs etc and only needed camera lucida drawings scaneed into the computers from which any errors in collection of the data would not be significant for the undergrad puposes (he may have had more of his more present day "grand" ideas)which wasnt needing to look at scanning EM of the difference of :alpha: and:beta: keratin (though I could not say for sure so I was considered the one with the mistake and "crazy" to post-pone changing for so long) but only if the pre-frontals divded or not for which I had a mathematician willing to work on affine transforms to work on the level of the whole scale. Humphries saw the forest. In this case I WAS looking at the trees. I wanted to try to correlate gotten morphometrics from the proposed camera lucida drawings to try to correlate with underlaying muscle but in another class Kraig Adler did not have the expertise though he and I knew about as much herpetology as at any other school. Each teacher wanted their specailty to be "perfect" such that Will Provine refused (since he was incharge of the whole project) to step on any profs toes and me for trying to bring this information to the president Rhodes who also had writ a book on evolution was committed to mental institution by a Marxist who did not share my political views etc even though I was willing to work in his philosophy etc.