Show one complete lineage in evolution

It is possible to "construe" Provine UNDERSTANING "IN" PE as just a ^rate^ variation, as a bit of a simplification on Gould's ideas,but only on the basis of asserting for grammetological means to diffentiate Simpsonian and Personian landscapes TO THE TELEPHONE CALL he had with Wright in the 80s while still asserting two DIFFERENT incomprehensibilites in frequency selection graphing & gene combinations individually. This is a very "hairy" topic not even a touch down will solve immediately. I'll try to flesh some in later. Best Brad. Guold's visualization of PE is however not merely thus understood unless time can have any NEW (aguhhh -old) signification. It cant even if one tries on purpose.

I was more on your side Mark. But there is a real problem with the words or claims about national styles in the most elite scientists' logoses that indicated to me at least, that there is too much anglo-saxon philosophy in decrying for anti-Lysenkosism or whathaveyou on nonadapativness etc. I am not sure if B. Russel's claims about Kant and the dx/dy interpretations would still hold in the content of evolutionary biology as this is something I am still investigating. I was sort of impressed and then not impressed with Robinson's (70s) infintesimals (and transfinites), but I have not been able dynamically to associate this formality with any natural selection problems, though niche construction seems a field possibly open, to this(%%), of, my own abivalence.I do think that Will Provine was mistaken to THINK that gene combinations *can not* be written on a 01 line axis but I think, if I am not mistaken, that the reason Wright &could not& be more clear, when discussing the population mean, was that the DIFFERENCE in the math used in approximating things between Fisher and himself was indifferent (as to the math) between couples and certain pathways of infinite divisibility. Wright had his "own" philosophy of correlation paht variables as you would know. I can be individually corrected on this issue, but if one tried to think about all the posts I did with/on Gladyshev's work, then (as far as any dx/dy was involved) it was possible for me to go futher. I am sorry that this did not come across. I will try to re-work/write it.DO I NEED TO LINK, the Names I use, to make this more understandable?

Yes your wording seems correct. There is slight problem in my mind about what is a mutation and what is migration (as opposed to Croizat "translation in space and form-making")(especially if one takes "selection" as 'abstraction' as I sometimes want to do)for ON migration there is "inertia" in some of the material but can we tell molecularly whether and organic kinetics on locomotion is not due differences velocity wise between a set of nuclei(of atoms) and "fields" BEYOND the molecular bond rather than to splitting a lineage. Gould seemed to THINK instead about overlapping "ACROSS" space (in the rocks) but he cared not for the the effect on thermodynamic deduction as I have indicated above, instead realizing that the geometric visualizabilty he thought up was DIFFERENT than that proposed up to the time the he and Eldgridge attempted to relate stastically different trilobites in the NEUS strata.Perhaps I am not clear because I do not know what Gould meant by "time" for it is obvious that if two different kinds of PHYSICAL PROCESS are involved in any PE (which might use different aposteriori (from the changing organisms perspective of any kind) then although the "rates" would be the same PHILOSOPHICALLY they might be different taxogenically (hence a differnce of translation in space DURING FORM MAKING and locomotion that is migration while selection of mutants could still "translate" the space (via a wierd idea on algebra for instance in the gene calculations of relative frequency etc)(same occuurred to quantum mechanics beyond a classical consideration).If one admits the strong temporal inequalities of Georgi Gladyshev (for which I see not a reason to NOT so think) then it is hard to understand how there are not more than one process involved but how to relate the SYSTEM to Gould's ideas of mass exticntion upsetting relative frequency of PE I have not thought up.Either way there are ways to think of multiple time process WIHTHOUT having to evoke the GEOMETRY of a staircase (which Gould did (in his stats))but at this point issues of philosophy can not really be ignored when one is trying to figure out in the judgement if one is more justifying ones "logic" more from a philosphical explanation or a qualitative vs quantitative difference from the mathematical maturity.Eversince I was reading French work on Wright's effective population number I became unconvinced that Provine's suggestion that Hawiian DROSOPHILA was a case from which to adjudicate quantiative differences between Fisher and Wright if just because the work of Rene Thom would trump (any symbol involved). That's me though. There was apparently (and this from Richard Lewontin himself) much talk about castastrophe theory explaining extinction but Dick refused to admit topology as general in his TRIPLE HELIX (which is what I MEAN by the word ("condition")) but if I understand the STRUCTURE OF EVOLUTIONARY THEORY correctly Gould is only arguing within a variable and not function so if the function of time from Reimanns localization WAS a Cauchy viewpoint in GROUP THEORY OF THE SHIFTING BALANCE I see no mathmatical reason not to pursue pointsets here and I could with time justify this philosophically but the question for me was more about how Gould tries to tie Creationism to ADAPATIONISM (or nonadaptive traits instead) which I think is just the attempt to use Physics of nonlinearity as Provine did with the analogy of phase transitions to Wright when I was able to read Wright that any "supplementary time and space information" if that was ONLY about Lotka-Voltera REACTION and yet I was able to think further in Croizat's writings on the SET that these collection localities as point woule PRESENT. I did not say represent. That is what is yet to writ.