The Collapse of Darwinism

This wacky creepyness of the skull appears in Gould as well. It seems to be the result of attempts to think the vertebral archetype BEYOND human teleology. I dont think this is possible. I could be wrong. It would be in the history of biology however.I used to *try* to think such like, however I only took it to the series along the spine and not into the head. I have now found that second guessing the connection without the chemistry well presented is not going to get biology any farther than the best maths do in creating tensions as already occurred to the conclusion "that it is the population not the progeny timed stupid". It might still be workable without the concommittant pumpkin face vision but I'll hold that for Halloween if I can still be that shallow or compuationally irrelevant.This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 05-22-2005 06:52 PM

I guess it might be

quote:

---

why the hell do we still have to be worshiping him? (i know i'm exaggerating, sorry) The theory of evolution (as you know) would have been revealed without Darwin

---

because SJ Gould reinscribed "constraints" where Darwin admitted "difficulties in theory" and he did so by coming out with a seperation that even Richard Dawkins can perceive. I am beginning to wonder if the notion of "transitional" as APPLIED by CD is also metaphysical but was intended (IN THE 19th CENTURY MIND SET)as not, by DrD. I dont think that species selection is really as important, relative frequency wise as Stephen suggests (i could have guessed wrong) but as long as it is possible that people are moving over to Punctuated Equilibrium in fact we are likely to keep Darwin alive figuratively for more time even though a relation to adult parents comes out differently with Wallace etc.