Can anyone be assured that with,
quote:
leaving it, in Gould's words, forever "the unchallenged domain of insects and flowers."
M was not leaving a church of this opened door to Gould's USE of Goethe's plant that Croizat ALREADY dismissed to any plant part one would wish to sound out?
Yes, this "
If that were true, evolution would long since have passed, in the public mind, from controversy into common sense, which is exactly what has happened within the scientific community "HAS happened to some extent and HAS spread at least to the 'spouces' so involved BUT WITH IT CAME the *acceptance* of a superfludity of sufficiency"" (to quote my Agnostic Grandmother) but this CAN BE DIMISSED rather easily philosophically and so what has become of this common sense on reflection?
I can challenge M'sG of flowers and insects one degree at a time but you see if c/e were a matter of ANY temperature flucutation we can not expect any resolution any time soon. I really found that I do not think in the same economy as this representation in fact and so it is hard to for me not understand
Could such Darwinian ruthlessness be part of the plan of a loving God?
Yes, it could. To survive on this planet, the genes of our ancestors, like those of any other organism, had to produce behaviors that protected, nurtured, defended, and ensured the reproductive successes of the individuals that bore them. It should be no surprise that we carry such passions within us,
as anything other than the child rearing classes said Grandmother took while biologist husband was teaching the evolution to future high school teachers all the while not adapting to the email world around us.
™ Version 4.2
