This would be a rather difficult guess on my part.
@ Cornell "they" tend to 'allow' reading of behavior Before morphology
@ Harvard "they" permit morphology to read behavior
@ Wolfram Science it was transmitted that Calculus may not apply
Lewontin as an example of one of the "insiders" in the know read(s) topobiology as reductionist (if) at best..
In the worst case sceneario (without respect to pedagogy which IS the ICR sticking point) that a holistic read of the ivy leauges under the filter ocurrs ( a fear of those who think that Sociobiology can be rejected and yet NOT explain bird migration...)THEN Dawkins REDUCTIONIS(M) i S the better read (from that point on) as to Mendelism NO MATTER THE HISTORICAL CRITICISM within the philosophy of biology that Wright need not be interpreted or read as a Laplacian since WOlfram who is no biologist THOUGHT he could answer in the problem question set of the biologist that Lewontin seperated into Castastrophe Theory, Chaos Theory, and Complexity Theory.
I simply prefer to read Pasteur before bedtime.
™ Version 4.2
