Who is Jesus Christ to you?

Corintians contains a verse that speaks FIRST of naturality THEN spritual up rising DEPENDENT on the Ressurection and I am tending to think that S J Gould has over depended on repentence that he missed in this flesh the difference of death by species, death by cells, death by individuals and the SPIRTUAL change expreience by a reading and understanding of these books of Paul.Topobiology leaves a crucial mechancial role for for cell death and to the extent that this is NOT programmed, the reference of Paul to organismal flesh difference DOES refer to the natural BEOFORE God and the Spirit but that the Grace could be so confused is also NOT possible on such a reading and yet Gould continued to see Days in Genesis relative to his understanding of hoxology and yet the relgious nature of Cantors set theory has NOT been authorize as of yet he did speak in latin of "creatures"?I have not said how I link the infinite POint beyond the complex plane to the HEAD which is also a part of the FLESH in Cornitians and a result of hoxological logos grammetology but sex bias contra Fisher is not out of thequestion of Cantors extension and USE of ACtual infinity that who knows maybe the Catholic Church HAD and is still using his call to the church to make sure it finitiely gets the proper use of infinity correct???

If Wofram can negate any positive thing Gould says about contraints then is it not both adaptive and biological to think that Gould is wrong to consider death an "epiphenomena" and would not Jesus' parabalization be NEEDED to flesh out not only the periodic cycle possiblity Gould raises with respect to the duration of species VS individual # of competitions aka Wright/Fisher but also the if any genetic homology exists for the head as well as the limb articulations?? It may indeed be that cellular automata indicate that Dobhshaky's notion of mutation genetics was mis-intuited but this does not mean that natural selection is a "smoothing" affordance as engineering is to physics. Ordinals + ordertypes are not the same as Cardinals + ordertypes.I can not see how the aptive traingle means that Wolfram nonetheless needs to be rejected insofar as he maintains an impression about Von Neuman's contribution for he simply may have overdermined the extent of irreducible universality which DOES have something to do with perhaps MY own babtism as an epiphonmenum withint the Presbyterian Chruch but this does not mean that the Catholic Church may not have theology ready and waiting on the acutal infinite without error that Cantor made in philosophy of Leibniz that Pascal may clearly be read to have avoided. Ur else the end of the atomistic use in acutal inifinty was grasped and Anaxgorian philosophy is so relevant today Gigentn, Halpzahle, e-numbers, etc. as to Morowitz's mistake with Gish.If the second number class IS Telsa's wireless transformer then even if electric fish are alternatively "conductors" and insulators"" it would not be scientific to think the invariance was all by constraint and not perhaps the adaptive oversight that Fisher was afraid he had made.All of this seems true to me

Oh, you may be correct, I was just tyring to follow the thread without respect to the names on this list.But as to what is "coherent" that turns out to be just the word I am fairly certain that Gould MISWROTE for i read "inherent" where he put the "co". I still need to relate the "transition of Cantor's writing from the Grundlangen to the Beitrage in terms of point sets that seem increasingly possible to create deductive biogoegraphy from to me in Cantor's use of "sets" perfect, dense in themselves and inherent and coherent and then relate this to Gould's aptive traingle to be sure but the relation of plant and animal stays the same on this reading and only a few germs can disrupt this goove I fell i am in that works at least for me.Well what acutally actually happened this time was that I was reading evolution stuff and got into Cantor again to notice that he had quoted Corithians and when I read BOTH books together I found that Gould's use of Paley seems so obviously wrong to me that a belief in Jesus is as easy as answering my Catholic high school freind who asked me if I grew up in India if I would rather be a Buddist than a Presby-people. Yes, I said. But I say NO to Gould.Gould was playing for the long term and so am I. In the end we will need to hear from the Catholic Chruch again on this issue.

The point for the evolutionist, progressive creationist or theistic evolutionist is that I HAVE NOT as of yet shown categorically that Richard Lewontin's involution of devolved evolution IS NOT a couple differential equation AMONG organisms and environments and it seems that until I do just this I will still be out a job, but that does not mean that Job and me do not have points.If anything you have seen me type is correct it will most likley mostly if not only go to show that Olby's concept of Mendel and that Mendel WAS NOT a "mendelian" is true and that both the excess evolutionary theorizing in genetics as well as the failure to genetically realize Mendel's combined developmental and hybrid series math was in error and my guess the reason that deductive biogeography does not exist in the call of the wild Croizat no matter the relation of Panbiogeography and Catholicism.The conceptual advance I am trying to marshall was already put in writing when I was a student at Cornell and attempts to extend Cantor's notion of "abstraction" into terms of molecular embryology but that goal does not guarentee a priori that I will be able to establish a biological research program in antithesis to the reasons that Harvard hired Lewontin or specifically specify how to obtain the cardinality when not the ordinality of the differential equations LIKELY to be invloved.I have understood the Pope to have asked if the current math of biology does indeed "run counter" to the physics and chemistry of the same and for ANYTHING i write to be clearer and clear I will need to USE Betrand Russel's seperation of cardinals and ordinals perhaps with Wolfram's work on a new kind of science in topobiologies' assertion of evolution and not development in the developmental Olby Mendel binomial transfinitely WITHOUT the philosophy of Liebniz that Cantor resorted to in explication against claim of pantheism.It is clear to me that Phillp Johnson IS correct about a change occurring which I had rejected previously but I came to this knoweldge not from Biblical Creationism but from reading and thinking of any physical means by which organisms can chage FORMS. Tansfinites are about a math dependent on the forms of things and I have not looked at the use of logic to have MATHMATICAL STRUctures that add ordertypes cardinals and ordinals into arthemetic that would have to be operative during meosis coherently but I KNOW that Simon Levin who is more postive than WIll Provine about all use of math in biology was unwilling to do this with me BECAUSE IT WAS TOO philosophical and yet the philsophy of Richard Boyd was not realisitically up to this task without his functionary attacking my very person when it was the inheritance I was after.