This is what I was not told at Cornell. It is crucial for there may be a critical possibility if fish systematics when ordered by the rocks depends phenotypically on Georgi's difference of closed vs qusi-closed isolated biological objects. I finally found it in 1885 book by ECAgassiz. I wrote a college scholar thesis trying to explain missing information which I see was missing because 20th cetury REVERSED the motion discussed in 1900s. Will Provine should have told me this, admitted he did know and or protect me from being involutarily cofined for it was not my fault that history had turned this discussion around. I knew something like the following MUST exist in the literature but when I wrote my undergraduate thesis I could not find it.
This is a letter from Humbolt to Agassiz,
"I see by your letter that you cling to the idea of internal vital processes of the earth, that you regard the sucessive formations as different phases of life, the rocks as products of metamorphosis. I think this symbolical language should be employed with great reserve. I know that point of view of the old "Naturphilosophie;" I have examined it without prejudice, but nothing
seems to me more dissimilar than the vital action of the metamorphosis of a plant in order to form the calyx or the flower, and the successive formation of both of conglomerate. There is order, it is true, in the superposed beds, sometimes an alternation of the same substance, and interior cause, -sometimes even in successive development, starting from a central heat; but can the term
life be applied to this kind of movement? Limestone does not generate sandstone. I do not kow that there exists what physiologists call a vital force, different from or opposed to , the physical forces which we recognize in all matter; I think the vital process is only a particular mode of action, of limitation of those physical forces; action,the nature of which we have not yet fully sounded. I believe there are nervous storms (electric) like those whichset fire to the atmosphere but that special action which we call organic, in which every part becomes cause and effect, seems to me distinct from the changes which our planet has undergone. I pause here, for I feel that I must annoy you, and I care for you too much to run that risk. Moreover, a superior man likeyourself..."
It is very hard to say if some"agent" is involved in this community of motion emprically observed or observable. Kant's post-judgement depends really on only one or many substaces without an ability to reason a particular NUMBER as I think Agassiz did with the four types of animals sytematically. This is how it is that I suspect that Gladyshev's law might challenge this enumeration taxogenically. I still see no reason to accept Gould's default UNTIL after it is clear what the community of this motion is theoretically bounding, which is why i think it possilble to find some of this work doable before all the data is in. Please try to realize that the change is orginally IN THE ROCKS , not the flesh. So ... if molecules "evolve" (say intermolecularly to supramolecularly) this must be IN HUMBOLdT's Sense not Provine's or any modern evos claim (excepting perhaps some here at EVC). Regardless I did not need to be ostracized for creationist strategy or religiously as showing me this quote would have been all I needed to read to stop me from complaining about my professors NOT doing their job evolutionarily. So the reason that there was NO DISCUSSION OF THE VITAL FORCE in 20th century biology was not in fact because there is none but in order to advance a view contrary to A's classification of FISH (irregardless of his writing on the CREATOR)! Creationism DOES a service to the student if only to show that THIS IS WHAT HAPPENED in the biological community not that creationism is actually challenging the comological choice of science or creationism. It may be but then the philosophy would need to be synthezied as I have analyzed the preDNA view on mutation here.
Found in Louis Agassiz His Life and Correspondence edited by Elizabeth Cary Agassiz In Two Volumes Vol. I.1886
The new view is that there IS NOT a contradiction or opposition here, but this is very hard to get across even with the regulars here at EVC. Much work needs to be done on the limits, mathematically, perhaps in a different organization of physical data where more than one real number system is set up. Guess what, I HAVE pushed science into the 21st! We dont have this yet but it is coming.Georgi's notions might combine Humboldt's "special action" through heirarchical thermodyanmics not respective to life only. Instead we keep talking about stem cells and life on mars. Oh how I wish otherwise. The point is that despite their differences Humboldt and Agassiz got along but Will Provine and I could not. Instead I have to recieve slander my parents accepted and assertions of rape in the same oscillation that might only have been Mt. St Helen's erupting. The cause was an academic inversion the innocent, children and classes of students are susecptible of. I ran into these problems becuase I knew the truth, may our world have the courage to realize that Gladyshev's treatment of me was the proper same as Humboldt and Agassiz but my lover, in order to maintain a claim of "rape" asserts that he must be a SPY. Oh, how silly the years wear on. What is so strange in all this biochemistry is that the mother of my children is only trying to inform my son about my mother's phony acceptance of Cornell slander but using clinical data she suggested I attempt to collect.
™ Version 4.2
