Evolution in pieces.

The difficuly of "historical reconstruction" should not inhibit the creation of a discipline of deductive biogography but this difficulty combined with a reactionary attitude to the infinite Laplace intellect seems to have prohibited its existence so far yet that did not stop me from making some still unpublished piecemeal inductions by using the tension in creation and evolution as an illusion instead of a still transcendental issue. Both creationists and evolutionist are likely to blame for the powerless discipline despite a plethora of scientitific tools already available. There just are more doctors and lawyers than natural historians and that more than the c/e issue guides the pedagogy needed to develop such better academics. Lving distributions need not wait for fossil dispersal htpotheses to unearthed before the work is supported. Oh well, the time is not yet.

well it would not be as "idiotic" as it currently is if biologists stopped making up straw economics for the student and started to force in some hamiltonian or other in the fulcrum of topobiological frameworks BETWEEN CELLS molecularly but instead the war between chemical biology and technological biology is only the blip on the global request of constraint. I could be wrong be there are clearly unworked in possibilites here. I suspect as well it could not be by chance but the past generation of biologists spent a disproportionate amuont of time on "conceptual issues in evolutionary biology" rather than fostering as sense of the quantitiatve that apparently only Princeton currently recognizes here. Problem there is going to be who is doing the teaching not what they are trying to teach. No there is no "time machine".