|
I guess I'm just a poor researcher.
I remember Ruquist implying that I was a spook.
I remember many falsehoods Ruquist has spoken.
The mathematics of the Theory of Evolution
has been published oodles of times, but perhsps the papers at the links you posted will not be especially hackneyed in their treatment ... or perhaps they will be. If they are partially right, which is the most they can pretend to be, this is no feather in Ruquist's cap. IU have not yet seen Ruquist insightfully discuss The Theory of Evolution. This is not a personal attack, but a slight rebuff to a swaggering
guy, Ruquist, who claims to practice almost all religions and yet not even care that his practice of the Golden Rule has been far short of exemplary on this forum.
Regarding the math of Evolution Theory:
The number of environmental, neurological, and DNA variables makes it HIGHLY doubtful to me that
there is much useful application of classical math with big, sweeping equations to a set of questions this big. Nature is interconnected, but its episodes have been quite fragmented, idiosynchratic, and convergences of unique combinations of circumstances seldom if ever repeated again.
If Ruquist does not answer well every point in this post, that will be par for the course. He almost never does. |
