As a scientist, you are aware of the critical temperature; where a substance such as water exists as a air, liquid and solid. I think there is such a point that exist in the aspect of scientific laws, theories and phlosophical or theolgical beliefs. You mentioned Newton's Law as being out dated or recently disproven by Einsein's theory of Relativity; which gave rise to Eisenberg's Theory of Quantum Mechanics and the Priciple of Uncertainty.

The progression goes from hypothesis; to theory; to law. All of the aforementioned have to be proven in each step of the scientific process. In order for a theory to become law; the testing has to be emperically demonstrated; with the necessary recorded data to substantiate the findings. Hence; the testing has to be done within defined parameters. We therefore, see where the Law only holds or is immutable only within the defined parameters; given for any particular experiment. My question to you: given that Einstein's Theory has subordinated Newton's Law; why not call it Einstein's Law and Newton's Theory?

Heisenberg's Principle of Uncertainty fits right in with the broad Concept or should we say Principle of Evolution. Simply stated the Uncertainty Principle holds through obsvervation; that each particle within the Quanta moves from one energy state to the next randomly in a balanced symbiosis of equilibrium. This in order to restore or maintain order.

With the aforesaid in view; I would venture to put the hypothesis as ADAPTATION; the theory as NATURAL SELECTION; and the law as SURVIVAL of the SPECIE or SPECIES. And not Survival of the Fittest; which was used to justify Hitler's acts of war and genocide

The aforementioned law can be substantiated when we look around us and see life adapted to all climates, and other extreme environmental conditions. Hence, an array of varieties within the same specie.

It is said that a specie is defined by the number of pairs of chromosomes; enabling productive offsprings. Could you verify if gorillas or chimpanzees have the same twenty three pairs of chromosomes as humans and discuss the significance thereof?

N.B. Last but not least; you seemed to be a bit headstrong regarding my comment on migration and civilazation. Your one line quip suggested a kind of scientific DOGMATISM; implying that your view brougth forth was'nt open to critique, reason or discussion. I hope you do not consider such behavior a part of the rational scientific PROCESS.

I AWAIT YOUR ESTEEMED REPLY. GIVE THANKS; RASTAFARI