Francis Crick dies

at age 88.Thank you sir for all that you taught us.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Aren't you a little late? He died quite a few months ago. I remember hearing NPR talking about Crick's dedication to science when I was driving for 3 hours down to Peoria.

---

The Laminator
For goodness's sake, please vote Democrat this November!

Actually dear, it was just yesterday that he died.

---

Asgara
"Embrace the pain, spank your inner moppet, whatever....but get over it"http://asgarasworld.bravepages.com
http://perditionsgate.bravepages.com

The Laminator moves at warp speed.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Ok, perhaps it was another person that NPR was talking about. Doh.

---

The Laminator
For goodness's sake, please vote Democrat this November!

I happened to catch him in a recent interview on the Discovery Channel. He was quite the fireplug, even in his later years. He had a twinkle in his eye that reminded me of a mischievious first grader. He will be missed.There is a short MSN article: MSN | Outlook, Office, Skype, Bing, Breaking News, and Latest Videos

Anyone up for starting a pool: How Long Before A Creationist Site Posts that Francis Crick Recanted his Positions on God and Science on his Deathbed and Became a Christian?

Was discovering the human DNA somehow anti-christian?

---

The Laminator
For goodness's sake, please vote Democrat this November!

Yes. Yes it was.This DEE-ENN-AY is evul! GAWD makes the babies! GAWD! Not some eevul commie pinko librul traitor athiest evilutition evulniss!

---

Ia! Cthulhu fhtagn!Proudly attempting to Google-Bomb Kent "The Idiot" Hovind's website Idiot

YES, and "THE 8th DAY OF CREATION" textually situates Crick HOW I had expected, but not knowing the detailed history, him to be readable (AKA HOW AND WHEN 1960-1970 Rene Thom couldnt figure Crick's ACRIDINE mutations among his higher order catastrophe sets). I think I might finally be able to get a good view of his life's work.Yes this journey is over with a death now of both Crick and Gould but a dem would have been mistaken about his own generation's insistance otherwise for the 90s brought up soemthing alltogether elese that we might find more interest in Crick's creeking crack etc. But that is just me. Perhaps I'll use this thread to discuss the difference between Crick's pervesion of differnt types of DNA chains and the same missing Soviet combined view, since gain said by Gladyshev, of Jocob and Monod which is situated in that assertion to displace any Creation and Biology of HMMoriss's ilk like. (magentosome membrane will work this all).

But of course. Crick's creeking crack when combined with Borschev's views on the polarization of inherent denominators etc. presents a most testatory anomaly. Were the polynucleotide-based theories to esculpate this surmise, my guess is that one might find the catastrophe sets a much less ostentatious vicissitude upon Manas's theorem. Infelicitously, this coadunation encounters numerous enigmatic obstructions, such as the diphosphopyridine proliferation amongst mutations etc. but hopefully it will become clearer with examination....Sorry, I had a, uh, moment, there......"hopefully it will become clearer with examination" - this by itself makes a good response to Brad's posts, though, I'd say. In response to the topic: Aye, it's a sad thing - though I suppose at least he had the privilege in life of being one of the ones who found "the secret of life", as he put it.This message has been edited by Morte, 07-31-2004 03:50 AM

No prob.In the chapter RNA "The number of the beast" (THE EIGHTH DAY OF CREATION Makers of the Revoultion in Biology) Crick clearly KNEW, "As the discussions wore through the days, Crick began to impose analytical order by establishing the terminology. "Code," though Gamow hadn't used it in his papers, was already fixed. "It was only years after that I found we ought to have used the word 'cipher'," Crick said. I said that Shrodinger had first made the comparision...'Genetic cipher' doesn't sound anything like as impressive!"I simply was the first American to BE hospitalized on purpose like Medvedev was in Russia for daring to think otherwise(the issue is not a diagnosis but that there IS thinking WITHIN IT). I can laugh at the mis-diagnosis and those with gnosis of the same advise likewise. I am still internalizing any philosophical ramifications of Russel's use of the word "cipher" for the large scale end of supramolecular chemistry but ICR was not amiss when it just pressed IMPACT#374 using the letters "A" and "B" among (Chemical Stability, Chemical Reactivity and Chemical Selectivity) for my own use of ++ and >>. Wounded King may not have been able to king this rook but the book this cite sights in sight may hook the snook in the snug. No kidding!This impact article is not yet avail on-line. For those who dont get either the snail or email versions it said (to me) "Proteins and DNA contain a unique order of the individual components. The order of the individual components is not a repeating pattern such as ABABAB or AABBAABB, but it is not a random order either." IFI Provine didnt and couldnt understand how Wright might or may have understood randomess with inbreeding compared with adaptivness in selection. ICAN. The ICR continues, "the order is very precise" precise enough to hear the pin NOT drop.This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 08-01-2004 04:22 PM