Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,902 Year: 4,159/9,624 Month: 1,030/974 Week: 357/286 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Guys You are killing this board.
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5062 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 26 of 28 (149676)
10-13-2004 1:34 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Eta_Carinae
09-27-2004 10:24 PM


quote:
The John A. Davison state of the art?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Name: John A. Davison
Forum: Boot Camp
Thread: Junk DNA. Is our destiny already pre-programmed?
Post #: 233
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Let me put it this way. I stole, lock stock and barrel, most of my ideas about evolution from my many sources. I am an intellectual thief. I've never had an original idea in my head since I received my Doctorate in 1954.
this is from Moose in postoftheMonth.
This is very significant no matter how one discusses the needed independence in the discussion of artifical and natural selection. I was visiting my Grandma in Fredonia this weekend and found the 1966 Fredonian where my Grandfather SAID that molecular INFORMATION is not needed as to the issue of what is today Gould's refusal to accept consilience BY HAVING TWO NATURAL KINDS. Dawkins on the other hand refuses to accept jumps up to the class level for thinking about it for two minutes.
It is because of the *strong* molecular representations we have and can have here at EVC ,unlike other boards, (which is a good thing) that makes it possible to think that a "great" debate would be appropriate where I think I can say both me and JD would disagree. It was clear EXACTLY why I had problems at Cornell(Stan and I never explicity discussed canalization but Provine thought that the 50s/60s period was necessary to understand embryology. He was wrong. Smallhausen and Waddington started all that that information gains from the knowledge needs today(regardless of computers). Dawkins makes the distinction (between recipe and blueprint embryology) but gives the fox till 2050 for him(RD) to make a recipie criticsm or any energy division no matter how arranged before then. The date WAS 1551 as Gould had it instead.I'll open this parenthetical later if at all). I will address this later if I can exact my hedgehog spines from the opening image in my mind. I however have NOT had my gradfather's thoughts which did not change since 54, for sure!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Eta_Carinae, posted 09-27-2004 10:24 PM Eta_Carinae has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by coffee_addict, posted 10-14-2004 5:32 AM Brad McFall has replied

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5062 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 28 of 28 (150099)
10-15-2004 11:34 AM
Reply to: Message 27 by coffee_addict
10-14-2004 5:32 AM


thanks slam a lamma!
I can not get into all my reasons to think that this book
http://www.findarticles.com/...i_m1134/is_6_112/ai_105371468
Page Not Found | Penguin Random House
is in part an attempt TO NOT USE CROIZAT'S METHOD, IN SCIENCE and so one finds a human in the proper place of MAMMALS. A Magister it was not.
or GO non-
Page not found - Book Slut

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by coffee_addict, posted 10-14-2004 5:32 AM coffee_addict has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024