Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 63 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 916,334 Year: 3,591/9,624 Month: 462/974 Week: 75/276 Day: 3/23 Hour: 2/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Panspermia
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5051 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 9 of 26 (98512)
04-07-2004 6:32 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by Black
04-07-2004 5:48 PM


Formally, it's falsifiable but I would need to explain in detail how we have actually instead payment to Ceaser by copycat electronic means first then how Eldredge mistook the leaving of ecosystems by agriculture from ELECTRONIC bookkeeping means to ends of problems with the eating not the growing or catching of food as series in isolation with distance by ecosystem engineering into biomass productivity. No one has had stamina for this kind of discursion with me as of yet. Part of the falisfication process would require seperation of colonial organics on MARS AND VENUS or stations orbiting hotter and colder than here.
Actually it would cost less to get rid of JD WATSON's and perhaps Harvard's Gilberts' ideas on designer diseases but that aint happening.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Black, posted 04-07-2004 5:48 PM Black has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by extremophile, posted 05-05-2004 10:52 PM Brad McFall has not replied

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5051 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 12 of 26 (99493)
04-12-2004 6:28 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by SUnderwood
02-21-2004 8:13 AM


Re: Panspermia
I think the idea is simply the incomplete human factors' integration of biology and physics. Crick was pissed that many biologists did not take physics as forcefully as he did and finally finding out that Vitalism was writ off in the mid 60s by Mahler and Hamilton before Crick thought up Eigen's RNA as artifical natural selection and before panspermia if I am correct with this by guess it is really the same imposition as Gould did. Biology clearly needs a standard other than chemistry to interest the relevant mathmaticians. As this website shows simple creationist criticism cant call back this magic either.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by SUnderwood, posted 02-21-2004 8:13 AM SUnderwood 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