Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9035 total)
107 online now:
Coragyps, kjsimons, Tangle (3 members, 104 visitors)
Newest Member: Barry Deaborough
Post Volume: Total: 885,607 Year: 3,253/14,102 Month: 194/724 Week: 43/93 Day: 3/5 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Current status/developments in Intelligent Design Theory
RAZD
Member (Idle past 299 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 31 of 112 (186858)
02-19-2005 7:53 PM
Reply to: Message 30 by pink sasquatch
02-19-2005 7:41 PM


Re: Not really the first id article published in a peer-reviewed journal
yeah, that's what it looks like.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by pink sasquatch, posted 02-19-2005 7:41 PM pink sasquatch has not yet responded

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 3926 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 32 of 112 (186862)
02-19-2005 8:11 PM
Reply to: Message 30 by pink sasquatch
02-19-2005 7:41 PM


Re: Not really the first id article published in a peer-reviewed journal
So neither of you bug eyes above are going to peer review my comments? They are quite creationist.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by pink sasquatch, posted 02-19-2005 7:41 PM pink sasquatch has not yet responded

  
mick
Member (Idle past 3880 days)
Posts: 913
Joined: 02-17-2005


Message 33 of 112 (186875)
02-19-2005 10:23 PM
Reply to: Message 26 by Brad McFall
02-19-2005 6:04 PM


Re: first id article published in a peer-reviewed journal
Well, that was a reply to my post so I think I have a right in responding. All I can ask is that you give a worked example of how carrying out modular arithmetic on the gene frequencies reported by Mendel in his pea experiments tell us anything about complexity. I gather from your other posts that you think that you can decompose gene frequencies into distinct sets of numbers that represent "kinds" though I may be wrong. I want a worked example!

Mick


This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by Brad McFall, posted 02-19-2005 6:04 PM Brad McFall has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by Brad McFall, posted 02-20-2005 9:36 AM mick has not yet responded

  
JonF
Member
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 34 of 112 (186908)
02-20-2005 9:15 AM
Reply to: Message 30 by pink sasquatch
02-19-2005 7:41 PM


Re: Not really the first id article published in a peer-reviewed journal
So... it was published in a "peer-reviewed journal", but it wasn't actually peer-reviewed.

It was peer-reviewed: From Intelligent design study appears:

quote:
Richard Sternberg, a staff scientist at the National Center for Biotechnology Information who was an editor of the Proceedings at the time, told The Scientist via E-mail that the three peer reviewers of the paper "all hold faculty positions in biological disciplines at prominent universities and research institutions, one at an Ivy League university, one at a major US public university, and another at a major overseas research institute."

"The reviewers did not necessarily agree with Dr. Meyer's arguments but all found the paper meritorious, warranting publication," Sternberg said.


It was not reviewed by any associate editor, as it should have been according to the journal's standards. The identities of the reviewers and the nature of any comments has not been disclosed.

The entire affair has been beaten to death in the blogosphere, most notably at The Panda's Thumb. There's a great list of links, arranged chronologiczlly, at The "Meyer 2004" Medley.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by pink sasquatch, posted 02-19-2005 7:41 PM pink sasquatch has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by Silent H, posted 02-20-2005 11:23 AM JonF has not yet responded

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 3926 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 35 of 112 (186910)
02-20-2005 9:36 AM
Reply to: Message 33 by mick
02-19-2005 10:23 PM


Re: first id article published in a peer-reviewed journal
Fair enough. I am one man, not a college or a community. No one is paying me. THIS IS SCIENCE. One of the things I need to do is to work out grid analysis
Tracking The History of Life

in terms of a planimeter

so that one can translate Mendel's "garden vs country" into "parent vs hybrid".
ON A NEW FORM OF THE PLANIMETERby James Clerk Maxwell

I just wanted you to know that I thought something I have never done before. That is, to see an error in evo think and creo do AT THE SAME TIME. If you dont want to help that is ok. If I dont do this then I can not show how a dendogram and a thamnogram are logically NOT restricted to current clade methods vs the view of any bird. Then I would not be able to show that disjoint sets ARE NOT required. Then I could not approve of Morris over Dembski and THEN I could not show how hierarchy is not a thing in itself. Then I could not show that cline science does not cover grade kinds...

This thread was about the "current status" of ID and this is about as current as it gets unless there is other ID work out there that works it all in, that I don't know. That is possible. It is possible that Dembski has a more sophisticated view of probability spaces than I represent, in which case my work would not solve the ID problem and would only contribute to evolutionary advances. I was trying to understand NOT if I am correct but if I am correct about the current state of ID. -- like- ID arose because evos altered the notion of probability spaces from that which was extant before the modern synthesis.
Panbiogeography:Tracking the History of Life as available in the east

This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 02-20-2005 09:41 AM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by mick, posted 02-19-2005 10:23 PM mick has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by Silent H, posted 02-20-2005 11:30 AM Brad McFall has responded

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 4713 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 36 of 112 (186941)
02-20-2005 11:23 AM
Reply to: Message 34 by JonF
02-20-2005 9:15 AM


Re: Not really the first id article published in a peer-reviewed journal
Actually there is already a thread at EvC detailing the Meyer article controversy. There definitely appears to be something fishy about what happened. Here is the thread titled "Meyer's Hopeless Monster".

To Mick and ALL: This is definitely NOT the kind of article I was wanting to discuss within this thread. Meyers' article is a rehashing of old material, and had nothing to do with productive research. That is what I am concerned with.

I am willing to entertain mathematical research as opposed to purely biological research, but it needs to be progressive and testing itself in some fashion.


holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

"...don't believe I'm taken in by stories I have heard, I just read the Daily News and swear by every word.."(Steely Dan)


This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by JonF, posted 02-20-2005 9:15 AM JonF has not yet responded

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 4713 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 37 of 112 (186942)
02-20-2005 11:30 AM
Reply to: Message 35 by Brad McFall
02-20-2005 9:36 AM


Re: first id article published in a peer-reviewed journal
I didn't quite get what you were saying in the first post, though it appeared you were driving at the notion that mathematical computations were possible to determine whether biological features involved chance or not.

I do not see how anything in this second post supports the above claim.

Maybe I got something wrong? In any case the images here appear to be more applicable to conservation biology and understanding of biological diversity (perhaps even its movements) rather than evolutionary biology. The first two are about movement and existence of species, while the third is about the emergence of species from within species over time.

I don't see how math from the first two can predict the third.

This message has been edited by holmes, 02-20-2005 11:32 AM


holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

"...don't believe I'm taken in by stories I have heard, I just read the Daily News and swear by every word.."(Steely Dan)


This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by Brad McFall, posted 02-20-2005 9:36 AM Brad McFall has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by Brad McFall, posted 02-20-2005 12:39 PM Silent H has responded

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 3926 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 38 of 112 (186964)
02-20-2005 12:39 PM
Reply to: Message 37 by Silent H
02-20-2005 11:30 AM


Re: first id article published in a peer-reviewed journal
I am not sure how to respond. I thought Mick's request for an example was enough? I had FIRST started out on this track in attempt to discuss with Berberry how to make my presentation of material I present easier to understand.
http://www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&f=22&t=18&m=13#13
If the visuals dont help then what should I have posted to mick, a simple "OK?" but given that neither RAZD nor PINK wanted to reply when the three letter solute would have been more appropriate, I thought Mick deserved more for having "the right".Come on I am not scary.

I, personally, dont put an absolute restriction on where chance applies or does not apply, even though ID did and creation science or scientific creationism does, but if the reason creationism is led to make this a practice IS? because other scientists changed the notion of probability spaces so that they only had to have infinity in view, rather than say think infinity, as say some set theorists do all the time; then developments in ID:: might progress by denying this change, change the number of the bound, OR DO AWAY WITH THE BOUND ALTOGETHER, besides it makes it clear to me how my ways of thinking were not accepted in college, if that was constantly in the background.

If the modulo operations work then your complaint about teleology (in another thread) seems to me to be rewritable. Creationism is not what I am concentrating on and am not dedicating a lot of time to. I am trying to get a java program on macrothermodynamics working instead. If I was paid to do scientific creationism I might work on it more. Please understand.

On the other hand, I am only TRYING to discuss randomness as it pertains to a MENDEL RATIO not every and all inventions in ecosystem engineering(man made and otherwise less purposive) where I would simply have traced a relation between transfinite and finite moduluo operatives instantiated in some way. I am quite interested to see what math exist to do it transfinitely. If there arent any I will invent a way to do it. You all know I am not a God. I give you what I have. If I had more you would have it too. The reason you might not appreciate the need to find the motion of a planimeter constituitive with main massings is that you might not have thought as hard about Mendel's use of plant "species" as I have(in the history of hybridzations). I think it was error on the NZers part to relate main massings and density but these pics now introduced a third use of density (I had thought one in using baramin logic, another in sequence density) and now this. Nelson went to print in Systematic Zoology emphatically denying there was any progressive use of Croizat's use of "main massings". The New Zelanders associated a "density" with it just to prove AMNHpeople wrong. Pick that up on some other thread if you like.

In fact as I get to work more on the actual maths (but spending my time explaining myself does not do this) it is more likely I will find more places to use chance functions than are presently detailed.
I had thought up the idea in terms of density but only needed the modulo math IF the evolutionists were mistaken about the placement of space.

This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 02-20-2005 13:44 AM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by Silent H, posted 02-20-2005 11:30 AM Silent H has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by Silent H, posted 02-20-2005 1:45 PM Brad McFall has responded

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 4713 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 39 of 112 (186981)
02-20-2005 1:45 PM
Reply to: Message 38 by Brad McFall
02-20-2005 12:39 PM


Re: first id article published in a peer-reviewed journal
I wasn't trying to suggest you shouldn't have used imagery, nor that you were wrong in responding to Mick's request. Maybe I came off stronger than I meant to.

I just wasn't seeing the connection between the first and second post, especially with relation to mathematics and chance. It was more about wanting clarification.

Would this summary be correct?: The second post contained example material of a way to mathematically "handle" genetic ratios as seen in population/geographic diagrams? If I am still missing it, just let me know. There is a communication gap between us, and I don't blame necessarily blame you. If you don't want to spend time explaining it, that's fine. It was to Mick anyway.


holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

"...don't believe I'm taken in by stories I have heard, I just read the Daily News and swear by every word.."(Steely Dan)


This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by Brad McFall, posted 02-20-2005 12:39 PM Brad McFall has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by Brad McFall, posted 02-20-2005 2:30 PM Silent H has responded

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 3926 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 40 of 112 (187001)
02-20-2005 2:30 PM
Reply to: Message 39 by Silent H
02-20-2005 1:45 PM


Re: first id article published in a peer-reviewed journal
That's understandable. I have never gotten my ideas on Wright fully aired on EVC yet.

The analysis was more at the level of me denying Gould's Hen's Teeth and Horse's Toes where he said, "Secondly, creationists claim that " the dogma of seperate creations," as Darwin characterized it a century ago, is a scientific theory meriting equal time with evolution...But a popular viewpoint among philosophers of science belies this ...Karl Popper has argued...The entire creationist program includes little more than a rhetorical attempt to falsify evolution by presenting supposed contradictions among its supporters."

What I was wondering was that it was that ID in particular did not arise by "the supposed contradictions among its[evolutionists] supporters" but specifically is/was due to the remark made by Halberstam and Roth on page 117, where they said, "As the above remarks indicate, we require a new approach: one which is adequate for the considerations of non-enumerable X, and yet contains (as a special case) what has already been said concerning finite X. To provide such an approach is the objective of the following secitons. For a more comprehensive (and more concise) study of the foundations of probability theory, we refer the reader to Kolmogorov's classic monograph."

I was suggeting this is a mistake and results in the difference of opinion of Morris and Dembski in short. In particular I thought I was able to abstract an extra logic associated by ditching assignments of general weights for a disjoint structure. It is possible I dont quite understand the grammetical extent of this teaching. Please do correct me if I misread this.

quote:

"But in addition to this fairly natural generalization, we need a sublte modification of our definition of 'probability space' (in view of the possiblity of X being non-enumerable). We can no longer insist that every probability measure should be defined for all subsets E of X. For this stipulation, in conjucntion with (3.1)', would ( in the case of non-enumerable X) constitute a most stringent condition, which would admit only measures of a very special type and exclude measures of great significance in probability theory. Instead, we must also consider those measures u which can be defined only on a suitable subclass S of the calss of all subsets of X. (The stipulation that u should be 'countably additive' is now interpreted to mean that (3.1') is satisfied for every sequence {Ej} of disjoint events for which each Ej, and the union of all the Ej, lies in S.) We must also abandon the process of assigning a 'weight' to each elementary event as a method of probability measures. Indeed,..."

I guess my reading, if got it all right, was actually producing this dogma and in the meantime changing his claim that a creationist program is a rethorical attempt. It is true the kind has not been unalterably defined as far as I knEw. I simply suggested how that might exist, but I guess I would not then have said it was a "dogma" but only a proposal that neither lay down the law nor lies with the tongue.

I will clarify this during the time that it takes me to have no more thoughts on reading the book SEQUENCES(Oxford Univ Press 1966 London by Halberstam and Roth) but it seems like elitism had substituted for "suitableness". I did not find it helpful to think of form-making in terms of 4-D as Meyer suggested. That will only become operative if creationism BECAME standard science. It is not.

Your summary of my point of view IS correct. The strange thing about panbiogeography is that if one attempts to FOLLOW Croizat's THOUGHT it is necessary to imagine the Earth "disloDged" from the firmament"", that might be why but not how Gould dismissed it, and only by relating his method to planimeter mechanics was I able to resolve the motion naturally. This is what I have had to contribute to biogeography for some time now but because Grehan was too blinded by creationist stuff I guess he decided not to talk with me so I lost my first chance on entering that literature directly. Some day I will try to build the electronic version of that short cut.

This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 02-20-2005 14:36 AM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by Silent H, posted 02-20-2005 1:45 PM Silent H has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by Silent H, posted 02-20-2005 6:30 PM Brad McFall has responded

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 4713 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 41 of 112 (187047)
02-20-2005 6:30 PM
Reply to: Message 40 by Brad McFall
02-20-2005 2:30 PM


Re: first id article published in a peer-reviewed journal
Your summary of my point of view IS correct... and only by relating his method to planimeter mechanics was I able to resolve the motion naturally.

In your posts you refer to 4-D by which I have assumed you mean time. It would seem that would play a very large part in any kind of panbiogeography calculations/simulations you were running, if it were to assess evolutionary aspects.

How do you account for time in calculations such as these when environments can change as well as the species within the environment, especially when then assessing chance?

I have had modelling experience, and even in simple systems (the only kinds I ever modeled) such vast numbers of probabilities add up very fast... and those were in very well known systems (simple known mechanics). It appears there would be some hard limits on what we can reach with computational (even probabilistic) approaches, given that the mechanisms are still not well known and the actors and the environments are not well known either.

My own experience involved not so much creating known results (known probabilities) but developing visual models of systems, including as they reached chaotic and so unpredictable states. It was fascinating to discover the periodicity within/caused by environmental states, such that one could see where chaos and so the line between predictable/unpredictable was likely to occur.

I wonder if anyone has bothered trying to model "life" in that sense, not to determine precisely what numerical chance things have, but rather what conditions are most or least likely to generate life (high probability vs low probability) and under what conditions we such things cannot be predicted at all.


holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

"...don't believe I'm taken in by stories I have heard, I just read the Daily News and swear by every word.."(Steely Dan)


This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by Brad McFall, posted 02-20-2005 2:30 PM Brad McFall has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by Brad McFall, posted 02-20-2005 7:27 PM Silent H has not yet responded

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 3926 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 42 of 112 (187057)
02-20-2005 7:27 PM
Reply to: Message 41 by Silent H
02-20-2005 6:30 PM


Re: first id article published in a peer-reviewed journal
It was Meyer and not me who used 4-D. I understood what he meant but this was part of the reason I did not respond as favourably to the paper at first, because I am somewhat already convinced there is a causal means to "compute" form-making in biology but I had not thought to such specifics as I suggested in this thread until I started to read SEQUENCES and recognized how it was that Freeman Dyson could say things about a NUMBER of subatomic particles but not advance theoretical biology much, despite his willingness to take issue with fundamentalists and even receive an award for advancing the relation of science and religion(sic!).

What happened was that I realized there could be a different statistical approach to Meyer's attachment to Dembski's complexity in the Cambrian Explosion but that this need not be ON THE LEVEL OF COMPLEXITY or LIFE of the Cambrian Horizon, geologically. It also need not give a model or simulation!! There IS a c/e issue there as to Aggaiz's dream"" about fossil fish and that is likely what is controling the elder evolutionists and creationists on the thought otherwise. Why didnt Electron post anymore?

I have maintained here that I dont think of morphology across the geological horizons in a sense of CHANGE(changing rates) despite agreeing that there must be some "novel" formations during form-making no matter what the translation in space is. There may be we just are so far aware from the simulations that I refuse to allow my mind to wander into Gould's soft parts' byways.

So it depends very much on what level one attempts to simulate the change. The level of gross morphological reconstructions is the easiest to imagine and there people often put any idea of time they like. When I was doing cloning research I was going to use empricially found cell differentiation divsions to work as a clock. What I want to work on this spring is a visualization of macrothermodyanmics in VRML in which the user will be able to move through a series of modelled levels and alter some "events" (binding of proteins, mating of cells, moving of whole organisms"", and to have it in an interactive environment so I could be a rattlesnake and you could be a road runner etc.

The issue of how to relate the time to larger environmental change and speciation IS the issue in making the program, indeed. I have decided that it was not the best idea to inform people about evolution by writing books as Gould did so I have decided to try to develop interactive programs so that people can get better grasp of some of the ideas I try hard to describe here. Gladyshev's notion macrothermodyanmics permits the higher level process from changing the lower level ones and so I will restrict the program's most external change to ones that are homogenous with hierarchical thermodyanmics. It is true that the simulation might not be very representative of biological reality but the point of writing it is to give other people a hands on view of the idea and thus to make it more accessible.

But IF panbiogeographic statistics (as measured by minmal spanning trees) can be found, during the running of the program, to match with known microscopic kinematics (say of analogue of chromatographic columns applied to binding of heat shock proteins with other proteins OR on DNA) then at least a formal possibilty for matching environmental change on ALL LEVELS might be possible. You see this is not pursued, I guess, because Gould for one who might have imagined this, does not think the relation across levels is one of potential. Instead he has a Darwinian prejudice for individuality but Gladshev's law might be a potential object oriented method.The model would only be the reality I communicated this weekend if what Croizat saw WAS Gladyshev's law. I dont know.

I intend on using texture to model entropy and so there will be compuational issues as to how much user interactivty can occur while the program is doing computations to move the graphics around but the point is to show how even in a changable variation on various levels one will be able to understand the relation of reproductive algebra, environmental change, and classic thermodyanmics in macrothermodyanmcis on the same visual basis and from there to more refined actual mathamatical representations, such as the modulo proposal, claims about the effect of niche construction on natural selection, ability to model THE SHIFTING balance theory. There will be some shifiting going on and it is hard to get ones mind continually on,................... so I hope writing a program will help in that regard. That has less to do with ID however except as it itself is used as a model. Yes, time wil go slower than reality in the simulation but I hope it will not be too slow that the benefits of constucting it are outweighed. The ISSUE is to get people to think about temporal relations(correlations) and this is hard to do in our world that only knows one time. That is probably one of the best uses computers can be put to.

The arguments about NOT needing a universal bound however would be strengthed by the EXISTENCE of such a program. So far it is just the desgin of a spur Tony once supplied when no one else was in the listenning class.

The motion is just a routine thing of taking two collection localities on the earth(or two clades data), construct a minimal spanning tree to the nearest ocean basin, connect this a circle in the Southern Hemisphere, meanwhile recording relative longitude and latitude changes AND THEN develop the net/web of Croizat tracks NORTHWARD by putting the Earth BACK down on it base""but this will not be how time is first encoded by me even though it was the first circuit i imagined. I will use data from supramolecular chemistry instead.

The big brad prediction is that the data collected by using actual geographic collection localities of organims will format in accordance with Gladyshev's law. Thus the environment, reproduction, and basemutationdifferences would find the same congruence class, if I was correct.

That is science and that is how it might be done. I went to cornell to become deductive biogeographer first and evolutionist second and I would love to see the day that it is an established discipline in univeristies around the world.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by Silent H, posted 02-20-2005 6:30 PM Silent H has not yet responded

  
Rrhain
Member (Idle past 766 days)
Posts: 6349
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 43 of 112 (187097)
02-20-2005 9:52 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by Silent H
01-24-2005 10:21 AM


Re: Bump
holmes writes:

quote:
Indeed what the hell is natural design in bioterrorism? Are they saying how to detect if we are facing a manufactured virus vs a naturally occuring one?

Yes, we can, to some extent.

Of course, we do it by examining the virus and comparing it to everything we know about that particular virus as it occurs naturally and looking for anomalies that cannot be explained through evolutionary processes.

The concept of detecting design is legitimate. The problem is that life doesn't look designed. It's too messy and disorganized. Nothing gets thrown away. Designed things have efficiency and simplicity. Things get thrown away in order to tack on something completely foreign to the previous structure.

That's the saddest part: The reason that we can tell that it was designed is because we have already established that they evolve.


Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Silent H, posted 01-24-2005 10:21 AM Silent H has not yet responded

  
Rrhain
Member (Idle past 766 days)
Posts: 6349
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 44 of 112 (187099)
02-20-2005 10:04 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by CK
01-24-2005 10:37 AM


Re: Bump
Charles Knight asks:

quote:
I fail to see the SETI connection that they make

It is an effort to detect design. The SETI project scans the radio spectrum for distinct signals that seemingly can only be made by a deliberate, conscious entity rather than a naturally occurring process. Thus, they would then be claiming that it is possible to come up with a method of detecting design and applying it to how life diversified on this planet.

Remember, their argument is that life looks designed. That begs the questions of what "design" looks like and whether or not one could detect it.

Of course, the methodology of SETI for detecting signal from the noise is inapplicable to ID, but they are using it as an attempt to glean legitimacy.


Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by CK, posted 01-24-2005 10:37 AM CK has not yet responded

  
CK
Member (Idle past 3021 days)
Posts: 3221
Joined: 07-04-2004


Message 45 of 112 (200771)
04-20-2005 8:33 PM


Some recent ID Research!
http://www.iscid.org/papers/Chavez_Biodiversity_011505.pdf

it's from:

http://www.iscid.org/boards/ubb-get_topic-f-6-t-000553.html

Comments?

(Hum... most species come from a....single kind - lots of gene pool fun!)

This message has been edited by General Krull, 20-Apr-2005 07:35 PM


Replies to this message:
 Message 46 by Brad McFall, posted 04-20-2005 8:50 PM CK has not yet responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2021