"Modern Cell Biology doesn't support Darwinism"

The difference of opinion here seems to be on the relative causal contributions coming from changes in levels of organization vs levels of selection. Depending on how cellular levels of organization effect, no matter the affect of total translation in space and form-making, changes during speciation it seems to me the general idea of stressors does not preclude a more reductionist view than the individualism of Darwinism tends to return that Crash and Rand separated intra thread alia. To immediately assume that this must be in support of PE (unless there were statements to that (effect) that I missed) is mistaken as the general alternative thought process seems congruent to Gladysev's as well. There is a conflict in trying to combine notions of selection in the macro or micro sense.The point relative to C/E is that indeed alternative perspectives whether from creationist motivations or alternative biological sources ARE actively (or rather by actual passive passing on) deprecated in the academic world. I, myself am a case in this point. The difficulty is that these kinds of thoughts often recall biological determinism in some reality and ARE intellectually difficult to keep up out of FEAR of eugenics and WWII rather than for any specific idea about how cell death affects heritable paths. Still even, here on EVC we are not very adroit at separating direct imposition of causality from that by God, BY god!! That is all.This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 02-10-2006 05:39 PM

I dont have a problem with that. Herpetology formally is stuck between the rings of an apodian and anything without legs. The symmetry of that formal dissagreement (between biologists in Paris vs Ann Arbor) seems to depend on how calcium twists right or left in "scales". With Blood behind calcium very unusual things might seem to be able and probably do happen. Now unlike this case for leglessness in creatures that creep that is something that I have looked back into all the way to the terms defiend , I have not done this for "teeth" persay. I certainly do not think of the "tooth" of a shark and that of Homosapiens as much similar while I also do not think that a lack of turtle "teeth" and the projections from the roof of a salamander head are necessarily as different in their similiarites than the difference of shark and human teeth are in their differences. The logica gets very tricky as soon has more than three entities are involved. I could be mistaken as soon as I start to make conclusions over streches this long as I often start to rely on mememory rather than specific demonstrations. I think all different kinds of things can be thought as soon as one starts to increase the heat in the blood.This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 02-10-2006 06:27 PM