Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Forum: Darwnist Ideology
Syamsu 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5590 days)
Posts: 1914
From: amsterdam
Joined: 05-19-2002


Message 106 of 265 (87868)
02-21-2004 4:07 AM
Reply to: Message 104 by NosyNed
02-21-2004 3:16 AM


Re: Restricted priveledges
Yeah whatever. Quetzal and Mammuthus will not reference anyone but themselves saying the study of extinction is well developed, since it isn't. I can't believe anyone would fall for such a simple trick to just dump some science papers to avoid the issue.
regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

This message is a reply to:
 Message 104 by NosyNed, posted 02-21-2004 3:16 AM NosyNed has not replied

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 5195 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 107 of 265 (87875)
02-21-2004 8:28 AM
Reply to: Message 89 by Syamsu
02-20-2004 10:29 AM


Syamsu,
I see, so first you accuse me of quoting out of context for quoting that Dawkins says "we are born selfish" and that "altruism has to be learned" that genetic altruism is a limited special exception, and then you say that it's your personal theory that people aren't generally genetically selfish, that they are decisively genetically altruist through family kinselective genes. You confuse Dawkins opinion with your own.
Spot on, the quotes you made must be taken in the wider context of the book, & not be exclusive of it. But you can't do that because you have never read the books in question. Very simply, this means you have no way of getting any of Dawkins words in context. This is not an intellectually good place to be, Syamsu, when you oppose his views so vociferously. This is why talking with you is such a waste of time.
I never claimed Dawkins said anything about the level of behaviour that was & was not altruistic. I therefore cannot be wrong because I made claims about Dawkins' view. Therefore your claim that you somehow caught me out is false. Please understand the difference.
I MAY be wrong about the level of altruistic behaviour, however, & we'll find that out just as soon as you decide to quantify & support your claim (& your Dawkins quote) that altruistic behaviour is a minor exception. I don't suppose you will, though. I have proffered my argument & that altruism isn't an exception in human behaviour because we are so obviously & overtly social animals, & that the family is such a strong hierarchical unit of society.
Mark

"Physical Reality of Matchette’s EVOLUTIONARY zero-atom-unit in a transcendental c/e illusion" - Brad McFall

This message is a reply to:
 Message 89 by Syamsu, posted 02-20-2004 10:29 AM Syamsu has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 109 by Syamsu, posted 02-21-2004 8:27 PM mark24 has replied

  
Quetzal
Member (Idle past 5872 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 108 of 265 (87882)
02-21-2004 10:06 AM
Reply to: Message 99 by Syamsu
02-21-2004 12:03 AM


Re: Raup and Extinction
Oh good grief. Your assertion was that extinction was neglected by science. I gave you half a dozen references that showed you were wrong. Now you want an "assessment of the study of extinction" that you can access on-line?
I don't know why I bother - you're not going to read it anyway. But here goes:
One of the best on-line books on the subject of ecology and biodiversity is EO Wilson et al eds. 1996 Biodiversity II. This book provides a readable "grand tour" of the current biodiversity crisis.
A bit more technical discussion is Ecological Knowledge and Environmental Problem Solving, National Research Council 1986. Practical solutions and case studies for extinction and biodiversity loss.
A more general scientific viewpoint on extinction - but still an interesting read, is the National Research Council's 1995 report on the Endangered Species Act Science and the Endangered Species Act. It contains a general overview of extinction.
For those who want to know what Raup is REALLY talking about, rather than what Syamasu thinks he's talking about, try Raup's 1995 The Role of Extinction in Evolution. He reprises his argument from his popular press book that the role of extinction in driving evolution has been neglected - not that the study of extinction itself has been neglected as Sy would have us believe. Even here, I think Raup is over-stating the case. After all, the role of adaptive radiation, ecological release, founder effect etc after extinctions are well-studied and well-referenced in the technical literature. For anyone interested in the subject, pick up copies of "Conservation Biology", "Ecology", or "Oecologia[/i] at their local libraries.
Sy is out to lunch once again. What a surprise.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 99 by Syamsu, posted 02-21-2004 12:03 AM Syamsu has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 110 by Syamsu, posted 02-21-2004 8:29 PM Quetzal has replied

  
Syamsu 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5590 days)
Posts: 1914
From: amsterdam
Joined: 05-19-2002


Message 109 of 265 (87926)
02-21-2004 8:27 PM
Reply to: Message 107 by mark24
02-21-2004 8:28 AM


But you have no cause to blame me for misrepresentation in the scathing way you do, because I accurately reflected Dawkins opinion on the matter, in stead of your opinion. Besides if I remember correctly you talked about Dawkins book the selfish gene on a previous occasion, without saying you presented your own opinion about it. BTW the limited altruism that Dawkins posits for people in the form of kin-selection is seen by many people as a cause of racism (anti-racists), or a validation of racism (racists). I was well aware this was in Dawkins book, but the quote is quite clear to say that we are born selfish, and altruism has to be learned.
And as a topical note of interest, I just read in a Dutch newspaper that an evolutionary pscyhologist, Kalma, has been reprimanded by an education committee for teaching Rushton's racial theory without context of talking about scientific racism, societal impact of racial theory, and criticism of the scientific merit of Rushton's theory, after a complaint from a student.
regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

This message is a reply to:
 Message 107 by mark24, posted 02-21-2004 8:28 AM mark24 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 111 by mark24, posted 02-22-2004 11:51 AM Syamsu has replied

  
Syamsu 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5590 days)
Posts: 1914
From: amsterdam
Joined: 05-19-2002


Message 110 of 265 (87927)
02-21-2004 8:29 PM
Reply to: Message 108 by Quetzal
02-21-2004 10:06 AM


Re: Raup and Extinction
But your references don't show that the study of extinction is well developed, they just show that extinction is studied. Are biologists scrambling to get a foothold in studying the current mass extinction, studying the dynamics of ecosystems that are essentially in stasis, trying to figure out some fundamental approaches to it, because they have long been preoccupied and misfooted by Evolutionist / Darwinist theory, or otherwise did Evolutionism / Darwinism provide a frame of reference that had the fundamental insightful viewpoints for these fields of study leading them to be well developed? As far I can tell Raup is saying that extinction has long been regarded as another Darwinist nobrainer. Species are competed into extinction by their fitter modified offspring. Again, you obviously need to reference some outside source giving an appraisal of the field of study.
EO Wilson et al eds. 1996 Biodiversity II.
Biodiversity II: Understanding and Protecting Our Biological Resources (1996)
Introduction:
"Biodiversity," the term and concept, has been a remarkable event in recent cultural evolution: 10 years ago the word did not exist, except perhaps through occasional idiosyncratic use. Today it is one of the most commonly used expressions in the biological sciences and has become a household word. It was born "BioDiversity" during the National Forum on BioDiversity, held in Washington, D.C., on September 21-24, 1986, under the auspices of the National Academy of Sciences and the Smithsonian Institution. The proceedings of the forum, published in 1988 under the title BioDiversity
The present volume is a 10-year report on the state of the art in biodiversity studies, with an emphasis on concept formation and technique. Overall, it makes a striking contrast with the original BioDiversity, showing how extraordinarily far we have come and at the same time mapping how far scientists yet must travel in their reinvigorated exploration of the biosphere.
---
is Ecological Knowledge and Environmental Problem Solving
Unfortunately the introductory page of this book where some appraisal might have been found is upside down.
----
Raup:
The extinction of species is not normally considered an important element of Neodarwinian theory, in contrast to the opposite phenomenon, speciation. This is surprising in view of the special importance Darwin attached to extinction, and because the number of species extinctions in the history of life is almost the same as the number of originations; present-day biodiversity is the result of a trivial surplus of originations, cumulated over millions of years. For an evolutionary biologist to ignore extinction is probably as foolhardy as for a demographer to ignore mortality. The past decade has seen a resurgence of interest in extinction, yet research on the topic is still at a reconnaissance level, and our present understanding of its role in evolution is weak."
For as far as I can tell Raup is saying that in *general* the state of study of extinction is at the reconaissance level, and in particular the state of study of extinction in relation to evolution is weak.
The references you give broadly indicate that the field of study is underdeveloped. Maybe you can argue that despite the field of study being underdeveloped evolution and Darwinism can or do provide the fundamental framework for studying it, but it appears that I was right in saying it's underdeveloped.
Typically the role of variation in Darwinist theory is cannonfodder. It's hardly possible to contemplate a cooperative, or mutually beneficial relationship between variants in terms of reproduction or persistence with the Darwinist competitive frame of reference. Actually I would guess that this is an impossibility in a consistent organization of knowledge based on Darwinism. This does not sit well with studying biodiversity obviously.
regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu
[This message has been edited by Syamsu, 02-21-2004]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 108 by Quetzal, posted 02-21-2004 10:06 AM Quetzal has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 118 by Quetzal, posted 02-23-2004 9:45 AM Syamsu has replied

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 5195 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 111 of 265 (87972)
02-22-2004 11:51 AM
Reply to: Message 109 by Syamsu
02-21-2004 8:27 PM


Syamsu,
But you have no cause to blame me for misrepresentation in the scathing way you do, because I accurately reflected Dawkins opinion on the matter, in stead of your opinion.
I have every reason to blame you for misrepresentation. You are misrepresenting ME. I never said anything about Dawkins opinion in this specific case. Your claim that I am wrong about Dawkins opinion is false because I never said anything about it.
Let me put it another way. If Dawkins had said XYZ, & I said Dawkins believed ABC rather than XYZ, & you then showed me that Dawkins actually does believe XYZ, THEN I would be wrong. But I never expressed a preference of what he said, did I? I expressed my own opinion.
Therefore, the following quote in message 83 is wrong.
Mark24 was wrong about what was in the book where I was right, he failed to notice that altruism was a limited exception according to Dawkins. I don't think Mark appreciates you bringing this up again and again.
I was not wrong. I never claimed Dawkins said anything else.
Perhaps you are conflating this particular issue with all your other ignorances & misconceptions? Please try to separate them.
Mark

"Physical Reality of Matchette’s EVOLUTIONARY zero-atom-unit in a transcendental c/e illusion" - Brad McFall

This message is a reply to:
 Message 109 by Syamsu, posted 02-21-2004 8:27 PM Syamsu has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 112 by Syamsu, posted 02-22-2004 9:18 PM mark24 has replied

  
Syamsu 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5590 days)
Posts: 1914
From: amsterdam
Joined: 05-19-2002


Message 112 of 265 (88039)
02-22-2004 9:18 PM
Reply to: Message 111 by mark24
02-22-2004 11:51 AM


Mark:
"I never said anything about Dawkins opinion in this specific case."
Dawkins:
we are born selfish, we should teach altruism
Mark:
"There is only one conclusion, that the quote "we are born selfish" is not intended to be taken absolutely, but in context, primarily because Dawkins spends so much time explaining why we are not born selfish. It is inescapable."
"Intended" by Dawkins, not "intended" by you. It sure looks to me that you're portraying Dawkins opinion on selfish genes rather then your own, and you are broadly mistaken.
But again, I'm the only one here making meaningful argument about Dawkins selfish gene theory, and that's the point on a debatingforum.
- I argued about his theory based on systemacy of knowledge
- I argued about it's ideological impact in detail
- I argued about if "selfish" genes causing infertility when not in a homologous pairing, could better be understood as a safeguard against mutations.
etc.
regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

This message is a reply to:
 Message 111 by mark24, posted 02-22-2004 11:51 AM mark24 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 115 by mark24, posted 02-23-2004 5:21 AM Syamsu has replied

  
Syamsu 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5590 days)
Posts: 1914
From: amsterdam
Joined: 05-19-2002


Message 113 of 265 (88062)
02-23-2004 3:05 AM


So do my blundering dectractors have anything to say after I showed that the study of extinction is underdeveloped?
Perhaps it's time for you all to entertain some serious doubts about your position in the creation vs evolution controversy. To realise that Darwinist ideologists stink up society and science, and that's the bigger problem. That broadly creationists rightfully protect their rich cultural heritage and science from hateful ultra-rationalist Darwinist ideologues. A point of view like that makes sense of the debate, things fall into place, while otherwise the debate makes no sense to have lasted so long, and to be so "popular".
regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

Replies to this message:
 Message 114 by Mammuthus, posted 02-23-2004 3:36 AM Syamsu has not replied

  
Mammuthus
Member (Idle past 6475 days)
Posts: 3085
From: Munich, Germany
Joined: 08-09-2002


Message 114 of 265 (88068)
02-23-2004 3:36 AM
Reply to: Message 113 by Syamsu
02-23-2004 3:05 AM


quote:
So do my blundering dectractors have anything to say after I showed that the study of extinction is underdeveloped?
Sure
1. Quetzal demonstrated that you cannot read and have misrepresented Raup.
2. Both Quetzal and I referenced primary literature, that if you had actually read, would have linked you to thousands of articles on extinction research. It is as developed as any other branch of science. Your response? "please mommy don't make me read those nasty science papers...my eyes hurt when I get past the first word on the cover of a book". So your desire to remain opinionated yet completely ignorant indicates you are an idiot.
3. You can't even get the pop literature you claim to have read straight
4. You glean all of your little Syamsu soundbites from websites
Conclusion: You don't have, never had, and never will have anything informed or useful to say.
quote:
Perhaps it's time for you all to entertain some serious doubts about your position in the creation vs evolution controversy.
You should certainly entertain some serious doubts about your honesty and you should really fear the level of laziness you have demonstrated on this site.
quote:
To realise that Darwinist ideologists stink up society and science, and that's the bigger problem.
Coming from a guy who has demonstrated a champions league level of ignorance about every subject he has ever engaged in.
quote:
That broadly creationists rightfully protect their rich cultural heritage and science from hateful ultra-rationalist Darwinist ideologues
Name a single creationist who has made a scientific discovery or made a contribution to a scientific hypothesis using creationism as the basis. Also tell us what THE testable and falsifiable hypothesis of creationism is
quote:
A point of view like that makes sense of the debate, things fall into place, while otherwise the debate makes no sense to have lasted so long, and to be so "popular".
Are you the sole occupant of Nganjuk? The debate must be all the rage there then.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 113 by Syamsu, posted 02-23-2004 3:05 AM Syamsu has not replied

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 5195 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 115 of 265 (88081)
02-23-2004 5:21 AM
Reply to: Message 112 by Syamsu
02-22-2004 9:18 PM


Syamsu,
Mark:
"There is only one conclusion, that the quote "we are born selfish" is not intended to be taken absolutely, but in context, primarily because Dawkins spends so much time explaining why we are not born selfish. It is inescapable."
"Intended" by Dawkins, not "intended" by you. It sure looks to me that you're portraying Dawkins opinion on selfish genes rather then your own, and you are broadly mistaken.
That's right, that's why Dawkins devotes so many chapters to why altruism is intrinsically selfish. I even listed them for you on a different thread.
Regardless, the specific instance I'm arguing with you about isn't "we are born selfish", but that I am not wrong because I made no claim either way to Dawkins quantifiability of altruism vs non-altruism. You are trying to conflate two things & make it look like I'm saying Dawkins says "we are/n't (delete as applicable) born selfish & it is in no way a limited exception". I am not.
You can't even get the context of the "we are born selfish" quote right as regards our own conversation. The argument was in the context of genetic determinism. Dawkins is NOT a genetic determinist & you are quoting out of context. It is an inescapable FACT. Dawkins devotes an entire chapter to this subject in the extended phenotype. But you haven't read it which is why you look such an idiot pretending you know anything about Dawkins at all.
Put those goalposts back where they belong.
Mark

This message is a reply to:
 Message 112 by Syamsu, posted 02-22-2004 9:18 PM Syamsu has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 116 by Syamsu, posted 02-23-2004 6:40 AM mark24 has replied

  
Syamsu 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5590 days)
Posts: 1914
From: amsterdam
Joined: 05-19-2002


Message 116 of 265 (88098)
02-23-2004 6:40 AM
Reply to: Message 115 by mark24
02-23-2004 5:21 AM


Huff'n puff, you can't get nothing right, huff'n puff.
Dawkins just discredits the ridiculous claim nobody ever made of genetics controlling every last thing. But the ridiculous claim aside, Dawkins ascribes very much control to genes in human behaviour, which makes him a genetic determinist, and the statement "we are born selfish" is testament to that position.
He also supports Darwinist ideologists such as Pinker and others, urging that politics inform themselves of this true view of human nature, and that their policies should be in accordance with these facts. So history just repeats itself, shoddy highly ideologized science, shoddy politics, and we can reasonably fear that these things will lead to attrocities once again, in countries such as China, or otherwise it may lead to high suicide rates in the West if evolutionary psychology gets to supplant standard psychology.
regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

This message is a reply to:
 Message 115 by mark24, posted 02-23-2004 5:21 AM mark24 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 117 by Mammuthus, posted 02-23-2004 6:58 AM Syamsu has not replied
 Message 125 by mark24, posted 02-24-2004 5:54 PM Syamsu has replied

  
Mammuthus
Member (Idle past 6475 days)
Posts: 3085
From: Munich, Germany
Joined: 08-09-2002


Message 117 of 265 (88099)
02-23-2004 6:58 AM
Reply to: Message 116 by Syamsu
02-23-2004 6:40 AM


quote:
Dawkins just discredits the ridiculous claim nobody ever made ....
Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha
Thanks Sy...you just stole the crown shared by Dan and Hambre for funniest guy at Evc
[This message has been edited by Mammuthus, 02-23-2004]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 116 by Syamsu, posted 02-23-2004 6:40 AM Syamsu has not replied

  
Quetzal
Member (Idle past 5872 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 118 of 265 (88113)
02-23-2004 9:45 AM
Reply to: Message 110 by Syamsu
02-21-2004 8:29 PM


Re: Raup and Extinction
I should have known better than to think you were capable of engaging in anything remotely resembling rational discussion. You've moved the goal posts so many times I'm getting dizzy trying to follow you. To recap:
You asserted that extinction was ignored by biologists. I provided references from the literature showing that extinction was in fact an on-going area of research. Next you demanded on-line evaluations of the field, which I provided (and you manifestly haven't read past the intro to Wilson's book). You then claim that the references aren't "outside sources giving an appraisal of the field". What outside sources are you suggesting might be in a position or qualified to give such an appraisal? Nganjuk laundromat managers? You remain a complete waste of time.
However, for anyone interested in the actual questions you pose here:
Are biologists scrambling to get a foothold in studying the current mass extinction, studying the dynamics of ecosystems that are essentially in stasis, trying to figure out some fundamental approaches to it, because they have long been preoccupied and misfooted by Evolutionist / Darwinist theory, or otherwise did Evolutionism / Darwinism provide a frame of reference that had the fundamental insightful viewpoints for these fields of study leading them to be well developed?
Re "biologists scrambling": No. In the first place, few conservation biologists or ecologists think that ecosystems are "essentially in stasis". This was the fundamental flaw in the MacArthur/Wilson Equilibrium Theory, or Lack's biological determinism hypothesis, for instance. The argument today revolves around whether dynamic or static disequilibrium is the primary condition. Those few ESS (static, evolutionary stable strategies) systems that have been identified in the field have been shown to be inherently unstable over ecological time scales.
Re "Evolutionism / Darwinism provide a frame of reference": Of course? How else are you going to approach conservation, for example, without understanding how both the component organisms and the community/ecosystem itself evolved? Ecology is an attempt to understand the dynamics of individual populations, metapopulations, communities, and whole ecosystems, as well as the emergent properties that arise from these interactions. I personally can't even begin to imagine how someone would approach the subject outside of the neo-Darwinian framework. Extinction is part and parcel of the dynamic involved - whether caused by competition (and if you don't think extinction can be caused by competition, I invite you to explain how ~28 of 72 native mollusc species in the US Great Lakes watershed vanished following the accidental introduction of zebra mussels (Dreissena polymorpha) from the Caspian Sea) or ecosystem degradation or cosmic cataclysm. I'm not the only one who thinks this, either - I can look over my right shoulder at the bookshelves along the wall of my home office, and see titles such as Landweber and Dobson, Genetics and the Extinction of Species (1999, Princeton Uni Press), Rosenzweig's Species Diversity in Space and Time (1995, Cambridge Uni Press), Brown’s Macroecology (1995, Uni Chicago Press), EO Wilson’s Diversity of Life (1992, WW Norton), Whitaker's "Island Biogeography" (2002, Oxford Uni Press), and Ehrlich's superlative Extinction: The Causes and Consequences of the Disappearance of Species (1985, Ballentine Books) not to mention "popular" works like Barlow's "The Ghosts of Evolution" (2000, Basic Books) and of course Raup's book among others. Every single one of these books devotes considerable space to extinction and its results. Try looking up keywords like "ecological release", "adaptive radiation", "competitive exclusion", "extinction vortex", "trophic cascade", etc.
The references you give broadly indicate that the field of study is underdeveloped. Maybe you can argue that despite the field of study being underdeveloped evolution and Darwinism can or do provide the fundamental framework for studying it, but it appears that I was right in saying it's underdeveloped.
Typically the role of variation in Darwinist theory is cannonfodder. It's hardly possible to contemplate a cooperative, or mutually beneficial relationship between variants in terms of reproduction or persistence with the Darwinist competitive frame of reference. Actually I would guess that this is an impossibility in a consistent organization of knowledge based on Darwinism. This does not sit well with studying biodiversity obviously.
Wrong as usual. Extinction doesn't result from "a cooperative or mutually beneficial relationship between variants", unless you consider eliminating the competition to be mutually beneficial.
Maybe you'd care to explain how you arrive at the "underdeveloped" characterization - without reference to Raup who's just pissed off that nobody really takes his extinction periodicity ideas seriously (the "Nemesis Hypothesis"), given the number of references I've provided? If you mean that "underdeveloped" equals "an on-going science", then you're right - no one has all the answers. That's what makes the science so interesting. If you are implying that "underdeveloped" in this context means "ignored because of dogmatic rejection", then I think I've conclusively shown (once again) that you don't have the first clue what you're talking about.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 110 by Syamsu, posted 02-21-2004 8:29 PM Syamsu has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 120 by Syamsu, posted 02-23-2004 9:47 PM Quetzal has not replied
 Message 121 by Syamsu, posted 02-23-2004 9:47 PM Quetzal has replied

  
Dan Carroll
Inactive Member


Message 119 of 265 (88115)
02-23-2004 9:53 AM
Reply to: Message 102 by Syamsu
02-21-2004 2:21 AM


quote:
It's not the point that creationists aren't saints.
Then why did you bring up their supposedly superior qualities?
I thought you didn't like comparison, or studying single observations, rather than a broad perspective.
quote:
What would be terryifying if creationists just call it a day and became Darwinist ideologists in stead.
Especially since they'd have to invent something called "Darwinist Ideology" in order to do so.
Another bullshit strawman from the creationist camp... that would chill the blood, all right.

"Perhaps you should take your furs and your literal interpretations to the other side of the river."
-Anya

This message is a reply to:
 Message 102 by Syamsu, posted 02-21-2004 2:21 AM Syamsu has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 122 by Syamsu, posted 02-23-2004 10:12 PM Dan Carroll has replied

  
Syamsu 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5590 days)
Posts: 1914
From: amsterdam
Joined: 05-19-2002


Message 120 of 265 (88259)
02-23-2004 9:47 PM
Reply to: Message 118 by Quetzal
02-23-2004 9:45 AM


Re: Raup and Extinction
In the intro is the appraissal, and both Raup and Wilson indicate that the study is underdeveloped. Your opinion that the study of how organisms relate to one another in biosystems, and extinction is well developed is not shared by the references you gave to support that they are well developed..

This message is a reply to:
 Message 118 by Quetzal, posted 02-23-2004 9:45 AM Quetzal 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