quote:Sorry, I have no overview of science journals.
This is painfully obvious
quote: Besides much of evolutionary science happens outside the journals,
How would you know? Since you admit that you are completely ignorant of the literature where practicing scientists communicate their results and methodologies to one another how would you know where evolutionary science happens? This is a convenient statement by you to attempt to justify your profoundly lazy scholarship and also explains why you fail to grasp even the most basic concepts of science.
quote: in books like Dawkins "The selfish gene", which also has a chapter on familyplanning and things like that.
So you base your unwarranted conclusions on popular books? Why am I not surprised? I guess you base your knowledge of genetics from renting The X-Men?
I'm wondering, is anybody in Nganjuk impressed by anything you say or do they just smile and hand you there laundry?
influential evolutionists...easy...here is the editorial board of the evolutionary biology section for the Proceedings of the National Academy of Science USA...note, this list is FAR from comprehensive wrt influential evolutionists.
Alexander, Richard D.
Anderson, Wyatt W.
Avise, John C.
Ayala, Francisco J.
Bartholomew, George A.
Berenbaum, May R.
Bonner, J. T.
Britten, Roy J.
Carson, Hampton L.
Clegg, M. T.
Colwell, Rita R.
Crane, Peter R.
Deming, Jody W.
Doolittle, W. Ford
Fitch, Walter M.
Harper, John L.
Kerr, Warwick E.
Kidwell, Margaret G.
Maynard Smith, John
Michener, Charles D.
Orians, Gordon H.
Schaal, Barbara A.
Schopf, J. William
Selander, Robert K.
Sokal, Robert R.
Valentine, James W.
Wake, David B.
West-Eberhard, Mary Jane
Williams, George C.
Influential papers? The list would necessarily be enormous (as opposed to the patheticly sparse reading you have done on evolution)..but here are a few recent gems from areas of my own interest,
Krings M, Stone A, Schmitz RW, Krainitzki H, Stoneking M, Paabo S. Neandertal DNA sequences and the origin of modern humans. Cell. 1997 Jul 11;90(1):19-30.
Cann RL, Stoneking M, Wilson AC. Mitochondrial DNA and human evolution. Nature. 1987 Jan 1-7;325(6099):31-6.
For any other species you will have to do your own heavy lifting such as the importance of the discovery of reverse transcriptase on evolutionary biology, or introns, or horizontal transfer etc. etc. etc.
quote:Has any other evolutionist/darwinist ever heared of these supposedly infuential papers Mammuthus referenced? No? Would anyone offer the same papers as influential as Mammuthus did? No?
Does Syamsu have his head up his butt? Yes...could that be why he never heard of the Neandertal DNA study or the molecular basis for the Out of Africa hypothesis of human origins? maybe
Crawl out from under the rock you are living under Sy...the Neandertal results were broadcast in just about every major media network and scientific circles for more than a year after they were published. The Out of Africa hypothesis was on the cover of Time magazine so both of these studies were heavily covered by both scientific AND mass media....that you seem to have missed both suggests you should close your mouth more often, get out of the laundromat, and actually read before spouting you ridiculous nonsense.
quote:A paper dealing with a single species, human beings, would not likely be regarded as influential IMO, unless it dealt with the one species as an example of how all or many species evolve.
And you show your complete ignorance yet again...the neandertal paper dealt particularly with whether neandertals were the same or a different species from Homo sapiens. And Out of Africa deals with the ORIGIN OF Homo sapiens...both of which you would know if you had even the slightest clue...but thanks for yet again confirming that you do not.
[This message has been edited by Mammuthus, 12-04-2003]
Sy, you have to admit you are talking out of your ass. From your posts it is clear you have not made it past kindergarten much less have an overview of what the course materials are in college courses. When I studied evolution we used Douglas Futuyma's book Evolutionary Biology and it was supplemented heavily with primary literature which you yourself admit you have never ever read (probably because you would not understand any of the papers past the first word in the title). Since population genetics and evolutionary biology are completely intertwined, our textbook (in pop gen. and evolution) was Daniel Hartl and Andrew Clark's Principles of Population Genetics. The course was again heavily supplemented with primary articles from Nature, Science, Genetics, etc.....no Gould, no Dawkins, though we went through the Fischer-Wright formulas we did not read his books...we never even had to read Darwin...I read the Origin of Species later on my own for fun. Ditto in other college courses. Exactly the same here in Germany where evolution is taught almost exclusively via primary literature articles....so your half assed opinions about what books are studied in evolution courses and are influential in evolution are as based in fact as every other unsubstantiated line of crap you have posted on this website since you got here....stop your washing machine and go get an education.
quote:Gould's final book, WHICH I HAVEN'T READ, is not just a history, it talks about trends or something ...
quote:Don't you have some self-awareness when you throw out all the evidence of evolutionary biology being politicized
This is just to rich...to paraphrase Sy...I am to lazy to actually read and therefore don't know what the evidence for anything I am talking about is...but I so love to pontificate that I am just going to accuse you of throwing out evidence..even though I can't be sure since I don't know what the evidence is since I don't read....wash rinse repeat...just like laundry
quote:I don't believe you have an overview of the sciencepapers either, to the point at issue.
How would you know? You have not read ANY science papers so you have no idea or what are you basing your assertions on?
quote:But you don't need to have an overview of it, because, again, the mainstay of evolutionary biology is prosaic books ,not sciencepapers, like the books of Darwin, Gould, Dawkins, Fischer, Lorenz... and others.
First you have admitted that you have not read ANY of the scientific literature...and then you admitted you have not read the popular science books of Gould. From your displayed ignorance throughout these debates, it is extremely unlikely that you have read Darwin, Dawkins, Fischer, or Lorenz either.
You have no right to make any claims as to how evolutionary biology is communicated among scientists because you are a willfully ignorant lazy self important bozo and have been patently wrong in every debate you have stumbled through.
quote:Even Darwin's "Descent of Man" is still said to be current because of renewed interest in sexual selection.
Says who? Your fellow colleagues at the laundry service...yet another baseless Syamsu assertion.
quote:I took the time to reread some reviews of Gould's final book, and no your description is not consistent with those reviews, and I believe them rather then I believe you.
Lazy lazy lazy...isnt it supposed to be a sin among fundies to be so profoundly lazy? You have not read something you wish to hold such a strong opinion about? LOL
quote:Where is your self-awareness again saying that I'm not entitled to an opinion on it?
Mark24 is completely correct that your opinion is worthless. You have made exceedingly nasty statements regarding evolutionary biologists throughout your posts yet you are WILLFULLY ignorant on the subject ...not even taking the time to read the popular books on the subject which are written to communicate science to the GENERAL PUBLIC and are not how evolutionary biologists communicate results and theory with one another as you falsely proclaim. Willfull ignorance is the cornerstone of idiocy...your ignorance is a fortress with laundry service.
quote:Science papers aren't easily accesible to me, pubmed only gives abstracts as far as I can tell.
You are correct. Many journals require that you pay for the articles your are interested in. However, journals like Proceedings of the National Academy of Science and several others make articles freely available after a set amount of time...two weeks I believe for PNAS. If you get to the abstract page in Pubmed..look to see if there is an icon of the journal present. Click on it and if it is free access, you will be taken directly to the full article or given the option to download it as a .pdf file.
quote:To Mammuthus: What about the Vichy regime? I'm pretty sure you don't apply this standard to yourself, as you do to me. In any case my knowledge on the subject of politicization of evolutionary biology seems to be much wider then any of you.
Don't know what you are babbling about in the first two sentences..don't really care. However, your statement that you have not read the books you are criticizing and in addition, are now coming forward and admitting you have only just realized how Pubmed works suggests the breadth of your knowledge about any subject regarding evolutionary biology is extremely shallow. Does not mean you cannot expand it by actually reading the materials. It just means that claiming you have a wide knowledge about a field of which you have not made any effort to learn about is an unsupportable assertion.
quote:You have to see Syamsu as entertainment, nothing else. Like I say, you couldn't make it up.
...yup..good ole Sy...the EvC Forum version of the Jerry Springer Show.
I particularly find it amusing at this juncture that he continues to make absolute statements about who is important in evolutionary biology while only referencing popular writers like Dawkins as opposed to say practicing biologists like say Charlesworth, Nei, etc...that he continues despite the fact that he has not read even what the popular book writers have written and that he claims his posts are his "evidence" also demonstrating that in addition to not knowing anything about evolution...he has no idea what evidence is either....(But I guess ten-sai will come and tell us any second now).