Evolution (Introduction)

by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Sunday, July 19, 2009, 19:18 (5605 days ago) @ David Turell

I know that. Just pointing out that rules have problems and biology is not as pure as math, as you have mentioned. Some things called species by analogy may not be if only morphology is used to differentiate.
> 
> Dawkins' Dogma are much too narrow!: 
> 
> http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20327176.800-comment-the-dawkins-dogma.html?page=1 - Interesting article. I guess I never really knew exactly how influential Dawkins was within the field. I suppose I would have had to get to graduate school in order to see the undercurrents because the undergrad education essentially depicts a unified whole. Its good to remember that biology has more in common with social sciences than physics/math. It isn't nearly as unified. I need reminders sometimes. This is why that Math/bio Prof I interviewed with mentioned a couple of times that biology is sorely lacking its own Newton, but his view (as a biologist) is that the unification isn't going to happen by biologists but by mathematicians. - Heh, too much rambling. Sorry...

--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"

\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"