This Week in Evolution

I rememember that 2006 "ID" paper. It was by a Norwegian biologist (at least, I think his PhD was in cell biology) named Albert Voie. It was a piece of pseudoscientific, quasiphilosophical junk. Here's a link to it for anyone interested:

http://www.idnet.com.au/files/pdf/Life%20is%20not%20natural.pdf

And a sample for those not into masochism:

Life is fundamentally dependent upon symbolic representation in order to realize biological function. A system based on autocatalysis, like the hypothesized RNA-world, can’t really express biological function since it is a pure dynamic process. Life is autonomous with something we could call "closure of operations" or a cluster of functional parts relating to a whole (see [15] for a wider discussion of these terms). Functional parts are only meaningful within a whole, in other words it is the whole that gives meaning to its parts. Further, in order to define a sign (which can be a symbol, an index, or an icon) a whole cluster of self-referring concepts seems to be presupposed, that is, the definition cannot be given on a priori grounds, without implicitly referring to this cluster of conceptual agents [16]. This recursive dependency really seals off the system from a deterministic bottom up causation. The top down causation constitutes an irreducible structure.

And so on ad nauseum.

How pathetic. Even global-warming denialists can usually point to some actual data that seem to support their claims. If I had nothing better to do, I'd like to lead a freshman seminar on the difference between scientific controversy (at least some data being published supporting each side) versus crackpot whining.

good morning,
I was hoping you might be able to assist me in answering a question in regards to evolution?
If i had 3 Pacific islands, X, Y and Z, appeared approximately 5 million years ago as a result of volcanic activity. Islands X and Y have about the same area, and island Z is about 10 times larger than X and Y combined. X is closer to the nearest mainland than either Y or Z, which are both approximately equidistant from the mainland. Assume that each island was colonized independently of the others. How would you expect the natural faunas and floras of the three islands to differ? Explain. Describe the data you would need to collect to test your predictions. Any comment or guidance would help. thanks

If the instructor who assigned this question will contact me, I will happily provide any information I have about this student.

Sam,

I suggest reading the following book: The Theory of Island Biogeography by RH McArthur and EO Wilson.

Not to be an immature college student but you are not a very nice person. I was not looking for the answer just simple instruction. Thanks to Mr. Wisker. I found several books on island biogeography that were extremely helpful. FYI I received 47 out 50 points for the response I gave to this question. Oh and by the way none of the information provided is actually mine. Merry Christmas

You mention in one of your comments that Prof. Greiner’s request to be left out of the Editorial Board of Chaos, Solitons & Fractals was ignored. It seems that this is not the case because of two things. First Nature has taken its article and everything referring to this out of its web pending investigation. Second six issues of Chaos Solitons & Fractals have already appeared with the name of Prof. Dr. Greiner on them. In other words he feels very comfortable with the situation. More importantly he refused to talk to the journalist of Nature who wrote this article and has filed a complaint to the Journal about the journalist. Prof. Dr. Greiner has signed an affidavit testifying that the statement made by the journalist of Nature Quirin Schiermeier is untrue. I got this information directly from the Editorial Board of Chaos Solitons & Fractals and it was confirmed by the Founding Editor in Chief Prof. Mohamed El Naschie personally. I am not signing with my name only to spare various parties needless embarrassment.

Yet Walter Greiner doesn't list that "journal" with his other editorial board memberships:
http://th.physik.uni-frankfurt.de/~greiner/honors.html

...The false accusations against Mohamed El Naschie are very similar to those made against Thereza Imanisha-Kari who was a colleague of Nobel laureate David Baltimore. Mohamed El Naschie is a senior colleague of Nobel laureate Gerard tHooft. Not only that but he is a very close personal friend to the entire family....

[Well, I guess that settles it! But who is B.M. Sidley? I Googled the name and all I found was blog comments identical to this one, which I have edited for brevity. -- Ford ]

The Proprietor of this blog may like to have a look at Sarah Limbricks article dated 2 Nov 2009. It is clear from this article entitled Editor of Scientific journal sues Nature that El Naschie has taken serious legal steps against the subject matter of your blog. El Naschie has hired one of Englands leading libel experts and a well established firm Collyer Bristow of London. It will definitely be a long and costly legal battle. However it is now clear to any level headed person that El Naschie must have profound reasons to take this step in the High Court. I think it is the new culture of internet defamation which must be stopped. Without the internet the allegations made by N Category Cafe could not have been possible and consequently this entire regrettable affair.

Posted from IP address: 195.93.21.36
[ I wish someone would sue me; my blog could use the publicity! -- Ford ]