RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (1000) < [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... >   
  Topic: Official Uncommonly Dense Discussion Thread< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Posts: 396
Joined: Nov. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 11 2007,20:51   

What scientific paper has political language like this? In the abstract no less?  
Second, the argument is presented that the selfish DNA "hypothesis" is actually a narrative scheme, that it serves to protect neo-Darwinian assumptions from criticism, and that this story is untestable and therefore not a hypothesis.

Taken from this pack of lies from scrotalova:

More political language:
It is argued throughout that a new conceptual framework is needed for understanding the roles of repetitive DNA in genomic/epigenetic systems, and that neo-Darwinian "narratives" have been the primary obstacle to elucidating the effects of these enigmatic components of chromosomes.

How weird. Unless this is just an article that comes before actual research papers, like they have in Science and Nature.

I don't have access to the highly prestigious "Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences" so I can't read this essay. The abstract sure makes it sound like a review or even some kind of position paper. As in: no original research presented.

With most men, unbelief in one thing springs from blind belief in another. - Georg Christoph Lichtenberg

To do just the opposite is also a form of imitation. - Georg Christoph Lichtenberg

  29999 replies since Jan. 16 2006,11:43 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (1000) < [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... >   

Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

[ Read the Board Rules ] | [Useful Links] | [Evolving Designs]