RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

  Topic: Axiomatic Panbiogeography, Crankery, or not so much?< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Posts: 1902
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 09 2008,07:48   

Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ May 08 2008,15:38)
there is a long history of woo-like offerings in biogeography.  hell biology in general. but in general its only woo when you can't tear it down with data.  this tearing down has actually happened in biogeography with the demise of all the land bridge theories floated to explain disjunct distributions of monophyletic groups.

both panbiogeography and vicariance have been guilty of the sin of woo.  but not always.  it seems to me that our napkin calculating friend here may be attempting to avoid the sin, but it is hard for me to tell when there are gems like this here sprinkled liberally throughout.

Linguists, attention.  Please explain just what in the fuckity hell all this is 'posed to mean.

Colgatorene Plistonomy

3.  Steven J.  

> Too much plistorine allometrically and morphometrically applied to the
> historical fossilisation will reduce the allegorical historicity of the > geographic algorithm.

But this position ignores the plesioempirical allotropy
interlocutionally attributed to, and intersubjectively retrodicted by,
the metahistorical and and oligocontinually algorithmic paracosm.
This in itself renders your position not merely contrapositivist, but
virtually devoid of historicogrammatical nuance.
-- Steven J.

cause, uh, hell i don't know what the shit he is on about there.

These words could be completely rearranged and it wouldn't change the meaning at all. It's literary white noise.

Who said that ev'ry wish would be heard and answered
When wished on the morning star
Somebody thought of that, and someone believed it
Look what it's done so far

The Daily Wingnut

  19 replies since May 08 2008,13:55 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

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