Friday, November 18, 2016

Gods, Genes, Conscience: November Dialogues

Dear Readers: Please feel free to review the Contents of my book and biography in Gods, Genes, Conscience (iUniverse.com worldwide release 2006); and/or here (Google Books Search 2007) or here (Amazon.com Look Inside 2008). A list of global booksellers near you can be found here. Thank you all for scrutinizing!

Immediate Posting: The following Commentaries (developing thinkings) were made in response to the concerned articles, sources, and dates listed in November 2016, so as to promote the Good Dialogues worldwide. Thank you all for reading and scrutinizing!
  • [NB: I'm in preparation of writing 2 books Decoding Scientism and Consciousness & the Subconscious (works in progress since July 2007), so my future Dialogues worldwide would not be engaged, and posted herein, as often as I had been over the past 10 years or so.]

Posted by at No comments:

Monday, August 29, 2016

Gods, Genes, Conscience: August Dialogues

Dear Readers: Please feel free to review the Contents of my book and biography in Gods, Genes, Conscience (iUniverse.com worldwide release 2006); and/or here (Google Books Search 2007) or here (Amazon.com Look Inside 2008). A list of global booksellers near you can be found here. Thank you all for scrutinizing!

Immediate Posting: The following Commentaries (developing thinkings) were made in response to the concerned articles, sources, and dates listed in August 2016, so as to promote the Good Dialogues worldwide. Thank you all for reading and scrutinizing!

  • [NB: I'm in preparation of writing 2 books Decoding Scientism and Consciousness & the Subconscious (works in progress since July 2007), so my future Dialogues worldwide would not be engaged, and posted herein, as often as I had been over the past 10 years or so.]
Posted by at No comments:

Wednesday, June 1, 2016

Gods, Genes, Conscience: June Dialogues

Dear Readers: Please feel free to review the Contents of my book and biography in Gods, Genes, Conscience (iUniverse.com worldwide release 2006); and/or here (Google Books Search 2007) or here (Amazon.com Look Inside 2008). A list of global booksellers near you can be found here. Thank you all for scrutinizing!

Immediate Posting: The following Commentaries (developing thinkings) were made in response to the concerned articles, sources, and dates listed in June 2016, so as to promote the Good Dialogues worldwide. Thank you all for reading and scrutinizing!

  • [NB: I'm in preparation of writing 2 books Decoding Scientism and Consciousness & the Subconscious (works in progress since July 2007), so my future Dialogues worldwide would not be engaged, and posted herein, as often as I had been over the past 10 years or so.]
  • 1) 'As long as we study life, it will be read': the Selfish Gene turns 40 -- RE: How poetic! (TheGuardianUK; June 1)
Posted by at No comments:

Sunday, May 8, 2016

Gods, Genes, Conscience: May Dialogues

Dear Readers: Please feel free to review the Contents of my book and biography in Gods, Genes, Conscience (iUniverse.com worldwide release 2006); and/or here (Google Books Search 2007) or here (Amazon.com Look Inside 2008). A list of global booksellers near you can be found here. Thank you all for scrutinizing!

 Immediate Posting: The following Commentaries (developing thinkings) were made in response to the concerned articles, sources, and dates listed in May 2016, so as to promote the Good Dialogues worldwide. Thank you all for reading and scrutinizing!
  • [NB: I'm in preparation of writing 2 books Decoding Scientism and Consciousness & the Subconscious (works in progress since July 2007), so my future Dialogues worldwide would not be engaged, and posted herein, as often as I had been over the past 10 years or so.]

  • 1) My recent posting of comments on this article “Mendel in the Hot Seat, 1902” (TheScientistCAN; February 1, 2016) was unable to be completed therein under; therefore I would like to post them en masse herein under for readers convenience:
  • RE: Caveat lector: Comparing Darwinian biomorphism of crustaceans to the genetic expression of phenotypes on the Mendelian peas!?
  • Preamble: Upon closer examinations, I thought that the above proclamations in the article title; byline; and conclusion, may have had been all greatly exaggerated -- therefore the essay may possibly be misinterpreted!?  However, the following comments are my recent criticisms of the subject matters (circa 1850s-1906) from both the modern biological and historical perspectives:
  • a) Weldon was a trained biometrician whose work had primarily focussed on the Darwinian biomorphism of crustaceans, or "statistically analyzing [the physico-evolutionary] variations [or morphism] in wild populations of crabs, shrimps, and snails," etc so as to seek patterns of growth and coporeal morphism as defined in the natural selection (NS) theory of variety of organisms (wild or domesticated populations) and fossils, or the so-called geo-biomorphism of Evolution of species that was first described by Charles Darwin or Darwinism in 1859.
  • b) The evolutionary geo-biomorphism an ontological phenomenology of species, which Darwin had modelled on Charles Lyell’s geological anamorphism of the time, is a physical reductionism biased observations of the biomorphic formations and variations by gradual modifications or mutation processes of the earthly geo-biomorphic entities (including organisms and their related fossils through geologic time and space, etc) that Darwin and others (including his cousin Galton) had had never been able to extend nor translate (empirically) his thus formulated NS evolutionary theory into a practical, testable, physiological working hypothesis of “gemmules” or the pangenesis theory of heredity in the 1860s; despite their tried -- albeit predictory, proactive but reductive -- evolutionary thinking, observing, and refining of their then Darwin’s predominant NS theory -- even today!?
  • c) Although a stillborn, the evolutionary gemmules postulate of heredity in organisms (as reductively derived from the NS theory of geo-biomorphic “evolutionary” processes) was very different theoretically, philoscientifically, methodologically, and conceptually from that of the Augustinean monk, the classical botanist cum statistician-trained Mendel’s empirically-evaluable orthodox “germline” theory of heredity in peas-plants: whose lucky peas plants experimental work thereof during the mid 1850s-60s decade, had since in 1900 been rediscovered; and become the foundational work of genetics in our modern “developmental” biology, embryology, physiology, biomedicine, etc nowadays!?  Furthermore and ever since, there lies the foundational antagonism or disconnect in our modernday biology: namely the evolutionary geo-biomorphic NS process vs the germline genetic developmental process in both the cell and molecular biology or physiology, that has commonly been known as the macro-evolutionism vs micro-evolutionism contradictions; even nowadays!? -- (TheScientistCAN: see my comments thereunder “Minimal Genome Created”; March 27, 2016).
  • d) With the benefit of hindsight, and in view of these theoretical, conceptual, methodological, and empirical contradictions and irreconcilable differences between them (as in the prevailing macro-evolutionism vs micro-evolutionism debates since the dawn of the 20th century), I thought that Weldon would have had no model-related nor model-comparable, concrete, evidential nor experimental proofs, that could discredit the Mendel’s oversimplified but measured binary description of his mid-19th century peas plants data, statistics, and crop-breeding rules and selections!?  Thus, Weldon’s peas selections (of the variety of wild types) from the varied commercial pea-plant breeders and his subsequent attempts to compare them with the more genetically-selected Mendel’s peas plants description (of the abbreviated binary phenotypes) were simply unscientific nor justifiable in the philoscientific sense; even in 1902!?  As such, while unknowingly misguided by his probable gemmule-derived evolutionary thinking since the 1860s, Weldon would not have had been able to obstruct or derail the path to the genetically or germline-defined Mendelism of the 1900-rediscovered experimental genetics, at all; and beyond.
  • e) In essence, the genus of Mendel’s biological thinkings and insights has had been his earlier holistic scientific training; and his subsequently lucky choice of a working biological model: the germline (or seed) transmissions in the peas plants of his particular time, space, and affordability presented in Europe!?  Had had Mendel been afforded to work on other animal and/or plant models -- or been evolutionarily influenced; and/or intended to extend the Darwin’s gemmules theory of inheritance in organisms: like those methods and materials descriptions in Darwin’s domesticated plants and animals models (1860s); or in Galton’s human genuses or eugenics fantasy models (1860s-80s); or even in the upcoming Weldon’s wild populations models of crustaceans (1880s) or commercial peas (1902); etc -- the foundational Mendelian genetics or his preliminary (albeit primarily designated as binary) hereditary observations and rules of simplified designated corresponding genotypes and phenotypes, would not have had been able to complete; nor established by the mid-1860s!?
  • In conclusion, as brilliant as Weldon’s physico-reductionism biased biometric evolutionary thinking might have had been, he just simply barking on the wrong physico-biological evolutionary tree!?  On the contrary, his rival Bateson, the more experienced and aspiring geneticist -- not a physico-biomorphism biased evolutionist -- was absolutely right on: in his steadfastly defending of the seminally foundational Mendelian genetics -- the true viable (and testable) engine of the Evolution of organisms on Earth; but not the Darwinian overarching and overreaching NS physico-reductionism biased evolutionary rhetoric since 1859!?
  • PS: Last, but not least, I thought that the above illustration “Like peas in a pod” is appropriately labelled as a “photographic plate,” -- but not a photograph.  This is because, in the pre-chromatic photographic printing days, the printing plates were usually made out of the photographic images by a delicate chemical etching technology.  In the plate illustration above, the printed “photograph” was probably made by at least 3 separate plates in and for 3 separate printings (of the same plate composite of the 24 photographs): one plate for each color of green, yellow, or black, for each round of color-ink printing; while white being the default color of the glossy paper.
  • Also, please note that the finer the photographic grains or dots represented on the plates, the sharper the images -- including the colors and color blendings or overlappings from multiple color plates -- that the printing would impress or produce on papers -- just like the one exquisitely shown on the photographic plate illustration above.  Meanwhile, the black text on pages of a book or an article would generally be printed separately on other kind of papers, so as to defray the higher costs of color printing especially at the turn of the 20th century past.
Posted by at No comments:

Wednesday, April 27, 2016

Gods, Genes, Conscience: April Dialogues

Dear Readers: Please feel free to review the Contents of my book and biography in Gods, Genes, Conscience (iUniverse.com worldwide release 2006); and/or here (Google Books Search 2007) or here (Amazon.com Look Inside 2008). A list of global booksellers near you can be found here. Thank you all for scrutinizing!

Immediate Posting: The following Commentaries (developing thinkings) were made in response to the concerned articles, sources, and dates listed in April 2016, so as to promote the Good Dialogues worldwide. Thank you all for reading and scrutinizing!

Posted by at No comments:

Wednesday, March 30, 2016

Gods, Genes, Conscience: March Dialogues

Dear Readers: Please feel free to review the Contents of my book and biography in Gods, Genes, Conscience (iUniverse.com worldwide release 2006); and/or here (Google Books Search 2007) or here (Amazon.com Look Inside 2008). A list of global booksellers near you can be found here. Thank you all for scrutinizing!

 Immediate Posting: The following Commentaries (developing thinkings) were made in response to the concerned articles, sources, and dates listed in March 2016, so as to promote the Good Dialogues worldwide. Thank you all for reading and scrutinizing!
  • [NB: I'm in preparation of writing 2 books Decoding Scientism and Consciousness & the Subconscious (works in progress since July 2007), so my future Dialogues worldwide would not be engaged, and posted herein, as often as I had been over the past 10 years or so.]
Posted by at No comments:

Monday, January 4, 2016

Gods, Genes, Conscience: January Dialogues

Dear Readers: Please feel free to review the Contents of my book and biography in Gods, Genes, Conscience (iUniverse.com worldwide release 2006); and/or here (Google Books Search 2007) or here (Amazon.com Look Inside 2008). A list of global booksellers near you can be found here. Thank you all for scrutinizing!

 Immediate Posting: The following Commentaries (developing thinkings) were made in response to the concerned articles, sources, and dates listed in January 2016, so as to promote the Good Dialogues worldwide. Thank you all for reading and scrutinizing!
  • [NB: I'm in preparation of writing 2 books Decoding Scientism and Consciousness & the Subconscious (works in progress since July 2007), so my future Dialogues worldwide would not be engaged, and posted herein, as often as I had been over the past 10 years or so.]

  • 1) Featured issue: May 2016 see the beginning of an end to the hubristic neo-Darwinist narrative of "evolutionary pseudogenetics" -- “The Selfish Gene” meme narrative, RIP (1976-2016)*, that is!?

I spent almost 7 years (2006-2013) to revisit and review the field of “evolutionary biology” or the neo-Darwinism pseudogenetics, the Galtonian super-egoistic elitist, selectionist eugenics fantasy (1883) that had ultimately been morphed (or justified) into the naturalized, anthropomorphized, self-determinist gene-centric pseudoscience of “The Selfish Gene” meme narrative (1976): as such, only recently, I have been able to conclude and unveil the extreme occult depthness (at the highest levels of its abstraction and oversimplification); the perverted reductionist sources; and the positivist, selectionist, and neo-Darwinist evolutionary line of thinking and reading (since the Galtonian eugenics scientism); and their impractical rationalizations (or irrationalism in the normal sense of their perverted philoscientific misrepresentations of Darwinism and Mendelism in their then synthesized Modern Synthesis or neo-Darwinism or pseudogenetics par excellence, since the 1930s-40s), that fundamentally form a well spring, which has informed and conformed the super-egoistic reductionist, neo-Darwinist pseudoscience writing of the author, Richard Dawkins, or Dawkinsism (as analyzed through and by his own memoirs; and other criticisms of his very misguided neo-Darwinism, Darwinism, and Mendelism scholarships, etc), which is now summarized as the following:

Dawkinsism: See Richard Dawkins' latest self-aggrandizing and reflexive memoir "An Appetite for Wonder: The Making of a Scientist" -- whose subtitle I thought should have had been more appropriately reflected and entitled "The Making of a Great Pseudoscience Writer (since 1976)"!? -- See also how “The Selfish Gene” (1976) pseudogenetic determinism has had been deftly deconstructed or debunked by the science journalist David Dobbs therein (AeonUK; December 3, 2013); and how Dawkinsism has had been morphed into a New Scientistic Atheism here: “New Atheism and the Scientistic Turn in the Atheism Movement” by the evolutionary biologist turned philosopher Massimo Pigliucci [Midwest Studies In PhilosophyUSA, XXXVII (2013)]; and a more serious critique of “Scientism in the Arts and Humanities” by the British sociocultural critic and philosopher Roger Scruton therein (TheNewAtlantisUSA; Fall 2013). And last, but not least, Dawkins has just finished the part II of his self-aggrandizing memoir “Brief Candle in the Dark: My Life in Science” (see a fair but short review by Nathaniel Comfort therein: NatureUK; September 9, 2015). -- Time and again, Dawkins’ latest aggrandizing reflexive autobiography should have had been more appropriately summarized and entitled “A Brief Candle Extinguished by The Selfish Gene, Meme: How My Life is Imbued with Reanimated Neo-Darwinism Rhetorics, Misinterpretations, Jargons, the Galtonian Ego-centric Elitist, Positivist, Reductionist, Selectionist Eugenics Scientism Fantasies (1883) being All too Eagerly Anthropomorphized, Naturalized, Sensationalized, and Propagandized as Gene-centric Determinist Self-replicating Geneticism Pseudoscience, Meme Narrative (since 1976); And I Still Have No Clues as How to Get Out of, or Correct, It; Instead I Have been Piling Higher, Deeper of It -- Self-deceitfully Reviving, Cocooning in, Rocking and Rolling with It, Of course, For My Unsuspecting Undeterred Fandom, Readership, Worldwide”!? -- See my in-depth comments on the controversy therein: under an-expert-roundtable on The Selfish Gene “Dead or Alive?” (AeonUK*; March 11, 2014).

*AeonUK from time to time may change or upgrade its positing format: as a result, by the last quarter of 2015, my comments and others to that article “Dead or Alive?” (including the survey results) were all left out; luckily I have a cc record of my own commentary, which is now en masse posted herein under for the interested reader’s convenience:

[This is a serialized posting of my original and edited comment on March 17, 2014 (AeonUK; March 11, 2014)]:

RE: Controversial conspiracy or irrational ideas will never die*; they only die within the irrationalist conspirators themselves: One funeral (of irrationalism) at a time -- just as observed by the physicist Max Planck (1858-1947) that “Science advances one funeral at a time”!?

Philoscientifically, I thought that the Aeon Editor Brigid Hains has had posed a very ambiguous and dubious question, which I briefly answered in my “RE title” above; whereas I must compliment on the science journalist David Dobbs -- whose previous article “Die Selfish Gene” that I retrospectively and prominently footnoted in my last September review of the neo-Darwinism vs Darwinism issues (linked below, footnoted in Dawkinsism) -- for his intellectual bravery, depth, and sincerity, in his attempt to deconstruct and debunk the world’s most renowned and controversial neo-Darwinist book “The Selfish Gene” (TSG) since 1976 -- even the 4 Aeon invited experts have had relented in their explicit criticism of it -- whereas TSG with its mythic “meme” has taken me many years (since 2006) to revisit and reevaluate the whole field of “evolutionary biology” (or EB, as TSG has purported to represent, pursue, portray, and dictate) as EB is theoretically related but philoscientifically and diametrically opposed to the then and now (since the 1980s) revival of the empiricist (not evolutionist nor EB theorist) driven research, inquiry, and pursuit in the developmental biological field of “molecular genetics” or “cell and tissue engineering” or “cloning” or “nuclear and organelle transplantations” etc, that all the empirical inquiry of cell biology, physiology, genetics, and biotechnology had had begun to emerge and pursue ever since the “modern cell theory” (not Darwinism or EB theory or evolutionism) was first sketched out by the botanist Matthias Schleiden (1804-81) and the animal physiologist Theodor Schwann (1810-82); and the “proto-genetics” of peas plants (the phenotype of which) was first empirically and statistically demonstrated and described by the Augustinian monk (one who had had previous trainings in both physical and non-physical sciences) Gregor Mendel (1822-84) in the late first-third and the mid-19th century, respectively [please see my historical and scientific scrutiny of these subject matters therein: “Reductionism vs. Holism in Modern Biology and History: Neo-Darwinism vs. Genetics and Physiology!?” (September 1, 2013)].

Consequently, and strictly speaking, and by modern philoscientific analysis: TSG with its extended meme has not been a standard model of science writing, nor an insightful philosophy of biology or natural phenomenology (as the authentic Darwinism that was first conceptualized in 1837-59) of evolution (of organisms and common ancestors) at all; in fact, TSG is a perverted, physicalist, reductionist, positivist, evolutionist, and sophist literary masterpiece in the first order of its physico-reductionist, pseudoscientific evolutionist, neo-Darwinist, pseudogenetic determinist, description and rhetoric of “genes as the generic or common replicators of all organisms” [as analogically and physico-reductively extended and modeled on the naturalist Charles Darwin’s (1809-82) “common ancestry” geo-biomorphism (not geneticism) hypothesis] that TSG has had come to firmly believe in, parasitize, and privilege on the earlier evolutionist flawed theory of the “Modern Synthesis” (MS) or the “superimposing Darwinism (1859) over Mendelism (1866) synthesis” since the 1930s-40s past; and that most (> 55%) today’s sophists and evolutionists alike in EB and/or in pseudo-genetics (like Richard Dawkins of TSG fame; and see the survey results above) have had unequivocally inherited, accepted, and unapologetically extended and morphed their thus newfound MS fallacy as their supremely-prided Darwinian legacy -- while their unwittingly and uncritically nor scientifically turning their thus misinterpreted or reanimated Darwinism into their modern-day dogma, or orthodoxy, that is Neo-Darwinism or the MS evolutionism, geneticism, scientism, irrationalist neo-atheism (since 2006)!?

As such -- unless Dawkins himself could or should be willing to philoscientifically reflect, rationalize, reevaluate, correct, or retract his very flawed, neo-Darwinist, physico-reductionist, pseudogenetic determinist thinking and rhetoric and his subsequent use of clueless metaphors and analogies -- in and with his such an enduring sophist and evolutionist pseudoscience and his neo-Darwinist gene-animated or physico-reductionist anthropomorphized solipsism and crafty penmanship (since 1976), TSG and its amorphous memes will never die: neither be scientifically debunked or challenged, nor be philosophically repudiated or falsifiable, big time, especially in the wake of its evermore philoscientific fallacies; clueless rhetoric; analogies; metaphors; embedded in its penultimate pseudogenetic anthropomorphism; sophistry and penmanship syntheses of evolutionism and scientism alike; etc, since the mid 1960s-70s!?

Thus, as the erudite minority (< 45%) Aeon readers may have observed (in the survey results above): TSG and its ethereal memes have had permeated and almost saturated the pseudoscience literary mythosphere; and that the Planck’s observation of “how scientific advances are made” in the mid-17th to 20th-century “physical sciences” like physics, chemistry, etc, may soon become true as well, in the late-20th to 21st-century “non-physical sciences” like neurobiology, genetics, biomedicine, psychiatry, etc -- QED!?

Best wishes, Mong 3/17/14usct4:39p; practical science-philosophy critic; author "Decoding Scientism" and "Consciousness & the Subconscious" (works in progress since July 2007), Gods, Genes, Conscience (iUniverse; 2006) and Gods, Genes, Conscience: Global Dialogues Now (blogging avidly since 2006).

*PS: Currently the Royal Society (RS) is organizing a public Scientific Meeting on “New trends in evolutionary biology: biological, philosophical and social science perspectives” (co-sponsored by the British Academy for the humanities and social sciences) to be held on 7-9 November 2016; it is very prudent and interesting to update any specific developments, and the meeting outcomes, on its web pages, regularly.  This reminds me of another scientific conference (2008) that had pronounced to revolutionize the neo-Darwinist theory of evolution: the Modern Synthesis (MS) since the early 20th century past; unfortunately the 2008 meeting outcome has turned out to be anything revolutionary but an attempted extension to the very flawed MS theory indefinitely!? -- Please see “Evolution, the Extended Synthesis” (MIT Press March 2010; edited by Massimo Pigliucci and Gerd B. Müller).  Let’s hope that the upcoming RS conference would turn out to be more revolutionary in its trends and ideas so as to help define and refine the “definitive evolutionary theory” in Biology: as One Unified Comprehensive Theory that would encompass all those budding evolutionary theories in the physical sciences, especially in Physics and Chemistry; and not the other way round, as most "research and development biologically-ignoramus but vocal physicists, physicalists" including the Galtonian ego-centric elitists, positivists, reductionists, pseudogenetic evolutionists, selectionists, eugenicists, and neo-Darwinists, have had at once misread and adopted this superficial line of evolutionary thinking; and intended for all physical matters and electromagnetic fields in the Universe above and beyond as “evolutionary” by their misinterpreted Darwinian natural selectionism or geo-biomorphism theory of evolution since 1859 as identified by the several distinctions below: 1) by solely based on the physical terms and appearances of matters or “morphism” -- not developmental morphology as in Embryology; nor the Haeckelian recapitulation theory derived from his biomorphism laws of 1868 (modeled on Darwin’s “tree of life” sketch-hypothesis of 1837 and at once misrepresented Darwin’s geo-biomorphism concepts of 1859); nor the Darwin’s indigenous philoscientific naturalism or his overarching theory of evolution by natural selection itself, namely distinction 1: evolutionary morphism in physical sciences such as Geology, Geography, Paleontology, Taxonomy, etc (on which principles Darwinism has primarily based, and derived from) vs developmental morphology in non-physical sciences especially in Developmental Biology and Molecular Biology (on which disciplines more aspiring biologists are nowadays being trained and doing intensive research in such as Genetics and Bioengineering projects including Robotics and Artificial Intelligence or Infomatics but not exclusively limited to, nor defined by the latter physicalism or roboticism at all); or macroevolutionism vs microevolutionism, etc -- while 2) the neo-Darwinists, physicalists negating all other invisible essences, organismal-internal phenomena such as the existences of psychosomatic vitalism (internal life forces) or spiritualism (imaginative psychical powers, inspirations, aspirations, etc) or emotionalism (corporeal experiences, memories, consciousness, etc) in Psychology and Physiology, especially in our Humanities as a whole on Earth, namely distinction 2: mentalism vs materialism; physicalism vs spiritualism; or scientism vs religionism, etc; and 3a) by their persistently fantasizing and even once attempting to exterminate their all-too-eagerly anthropomorphized, naturalized, super-elitist and self-determinist deemed, undesirable "biomorphism or phenotype defective genes” or their neo-Darwinists-misinterpreted "pseudogenetics" or group/kin or population geneticisms as derived and morphed abstractly from, and by their very un-empirically and unscientifically asserting of superimposing Darwinism of the "natural selectionism" of the "evolutionary geo-biomorphism" fame (1859) over Mendelism of the "germline inheritance" of the 1900-rediscovered "proto-genetics" empiricism, the peas plants hybridizations and Mendel's experimentation-derived biostatistics (1866) all being too selectively and determinately extrapolated, translated, and fixated or literally fossilized in their then neo-Darwinism of the MS evolutionary-developmental, confused and corrupted pseudoscience rhetoric thereof, in the early and mid-20th-century Europe and Americas; in essence and consequences, 3b) their gravely and specifically emboldening their concurrently Nazis-escalated Holocaust (1933-45), that is; and their subsequently Eugenics Movements in the USA past, namely distinction 3: Galtonism or neo-Darwinism vs Darwinism vs Mendelism; geneticisms vs genetics, etc of the late-19th to the late-20th century past!? -- See “Dawkinsism” and “Neo-Darwinism vs Darwinism” debates, demarcations, distinctions, and delineations above, and elsewhere in these “GGC:GDN” blogs, since 2006 (especially in the 2013 blogs). -- And now there is an interesting article by the evolutionary science affairs journalist Suzan Mazur, who very much likes to anticipate and report what might be coming at the upcoming RS meeting this year: "John Dupré Interview: Deeper into the Royal Society Evolution Paradigm Shift Meeting" (HuffingtonPostUSA; February 8, 2016).  For the readers who are more academically inclined or grounded, you might be interested in following through the ASAPbio conference: here, one that is currently in progress (February 16-17, 2016).
Posted by at No comments:
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)