Was Darwin Wrong? - powered by motigo.com" />
|Page: < 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 >||
|20.05.2010 08:25, gert korthof :|
Dear Matthew Turner,
fast response (without checking anything):
I am moved by your story. I recognize a lot in it.
You address the right person with the right subject.
However, I am overloaded with stuff to read, and everybody asks favours from me, such as reading their new manuscript: it is always a non-reciprocal altruism affair. How could we transform this in reciprocal altruism? I scratch your back, you scratch mine :-)
|14.04.2010 09:23, gert korthof :|
Dank je wel Tjitske (mooie naam trouwens!),
de link heb ik toegevoegd.
Vraagje: lukte het niet om in het blog een comment toe te voegen? Geeft verder niet, het is zo ook gelukt.
|14.04.2010 07:44, Tjitske :|
Beste Gert Korthof,
Ik zie dat u verwijst naar mijn artikel over Wallace, leuk! De link leidt alleen niet naar het artikel, daarom hier de juiste verwijzing: http://beagle.vpro.nl/#/blog/i tem/3106/
|25.03.2010 07:41, gert korthof :|
I am going to find the issue of Nature online.
|23.03.2010 17:49, Tim Standish from Loma Linda, CA, USA :|
I see an error in what I just sent. The Nature volume number is 294, not 291.
|23.03.2010 17:46, Tim Standish from Loma Linda, CA, USA :|
A minor error exists at:
In a reference listed under "Notes" related to Fred Hoyle's remark about biological evolution and a 747 in a junk yard.
The correct complete reference is:
1981. Hoyle on evolution. Nature 291:105.
Note that the page is 105, not 10 and that no author is listed.
Thanks for such a useful summary of literature related to this remark of Hoyle's.
|16.03.2010 17:15, Manhar Tilak from Crossville TN USA :|
Manohar Tilak the 1970 Originator of The Evoluon Theory of Cosmic Evolution and the 1998 book Infnities to Eternities, who was a member of Professor Katsoyanis's Insulin Synthess, write that he had substantively orignated the word Evoluon.
There are exactly 8 Evoluons based on cosmic Information systems in the chart after pg. 58 of his 1998 book.
am drawn to your valuable work about Evolution and am grateful!
|17.02.2010 07:35, gert korthof :|
Thank you for your message.
I started reading the review of your book in American Scientist yesterday and will finish it today and reread it again.
Yes, indeed I like Sedley's book very much.
And I am now in the middle of reading Fodor and writing a review. (I blogged in Dutch about the book already once).
I will add your book to the Introduction page of my site.
Thanks for writing me,
have a nice day,
|16.02.2010 14:24, John Reiss from Arcata, CA, USA :|
I ran across your very interesting site looking for reviews of Fodor and Piatelli-Palmerini's new book - "What Darwin Got Wrong." I have not yet seen their book, but in the meantime, would like to call your attention to my own, which I think might interest you. It is called "Not by Design; Retiring Darwin's Watchmaker" and was published by Univ of Calif Press last year. There is a very nice review (to me) that just came out in American Scientist by John Dupré, which you can find at: http://www.americanscientist.o
Since you seemed to like Sedley's perspective offered in his "Creationism and its Critics in Antiquity" I think you will find that my book goes further in relating Darwin to the ancient debate between the atomists and the teleologists. In my view, as we move toward an extended evolutionary synthesis, what is most needed is to purge Darwinism not of the mechanism of natural selection, but of the teleological views that Darwin inherited from Paley.
|01.02.2010 09:42, gert korthof :|
Beste Frietson Galis,
hartelijk dank voor Uw reactie.
Uiteraard heb ik de link naar Uw nieuwe website op mijn site geupdated (Ned. evolutie literatuur).
|31.01.2010 18:49, Frietson Galis :|
Beste meneer Korthof,
Heel goed wat u doet met uw site.
Ik vond tot mijn verrassing een link naar mijn homepage. Aangezien helaas bij de reorganisatie van biologie in Leiden de evolutiebiologie is getroffen en met het opheffen van de theoretische evolutiebiologie ook mijn functie is opgeheven, is mijn website verdwenen. Ik heb uiteraard nu een externe website, echter. de universiteit weigert ons permanente redirects. Ik zou het daarom erg op prijs stellen als u de link zou willen vervangen naar mijn nieuwe website:
Veel succes met uw website
|12.01.2010 19:59, Dalius Balciunas from Vilnius, Lithuania :|
I have some comments regarding Kauffman's ideas. Let's begin with one of your sentences. You write (http://home.planet.nl/~gkortho f/kortho32.htm; 2.Neo-Darwinism is incomplete):
"Kauffman is not anti-Darwinist in the sense that he rejects the existence of natural selection".
I find it interesting statement. And I think it is not correct. To support Darwin you have to reject natural selection theory. Biologists simply are unable to accept such a challenge. My motto - natural selection theory is wrong, Darwin was right.
Indeed Darwin was the first who presented scientific theory of life evolution. Darwin understood the essence of the matter. Modifications and "natural selection" are driving force of evolution. Natural selection theory, as Darwin presented it, was revolutionary idea. However, this theory is a product of 19th century. Now, I think, it is no more valid. Autocatalysis (self-replication) itself explains why biological evolution has taken place. Autocatalytic competition is "natural selection".
Thus, Kauffman is right concentrating on autocatalytic processes. Unfortunately, he did not go one step further and did not reject natural selection hypothesis.
Thank you for very interesting site.
|10.12.2009 05:38, Derek Roche from Australia :|
This is to advise the launch of a new website (http://thewayitis.info) that proposes a formal synthesis of all knowledge and all ways of knowing. The origin and evolution of life is shown to be a logical consequence of such a synthesis. Your critical assessment is cordially invited.
|23.10.2009 07:11, gert korthof :|
Hello Nadeem from Pakistan,
what page of my site did you read?
What kind of photo do you want?
Thanks for visiting my site,
|22.10.2009 13:58, nadeem from pakistan :|
please send me chromosome photo
|18.10.2009 09:01, gert korthof :|
I am confused by your claim.
The picture does have a clickable link to
where I found the image (I suppose).
Didn't you notice that?
So, I am unsure what to do. For the moment I will put
your name below the picture.
PS when I google for 'orchid mantis' images you are number 5 (with a different picture) and my site is nr 10 (with the picture you talk about).
PS2 How did you make the picture? Is it at home or in the wild?
|18.10.2009 07:59, Peter Clausen from USA :|
You are using my orchid mantis photos without permission. As much as I may support what you are doing, you have not asked to use it. It is located in the mimicry section on the following link on your website:
Unfortunatly, for me, your site is the primary reference for this photo as listed on the images directory of the google search engine. This is unfair to me since I took that photo in 2001 and posted it on my site. I would appreciate it if you would make the photo a clickable link to my website at the very least.
|10.10.2009 23:04, Eric Sherman :|
I have always appreciated your website! I especially appreciate your ambition to promote an Extended Evolutionary Synthesis.
I would really love to see you review West-Eberhard's, Developmental Plasticity and Evolution and add her more of her to your site. I know that is a tall order, but I think her book/work is indispensable towards the effort of promoting an Extended/Third Evolutionary Synthesis.
Keep up the fantastic work!
|08.09.2009 10:16, gert korthof :|
Thanks Daniel for your feedback. I will have a look at the font.
|07.09.2009 19:18, Daniel :|
Dear Mr Korthof,
Interesting reviews, but very unpleasant to read. Please, use some normal, i.e. easily readable, font (e.g. arial or something similar). If you use a 'comic' font, it does not mean it is automatically going to be funny.
|Page: < 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 >||
|Get free forums, guestbooks, calendars, shorturls and web statistics at motigo.|