by TheTruthSeeker101
My Blog List
-
The hills to die on7 years ago
-
The Existential Files9 years ago
-
-
Buddhist Healing Practice10 years ago
-
All About Tig Welders for Sale15 years ago
Web Counter
Showing posts with label reason. Show all posts
Showing posts with label reason. Show all posts
Friday, February 12, 2010
Saturday, January 2, 2010
Philosophy, Logic And Reason
Stephen Fry @ BigThink: Philosophy, Logic And Reason.
Interview Transcript
Question: What philosophers influenced you?
Stephen Fry: Philosophy is an odd thing. When we use the word in everyday speech you know you sometimes hear it hilariously. They say, Oh, its never good to be late. Thats my philosophy.
You think thats a generous description of that rather dull precept to call it a philosophy, but its odd how philosophers generally speaking, at least the ones Ive read or the ones I you know value, dont have in that sense a philosophy. There is no particular Socratic or Dimechian or Kantian way to live your life. They dont offer ethical codes and standards by which to live your life.
They dont offer a philosophy to follow. They just simply raise an enormous number of questions mostly, so in the sense that you put the question is there a philosopher thats important to me.
Well I me I loved really the sort of the Bertrand Russell grand sort of tour of philosophy, the history of philosophy from the pre Socratics as they're called, Zeno and so on through to Socrates and Plato and Aristotle.
I never quite liked Aristotle. I think thats partly... Although he was obviously a genius and brilliant and he invented logic, so whats not to like. I think it was his influence on the medieval mind was probably rather pernicious and unfortunate and all those categories and things, but when it opened up with I suppose Spinoza and them, but then Kant and the enlightenment era.
Oh and actually Locke. I did like Locke. He was a fine philosopher, but they dont... I mean what is so great about them is that they just... Theyre quite scary when you think of the word philosopher and especially if its logic and symbolic logic and it gets onto Hegelian philosophies, incredibly difficult to read I find and you follow it for about... Well its like trying to grab a salmon.
You know the harder you clutch at it the more it springs, slips out of your hand and whoa, its gone and you chase it again and what was that and you feel very stupid, but the... I think the beauty of questioning and simplicity that you get from Kant in particular I think is just amazing because its like they say of simple mathematical laws that make fractals, the tiniest little elegant observation about or question about something just spins out these immensely complex things that make you rethink everything.
So yes, I think philosophy is a really important dimension, but I think in our age we tend to be rather sloppy about it. We either think Buddhism is philosophy, which you know or some sort of eastern thing about being nice and spiritual and that will do, which its fine.
I mean you know obviously I believe in kindness and niceness and lots of spiritual things, but the real intellectual rigor and quest of logic is something that Im afraid takes incredibly hard work and we live in an age in which hard work is if not actively deprecated or denigrated it is run away from or ignored.
Its sort of people frown at you and say, Well, thats a bit dull and stupid. Why cant we just short circuit it and talk about like spirit? Well yeah, you can say spirit, but if you think thats philosophy and if you think thats good enough.
The most important philosophy I think is that even if it isnt true you must absolutely assume there is no afterlife. You cannot for one second I think, abbragate the responsibility of believing that this is it because if you think youre going to have an eternity in which you can talk to Mozart and Chopin and Schopenhauer on a cloud and learn stuff and you know really get to grips with knowledge and understanding and so you wont bother now.
I think its a terrible, a terrible mistake. It may be that there is an afterlife and Ill look incredibly stupid, but at least I will have had a crammed pre afterlife, a crammed life, so to me the most important thing is you know as Kipling put it, to fill every 60 seconds with you know what is it? To fill every unforgiving minute with 60 seconds worth of distance run.
You know absolutely, so thats all Im saying I suppose. Is that there is no point wasting time being lazy, though of course indolence in a divine way, actually has its advantages. Oh, shut up Steve. Okay, next one.
• http://bigthink.com/
Interview Transcript
Question: What philosophers influenced you?
Stephen Fry: Philosophy is an odd thing. When we use the word in everyday speech you know you sometimes hear it hilariously. They say, Oh, its never good to be late. Thats my philosophy.
You think thats a generous description of that rather dull precept to call it a philosophy, but its odd how philosophers generally speaking, at least the ones Ive read or the ones I you know value, dont have in that sense a philosophy. There is no particular Socratic or Dimechian or Kantian way to live your life. They dont offer ethical codes and standards by which to live your life.
They dont offer a philosophy to follow. They just simply raise an enormous number of questions mostly, so in the sense that you put the question is there a philosopher thats important to me.
Well I me I loved really the sort of the Bertrand Russell grand sort of tour of philosophy, the history of philosophy from the pre Socratics as they're called, Zeno and so on through to Socrates and Plato and Aristotle.
I never quite liked Aristotle. I think thats partly... Although he was obviously a genius and brilliant and he invented logic, so whats not to like. I think it was his influence on the medieval mind was probably rather pernicious and unfortunate and all those categories and things, but when it opened up with I suppose Spinoza and them, but then Kant and the enlightenment era.
Oh and actually Locke. I did like Locke. He was a fine philosopher, but they dont... I mean what is so great about them is that they just... Theyre quite scary when you think of the word philosopher and especially if its logic and symbolic logic and it gets onto Hegelian philosophies, incredibly difficult to read I find and you follow it for about... Well its like trying to grab a salmon.
You know the harder you clutch at it the more it springs, slips out of your hand and whoa, its gone and you chase it again and what was that and you feel very stupid, but the... I think the beauty of questioning and simplicity that you get from Kant in particular I think is just amazing because its like they say of simple mathematical laws that make fractals, the tiniest little elegant observation about or question about something just spins out these immensely complex things that make you rethink everything.
So yes, I think philosophy is a really important dimension, but I think in our age we tend to be rather sloppy about it. We either think Buddhism is philosophy, which you know or some sort of eastern thing about being nice and spiritual and that will do, which its fine.
I mean you know obviously I believe in kindness and niceness and lots of spiritual things, but the real intellectual rigor and quest of logic is something that Im afraid takes incredibly hard work and we live in an age in which hard work is if not actively deprecated or denigrated it is run away from or ignored.
Its sort of people frown at you and say, Well, thats a bit dull and stupid. Why cant we just short circuit it and talk about like spirit? Well yeah, you can say spirit, but if you think thats philosophy and if you think thats good enough.
The most important philosophy I think is that even if it isnt true you must absolutely assume there is no afterlife. You cannot for one second I think, abbragate the responsibility of believing that this is it because if you think youre going to have an eternity in which you can talk to Mozart and Chopin and Schopenhauer on a cloud and learn stuff and you know really get to grips with knowledge and understanding and so you wont bother now.
I think its a terrible, a terrible mistake. It may be that there is an afterlife and Ill look incredibly stupid, but at least I will have had a crammed pre afterlife, a crammed life, so to me the most important thing is you know as Kipling put it, to fill every 60 seconds with you know what is it? To fill every unforgiving minute with 60 seconds worth of distance run.
You know absolutely, so thats all Im saying I suppose. Is that there is no point wasting time being lazy, though of course indolence in a divine way, actually has its advantages. Oh, shut up Steve. Okay, next one.
• http://bigthink.com/
Friday, January 1, 2010
Why Richard Dawkins Doesn't Debate Creationists
Complete video at: http://fora.tv/2009/10/07/Richard_Daw...
Evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins explains that he no longer debates creationists because his presence only validates their status. He compares the situation to a reproductive scientist agreeing to debate an advocate of the "stork theory."
Evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins explains that he no longer debates creationists because his presence only validates their status. He compares the situation to a reproductive scientist agreeing to debate an advocate of the "stork theory."
Friday, December 25, 2009
Atheists are morally superior
People often wonder about the morality of atheists. As it turns out, atheists are morally superior.
Wednesday, December 23, 2009
God does not Exist
http://www.strike-the-root.com/71/mol...
Existence is a relatively simple concept -- it is defined as that which consists of either matter or energy. Therefore if a god exists, it must be composed of either matter or energy.
The opposite must also be true. If a god is not composed of matter or energy, then that god, by definition, does not exist. Thus to argue that a god exist, despite a total absence of matter or energy, is to argue, existence equals non-existence, which is a complete contradiction.
If a god exists, then physical evidence is really the only methodology by which we can ascertain that a god exists. Of course, this does not require direct physical evidence -- we cannot perceive black holes directly, but we know that they exist due to the effects of their gravity wells on surrounding matter, as well as the flashes of energy that are released as captured matter crosses the event horizon. But since "existence" is defined as that which is composed of matter or energy, the proof of existence must be some evidence of that matter or energy.
Evidence is defined as that which impacts our physical senses in some manner, either directly, or through some translating device such as a spectrograph or an oscilloscope. Since our sensory organs are designed to perceive the effects of matter and energy, it is through the evidence of the senses that we can determine the existence or nonexistence of things.
If I argue that something exists, but then claim there is no way to detect it, my argument contradicts itself. Let's say I tell a deaf man that I hear a deep, loud sound coming from a speaker. If he lays his hand on it and feels no vibrations, he has every right to be skeptical. If I say that this loud sound does not have vibrations, he may then pull out his trusty microphone or other sound wave detector. If this instrument detects no sound in the vicinity, can I still tell him that this loud sound is occurring? At some point, if my definition of "loud sound" basically boils down to "that which is the opposite of any evidence that a loud sound is occurring," then clearly my approach to truth needs a little work.
This approach helps clarify the truth value of the proposition that a god does not exist. If a god exists, then sensual evidence of some sort is required to determine the existence of that god. If a god is not made up of matter or energy, then that god does not exist, since that which is not composed of matter or energy -- does not exist. If a god is made up of matter and energy, then it is subject to physical laws. Since it is bound by physical laws, miracles are impossible, because miracles are, by definition, violations of physical laws. Likewise, a god cannot be all knowing and all-powerful, since both attributes would violate the basic tenets of physical laws. All knowing would require instantaneous knowledge of all matter, past, present and future, which is clearly impossible, while all powerful would require the ability to break the bounds of physical laws, which brings us back to the realm of nonexistence.
If a god is subject to physical laws, then praying to a god makes about as much sense as worshiping a black hole, begging the Sun to grant you favors, or circumcising your son to appease the moon. If a god is not subject to physical laws, then the concept of a god is synonymous with the concept of non-existence.
Why is there such resistance to the fact that a god does not exist? Many people redefine "God" within their own minds as "a potential form of matter or energy that has not been discovered yet," or "that which could exist in an alternate universe," or something to that effect.
However, either a criterion for determining truth exists, or it does not. If such a criterion exists, then it must be objective, and based on the evidence of the senses and reason, which precludes the existence of any deities. If no such criterion exists, then both everything and nothing is true, and agnosticism, atheism, superstition, religion and the belief of the flying spaghetti monster are all equally valid.
If an objective criterion for truth exists, then it cannot logically be applied according to whim, or only in situations that feel emotionally comfortable. Through this logical method we can determine no god exists.
Actions are more important than beliefs.
Existence is a relatively simple concept -- it is defined as that which consists of either matter or energy. Therefore if a god exists, it must be composed of either matter or energy.
The opposite must also be true. If a god is not composed of matter or energy, then that god, by definition, does not exist. Thus to argue that a god exist, despite a total absence of matter or energy, is to argue, existence equals non-existence, which is a complete contradiction.
If a god exists, then physical evidence is really the only methodology by which we can ascertain that a god exists. Of course, this does not require direct physical evidence -- we cannot perceive black holes directly, but we know that they exist due to the effects of their gravity wells on surrounding matter, as well as the flashes of energy that are released as captured matter crosses the event horizon. But since "existence" is defined as that which is composed of matter or energy, the proof of existence must be some evidence of that matter or energy.
Evidence is defined as that which impacts our physical senses in some manner, either directly, or through some translating device such as a spectrograph or an oscilloscope. Since our sensory organs are designed to perceive the effects of matter and energy, it is through the evidence of the senses that we can determine the existence or nonexistence of things.
If I argue that something exists, but then claim there is no way to detect it, my argument contradicts itself. Let's say I tell a deaf man that I hear a deep, loud sound coming from a speaker. If he lays his hand on it and feels no vibrations, he has every right to be skeptical. If I say that this loud sound does not have vibrations, he may then pull out his trusty microphone or other sound wave detector. If this instrument detects no sound in the vicinity, can I still tell him that this loud sound is occurring? At some point, if my definition of "loud sound" basically boils down to "that which is the opposite of any evidence that a loud sound is occurring," then clearly my approach to truth needs a little work.
This approach helps clarify the truth value of the proposition that a god does not exist. If a god exists, then sensual evidence of some sort is required to determine the existence of that god. If a god is not made up of matter or energy, then that god does not exist, since that which is not composed of matter or energy -- does not exist. If a god is made up of matter and energy, then it is subject to physical laws. Since it is bound by physical laws, miracles are impossible, because miracles are, by definition, violations of physical laws. Likewise, a god cannot be all knowing and all-powerful, since both attributes would violate the basic tenets of physical laws. All knowing would require instantaneous knowledge of all matter, past, present and future, which is clearly impossible, while all powerful would require the ability to break the bounds of physical laws, which brings us back to the realm of nonexistence.
If a god is subject to physical laws, then praying to a god makes about as much sense as worshiping a black hole, begging the Sun to grant you favors, or circumcising your son to appease the moon. If a god is not subject to physical laws, then the concept of a god is synonymous with the concept of non-existence.
Why is there such resistance to the fact that a god does not exist? Many people redefine "God" within their own minds as "a potential form of matter or energy that has not been discovered yet," or "that which could exist in an alternate universe," or something to that effect.
However, either a criterion for determining truth exists, or it does not. If such a criterion exists, then it must be objective, and based on the evidence of the senses and reason, which precludes the existence of any deities. If no such criterion exists, then both everything and nothing is true, and agnosticism, atheism, superstition, religion and the belief of the flying spaghetti monster are all equally valid.
If an objective criterion for truth exists, then it cannot logically be applied according to whim, or only in situations that feel emotionally comfortable. Through this logical method we can determine no god exists.
Actions are more important than beliefs.
Saturday, December 19, 2009
Can you trust your thoughts?
Can you trust your thoughts? Yes.
A few notes: Our sensory neurons do reliably transmit information about the world around us. Neurons in higher cortical areas can be quite noisy, but averaging the activity from small populations of such neurons still produces a reliable signal.
Its not just our senses that we trust. You didn't hit your hand because you trusted either your memory (of getting hit by an object like a hammer) or your logical reasoning (that hitting your hand with a hammer, though something you have never experienced, would hurt).
Science is a self correcting system. If a result is unable to be reproduced, it is discarded. New findings constantly reshape our thinking. We are continuously learning about the world around us, and have no problem admitting that we don't have all the answers.
So it is clearly safe for everyone to Think about it.
To download this video copyright free please go to:
http://www.mediafire.com/?mwzqfn03mzc
A few notes: Our sensory neurons do reliably transmit information about the world around us. Neurons in higher cortical areas can be quite noisy, but averaging the activity from small populations of such neurons still produces a reliable signal.
Its not just our senses that we trust. You didn't hit your hand because you trusted either your memory (of getting hit by an object like a hammer) or your logical reasoning (that hitting your hand with a hammer, though something you have never experienced, would hurt).
Science is a self correcting system. If a result is unable to be reproduced, it is discarded. New findings constantly reshape our thinking. We are continuously learning about the world around us, and have no problem admitting that we don't have all the answers.
So it is clearly safe for everyone to Think about it.
To download this video copyright free please go to:
http://www.mediafire.com/?mwzqfn03mzc
The Origin of Intelligence
This is the first in a 3 part series on the origin of intelligence. Future videos will discuss the origin of the brain, and the origin of cognition. In them we will see that human intelligence is not of supernatural origin. It is merely the product of evolution by natural selection.
To download this video copyright free please go to:
http://www.mediafire.com/?ji5tolmolkt
To learn more about lactose metabolism in E.coli visit:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lac_operon
To learn more about nylon digesting bacteria visit:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nylonase
And remember to always Think about it.
To download this video copyright free please go to:
http://www.mediafire.com/?ji5tolmolkt
To learn more about lactose metabolism in E.coli visit:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lac_operon
To learn more about nylon digesting bacteria visit:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nylonase
And remember to always Think about it.
Wednesday, December 16, 2009
Christopher Hitchens: No reason to think there is a god
Christopher Hitchens No reason to think there is a god and why were lucky none of the mythology is true.
Christopher Hitchens: Bah, Humbug on Christmas
On Monday, December 17, reason hosted a "Very Special, Very Secular Christmas Party" at its Washington, D.C. headquarters.
The evening's special event was a dramatic reading of Tom Lehrer's "Christmas Carol" by Christopher Hitchens, author of God Is Not Great, Why Orwell Matters, No One Left to Lie To, and many other books.
"It may have struck you, ladies and gentlemen, that there's a big relationship between this marvelous time of year and living in a one-party state," Hitchens told the overflow crowd of 250. "You can't go anywhere without listening to the same music. You can't go anywhere without hearing the name of the Great Leader, and his son, the Dear Leader....All broadcasts, all songs, all jokes, all references are, just for that magic few weeks, just exactly like living in...North Korea."
The evening's special event was a dramatic reading of Tom Lehrer's "Christmas Carol" by Christopher Hitchens, author of God Is Not Great, Why Orwell Matters, No One Left to Lie To, and many other books.
"It may have struck you, ladies and gentlemen, that there's a big relationship between this marvelous time of year and living in a one-party state," Hitchens told the overflow crowd of 250. "You can't go anywhere without listening to the same music. You can't go anywhere without hearing the name of the Great Leader, and his son, the Dear Leader....All broadcasts, all songs, all jokes, all references are, just for that magic few weeks, just exactly like living in...North Korea."
Monday, December 7, 2009
Barack Obama On Science And Charles Darwin
President Barack Obama putting science in its rightful place and appreciating Charles Darwin.
Saturday, December 5, 2009
The Anti-Theist / Anti-Biblical (Lies Christians Tell # 1)
The lie, neatly summed up is: that people who don't believe in God do so because they made an irrational, dogmatic, a-priori assumption that God does not exist.
The truth neatly summed up that no irrational beliefs or dogmatic convictions whatsoever are necessary to not believe in God.
Rational people critically examine the veracity of all the claims presented to them including the ones about God. And since there's no evidence whatsoever that God exists, rational people don't believe in god.
The truth neatly summed up that no irrational beliefs or dogmatic convictions whatsoever are necessary to not believe in God.
Rational people critically examine the veracity of all the claims presented to them including the ones about God. And since there's no evidence whatsoever that God exists, rational people don't believe in god.
Friday, December 4, 2009
Atheism vs. Christianity - Why I Don't Believe in God
A look at some Christian teachings and beliefs and therefore, why I do not believe in God.
Wednesday, December 2, 2009
Why atheists are morally superior
Religious people, and specifically Christians are notorious for suggesting that morality is (often exclusively) associated with their religious beliefs and scriptural dictates.
Let's examine this notion by outlining the Top 10 reasons why atheists are morally superior.
1. No god tells us to hate gay people, so we have no reason to hate them. In fact if gay people love each other and want to get married, more power to them. Why should we stop love and caring based on gender? We encourage loving and caring any way it manifests itself.
2. No god tells us that women are inferior and should subject themselves to men.
3. No god tells us to pray instead of seeking medical attention. We believe in all kinds of scientific research and medicine. We even believe in stem cell research. Most of us also think a woman has a right to choose what to do with her body. This probably goes up under the ‘women are equal’ entry as well, because it’s ridiculous that an old man we will never meet gets to decide what they can and can’t do with their body.
4. No god tells us to hate people who believe in the same god but in a “wrong” way. OK, that’s just stupid.
5. No god tells us to be fruitful and multiply, then says that sex for fun is bad, then tells us that only sex between married people is OK, then denies us any kind of way to turn off the insatiable teenage sex drive except to come up with abstinence and praying as a lame solution.
6. No god tells us to hate people who look different than me, so we are free to see everyone as equal and the same, just with different packaging. No need to be racist.
7. No god tells us to start a war over another land having the wrong god or the wrong types of people (see the one above), so we don’t have to support pointless wars that justify some ridiculous ancient prophecy or for other silly reasons, like god talking directly to the leader of one country.
8. No god makes promises to us about being a martyr, so we have no reason to strap a bomb to ourselves and blow up a train station or whatever kills the most innocent people.
9. No god makes open-ended promises that will never come true about Armageddon and going up to heaven soon, so we are responsible with the environment, and try our best to have a small impact on the planet, and also support research into making things better for everyone through science and smarter living.
10. No god promises eternal life to us or threatens us with eternal torture, then suggests we have some weird sense of "free will" to make an honest choose between good and evil. How can you tell if you're doing something for the right reason if you're threatened with horrible suffering if you don't follow directions?
Let's examine this notion by outlining the Top 10 reasons why atheists are morally superior.
1. No god tells us to hate gay people, so we have no reason to hate them. In fact if gay people love each other and want to get married, more power to them. Why should we stop love and caring based on gender? We encourage loving and caring any way it manifests itself.
2. No god tells us that women are inferior and should subject themselves to men.
3. No god tells us to pray instead of seeking medical attention. We believe in all kinds of scientific research and medicine. We even believe in stem cell research. Most of us also think a woman has a right to choose what to do with her body. This probably goes up under the ‘women are equal’ entry as well, because it’s ridiculous that an old man we will never meet gets to decide what they can and can’t do with their body.
4. No god tells us to hate people who believe in the same god but in a “wrong” way. OK, that’s just stupid.
5. No god tells us to be fruitful and multiply, then says that sex for fun is bad, then tells us that only sex between married people is OK, then denies us any kind of way to turn off the insatiable teenage sex drive except to come up with abstinence and praying as a lame solution.
6. No god tells us to hate people who look different than me, so we are free to see everyone as equal and the same, just with different packaging. No need to be racist.
7. No god tells us to start a war over another land having the wrong god or the wrong types of people (see the one above), so we don’t have to support pointless wars that justify some ridiculous ancient prophecy or for other silly reasons, like god talking directly to the leader of one country.
8. No god makes promises to us about being a martyr, so we have no reason to strap a bomb to ourselves and blow up a train station or whatever kills the most innocent people.
9. No god makes open-ended promises that will never come true about Armageddon and going up to heaven soon, so we are responsible with the environment, and try our best to have a small impact on the planet, and also support research into making things better for everyone through science and smarter living.
10. No god promises eternal life to us or threatens us with eternal torture, then suggests we have some weird sense of "free will" to make an honest choose between good and evil. How can you tell if you're doing something for the right reason if you're threatened with horrible suffering if you don't follow directions?
Thursday, November 26, 2009
There is No God and You Know It
* A Frequent VidCast where the infidelguy tells why god(s) make zero freaking sense.
Wednesday, November 25, 2009
Positive Atheism
Why we want you to join us and what we have to offer.
Secular Humanism (a great form of positive secularism/atheism):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secular_humanism
Music:
"Dayvan Cowboy" by Boards of Canada
Secular Humanism (a great form of positive secularism/atheism):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secular_humanism
Music:
"Dayvan Cowboy" by Boards of Canada
"What happened in your life for you to not believe in God?"
Keryn Glasser and Andi Roberts gets the question what happened that made them not believe in god. The question is kind of backwards since it is rather what didn't happen to give rise to such a belief.
Credit: The Atheist Experience
#357
Monday, November 23, 2009
This is Why Every Scientist Accepts Evolution
READ DESCRIPTION: Please watch the video in its entirety. Ignorance is no longer an excuse.
Sources: Gilbert, S. F. (1997) Developmental Biology. Fifth edition. Sinauer Associates.
Carroll, R. L. (1988) Vertebrate Paleontology and Evolution. New York, W. H. Freeman and Co.
Futuyma, D. (1998) Evolutionary Biology. Third edition. Sunderland, Mass., Sinauer Associates.
Gould, S. J. (1990) "An earful of jaw." Natural History 3: 12-23.
Kardong, K. V. (2002) Vertebrates: Comparative Anatomy, Function, Evolution. Third ed. New York: McGraw Hill.
Rubin, G. M. et al. (2000) "Comparative Genomics of the Eukaryotes." Science 287: 2204-2218. [PubMed]
Schmid, K. J., and Tautz, D. (1997) "A screen for fast evolving genes from Drosophila." Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA. 94: 9746-9750. http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/...
Sereno, P. C. (1999) "The Evolution of Dinosaurs." Science 284: 2137-2147. [PubMed]
Smit, A. F. A. (1996) "The origin of interspersed repeats in the human genome." Current Opinion in Genetics and Development 6: 743-748. [PubMed]
Thornhill, R. H., and Ussery, D. W. (2000) "A classification of possible routes of Darwinian evolution." Journal of Theoretical Biology 203: 111-116. [PubMed]
Voet, D., and Voet, J. (1995) Biochemistry. New York, John Wiley and Sons.
Williams, G. C. (1992) Natural Selection: Domains, Levels, and Challenges. New York, Oxford University Press.
Scarpulla, R. C., and Nye, S. H. (1986) "Functional expression of rat cytochrome c in Saccharomyces Cerevisiae." Proc Natl Acad Sci 83: 6352-6. [PubMed]
Shimamura, M., et al. (1997) "Molecular evidence from retroposons that whales form a clade within even-toed ungulates." Nature 388: 666. [PubMed]
Smit, A. F. A. (1996) "The origin of interspersed repeats in the human genome." Current Opinion in Genetics and Development 6: 743-748. [PubMed]
Stewart, C. B. and Disotell, T. R. (1998) "Primate evolution - in and out of Africa." Current Biology 8: R582-588. [PubMed]
Svensson, A. C., N. Setterblad, et al. (1995) "Primate DRB genes from the DR3 and DR8 haplotypes contain ERV9 LTR elements at identical positions." Immunogenetics 41: 74. [PubMed]
Sverdlov, E. D. (2000) "Retroviruses and primate evolution." BioEssays 22: 161-171. [PubMed]
Sources: Gilbert, S. F. (1997) Developmental Biology. Fifth edition. Sinauer Associates.
Carroll, R. L. (1988) Vertebrate Paleontology and Evolution. New York, W. H. Freeman and Co.
Futuyma, D. (1998) Evolutionary Biology. Third edition. Sunderland, Mass., Sinauer Associates.
Gould, S. J. (1990) "An earful of jaw." Natural History 3: 12-23.
Kardong, K. V. (2002) Vertebrates: Comparative Anatomy, Function, Evolution. Third ed. New York: McGraw Hill.
Rubin, G. M. et al. (2000) "Comparative Genomics of the Eukaryotes." Science 287: 2204-2218. [PubMed]
Schmid, K. J., and Tautz, D. (1997) "A screen for fast evolving genes from Drosophila." Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA. 94: 9746-9750. http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/...
Sereno, P. C. (1999) "The Evolution of Dinosaurs." Science 284: 2137-2147. [PubMed]
Smit, A. F. A. (1996) "The origin of interspersed repeats in the human genome." Current Opinion in Genetics and Development 6: 743-748. [PubMed]
Thornhill, R. H., and Ussery, D. W. (2000) "A classification of possible routes of Darwinian evolution." Journal of Theoretical Biology 203: 111-116. [PubMed]
Voet, D., and Voet, J. (1995) Biochemistry. New York, John Wiley and Sons.
Williams, G. C. (1992) Natural Selection: Domains, Levels, and Challenges. New York, Oxford University Press.
Scarpulla, R. C., and Nye, S. H. (1986) "Functional expression of rat cytochrome c in Saccharomyces Cerevisiae." Proc Natl Acad Sci 83: 6352-6. [PubMed]
Shimamura, M., et al. (1997) "Molecular evidence from retroposons that whales form a clade within even-toed ungulates." Nature 388: 666. [PubMed]
Smit, A. F. A. (1996) "The origin of interspersed repeats in the human genome." Current Opinion in Genetics and Development 6: 743-748. [PubMed]
Stewart, C. B. and Disotell, T. R. (1998) "Primate evolution - in and out of Africa." Current Biology 8: R582-588. [PubMed]
Svensson, A. C., N. Setterblad, et al. (1995) "Primate DRB genes from the DR3 and DR8 haplotypes contain ERV9 LTR elements at identical positions." Immunogenetics 41: 74. [PubMed]
Sverdlov, E. D. (2000) "Retroviruses and primate evolution." BioEssays 22: 161-171. [PubMed]
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
