The Koonin paper is found free online. There is nothing stopping you from quoting it and including a link to the full paper, just like this:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2784144/
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
the only thing i can suggest is for you to go crying on the mods shoulders.
maybe they will forbid me from posting anything about barbara too, just like they did with koonin and "the origin at 150".
like the person that PM'ed me said "i'm deeply troubled in the direction this forum is taking".
it won't help you though, there are many scientists that take a dim view of the modern synthesis.
the only thing i can suggest is for you to go crying on the mods shoulders.
maybe they will forbid me from posting anything about barbara too, just like they did with koonin and "the origin at 150".
like the person that PM'ed me said "i'm deeply troubled in the direction this forum is taking".
it won't help you though, there are many scientists that take a dim view of the modern synthesis.
sorry, i'm in no position to call barbaras biographer a liar.A simple "I was wrong about Barbara McClintock's publishing history" would be fine too.
sorry, i'm in no position to call barbaras biographer a liar.
i will leave such things to you and loudmouth.
the funny thing is, this sort of thing doesn't surprise me in the least when dealing with the issues of evolution.
what i posted about barbaras publishing history comes from:What biography did you read?
sorry, i'm in no position to call barbaras biographer a liar.
i will leave such things to you and loudmouth.
the funny thing is, this sort of thing doesn't surprise me in the least when dealing with the issues of evolution.
what i posted about barbaras publishing history comes from:
A Feeling for the Organism: The Life and Work of Barbara McClintock.
W.H. Freeman San Francisco, CA, USA.
authored by: Keller E.F. (1983).
the following comes from Exp Physiol 98.8 (2013) pp 1235–1243 and gives kellers book as the source:If you have the time, could you post a quote from the biography where it says that McClintock did not publish papers after 1953?
You're the only one holding it up, apparently even after it's shown to be wrong. So yeah, it's on you, as much as you don't like that idea.
the following comes from Exp Physiol 98.8 (2013) pp 1235–1243 and gives kellers book as the source:
She won her prize for physiology or medicine in 1983 over 40 years after she had made the ground-breaking
discovery of chromosome transposition (now called mobile genetic elements).
She worked on maize, and early reactions to her work were so sceptical that she stopped publishing her research in 1953.
How do you explain the papers published after 1953?
Easy, when they are in denial.
my guess is that these publications are reprints of previous work.How do you explain the papers published after 1953?
I also think people (by and large) don't understand the difference between primary and secondary sources, or any of the related ways of categorizing input. I've argued with people about what some historical person thought about a topic using primary sources, and they contradict my arguments with pamphlets they've read. The idea that the primary source (in this case, the research paper) is the thing, itself, doesn't present itself as intrinsically meaningful beyond what some third party has written about it.
If Adam says Hamlet dies at the end, and Bob says he heard Clark say Hamlet didn't, Bob isn't receptive to Adam's citation of the play, itself, because Bob doesn't understand that the play is more important than what Clark says about it. The denial is Bob's fear that acquiescing means calling Clark a liar. But even before that, Bob doesn't recognize that Clark's comments about the play don't trump the play, itself.
This is the key. Papers on this topic published after 1953 mean that anybody who says publishing stopped in that year is wrong (or they have been misunderstood). How can the presentation of such publications not change someone's mind?
my guess is that these publications are reprints of previous work.
i fail to believe that keller would make this stuff up.
keller had to have gotten this information from barbara.
10 to 1 says you will renege on the above explanation when it comes to what ayala said in science.If Adam says Hamlet dies at the end, and Bob says he heard Clark say Hamlet didn't, Bob isn't receptive to Adam's citation of the play, itself, because Bob doesn't understand that the play is more important than what Clark says about it. The denial is Bob's fear that acquiescing means calling Clark a liar. But even before that, Bob doesn't recognize that Clark's comments about the play don't trump the play, itself.
10 to 1 says you will renege on the above explanation when it comes to what ayala said in science.
science never does print any sort of errata or retractions in this matter.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?