Why I think Neo-darwinism is dead

[robertkernodle]

.
Well kotoreru,... I realize such a brief statement might seem a bit out of the blue in a specific forum such as this, but think about it:

Is there a fundamental point of view that might override the genetic point of view at some point down the historical road? Is there a system of thought that might INCLUDE the genetic point of view as a specific rough estimate of the way things really are?

Am I still blowing your mind? Sorry.

What I'm getting at is possibly a method of very complex, nonlinear modeling that might involve fluid dynmic equations calculated on really futuristic (quantum?) computers.

I'm very underinformed in the area of genetics, but I'm just throwing a thought out there that might cull some very specific expert opinion, proving either that I don't know what the h*** I'm talking about (as you hint) OR that I might be planting a seed for some constructive discussion.

Robert Kernodle

[kotoreru]

Robert, I did not hint that you did not know what you were talking about. Sorry if you thought that.

I merely thought that you either said something very strange, or that you were talking about something that your most recent post has confirmed to my mind that you were not.

What you say is interesting. And no, you are not blowing my mind.

[robertkernodle]

.
Hey kotoreru,

I tend to play with slight shades of meaning or implication (real or imagined) to add color sometimes, so don't feel too sensitive about qualifying your terms. Consisitency will reveal the truth of any particular poster, so fly free "grasshoppa".

I need to do a little basic genetic homework, I guess, in order to better integrate my ideas along these lines.

Maybe I will and pick up where I left off later.

Robert