There we go again with that stupid crap that "evolution is the unifying principle of all biology"
Nothing raises my hackles like stupid statements that evolution is "the unifying principle of all biology," is "central to all biology," etc.. Simply, such statements are totally and unequivocably false, and anyone who seriously makes such a statement is completely lacking in credibility.
Panda's Thumb says,
In contrast, it is a true statement that Fourier's Law is central to the analysis of heat conduction in solids.
Panda's Thumb says,
Lucky for us, there is also a growing body of literature on the most effective ways to teach what has been dubbed “tree-thinking”. I have summarized this literature in a review due to be published in the journal Evolution: Education and Outreach (doi:10.1007/s12052-010-0254-9). The full text of the article is available at that link, and I have reproduced the abstract below.Evolution is the unifying principle of all biology, and understanding how evolutionary relationships are represented is critical for a complete understanding of evolution . . . . .
In contrast, it is a true statement that Fourier's Law is central to the analysis of heat conduction in solids.
posted by Larry Fafarman | 8/02/2010 05:46:00 AM
10 Comments:
> In contrast, it is a true statement that Fourier's Law is central to the analysis of heat conduction in solids. <
Bad comparison. Fourier's Law is not a unifying principle. Evolution is.
>>>>>>> Bad comparison. Fourier's Law is not a unifying principle. Evolution is. <<<<<<<
I disagree -- Fourier's Law is the one principle that all heat conduction in solids must follow. No problem of heat conduction in solids can be solved without reference to Fourier's Law. Even computerized solutions of problems of heat conduction in solids are based on Fourier's Law.
If you don't like the term "unifying," evolution has also been called "central" to biology and "fundamental" to biology.
"Wrong, bozo." The Standard Model is "the unifying principle of all physics," is "central to all physics," etc. This includes heat conduction in solids. Oh, btw, my energy conversions class, which included heat conduction in solids, never mentioned "Fourier's Law." If "Fourier's Law" is "central to the analysis of heat conduction in solids," how can this be?
>>>>>> If "Fourier's Law" is "central to the analysis of heat conduction in solids," how can this be? <<<<<<
Doofus, I am an engineer who specialized in heat transfer analysis, so I should know.
>>>>>>Doofus, I am an engineer who specialized in heat transfer analysis, so I should know.<<<<<<
So why do you disagree with all of those scientists that specialize in biology who claim that evolution is the core concept of biology? After all, they should know.
>>>>>>Doofus, I am an engineer who specialized in heat transfer analysis, so I should know.<<<<<<
I'm a random person on the internet. Clearly, my claims should carry much more weight than those of experts.
Bozo, if "Fourier's Law" is central to the analysis of heat conduction in solids," why did my professor teach me that the Law of Heat Conduction is the law that governs heat conduction in solids.
>>>>>>You lousy dunghill, your stupid comments are not even consistent.<<<<<<
Of course they aren't consistent. They are highlighting the fact that your arguments aren't consistent, bozo.
<>
Credentials please. For all we know you were the kind of engineer that drove trains.
>>>>>>> For all we know you were the kind of engineer that drove trains. <<<<<<<
Locomotive engineers are not called "mechanical" engineers, bozo.
Garbage collectors are not called "mechanical" engineers, either. They are called "sanitary" engineers.
Post a Comment
<< Home