User talk:Aquistive bud

Welcome
Hello Aquistive bud, and welcome to Wikiversity! If you need help, feel free to visit my talk page, or contact us and ask questions. After you leave a comment on a talk page, remember to sign and date; for it helps everyone follow the threads of the discussion. The signature icon in the edit window makes it simple. To get started, you may
 * Take a guided tour and learn to edit;
 * Explore our learning projects;
 * Browse our portals, schools, and research activities;
 * Read and help develop our community policies；or
 * Chat with other Wikiversitans on #wikiversity-en.

And don't forget to explore Wikiversity with the links to your left. Be bold, and see you around Wikiversity! --JWSchmidt 19:00, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

content removing
Hello, unfortunately this edit here has no edit summary. Do you want the page to be deleted ? or are you still working on it ? It is hard for others without a comment to understand the reason fo the edit. Erkan Yilmaz ( Wikiversity:Chat, wiki blog ) 17:57, 21 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Oh,thanks for asking it.Yes,i want to delete it,rather i deleted it.Just delete the page. sorry for the inconvenience the others encountered concerning it.--Aquistive bud 14:51, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Done, next time you can also use a template, see Category:Deletion templates, Erkan Yilmaz ( Wikiversity:Chat, wiki blog ) 14:58, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

discussions
sure! Just ask anything...

Biology eh? I've wondered from some time on if they teach Dawkins in the biology school. I guess you cannot answer my doubt as you're in the medical one :D but I don't lose anything just by asking --Jorge 09:46, 26 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks,Well,You talked about Dawkins, the popular evoloutionist and the who has made some ambiguous questions related to Biology ,clear.Are you talking about the school of Biology on wikiversity or just generally?
 * Usually when there is Dawkins under consideration,then Darwinisim and eventually debatable issue creationism which onwards produces clashes with religion.What I think,science and religion should be kept separately.Religion should not be applied on science or before science or otherwise if the religion is true the science will eventually accompany religion .Why?Because science is the marvel that leads our mind to unveil the hidden.Science based on observations,hypothesis,experimentations,inferences,etc,etc- it's being an amalgamation of both theoretical and practical approaches and uptill now what science has done...it has unveiled the truth.And truth is the real religion ,i believe.It can tell you that which religion is the real one.True religion always proves itself.If I describe science with religion as many such school of thoughts exist then i would say that it's a way to find the religion...science will help to know yourself,and when man knows himself in the real sense,he will stick with the true religion ,religion of truth.
 * We are busy in exploring what,i think answer of every "why"and in search of it,we have reached to the existence of tachyon-like particles ,Quasi prticles and our quest for grand unified electro-nuclear force is uncontrollable and without thinking of any sets of beliefs,i.e religion,my observations pinpoint that there exists the most powerful power ,which has no resemblance with the creature we are aware of uptill now.We have found that every thing is being governed by some power,say it gravitationl force or any other force but it can be thought that which ultimate power or force is managing these mystical forces ?I think road of science leads to the religion.
 * Dawkins!..um.. Have you gone through his books like,"Climbing Mount Improbable "and River Out of Eden: A Darwinian View of Life .Both books dealing with evolution particularly and somehow Genetics point of view .I think he wanted to convince the people that changes or evolution,it's in-evitable.
 * I am also an acceptor of Darwinian theory.As he set his one of the points as,'the survival of the fittest'this in words of Richard Dawkins was as,'the survival of survivors at the level of pure, digital code'.And I think ,we observe the practical application of this sort of survival daily. Scientists have solid reasons for the denial of lamarckism.--203.135.7.56 Aquistive bud 14:21, 1 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry for the delay, but I'm hyper busy with university :\ . I agree with you that science leads to religion, at least for some definition of religion. Scientists work with the deep convintion that absolutely everything has a cause: To all explanations of the universe we've had so far, we've always asked "why?". Alas, that series of questioning cannot have an end. We will always continue asking 'why' after 'why'. So one is naturally inclined to think there's indeed an ultimate cause of everything in the form of a decission of a powerful being (or powerful beings). Something like "this shall be this way".
 * Yes, of course Lamarckism and Creationism are bullshit from a scientific point of view. Darwinism in Biology is like Thermodynamics in Physics: As their basis are solely mathematical, there's no way they can be false.
 * I've only been able to read The Egoist Gene from Dawkins, and even not completely, but his writings are *so* insightful that I admire him as a scientist (I've not been interested in his views on religion so far). The idea that what is surviving is not "the species" (and clearly not the individual hehe), but just a tiny part of our genome: the genes that command the replication; that everything else (including every other gene, the organism in which they're physically codified, or what we call a species) is eventually disposable... Man, that's insight. And his idea of "extended phenotype" also excites me.
 * Are those things thought at Biology schools in general? --Jorge 10:30, 20 February 2008 (UTC)