Sentences with phrase «by biologists of»
This is the conclusion reached by biologists of the Alfred Wegener Institute, Helmholtz Centre for Polar and Marine Research (AWI), following an expedition to this specific region of the Arctic Ocean, which used to be dominated by the Polar cod.
https://www.oceanacidification.de/ Not exact matches
According to a study of 367 college students conducted by biologist Christoph Randler, early risers perform better on the job, attain greater career success, and reap higher wages than people who start their day later.
The spread of ideas assuming a viral pattern is a theory propagated by the likes of evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins and the 2010 movie Inception.
ScanEagle can stay aloft for a full 24 hours relatively inexpensively, providing the kind of real - time imaging and mapping data coveted by climatologists, marine biologists, petroleum engineers and ship navigators that in the past have been largely left in the dark by a dearth of satellite coverage in the Arctic.
In fact, when people talk informally, 65 percent of the time they are telling stories, according to research by evolutionary biologist Robin Dunbar.
The new report «Lights Out for the Reef», written by University of Queensland coral reef biologist Selina Ward, noted that reefs were vulnerable to several different effects of climate change; including rising sea temperatures and increased carbon dioxide in the ocean, which causes acidification.
The biologist argued that the additive in question — which is created by using a centrifuge to spin off muscle meat from layers of fat and then treating it with ammonia — was not real ground beef.
Effects like these contribute to the philosophy of biophilia, popularized by biologist Edward O. Wilson in his 1984 book of the same title.
It is apparently a myth that lemmings commit mass suicide by jumping of cliffs, according to wildlife biologists who have studied the rodents.
And by evolutionary biologists do you mean biologist and Orthodox Christian Theodosius Dobzhansky who wrote «Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution»?
• For biologists, 1995 was a banner year, marked by the first discovery in decades of a whole new kind of animal life.
Just like evolutionary biologists are «forced» to say life gradually evolved over billions of years by their worldview that denies talking snakes.
What is more, he argues that the existence of irreducible complexity is implicitly accepted by the entire worldwide community of molecular biologists.
Indeed, because eggs are large cells that are relatively easy to manipulate, they are one of the favored cell types used by biologists to express foreign genes and to test gene function.
I was reminded of the similarities the other day when I happened upon biologist Jerry A. Coyne's observation that «evolution is like an architect who can not design a building from scratch, but must build every new structure by adapting a preexisting building, keeping the structure habitable all the while.»
In the United States, the following Universities have extensive evolutionary biology departments staffed by thousands of the most gifted biologists in the World; Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Colombia, Duke, the Massachusetts Insti.tute of Technology, Brown, Stanford, Berkley, and the University of Chicago.
According to a 1994 essay in the New York Review of Books by John Maynard Smith, the dean of British neo-Darwinists, «the evolutionary biologists with whom I have discussed his [Gould's] work tend to see him as a man whose ideas are so confused as to be hardly worth bothering with, but as one who should not be publicly criticized because he is at least on our side against the creationists.
As an algae biologist I was initially struck by the cover graphic: a stained glass window made of diatoms, the tiny planktonic creatures whose exquisite outer shells are visible only through the electron microscope.
There have been many such changes, 8 so significant, in fact, that one wonders if Darwin must not be regarded, even by the biologists themselves, more as a precursor of developments leading to present - day evolutionary thinking rather than as a continuing historical source of our scientific understanding of man.
Richard Dawkins, in his celebrated book, The Selfish Gene, exemplifies the same position.3 And a similar reduction of biology to a molecular science may be found in the writings of E.O. Wilson, Ernst Mayr, Jacques Monod and numerous other highly respected scientific writers.4 In Chance and Necessity, for example, Monod gives one of the most forceful renditions of the view that biochemical analysis is «obviously» the sole avenue to understanding the secret of life.5 Decades ago Jacques Loeb had already set forth the program of inquiry still emulated today by many biologists:
«The one process ongoing in the 1980s that will take millions of years to correct,» Harvard biologist E. O. Wilson has warned, «is the loss of genetic and species diversity by the destruction of natural habitats.
The new datum in our time is the development by molecular biologists of procedures which make it possible to control this recombining process (so that it is not simply «random»), and to increase almost immeasurably the speed by which it takes place.
Both authors — Birch as a biologist and Cobb as a theologian — are influenced by the philosophy of Whitehead.
Many statistical techniques, including analysis of variance and linear regression, were developed by evolutionary biologists, especially Ronald Fisher and Karl Pearson.
Biologists have, since pre-evolutionary days, been fascinated by instances of structural parallelisms in not closely related animals and plants that exploit similar environments in similar ways.
John Medina, the author of Brain Rules and a Christian biologist, is often approached by men looking for the silver bullet of fathering.
Biologists have paid much less attention to the equally significant but opposite phenomena — absence of evolutionary parallelisms where they could, by analogy, be expected.
Nature and God by L. Charles Birch, a biologist, is an attractive work for the sophisticated layman.133 Richard H. Overman's Evolution and the Christian Doctrine of Creation is more extensive.
«Since its completion, the book has been endorsed by prominent scientists including Philip Skell, a member of the National Academy of Sciences; Scott Turner, an evolutionary biologist at the State University of New York; and Professor Norman Nevin, one of Britain's leading geneticists.»
Recognizing the need for liberation from inward and outward sources of oppression, it also proposes a liberating vision free from the suffocating constraints of the mechanistic, deterministic, substantialist view of reality, it is all the more remarkable in having been written by two professional theologians, although one of them, to be sure, is a professional biologist.
Many biologists, and not the least eminent among them (all being convinced that Man, like everything else, emerged by evolutionary means, i.e. was born in Nature) undoubtedly still believe that the human species, having attained the level of Homo sapiens, has reached an upper organic limit beyond which it can not develop, so that anthropogenesis is only of retrospective interest.
Neo-Darwinism at present holds the ascendancy in the eyes of biologists, partly owing to a clearer and more statistically substantiated definition of «the fittest», but principally because of the immense part, now recognized by modern genetics, played by the «action of large numbers» in the formation of species.
Such instances, for which no convincing scientific explanations have been given, are cited by some Christian biologists as evidence of God's intervention in the process.
Some biologists try to preserve a modified form of scriptural inerrancy by quoting the verse «a day is as a thousand years,» and then showing that after all Genesis agrees fairly well with evolution.
And we must not forget that a quantum - mechanical calculation even on one particular bacterial cell would be incorrect for every other cell, even of the same species — a point clearly made by Elsasser in his conclusions about the heterogeneity of the material with which the biologist has to deal.
Complexities of physical structure seldom if ever, by themselves, provide any feature which seriously suggests to biologists that such structures are in any sense alive.
As a biologist I have long been immensely impressed by and beholden to Whitehead's philosophy of organism (Process and Reality), in that it seems to me that he is the first great philosopher who really took trouble to comprehend the biological developments of his time.
But we can easily be trapped by this useful analogy into losing sight of two basic aspects of living beings which are clearly evident to the physicist but, curiously enough, overlooked by the biologist.
It emphasises that science and technology must be «at the service of the human person» (DV 2) and the language is quite strong: «Science without conscience can only lead to man's ruin» (DV 2); and «No biologist or doctor can reasonably claim, by virtue of his scientific competence, to be able to decide on people's rights and destiny» (DV 3).
If the work of biologists could not yet be interpreted fully in the terms afforded by physics, this represented a gap that further research would fill.
The process of synthesis by which azoic elements have reached their present multiplicity and complexity is an evolution, the same process entirely as the biologist traces in the order of living things, and the synthetic chemical compound embodies in itself a complex relativity capable of being expressed in most exact laws, which reflect the evolutionary emergence of its substance as much as do the organs of an animal explained in terms of evolutionary development.
I vividly recall the great importance he attached to a genuine recognition of chance and accident by his response to one of the clearest statements on the subject ever made by a biologist.
The complaints are tempered by her biologist's curiosity, and the mix of memoir and scientific observation works.
Evolution was not of major interest to most of these biologists, but insofar as they had a theory of it, it was a theory in terms of mutations of individual genes, carried by individual organisms and submitted to natural selection.
3At present, for example, the well - entrenched neo-Darwinian hypothesis of «gradualism» (biological evolution occurs slowly, and more or less continuously as the constant interplay of random variations and natural selection over vast periods of time) is confronted with a somewhat more radical and neo-Lamarckian theory of «punctuated equilibrium» favored by Harvard biologists Stephen Jay Gould and Peter Williamson, collaborated by fossil discoveries of paleontologist and cultural anthropologist Richard Leakey in Africa.
John Cobb devoted much attention to this topic, and Charles Birch, as an eminent biologist and process thinker, has contributed much by his writings and lectures to the wider acceptance of a process style of thought in the circles of the World Council of Churches.
But, as Bohm points out, such a position can not stand up to critical analysis, for the molecules studied by biologists in living organisms are constituted of electrons, protons and other such particles, from which it must follow that they too are capable of behaving in ways that can not be described in terms of mechanical concepts.
George's theory of human evolution has been restated or touched upon by a number of evolutionary biologists and anthropologists.
(ENTIRE BOOK) A collection of essays by prominent physicists, biologists, geneticists, zoologists, philosophers and other thinkers about the relationship between science and philosophy, particularly the teleological versus the mechanistic explanation of the universe.
There are important differences between the altruism observed by zoologists, and caritas as described by St Thomas (Chapter 8), and a biologist who ascribes the «emotion of forgiveness» to hyenas is betraying a conceptual hinterland quite unlike that of the Thomist (Chapter 4).