He and
other biologists pointed out to me how certain flora and fauna showed a remarkable ability to revive if just a small flow is allowed (like the Colorado River Delta clam).
Not exact matches
As I
point out in Darwin on Trial, molecular
biologists even now use the language of intelligent communication (information, libraries, translation) because there is no
other way to depict what they are seeing.
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.
However, the first workers in this field, such as Haldane and Fisher from the theoretical
point of view, and
biologists such as Timofeef - Ressovsky, Dubinin and
others, in practical field investigations, were still thinking mainly in terms of individual genes.
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.
But to which any long - time reader of Science News would have responded «yes, yes, yes, yes and yes» (as would any knowledgeable scientist, as
biologist Jerry Coyne, among
others, has
pointed out).
... The emergence of ecology has placed the economic
biologist in a peculiar dilemma: with one hand he
points out the accumulated findings of his search for utility, or lack of utility, in this or that species; with the
other he lifts the veil from a biota so complex, so conditioned by interwoven cooperating and competitions, that no man can say where utility begins or ends.
In
other words, the consensus issue is one that was raised by those claiming there was none — you will find that
biologists involved in evolution - creationism disputes also frequently
point out that scientists have reached consensus on evolution (although perhaps not in those words), and in both cases this protestation is raised only because it is a (true!)
The relevance of your
point is that sometimes activist climate scientists try to to hijack the scientific, rhetorical, and policy successes of
biologists and
other scientists.