Bull Trout

"rw" wrote in message
. ..


Since you're such an expert in biology, Wolfgang, maybe you could
elaborate
on your novel theory that viruses don't even have their own DNA.

I'm not actually an expert in biology. For one thing, the rubric covers
such a vast array of complex and demanding disciplines that any claim to
expertise in "biology" without disclaimer or qualification is hubris, at
least. Even in my own area of specialty, the vestibular system, my
expertise is limited to technical procedural
matters....immunohistochemistry, microdissection (including LCM), PCR, in
situ hybridization, a bit of SAGE and microarray, microtomy and microscopy
(LM, TEM, and confocal)....stuff like that. I'm a technician. Few people,
even (or especially) among those I work with, would consider me an expert in
biology....or even its much more tractable sub-discipline, virology. Aside
from consulting with a resident about histological problems on his research
project concerning papilloma viruses (just yesterday, oddly enough), I've
never actually worked with or given much attention to viruses. I'm afraid I
can't tell anyone a great deal about them. I bow to your greater experience
and education.

What I CAN tell you is how flattering it is that you pore so carefully over
every word I write and attach such importance to catching me in an
unjustified generalization. You must be very proud.

Meanwhile, although your critique of and counter-argument to my exposition
on Mayr and his treatment of the "species" problem is devastating in its
simplicity and power, it seems to me somewhat lacking in both breadth and
depth. There were a couple of points that I think you didn't quite treat as
fully as you might have, especially considering the ease with which you
could presumably refute them. Care to expand a bit?

Wolfgang
who disavows responsibility for any errors, factual or structural, in any
and all of the above, as he didn't read a single word of it.....so help him,
god.