Kachi wrote:
@Nilatai; Didn't you say there were some new findings (or was that someone else)? I'm intimately familiar with determinism, but I was wondering what "new" findings there could be.
Kachi wrote:
Nilatai wrote:
Kavekk wrote:
Nilatai wrote:
Kavekk wrote:
The New Scientist isn't what I'd call a reputable scientific publication.
The former.
Not being familiar with it myself, I know there was at least an article on the book What Darwin Got Wrong, which as near as I can tell is a complete piece of crap. It seems like the kind of publication that is made primarily to be interesting (or let's say "thought-provoking") rather than strictly reliable as a source of information.