送交者: 華有缺 于 2007-01-02, 17:09:34:

回答: 这个摘要有意思，不是本专业，试译了下， 多多指教： 由 cornbug 于 2007-01-02, 13:23:46:

• 你有没有搞错？那是《理论生物学杂志》 (无内容) - JZ (0 bytes) 2007-01-02, 18:04:12 (118031)
  • 那只能说《理论生物学杂志》不入流或理论生物学还不入流。 - 華有缺 (883 bytes) 2007-01-02, 19:05:14 (118036)
    • 现在一般搞生物和化学的也没有这个数学能力?那就免谈了 - JZ (26 bytes) 2007-01-02, 19:13:52 (118038)
      • 数学家都没有这个能力，搞生物和化学的有？ - 華有缺 (234 bytes) 2007-01-02, 19:26:37 (118042)
        • we need to do experiments to get examples, 不要拿野鸡软件给大好形势抹黑 (无内容) - Wood (0 bytes) 2007-01-03, 07:16:16 (118111)
        • 跟<<"黄继光堵枪眼"存疑>>着实是有一比 (无内容) - Wood (0 bytes) 2007-01-03, 07:12:42 (118110)
        • Less garbage. - cornbug (462 bytes) 2007-01-02, 19:44:32 (118046)
          • Biology is about "living thing", Chemistry is "dead", - 華有缺 (737 bytes) 2007-01-02, 20:13:50 (118048)
            • What a minute, are we talking the same thing. - cornbug (527 bytes) 2007-01-02, 20:38:29 (118054)
              • thermodynamic or kinetic, not a decent theory. - 華有缺 (166 bytes) 2007-01-02, 20:49:04 (118058)
                • The root about this may be traced back to - cornbug (335 bytes) 2007-01-02, 21:11:01 (118067)
            • Strongly disagree! - lijun (116 bytes) 2007-01-02, 20:30:12 (118051)
              • you are correct, but all dynamic activities in dead things - 華有缺 (406 bytes) 2007-01-02, 20:54:27 (118063)
                • Only "dead things" have chemical reactions? - lijun (140 bytes) 2007-01-02, 21:20:12 (118068)
        • DNA的机构是理论生物吧？用的数学有多难呢？ - JZ (72 bytes) 2007-01-02, 19:35:33 (118044)
          • 哦，这也算理论生物。这主要是一个实验的问题吧。 - 華有缺 (175 bytes) 2007-01-02, 19:52:44 (118047)

加跟贴