The resurrection is a powerful story, but (if you analyze it logically) doesn't it make the crucifixion a bit of a sham?
Krauss states that within any paradigm there appear anachronistic manifestations that logically don't quite fit into the then-existing paradigm, which in fact are, in retrospect, the signals for a future paradigm.
What Krauss argues is that within any paradigm there appear anachronistic manifestations that logically don't quite fit into the then-existing paradigm, which in fact are, in retrospect, the signals for a future paradigm.
The images of the ecstasy of romantic union and the lyrics' paean to individualism do not logically cohere, but rapture and logic do not make happy dancing partners.
(Balanchine fans might be reminded of the finale of "Vienna Waltzes"). The images of the ecstasy of romantic union and the lyrics' paean to individualism do not logically cohere, but rapture and logic do not make happy dancing partners.
Logically, it does not stand up".
Logically, it does not follow from the premise that investors want long-term wealth that investors also want or expect any individual corporations in whose stock they invest to seek the prudent preservation of value.
But even if all elements are logically coherent, that does not mean that the people working in the company also see this coherence.
But this is the same as to say that, according to truthmaker theory, if two truths are (logically) distinct, it does not follow that their truthmakers are likewise (ontologically) distinct.
Therefore, the monophyly of P-symbionts derived from such a phylogenomic dataset is logically inevitable, but does not carry any evolutionary information.
