Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/7


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Vestiges for Peter B.
Joe Meert
Member (Idle past 5679 days)
Posts: 913
From: Gainesville
Joined: 03-02-2002


Message 87 of 125 (18129)
09-24-2002 10:13 AM
Reply to: Message 82 by peter borger
09-24-2002 1:34 AM


quote:
Originally posted by peter borger:
dear Nos,
They don't know WHEN the mutations occured AND they don't know WHERE the genes came from. Before mutations to occur there has to be a gene, isn't it? Or before losses, translocations, rearrangements, and degradations there has to be a lot of genes, isn't it? As a matter of fact nobody knows where they came from, and evo's simply ignore the question. Evo's BELIEVE that is just popped into existance and creo's believe it has been created. I already mentioned that we are not able to trace back the origin because of genetic uncertainty. So, apperently we have two believe systems: one is atheistic (evolutionism) the other one is theistic (creationism). That's what the fuss is about. But, it is just a matter of choise. Get familiar with the matter involved. Read opposite opinions, falsifications, and falsifications of falsifications. Keep what is good and you will find the truth.
best wishes
Peter

So Peter, have you published any of your hypotheses yet? Arguing on these bulletin boards is interesting, but you know that this is not the forum for overturning a paradigm. So let's see you publish some of these ideas.
Cheers
Joe Meert

This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by peter borger, posted 09-24-2002 1:34 AM peter borger has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 93 by peter borger, posted 09-24-2002 8:21 PM Joe Meert has replied

  
Joe Meert
Member (Idle past 5679 days)
Posts: 913
From: Gainesville
Joined: 03-02-2002


Message 99 of 125 (18215)
09-25-2002 6:29 AM
Reply to: Message 93 by peter borger
09-24-2002 8:21 PM


quote:
Originally posted by peter borger:
dear Joe,
I am trying to publish on this topic. I've send a letter to Nature on non-random mutation, and I got it back: rejected. So, not yet any manuscripts accepted. Of course, I could get it in a creationist's journal, but that is not what I want. I like to have it real scientific impact. So, I am still working on it. But, as mentioned before it is hard to fight an established paradigm.
Best wishes,
Peter

JM: Of course, the alternative answer is that your paper was not Nature material. Nature rejects many manuscripts, there are other places one can publish. Don't start with the conspiracy because you got a paper rejected. You'll quit before you start. Did Nature send your article out for review or was it rejected by the board? If you got reviews, you can use the critiques to sharpen your argument. If the board rejected it, why not try a different journal. Don't resort automatically to conspiracy.
Cheers
Joe Meert

This message is a reply to:
 Message 93 by peter borger, posted 09-24-2002 8:21 PM peter borger has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 100 by nos482, posted 09-25-2002 7:55 AM Joe Meert has not replied

  
Joe Meert
Member (Idle past 5679 days)
Posts: 913
From: Gainesville
Joined: 03-02-2002


Message 108 of 125 (18308)
09-25-2002 9:56 PM
Reply to: Message 105 by peter borger
09-25-2002 8:43 PM


[QUOTE]My response:
"If one finds something new, than it is a common thing in science to send it in as high as possible, and work downwards. I seems that you are not in science, since you would start submitting your findings as low as possible and than work upwards (sound like evolutionism) sorry to disappoint you, but that's not the way it works in science. It may be that you start submitting your manuscrips to the "Journal of Irreproducable Results", I don't. Besides, you can't work upwards. So, if you have a sensible contribution to the discussion, go ahead, otherwise be silent. And, thanks for the label (pretty predictive)".
And you say:
"Unlike a Creationist's journal Nature does have standards and they won't publish just any thing sent to them."
I say:
"Correct. So now I work downwards. Anyway, it was just a hypothesis".
best wishes
Peter[/B][/QUOTE]
JM: Once again with your naivete. You start with the most appropriate and work from there. I suspect if you do really have a PHD it is new.
Cheers
Joe Meert

This message is a reply to:
 Message 105 by peter borger, posted 09-25-2002 8:43 PM peter borger has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 109 by peter borger, posted 09-25-2002 10:20 PM Joe Meert has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024