Topic Proposal Issues

I'm not sure if this is the appropriate thread but it seems relevant.I'm not quite sure what the rationale was behind promoting commike37's 'Mendel wasn't entirely right' thread over my prior proposed new topic suggestion of 'More non-mendelian genetics'.Since they both started off as very brief actual postings with links and excerpts/abstracts, or in commike37's case the entire article, why did his get the chance for elaboration and therefore becoming what Adminnemooseus terms 'better developed'? Couldn't you at least have merged the topics and put the content of my post into the thread? Is the primary literature so unimportant that it can be completely ignored?TTFN,WKThis message has been edited by Wounded King, 03-24-2005 04:22 AM

So it is pretty much arbitrary? Whatever happens to catch some admins eye first gets priority?TTFN,WK

Sorry if I'm being petty, just my bugbear about the primary literature rearing its ugly head.I do realise that there are a lot of new topics porposed (and indeed proposed) and only a few admins.But hey three on one subject, hopefully there will be enough interest to generate some real discussion.TTFN,WKThis message has been edited by Wounded King, 03-24-2005 07:02 AM

I'm not trying to be a pest but is there some reason why 6 topics proposed after my 'Sex really is good for your evolution, if you're a yeast' proposal have been promoted through to forums and I haven't even got any feedback on mine?I do appreciate the problem of new posts coming in and pushing things down the board, but if five different Admins can find time to read and comment on April Fool's 'you people are brilliant' thread, why can't a single one find time to look at mine?TTFN,WK

I only ever found one ID proponent who put forward a similar definition, although there may well be others. I don't think this neccessarily implies that it is one of the 'main things' in ID theory.And I know this is not germaine to the purpose of this thread but I just have to say that Syamsu's understanding of Random number generation in computing may need some brushing up. There is even less basis for assuming any sort of true randomness operating in computing than in the universe in general.TTFN,WKP.S. I'm sorry , I know this is totally inappropriate for this thread.

Exactly the same warped conflation of abiogenesis in terms of modern biology and spontaneous generation in terms of Pasteur's 'law of biogenesis' was made previously in the Evolution has been Disproven thread. I know this is a relatively old thread but the idea was given a pretty thorough thrashing from various members.TTFN,WK

I'm just wondering because the topic he proposes sounds very much like a rehash of Genetics and Human Brain Evolution. Also he does say he is called Mark and is a habituee of Christian Forums.Not saying it isn't a topic worth revisiting it just seems strange he is coming on as if he is completely fresh to the debate on this site, if it is Mark Kennedy again that is.TTFN,WK

If txhvs, whoever he is, was interested I'd be keen to have a 'great debate' on the topic. The previous human brain evolution thread tended towards the dogpile, and Eggasai took umbrage when SFS hit the thread. It would be nice to have a chance to go over the literature of the genetic differences between humans and chimps in a bit more detail than a normal thread allows.TTFN,WK

Should we take the fact that Mike the Wiz is reduced to making arguments based on YouTube comments, [thread=-13647], to be a sign of the death of EvCForum as a site for meaningful debate?TTFN,WKEdited by Wounded King, : No reason given.

I see there is a new topic proposal on deleterious mutation and genetic load, it might be as well to direct the proposer to continue the similar existing topic Genetic load: can someone explain?.TTFN,WK

New member Hopecrawford's proposed topics, three of them and representing his first three posts, all seem both hugely underdeveloped and mostly redundant.Maybe someone can suggest to him he take part in some of the ongoing discussions before starting his own.I wonder if it would be worth having a minimal post number requirement before being allowed to propose new topics/open new threads. It wouldn't need to be dozens or hundreds, maybe only 10 or so might be enough to give people some grounding, might this not also help to alleviate some spam?If someone did make a first post to a topic that was genuinely worthy of discussion but off topic for the thread in question there is no reason someone else couldn't use it as the basis for a PNT.TTFN,WK

I'd second this, and also point out that Den now has three topics which are basically making the same lame argument.TTFN,WK

Can delta-9s topic, How does epigenetics influence evolution?, be promoted or alternatively he could be directed to one of the other threads already open discussing epigenetic inheritance such as Mutation and its role in evolution: A beginners guide or Non-mendelian genetics/ non-darwinian evolution.TTFN,WK

Hi Adminny folk,I'd like to suggest that Omnivorous' topic, Journal Watch: How Could They Print/Not Print That?, about standards and published scientific papers be reconsidered.We had a short discussion of some similar issues in the Evolving the Musculoskeletal System thread and I think it would be good to have some venue to discuss these things. Plus it's fun to bitch about other peoples' papers. TTFN,WKEdited by Admin, : Fix thread ID.

Wow, Asyncritus has a whole Blog of similarly wacky arguments against evolution, Asyncritus' How Does Instinct Evolve .And he also has a book, only apparently available as a PDF as yet.ITTFN,WK