John A. (Salty) Davison - The Case For Instant Evolution

I didn't know this. Is this what you mean by cell theory (found this at What is biotechnology?, which is a set of slides by Kabi R. Neupane at the University of Hawaii):

• All living things consist of cells
• Cells are structural units of life
• Cells are functional units of life
• Cells come from preexisting cells

And Darwin rejected this?--Percy

And we still don't. Not knowing where cells came from doesn't seem the same thing as "Darwin never even accepted the cell theory." I thought you were saying that he rejected cells according to the definition I provided:

• All living things consist of cells
• Cells are structural units of life
• Cells are functional units of life
• Cells come from preexisting cells

So I'm still not clear. Are you saying that Darwin rejected this?--Percy

Something like that. --PercyPS - Seriously, this seems to be going fine.

Would it be correct to say that he accepted all the points of this cell theory definition except the last?

• All living things consist of cells
• Cells are structural units of life
• Cells are functional units of life
• Cells come from preexisting cells

And that he would have modified the last point to be, "Cells come from preexisting cells, and possibly from other at present unknown sources"?--Percy

The feedback you've received about the Manifesto is that it appears to jump to conclusions across significant spans of missing evidence. Unless it presents your data out of sync with your arguments, finishing the Manifesto won't change this. Perhaps if you filled in the missing pieces we could better accompany you.--Percy

This has been commented on already, but this attitude seems so alien that I just had to add my own.Uncovering new evidence and forumulating a theory around it is often just the beginning of the process. Following the first paper are presentations, discussions, emails, arguments, all trying to persuade others to the new idea. The originator of a new idea must be prepared to explain it over and over and over agin. There are few ideas so compelling that they're accepted at first sight.What's more, a scientist who has put in the necessary time and effort to develop the idea has great confidence that it will stand up to scruitiny, and he's excited about the possibility that his idea will influence the field, so he is not only willing but eager, often over-eager, to talk about and explain his idea at every opportunity to anyone qualified who will listen.But no one really understands your semi-meiotic hypothesis, not in a way that makes sense. Why aren't you eager to explain it, perhaps in different words or by trying different explication approaches or with new metaphors? Perhaps the problem is that you just haven't found the best way of presenting your ideas yet.--Percy