Unwarranted conclusions in Evolution Theory

quote:

---

Originally posted by peter borger:
Dear Mr. Pamboli,

​

The rules of the hype have been set in the NDT. Since my interests are very broad, I read a lot and occasionally I encounter weird stuff. Weird stuff articles break the rules, and I decided to blow the whistle as soon as non-randomness with respect to mutations was found or neutral selection has to be introduced. As a matter of fact, they both have to be introduced to explain the observations in the genome. I posted these findings to theoretical evolutionists all over the world but --as reiterated-- no response. This site: denial and ignorance. Peter

---

JM: Now, I suspect you are a post-doc somewhere when you post naive statements such as these. One does not take a scientific finding and post it to discussion boards in an effort to overturn paradigms. One does not 'post' their findings to other researchers in an effort to overturn a paradigm. You've already built the complete conspiracy theory on your mind in an effort to supress the alternative. Maybe your science is just plain bad or poorly thought out. If you are really a Ph.D. in some science (I have no reason yet to doubt this is true), then you should have learned the process that modern science operates under. You have an idea, you can present it at a conference to get some initial feedback. You then publish the idea and sometimes this requires a few rounds of rejection. Get over it! I recently had a paper rejected by Nature, we revised it, sent it back to Nature where it was rejected again. We then sent it to Science where it was rejected (sans review). We still thought we had a good idea so we sent it to Geophysical Research Letters where it was rejected on what we thought were shaky grounds. We sent it out for comment to an expert in the field that was being challenged only to find out that his post-doc had reviewed the paper and incorrectly interpreted our conclusions. We sent the paper back to GRL where it is now in press. You have to do one of two things when people reject your ideas. You can reformulate, pay attention to the critiques and resubmit OR you can claim conspiracy against you and go into a shell. You seem to have chosen the latter approach for now. I dare say that unless you come out of your pity party, your scientific career will quickly close.CheersJoe Meert

quote:

---

(And if Joe Meert reads this. Horse articles in Nature? Is that appropriate? Well, Professor Meert, apparently it is something new)

---

JM: Hmm, my intuition was correct. If you are a Ph.D. you are a relatively new one and that explains your naivete with regard to publishing. Yes, Nature has horse articles, articles about fruit flies and (gasp) even geology. The key is having something substantive, novel and well-argued. Apparently, your work did not meet that standard so it was rejected. I personally have no clue where you might go to publish your article. However, since you are asking a geophysicist for advice on publication, it only supports my contention that you are not quite sure of what you are doing. Most post-docs have already learned how to select the appropriate journals in their field, perhaps you can ask your advisor or supervisor for advice. Exactly, how many articles have you published? You seem very green in the world of academia.CheersJoe Meert

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
[B]AnneI'm not playing any word games - your post I responded to does not even contain the word 'belief' anyway.All I was saying is that you can believe that new genes turned up due to random processes and you can even believe that future evidence of this will be found but at this point it is belief.I believe that God created the genes and they have since drfited and diverged. You believe they all turned up naturally. Belief either way.Natural selection is fact.
Viral drug resistence is fact.
Natural origin for hemoglobin? That's a belief. [/QUOTE]JM: You and Borger should get together. You both claim to have Ph.D.'s and to be practicing 'real science' and then you post gems that are straight out of high school or creationist rags. Show us the science behind your position and stop the 'ord lek'. Better yet, why not get together with Borger and actually publish something? He says he has an idea, but doesn't know where to publish it and you have no ideas, but seem familiar with the literature. You'd make a great team. You guys claim to be scientists, show us.CheersJoe Meert