Bob Casanova
2017-09-05 17:37:56 UTC
On Mon, 4 Sep 2017 11:43:11 -0700, the following appeared in
talk.origins, posted by John Harshman
<***@pacbell.net>:
Test post; nothing I've posted in this thread, and *only* in
this thread, has gotten through in talk.origins, so it's
time to try another group, one that's unmoderated.
Pubmed is a good first pass. It lists other articles in Pubmed that cite
each work. No citations for either of your papers.
Give it time John. My work is noticed even though you are unwilling
to accept it. These paper give the correct explanation of how rmns
works. It took a while before people who believed the earth was flat
to come around to the truth. What are you going to do now that you
know that your philosophical bent is based on a falsehood?
Yeah, I don't think you're going to collect many citations, but who
knows? Maybe you have a couple of friends somewhere.
I've already got friends who are interested in how drug resistance
occurs. With the advent of targeted cancer therapies, these
principles will be important as well. I just wonder how many times
people will be hurt by cancer treatments that initially look
promising but then fail because of a few resistant variant cells.
So maybe you'll eventually get a citation. Still, none so far, which was
what you asked about.
flat earth mentality. Just as a wouldn't expect flat earthers to
present the evidence that the earth isn't flat, I wouldn't expect
evolutionists to present the evidence that the theory of evolution
isn't true.
And I just pointed out that there are actual flat-earthers, but they're
more like you -- biblical literalists -- than me. The "flat earth
mentality" is a Christian thing.
We all know what the evolutionist thing is. So if in your mind your
philosophical bent is settled science, what is that selection
pressure that turns reptiles into birds? Don't forget to tell us the
genes targeted and the mutations required.
I don't know and it doesn't matter at all to my work, which relies only
on the presence of homologous characters, however they got there.
So you ignore all the non-homologous characters.
pressure required, the genes targeted and the mutations required.
Your philosophical bent is settled science so you should know this.
No, that has nothing to do with my sort of science. We do know that
feathers evolved gradually, because there are theropods with several
intermediate states.
and you are not an expert in natural selection.
Neither are you. You know a little about probability, but it's almost
entirely the ability to recite "the multiplication rule of
probabilities", and you know nothing about natural selection, since
you're unable to notice that you don't take it into account in your
math. I know more than that, at least.
There seems to be a publisher which disagrees with you.
How do you know that? You passed some probably perfunctory peer review
from reviewers who don't know much about evolutionary biology. Did any
of the reviewer comments compliment you on how well you had dealt with
natural selection in your math?
John, I don't mind when you act like a dummy, but I do mind when you
become an obnoxious jerk. People have put their reputations on the
line to publish my work and they gave me the ultimate compliment,
they published it.
You have an exaggerated idea of what reviewers and publishers do. As for
"reputation", your journal only has an impact factor of 1.8 something.
biologists?
talk.origins, posted by John Harshman
<***@pacbell.net>:
Test post; nothing I've posted in this thread, and *only* in
this thread, has gotten through in talk.origins, so it's
time to try another group, one that's unmoderated.
5. When it comes to peer reviewed work, you've cited yourself twice. And no one else has cited you.
How do you know?each work. No citations for either of your papers.
to accept it. These paper give the correct explanation of how rmns
works. It took a while before people who believed the earth was flat
to come around to the truth. What are you going to do now that you
know that your philosophical bent is based on a falsehood?
knows? Maybe you have a couple of friends somewhere.
occurs. With the advent of targeted cancer therapies, these
principles will be important as well. I just wonder how many times
people will be hurt by cancer treatments that initially look
promising but then fail because of a few resistant variant cells.
what you asked about.
This flat earth idea hasn't been accepted by educated people for
somewhere around 2500 years, with one major exception: it was promoted
by a number of Christian theologians because that's what the bible says.
It still is by a few extreme fundamentalists.
You missed the analogy, evolutionism is our modern version of thesomewhere around 2500 years, with one major exception: it was promoted
by a number of Christian theologians because that's what the bible says.
It still is by a few extreme fundamentalists.
flat earth mentality. Just as a wouldn't expect flat earthers to
present the evidence that the earth isn't flat, I wouldn't expect
evolutionists to present the evidence that the theory of evolution
isn't true.
more like you -- biblical literalists -- than me. The "flat earth
mentality" is a Christian thing.
philosophical bent is settled science, what is that selection
pressure that turns reptiles into birds? Don't forget to tell us the
genes targeted and the mutations required.
on the presence of homologous characters, however they got there.
I wish you'd stop saying "reptiles", by the way. It's an out-dated term.
The ancestors of birds are theropod dinosaurs. If you'd look at a fossil
or two you would see some of the various feathered theropods.
How did the therapods get their feathers? Tell us the selectionThe ancestors of birds are theropod dinosaurs. If you'd look at a fossil
or two you would see some of the various feathered theropods.
pressure required, the genes targeted and the mutations required.
Your philosophical bent is settled science so you should know this.
feathers evolved gradually, because there are theropods with several
intermediate states.
And as I have mentioned before, what I do has nothing to do with natural
selection.
That doesn't surprise me. You are not an expert in probability theoryselection.
and you are not an expert in natural selection.
entirely the ability to recite "the multiplication rule of
probabilities", and you know nothing about natural selection, since
you're unable to notice that you don't take it into account in your
math. I know more than that, at least.
from reviewers who don't know much about evolutionary biology. Did any
of the reviewer comments compliment you on how well you had dealt with
natural selection in your math?
become an obnoxious jerk. People have put their reputations on the
line to publish my work and they gave me the ultimate compliment,
they published it.
"reputation", your journal only has an impact factor of 1.8 something.
Now if you wanted to find out who these people
are, it wouldn't be too difficult. In fact, 15 faculty members from
universities all across Europe allowed their names to be listed under
my Layman's Abstract for which I am very grateful. You evolutionists
have been very good at destroying careers of those who don't agree
with you but I think you are incredibly stupid if you try to attack
these people.
How many of them are population geneticists? How many of them are evenare, it wouldn't be too difficult. In fact, 15 faculty members from
universities all across Europe allowed their names to be listed under
my Layman's Abstract for which I am very grateful. You evolutionists
have been very good at destroying careers of those who don't agree
with you but I think you are incredibly stupid if you try to attack
these people.
biologists?
--
Bob C.
"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"
- Isaac Asimov
Bob C.
"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"
- Isaac Asimov