ERm - PROVE YOUR CLAIMS - rossum said: Information is copied from the environment into DNA by random mutation and natural selection.Thankyou. My 99% figure above was a guesstimate based on observation over many years.
ERm - PROVE YOUR CLAIMS - rossum said: Information is copied from the environment into DNA by random mutation and natural selection.Thankyou. My 99% figure above was a guesstimate based on observation over many years.
Are you saying that because you are an engineer you are unable to express their argument in your own words?!?I am an engineer, I just happen to watch the video.
Oh, they are very good at that - at seeming to have good science behind. Scratch beneath the surface, and it is a different story.Them seem to have very good science behind what they were saying.
It has been a while since I watched the video. I don't want to misrepresent what it says. I think you would enjoy it though.Are you saying that because you are an engineer you are unable to express their argument in your own words?!?
Oh, they are very good at that - at seeming to have good science behind. Scratch beneath the surface, and it is a different story.
Real science is presented in peer-reviewed journals. Pseudo-science that seems like good science is presented on YouTube and similar.
Real science is presented in peer-reviewed journals.
Yeah, you might want to look at where we are with modern science. It has kind of moved on since their time.Identify the peer-review journals that Galileo used in presenting his findings. And Isaac Newton? Archimedes?
Identify their Youtube channels...Identify the peer-review journals that Galileo used in presenting his findings. And Isaac Newton? Archimedes?
Yeah, you might want to look at where we are with modern science. It has kind of moved on since their time.
Even if creationism has not.
Identify their Youtube channels...
Have you never heard of Newton's Principia?
Oh dear, you didn't click the link I gave, did you. Newton published his book in 1687. Other scientists read it, and Newton published a corrected edition in 1713 and a further improved version in 1726. The process of peer review wasn't as fast as it is today, nor so formally organised, but it did exist.So he peer-reviewed himself? Guess he had no peers, eh?
Oh dear,
you didn't click the link I gave, did you.
It was a book, not a journal article.Just tell me where I can find the early eighteenth century peer review journals.
It was a book, not a journal article.
You will find the peer reviews in the letters other scientists wrote to Newton after the first and second editions were published. Look for an edition of Newton's correspondence.
So sorry; you lose. See Godwin's Law.Whoever came up with the idea that one's peers are the best as well as the most objective evaluators of one's beliefs? If only Hitler had submitted Mein Kampf to Himmler before publishing it, it might be a better version, huh?
So sorry; you lose.
See Godwin's Law.
I think peer-review - that is review by people who are knowledgeable in that area - is the best way.Whoever came up with the idea that one's peers are the best as well as the most objective evaluators of one's beliefs?
...
Do you think it would work better if there was no review and anyone could publish whatever nonsense they want?
Or perhaps we should it reviewed, but not by people who are experts in field?
Or just go down the road so well trodden by religion, where everyone just declares their opinions are are facts...
Sure, and that is great.Here in America we already CAN do that. It's called "freedom of the press" and is encoded in our Constitution. We fought a war with you guys over stuff like that.
So you think Nature should just ask random people on the street if they think an article on quantum mechanics is worthy of publication?Grown men can review it, i.e READ it for themselves and make up their own minds without relying on unelected self-designated, self-serving "experts," aka peers.
Sure, and that is great.
But we are talking about science, stiggy,
So you think Nature should just ask random people on the street if they think an article on quantum mechanics is worthy of publication?
Me, I think they are better off asking people who know about quantum mechanics.
Nonsense. The publisher can stop anything they like going into what they publish. The First Amendment allows the publisher to publish what he want, it does not allow anyone to force their nonsense into the publications.Here in the USA, the First Amendment does not exempt publications about science from protection.
I earlier said:So you think Nature should just ask random people on the street if they think an article on quantum mechanics is worthy of publication?
I ask because that is the topic we are discussing.No. Why do you ask? Do YOU think it should?
Well I agree it is harebrained. I got it from you.Me too. So whatever gave you the harebrained idea that they shouldn't?
Nonsense. The publisher can stop anything they like going into what they publish.
Do you recall MrID? He had some crackpot ideas and wrote a long article he wanted to publish in Nature. Despite the First Amendment, he was not able to.
This is not just science. If you write an article about politics, you cannot force a newspaper to include it.
Well I agree it is harebrained.
rossum: It was a book, not a journal article.
You will find the peer reviews in the letters other scientists wrote to Newton after the first and second editions were published. Look for an edition of Newton's correspondence.
stiggy, post '92: Whoever came up with the idea that one's peers are the best as well as the most objective evaluators of one's beliefs? If only Hitler had submitted Mein Kampf to Himmler before publishing it, it might be a better version, huh?
Back in post #92, you were clearly arguing against peer-review in science.