...of genes and theories.
Posted by Sparrow on Jun 19, 2002 at 14:19
Re: New Cellular Evolution Theory Rejects Darwinian Assumptions (Andy™)
Getting ONE gene is tough, when getting even one amino acid strand is statistically improbable, at best -- but getting THREE genes?
When I wrote my magnus opus (GBG) on "Stress and Eye: New Speculations on Refractive Error", I was not permitted by the editorial review board to call it a theory, precisely because there was no experimentation, no data. How do any of these guys get away with calling non-testable speculations as "theories"?