...of genes and theories.
Posted by Sparrow on Jun 19, 2002 at 14:19
(209.161.68.223)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"?
Anyone?
Follow Ups:
- Re: ...of genes and theories. mara 20/6 12:37 (4)
- Re: ...of genes and theories. anyman 22/6 11:26 (0)
- Re: ...of genes and theories. Sparrow 20/6 16:21 (2)
- Re: ...of genes and theories. mara 28/6 12:14 (1)
- Re: ...of genes and theories.error in journal name mara 02/7 12:40 (0)