Well, if we are going to be tying up bandwidth with this dribble, let me
quote Shakespeare:
"What is the agreement of fools to decide the issue?"
Sorry, but after lurking for months, I am at my limit for reading
meaningless exchanges.
Both Glenn and Stephen postulate against models of natural science and
evolution that are not mainstream science or rational constructs thereof.
They beat dead horses with regularity and triumph only in duals witht he
staw-man arguments THEY create.
How sad it is that Glenn drove perhaps one of the most distinguished
evolutionary scientists (Trivers) off the list. Although Trivers wasn't
very nice he was correct in his assessments. In particular -- Trivers
assertion that species arise from populations and not from individuals.
BTW: I did check the archves and the citations and Glenn wasn't telling
the truth in his dispute with Trivers. In addition, two of Glenn's
citations with regard to the "Eve Hypothesis" were bogus. I am not as
qualified to comment on whether any were out of context..
If folks are are really serious about discussing science I suggest the
following:
1. Limit the area of inquiry (wax philosophical in separate
posts)
2. Define the established mainstream boundaries (with citations
to peer reviewed journals).
3. Offer or CRITICALLY review data and discuss how it impacts
conventional thought. (provide citations)
4. Don't snip and paste into messages -- this makes the threads
hard to follow and tedious to read. Once a thread is established --
repost a message if you feel it grounds your comments then add your
comments at the end. DON't make snippet comments here and there
throughout the article. Best is to just add salient comments without
reposting published text.
Karen Johnson, Ph.D.
Research Associate, LANL & JPL
_____________________________________________________________________
You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com
Or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]