Re: When peer review is really peer pressure

• Previous message: Stephen E. Jones: "Re: Ruling out God intervening at strategic points in natural history? (was tests and predictions)"
• Maybe in reply to: MikeBGene@aol.com: "When peer review is really peer pressure"
• Next in thread: Cliff Lundberg: "Re: When peer review is really peer pressure"
• Next in thread: MikeBGene@aol.com: "Re: When peer review is really peer pressure"
• Reply: Cliff Lundberg: "Re: When peer review is really peer pressure"
• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]

In a message dated 4/19/00 3:15:35 PM Eastern Daylight Time, cliff@cab.com
writes:

<< It may not be working well in evolutionary theory, which seems at a
 dead end in regard to the origin of metazoan complexity, the Cambrian
 explosion, and of course the original abiogenesis. >>

Considering that the CE lasted for what was it? At least 13 million years?
I'm not sure...

And, of course, the original abiogenesis has nothing to do with evolution
anyway....

• Next message: Brian D Harper: "Re: Novel paradigms?"
• Previous message: Stephen E. Jones: "Re: Ruling out God intervening at strategic points in natural history? (was tests and predictions)"
• Maybe in reply to: MikeBGene@aol.com: "When peer review is really peer pressure"
• Next in thread: Cliff Lundberg: "Re: When peer review is really peer pressure"
• Next in thread: MikeBGene@aol.com: "Re: When peer review is really peer pressure"
• Reply: Cliff Lundberg: "Re: When peer review is really peer pressure"
• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Apr 19 2000 - 17:37:13 EDT