Talk:Patterns of biological evolution
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Nematocyte (talk | contribs) at 13:17, May 2, 2007. It may differ significantly from current revision.
Still working on fleshing this out.--TimS 10:14, 1 May 2007 (EDT)
- That's one of the biggest articles to appear in one hit that I've seen! Pity it's mostly fiction. But as it is very popular fiction, I guess it needs to be documented. And critiqued, of course. Philip J. Rayment 10:53, 1 May 2007 (EDT)
- I invite you to submit your thesis to peer review, Phil. Nematocyte 11:26, 1 May 2007 (EDT)
- Any article I put on Conservapedia is effectively open to peer review, as is TimS' contribution here, which I hope to peer-review. Philip J. Rayment 11:36, 1 May 2007 (EDT)
- I invite you to submit your thesis to peer review, Phil. Nematocyte 11:26, 1 May 2007 (EDT)
- I welcome the peer review, consider the number of biologists that have already reviewed the information I have presented. I will be adding links to the examples and please look at the existing research publications I cited. PubMed is where most of the research articles are from.--TimS 11:40, 1 May 2007 (EDT)
- Back to work on Gene expression--TimS 11:40, 1 May 2007 (EDT)
This sounds like breaking news to me. The journal article is less than 3 years old, which means it's either a new theory or it's the first time anyone has found evidence for an old theory. (Or maybe we need to do a little more digging and write the article better.) --Ed Poor 08:19, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
- The first recorded instance of work of this kind is 1878. That probably is breaking news to the our up-to-the-minute-science creationists ;). Nematocyte 09:17, 2 May 2007 (EDT)