Rumraket wrote:Shrunk wrote:Two of those are in non-biology journals, and the third does not question evolutionary theory at all.
Still, credit where it's due, you did get them published.
None of them question evolutionary theory, they just argue that it's constrained by certain factors. In fact, several of them contain various passages asserting that evolution works. There's a big difference between what Clastie says on forums such as these and what his papers contain.
So in other words, he's pulling a Baumgartner? Namely saying one thing in his papers, and another thing elsewhere? Another instance of duplicity to add to his tally.
Oh, meanwhile, I decided to do some checking on that journal he's supposed to be submitting his "paper" to. I decided to check out the website associated with the editor-in-chief. Guess what happened when I did? I was presented with a website for a
video game. Here you go:
Gary Fogel's "natural selection" websiteSo 'Clast's paper is being reviewed by a
video game writer involved in creating a fantasy world? This gets better.
As for my submitting material to a journal, I prefer to do this when I have something
genuine to present, such as some
experimental results. Unlike some, I don't pretend that I'm going to sweep aside 150 years of diligent scientific inquiry, on the basis of having a mythology rectally inserted. Also, I don't possess the hubris to pretend that I have a body of work worthy of the likes of
Nature, I simply accept the validity of the work of people whose work
has attained those heights, on the basis of having read it and understood what it is telling me. If at some point I do have some experimental results to provide, I'll be happy to submit them for perusal. The difference being, that if I ever do this, I will have
substance to present, instead of a hollow simulacrum thereof.
by 
