RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (13) < [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... >   
  Topic: Southstar's thread< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Posts: 2167
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 25 2011,12:35   

Quote (Southstar @ Nov. 25 2011,05:12)
Quote (Dr.GH @ Nov. 25 2011,00:36)


Okay now i understand why they keep throwing papers by this Lonning chap... He's a JW!! So you see they got their own private scientists, although that's a contradiction in terms...

Questione 1) How do you know if a paper is peer reviewed and who the reviewers are?

Questione 2) Here's the latest work of art

Have you ever heard of this almighty natural law?

Question 3) Do you know of any review of this paper in scientific literature.


The particular article, "Mutations: The Law of Recurrent Variation" was from an invited paper to a book on commercial flower growing. It was not likely reviewed anonymously in the same way as a journal article, but was certainly read carefully by the book's editor.

The so-called "law" seems to exist only in the imagination of Lönnig. No one else has ever referenced, or 'applied' it. It boils down to the (apparent) limit of induced mutation to alter phenotype (esp. outward appearance) before the chemicals, or radiation used kills the organism. This is hardly big news. Particularly in plants, more new species are the product of  polypoid hybrids that then shed, or mutated duplicated genes than any point mutations alone.

What I suspect these people are doing is just throwing random Google search results at you to waste your time. Start insisting they explain why this, or that paper is relevant.

Edited by Dr.GH on Nov. 25 2011,13:06

"Science is the horse that pulls the cart of philosophy."


  366 replies since Nov. 08 2011,06:46 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (13) < [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... >   

Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

[ Read the Board Rules ] | [Useful Links] | [Evolving Designs]