Re: Date limit set on first Americans

In sci.archaeology,          Eric Stevens created a message ID 
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
 
>>> How would you have applied this to 'Origin of the Species'?
>>
>>Origin of the species was a book. Books are on the decline, from 
>>about 1985 to the present Books can no longer keep up to date 
>>with primary literature and web information. By the time a book 
>>is published it is obsolete. In darwins day a book like Darwins 
>>would have a shelf life of 50 to 100 years. Now it would be 
>>obsolete on the day its published. Darwin would be forced to 
>>publish papers every 4 months, so that someone else wouldn't 
>>jump him. 
> 
> I note you haven't answered the question.

Do you realize that close to 100% of everything about basic science 
written in Darwins time in books has been disproven. Even in his day most 
of what people thought was great work was crap. Science is now in the 
moment, theories come up and disappear, if you have a theory you need to 
refresh supporting data for it frequently. You can't wait 25 years to 
publish a synopsis of everything you've done, and while you are writing 
that book, you've become obsolete. Science has streamlined the process
from darwin's time, now it does not take 50 years to sort 9/10ths of the 
bunk from the good stuff, it takes months to a few years. 
What does not evolve goes extinct, event the logic of how to do science 
evolves and those that linger in past ways go extinct. 

>>The era of large books and years of previously unpublished study 
>>published in large books is gone. The current era is publish 
>>every 4 months or Perish. Darwin was support by his family, 
>>almost all scientist have to publish as they go bits and peices.
> 
> I notice you haven't dealt with my point this time either.

Because you had no point, other than what Darwin did in the mid-19th 
century is notable. At which point I have said you live in the 21st 
century. If you want to live in the mid 19th century, get yourself a farm 
buy a horse and rent a stable . . . 
 
> 'have to'?   "HAVE TO"? There is no absolute reason why 'have to'.

Publish or perish. 
Everyone in science knows this

> I also note that you make a practice of deleting text without giving
> any indication. I suppose that makes it easier to for you to avoid
> dealing with ideas which show your own to be questionable. In view of
> your long posting history, it also shows you to be less than honest.

My ISP requires that I trim quoted text before posting, as a result I cut 
out all but the essential tidbits when replying, Anyone with a decent 
reader can scrool up one line and see the original. 

> I do that for a living but not in areas with which you are familiar.

Bull shit, you have no idea about the scientific publication process, 
that is clear by what you have posted. If you are involved in science
its with soft science like 3rd world sociology or some other touchy-feely 
feel good tangent. 

> It's not difficult to look up Tom Cech, although what he has got to do
> with cold fusion escapes me. I didn't comment as I didn't see the
> point of your garbled paragraph. Was Tom Crech talking about people
> like you in http://www.hhmi.org/becoming/cech.html

You did not look up Tom Cech. He proposed the preposterous idea that RNA 
could act as a enzyme catalyzing its own cleavage, many biochemist 
thought he was insane, however he still got published and his ideas were 
rapidly accepted following a body of research published in the refereed 
primary literature. 

-- 
DNApaleoAnth at Att dot net