Re: Date limit set on first Americans

On Thu, 28 Aug 2003 03:11:09 GMT, Philip Deitiker
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

>On Wed, 27 Aug 2003 23:21:54 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (John
>Wilkins) wrote:
>
>
>>As I said, at *that* time it was one hypothesis that applied to a number
>>of disciplines. Hence, anyone who was competent in those disciplines was
>>competent to render a judgement, Lyell above all others. And they did,
>>with something like 95% of those specialists accepting evolution (if not
>>selection) within a decade, according to Hull's and Sulloway's research.
>
>In certain areas, however it was not genuinely embraced
>everywhere. If you were to talk about Germany and England.
>
>If you compare the acceptance of Tom Cech's ideas and
>Charles Darwin's the comparative rate of acceptance is like
>comparing the speed of light with the speed of sound. 
>People in the early 20th century were still arguing against
>darwinian evolution.

  -- snip ---

> Here you have papers written in genetics journals
>were the referees are supposed to know this stuff. 

This was really the point I was getting at when I threw Darwin into
the discussion.

Its bad enough when you have referees who don't know what they should.
Its even worse when you get refreees who 'know' something quite
different.




Eric Stevens