RE: Question for the theist
April 1, 2014 at 3:32 am
(This post was last modified: April 1, 2014 at 4:04 am by Fidel_Castronaut.)
The 'article' cited by john, specifically the the Kevin Peterson one, actually isn't an article. It's a non-academic review article that hasn't actually been followed up with a publication (in nature anyway) that I can find, although I only had a brief search through nature's archives.
Funny, too, that Peterson's non article quoted by John seems to be the number 1 article cited by creationism websites as to why evolution is false, despite the fact that Peterson himself actually goes someway to reinforcing it through his other journal articles as can be found through a quick search in scholar. These sites also treat it as a peer reviewed citation, even though it isn't, and as a nature journal article, even though it isn't (it's not even published by Peterson, it's just a journalist piece). I'd love to read his findings, but as of today, there's no findings to read.
Although I understand john agrees somewhat with evolution, not just how it is currently believed to occur.
Funny, too, that Peterson's non article quoted by John seems to be the number 1 article cited by creationism websites as to why evolution is false, despite the fact that Peterson himself actually goes someway to reinforcing it through his other journal articles as can be found through a quick search in scholar. These sites also treat it as a peer reviewed citation, even though it isn't, and as a nature journal article, even though it isn't (it's not even published by Peterson, it's just a journalist piece). I'd love to read his findings, but as of today, there's no findings to read.
Although I understand john agrees somewhat with evolution, not just how it is currently believed to occur.
![[Image: 146748944129044_zpsomrzyn3d.gif]](https://images.weserv.nl/?url=i629.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fuu13%2FRXM843%2F146748944129044_zpsomrzyn3d.gif)
