It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

So, a peer reviewed journal article stating...

page: 7
21
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 27 2018 @ 02:34 AM
link   
a reply to: Raggedyman

To quote Ksihkehe


Evolution takes place in the same time frames as geology.


^this^

Evolution doesn't happen with a click of a finger, it happens over millions of years-homo erectus didn't become homo sapien overnight, and there are various peer reviewed papers that will show that certain birds are related to dinosaurs from their hip bone alone.


edit on 27-1-2018 by Thecakeisalie because: (no reason given)




posted on Jan, 27 2018 @ 04:54 AM
link   

originally posted by: Thecakeisalie
a reply to: Raggedyman

To quote Ksihkehe


Evolution takes place in the same time frames as geology.


^this^

Evolution doesn't happen with a click of a finger, it happens over millions of years-homo erectus didn't become homo sapien overnight, and there are various peer reviewed papers that will show that certain birds are related to dinosaurs from their hip bone alone.



I would be really impressed if you read the op, comprehended it and dealt with the question



posted on Jan, 27 2018 @ 05:39 AM
link   

originally posted by: Raggedyman
Seriously you are calling me retarded, you

Correct, in regards to you trying to imply i was equating the theory of gravity with the theory of evolution.


On a thread you can't answer a question I asked on

Check your OP - you never asked any questions.


A scientific question I proposed and you can't answer and you call me retarded

You never asked a question. You made a statement, a command.


Simple question that you should have acces to an answer on and I am retarded

Both. It is simple to answer, open any biology text book. Look at the site I showed you which lists the evidence as to why evolution is real and happening.


Pot calling kettle In fact I have lead you down a path to the obvious and you have still no clue
And I am the retarded one

Correct


I asked a question, you can't, won't answer the question, bitched and moaned at me then say questions are welcomed and then call me retarded. Onya

Re-read your OP.

Again, simply show me scientific peer reviewed evidence of evolution as fact
That's not a question.



posted on Jan, 27 2018 @ 08:11 AM
link   

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: RaggedymanSimply stating that evolution is a proven scientific fact
Barcs is right, micro evolution does take place, I agree.
I want a peer reviewed journal article dealing with Macro evolution

I don't want assumption, conjecture or faith statements

As an aside, I accept evolution is a reasonable theory, I don't disagree with Christians who accept evolution, you are welcome to believe evolution
I know creation sounds like a fantasy, is really pretty silly to believe in, in this scientific world
I don't have any scientific peer reviewed articles for it either. Creation is not a secular science so it's not needed

Again, simply show me scientific peer reviewed evidence of evolution as fact

Thank you
Skipping all of the meaningless waffling, here ya go...sources for macrobiology articles:

www.omicsonline.org...


I don't see any links to peer reviewed papers posted there that are unequivocal observations of macroevolution. For example, one of the papers linked was; "Analysis of Prognostic Marker Panel for High-Grade Serous Ovarian Cancer through Age-Dependent DNA Methylation". I can only assume that the linked papers were merely popular ones that had nothing to do with macroevolution specifically.


onlinelibrary.wiley.com...


This article highlights the dissonance between micro and macroevolutionary models and, in its conclusion, suggests bet-hedging in favor of Steven J. Gould's paper, [i]"Is a new and general theory of evolution emerging?" which, in turn, suggests macroevolutionary shortcomings of the MES.


www.indiana.edu...


Again this article describes issues between micro and macroevolution and links to articles, none of which is unequvocal proof of macroevolution as proposed by the MES.


www.oxfordbibliographies.com...


To quote this article, "Although the proof, occurrence, and mechanisms of evolution at the level of populations, or even genes, are founded on very solid evidence, the substantiation for macroevolution stands on thinner ice."


Please understand, these links just give you somewhere to start. You can't expect us to do all the work for you. The task forges the worker, as they say, and some healthy legwork is good for the committed scholar.


A little legwork might have identified that your post did not actually answer the request of the OP, nor is any of it a 'slam dunk' proof of macroevolution.


You read every journal and article and book referenced in all of those links? You're a fast reader!

Here's another link to add to the four I provided earlier, that you so easily dismissed.

www.quora.com... man

Maybe you should reread some of those journals.
edit on 27-1-2018 by TzarChasm because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 27 2018 @ 08:26 AM
link   

originally posted by: Raggedyman

originally posted by: Thecakeisalie
a reply to: Raggedyman

To quote Ksihkehe


Evolution takes place in the same time frames as geology.


^this^

Evolution doesn't happen with a click of a finger, it happens over millions of years-homo erectus didn't become homo sapien overnight, and there are various peer reviewed papers that will show that certain birds are related to dinosaurs from their hip bone alone.



I would be really impressed if you read the op, comprehended it and dealt with the question


I would be really impressed if you located my post with the macroevolution links and read all of the journals referenced therein. What, did you think education was easy? Not as easy as the creation cop out, but certainly more informative. Go on, check those links out. Ask and ye shall receive.

There's another nifty little link in the post directly above that you might also find worthwhile, if you actually read and absorb it.

edit on 27-1-2018 by TzarChasm because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 27 2018 @ 08:34 AM
link   
a reply to: chr0naut

Can the scientific method be applied to your God and his toolkit? Can we trace his phylogenetic background? Is there any way to measure and record his existence without relying on second/third hand testimony or appealing to ignorance?

Evolution might be "just a theory" but God is "just a hypothesis".
edit on 27-1-2018 by TzarChasm because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 27 2018 @ 09:26 AM
link   
a reply to: TzarChasm

I have read lots of journals tar and they all say assumption
Even you accept its a theory, stop with the faith statements, more fundy pop culture



posted on Jan, 27 2018 @ 09:30 AM
link   
a reply to: TzarChasm

Can the scientific theory be applied to God, obviously not
No one is pushing God as a science like they do with evolution

You are arguing foolishness, can you not comprehend the obvious

Please read my op, apply comprehension skills, answer the question



posted on Jan, 27 2018 @ 09:42 AM
link   

originally posted by: Raggedyman
a reply to: TzarChasm

I have read lots of journals tar and they all say assumption
Even you accept its a theory, stop with the faith statements, more fundy pop culture


I'm willing to bet you just skimmed those links and barely registered the authors, let alone actually reading and absorbing their research. Asking for a sandwich just so you can tear it apart and throw it away in front of the cook.


originally posted by: Raggedyman
a reply to: TzarChasm

Can the scientific theory be applied to God, obviously not
No one is pushing God as a science like they do with evolution

You are arguing foolishness, can you not comprehend the obvious

Please read my op, apply comprehension skills, answer the question


I read your post. I completed your request. I posted several links referencing a dozen or more journals published by respected researchers, all of which is available for your inspection. The fact that you haven't refuted a single point or disproven a single observation in evolutionary theory is quite telling. It's not my fault you aren't the least bit interested in actually learning anything. You're ignorant because you have a taste for ignorance and are proud of showing it off. But anyone who reads this thread will see clearly what's going on. Congratulations on wasting everyone's time with these silly games. I do encourage everyone else to have a look at the resources I posted for a deeper understanding of the mechanics and observations of evolution because some of us are genuinely here to grow intellectually.

Only 7 pages huh? Nothing to be smug about. Just another exercise in futility.
edit on 27-1-2018 by TzarChasm because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 27 2018 @ 12:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: RaggedymanSimply stating that evolution is a proven scientific fact
Barcs is right, micro evolution does take place, I agree.
I want a peer reviewed journal article dealing with Macro evolution

I don't want assumption, conjecture or faith statements

As an aside, I accept evolution is a reasonable theory, I don't disagree with Christians who accept evolution, you are welcome to believe evolution
I know creation sounds like a fantasy, is really pretty silly to believe in, in this scientific world
I don't have any scientific peer reviewed articles for it either. Creation is not a secular science so it's not needed

Again, simply show me scientific peer reviewed evidence of evolution as fact

Thank you
Skipping all of the meaningless waffling, here ya go...sources for macrobiology articles:

www.omicsonline.org...


I don't see any links to peer reviewed papers posted there that are unequivocal observations of macroevolution. For example, one of the papers linked was; "Analysis of Prognostic Marker Panel for High-Grade Serous Ovarian Cancer through Age-Dependent DNA Methylation". I can only assume that the linked papers were merely popular ones that had nothing to do with macroevolution specifically.


onlinelibrary.wiley.com...


This article highlights the dissonance between micro and macroevolutionary models and, in its conclusion, suggests bet-hedging in favor of Steven J. Gould's paper, [i]"Is a new and general theory of evolution emerging?" which, in turn, suggests macroevolutionary shortcomings of the MES.


www.indiana.edu...


Again this article describes issues between micro and macroevolution and links to articles, none of which is unequvocal proof of macroevolution as proposed by the MES.


www.oxfordbibliographies.com...


To quote this article, "Although the proof, occurrence, and mechanisms of evolution at the level of populations, or even genes, are founded on very solid evidence, the substantiation for macroevolution stands on thinner ice."


Please understand, these links just give you somewhere to start. You can't expect us to do all the work for you. The task forges the worker, as they say, and some healthy legwork is good for the committed scholar.


A little legwork might have identified that your post did not actually answer the request of the OP, nor is any of it a 'slam dunk' proof of macroevolution.


You read every journal and article and book referenced in all of those links? You're a fast reader!

Here's another link to add to the four I provided earlier, that you so easily dismissed.

www.quora.com... man

Maybe you should reread some of those journals.


I'm getting a 404 error on that link.



posted on Jan, 27 2018 @ 02:02 PM
link   
a reply to: Raggedyman

Maybe not to the overall concept of a creator, but the religious texts and assertions that pertain to reality??

Yea, absolutely..

Science can check if we popped out fully formed 6000 years ago..

Science can check if the whole world flooded in human history..

Science can check if noah’s Family incested humanity into existence 5000 years ago..


Science can check if 2 of every animal could fit on a boat X cubits by X cubits..

Science can check if all the animals come from 2 parents 5000 years ago..



There are no shortage of testable claims in the Bible..



posted on Jan, 27 2018 @ 02:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: RaggedymanSimply stating that evolution is a proven scientific fact
Barcs is right, micro evolution does take place, I agree.
I want a peer reviewed journal article dealing with Macro evolution

I don't want assumption, conjecture or faith statements

As an aside, I accept evolution is a reasonable theory, I don't disagree with Christians who accept evolution, you are welcome to believe evolution
I know creation sounds like a fantasy, is really pretty silly to believe in, in this scientific world
I don't have any scientific peer reviewed articles for it either. Creation is not a secular science so it's not needed

Again, simply show me scientific peer reviewed evidence of evolution as fact

Thank you
Skipping all of the meaningless waffling, here ya go...sources for macrobiology articles:

www.omicsonline.org...


I don't see any links to peer reviewed papers posted there that are unequivocal observations of macroevolution. For example, one of the papers linked was; "Analysis of Prognostic Marker Panel for High-Grade Serous Ovarian Cancer through Age-Dependent DNA Methylation". I can only assume that the linked papers were merely popular ones that had nothing to do with macroevolution specifically.


onlinelibrary.wiley.com...


This article highlights the dissonance between micro and macroevolutionary models and, in its conclusion, suggests bet-hedging in favor of Steven J. Gould's paper, [i]"Is a new and general theory of evolution emerging?" which, in turn, suggests macroevolutionary shortcomings of the MES.


www.indiana.edu...


Again this article describes issues between micro and macroevolution and links to articles, none of which is unequvocal proof of macroevolution as proposed by the MES.


www.oxfordbibliographies.com...


To quote this article, "Although the proof, occurrence, and mechanisms of evolution at the level of populations, or even genes, are founded on very solid evidence, the substantiation for macroevolution stands on thinner ice."


Please understand, these links just give you somewhere to start. You can't expect us to do all the work for you. The task forges the worker, as they say, and some healthy legwork is good for the committed scholar.


A little legwork might have identified that your post did not actually answer the request of the OP, nor is any of it a 'slam dunk' proof of macroevolution.


You read every journal and article and book referenced in all of those links? You're a fast reader!

Here's another link to add to the four I provided earlier, that you so easily dismissed.

www.quora.com... man

Maybe you should reread some of those journals.


I'm getting a 404 error on that link.


Sorry about that. Try this one.

What is the scientific evidence to support macroevolution?

Did you take my advice on rereading those other sites? they are more of a gateway to the relevant materials, you will have to do some digging. several complicated fields of study converge on the theory of evolution so it's not exactly a simple subject to explore.
edit on 27-1-2018 by TzarChasm because: (no reason given)


(post by Raggedyman removed for a manners violation)

posted on Jan, 27 2018 @ 05:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: chr0naut

Can the scientific method be applied to your God and his toolkit? Can we trace his phylogenetic background? Is there any way to measure and record his existence without relying on second/third hand testimony or appealing to ignorance?

Evolution might be "just a theory" but God is "just a hypothesis".


Science is useless in explanation of the supernatural. Nor can it deal with anything that is non-falsifiable. By definition it is entirely naturalistic and therefore, if it comes up with an explanation, the thing explained was not supernatural in the first place as it would have an entirely natural explanation.

However,the majority of processes available to God, I believe, are entirely natural, a function of the rules of the ordered universe He created.

Of course we cannot trace God's phylogenetic background. That's silly.

One might also posit that absent actual objective evidence on which some science has been done (i.e: a peer reviewed academic paper), perhaps macro-evolution is hypothetical?




posted on Jan, 27 2018 @ 06:15 PM
link   
a reply to: Raggedyman

Scientific, peer-reviewed evidence of evolution as fact:

Journal: Evolutionary & Developmental Biology
January 2008, Volume 1, Issue 1, pp 46–52

link.springer.com...





Evolution as Fact

The notion that species may change through time and that living organisms are related to one another through common descent was not original to Charles Darwin. Ideas regarding evolutionary change, as with ideas about gravity, extend back at least to a few ancient Greek thinkers. There had been much discussion of this topic two generations before Darwin based on the writings of Jean-Baptiste de Lamarck, and Darwin’s own grandfather, Erasmus Darwin, was explicit in his view that species could change. Darwin’s major contribution on this issue was not to introduce the idea, but to assemble a massive compendium of data in support of what he called “descent with modification”. In The Origin of Species, published in 1859, Darwin cited independent lines of evidence such as the biogeographical distribution of species, homology of structure, the occurrence of vestigial organs and atavisms, and the already well established process of extinction as all pointing to a conclusion that species have changed over time and are connected by descent from common ancestors. Through the force of Darwin’s argument and the mass of supporting data he presented, it was not long before the contemporary scientific community came to acknowledge the historical reality of evolutionary descent. As A.W. Bennett summarized the situation in 1870, The fascinating hypothesis of [descent with modification] has, within the last few years, so completely taken hold of the scientific mind, both in [Great Britain] and in Germany, that almost the whole of our rising men of science may be classed as belonging to this school of thought. Probably since the time of Newton no man has had so great an influence over the development of scientific thought as Mr. Darwin. Over the past 150 years, this initial list has been supplemented by countless observations in paleontology, comparative anatomy, developmental biology, molecular biology, and (most recently) comparative genomics, and through direct observations of evolutionary change in both natural and experimental populations. Each of thousands of peer-reviewed articles published every year in scientific journals provides further confirmation (though, as Futuyma (1998) notes, “no biologist today would think of publishing a paper on ‘new evidence for evolution’ ... it simply hasn’t been an issue in scientific circles for more than a century”). Conversely, no reliable observation has ever been found to contradict the general notion of common descent. It should come as no surprise, then, that the scientific community at large has accepted evolutionary descent as a historical reality since Darwin’s time and considers it among the most reliably established and fundamentally important facts in all of science.


List of peer-reviewers:

Editor-in-Chief:

T. Ryan Gregory, University of Guelph, Guelph, Canada

Senior Handling Editor:

Adam M. Goldstein, New York, NY, USA

Associate Editors:

David Baum, University of Wisconsin, Madison, USA

Norman Johnson, U. Mass, Amherst, USA

Ross Nehm, Stony Brook, NY, USA

Briana Pobiner, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, DC, USA

Donald Prothero, Natural History Museum of L.A. County, CA, USA

Book Reviews Editor:

Adam M. Goldstein, New York, NY, USA

Editorial Board:

Brian Alters, Chapman University, USA

Glenn Branch, National Center for Science Education, USA

Sarah Brem, Arizona State University, USA

Roy Caldwell, University of California Museum of Paleontology, USA

Joel Cracraft, American Museum of Natural History, USA

Douglas Eldredge, Lincoln High School, USA

Douglas Futuyma, Stony Brook University, USA

Penny Gilmer, Florida State University, USA

Rolando González-José, Centro Nacional Patagónico-CONICET, Argentina

Diddahally Govindaraju, Harvard University, USA

Joseph L. Graves Jr., Joint School of Nanoscience & Nanoengineering, NCATSU & UNC

Michael Hammond, University of Toronto, Canada

Sidney Horenstein, American Museum of Natural History, New York, USA

Kristin Jenkins, BioQUEST Curriculum Consortium, USA

David Kohn, Darwin Digital Library of Evolution, USA

Ulrich Kutschera, University of Kassel, Germany

Bruce S. Lieberman, University of Kansas, USA

Tania Lombrozo, University of California, Berkeley, USA

Lee Anne Martinez, Colorado State University - Pueblo, USA

William McComas, University of Arkansas, USA

Rodrigo Medel, University of Chile, Chile

William Miller III, Humboldt State University, USA

Ronald L Numbers, University of Wisconsin, Madison, USA

Telmo Pievani, University of Milan II, Italy

Darren Rebar, Cambridge University, UK

Eugenie C. Scott, National Center for Science Education, USA

Ian Tattersall, American Museum of Natural History, USA

Ilya Tëmkin, Northern Virginia Community College, USA

Anna Thanukos, University of California Museum of Paleontology, USA

John Thompson, University of California, Santa Cruz, USA

Jory P. Weintraub, Duke University, USA

David Sloan Wilson, Binghamton University, USA

_________________________________________________________________________________

Con't

edit on 27-1-2018 by Phantom423 because: (no reason given)

edit on 27-1-2018 by Phantom423 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 27 2018 @ 06:16 PM
link   
a reply to: Raggedyman

National Academy of Science, Engineering, Medicine
www.nationalacademies.org...

Proceedings of the National Academy of Science
www.pnas.org...



Like these other foundational scientific theories, the theory of evolution is supported by so many observations and confirming experiments that scientists are confident that the basic components of the theory will not be overturned by new evidence.

However, like all scientific theories, the theory of evolution is subject to continuing refinement as new areas of science emerge or as new technologies enable observations and experiments that were not possible previously. One of the most useful properties of scientific theories is that they can be used to make predictions about natural events or phenomena that have not yet been observed. For example, the theory of gravitation predicted the behavior of objects on the moon and other planets long before the activities of spacecraft and astronauts confirmed them. The evolutionary biologists who discovered Tiktaalik predicted that they would find fossils intermediate between fish and limbed terrestrial animals in sediments that were about 375 million years old. Their discovery confirmed the prediction made on the basis of evolutionary theory. In turn, confirmation of a prediction increases confidence in that theory.

In science, a "fact" typically refers to an observation, measurement, or other form of evidence that can be expected to occur the same way under similar circumstances. However, scientists also use the term "fact" to refer to a scientific explanation that has been tested and confirmed so many times that there is no longer a compelling reason to keep testing it or looking for additional examples. In that respect, the past and continuing occurrence of evolution is a scientific fact. Because the evidence supporting it is so strong, scientists no longer question whether biological evolution has occurred and is continuing to occur. Instead, they investigate the mechanisms of evolution, how rapidly evolution can take place, and related questions.


List of peer-reviewers:

Evolutionary Biology

May R. Berenbaum
W. Ford Doolittle
Douglas J. Futuyma
Daniel L. Hartl
David M. Hillis
Hopi E. Hoekstra
David Jablonski
Richard E. Lenski
Gene E. Robinson
Nils C. Stenseth
Joan E. Strassmann




edit on 27-1-2018 by Phantom423 because: (no reason given)

edit on 27-1-2018 by Phantom423 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 27 2018 @ 06:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: Raggedyman
a reply to: TzarChasm

Tzar if I read every stupid link I was offered I wouldn't leave the computer
Do you understand that?
Hence why I made the statement I made, you show an article
But
Only a post or two up and you are inferring there are no peer reviewed papers capable anyway

Why waste my time on reading ignorance from you, never mind pointless links that don't offer what I asked for

If you can't, don't want to do that, scoot along, leave the thread, someone else might


Make all the transparent excuses you want, I gave you what you asked for. Several people here have answered you. You asked for evidence of macroevolution, and you don't even recognize it when you see it. More to the point, you have zero intention of acknowledging a single effort made in this thread. You will never admit to any kind of evolutionary article or research journal being even a little compelling. This is evidence of your character and nothing else.
edit on 27-1-2018 by TzarChasm because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 27 2018 @ 06:30 PM
link   
a reply to: TzarChasm

No Tzar you gave me a list of crap, nothing definitive, just like phantom has done
I asked clearly and you ignored the question

Your links are valueless

I want anyone to show me a peer reviewed article saying evolution is a scientific fact, not a plethora of links, all saying it's possible

Pointless waste of time, that's all you have got

You have nothing valid
edit on 27-1-2018 by Raggedyman because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 27 2018 @ 06:34 PM
link   
OP is a retard and just doesn't understand science. Evolution is a theory and theory isn't a scientific fact, which is what he is wanting. He/she/it knows this and we all know this as well. So basically he/she/it is using the lack of a scientific fact, to take the side that it isn't true.

Also it is funny how the op wants to ignore all this evidence and then refuse to tell us what they think is the alternative to evolution since to them evolution is obviously fake science. OP lets assume you have everything figured out without do any real scientific research yourself on the subject, so since evolution is fake science, why don't you tell us what the truth is. Don't be scared and tell us what you think is the real deal.



posted on Jan, 27 2018 @ 06:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: Raggedyman

Scientific, peer-reviewed evidence of evolution as fact:

Journal: Evolutionary & Developmental Biology
January 2008, Volume 1, Issue 1, pp 46–52

link.springer.com...





Evolution as Fact

The notion that species may change through time and that living organisms are related to one another through common descent was not original to Charles Darwin. Ideas regarding evolutionary change, as with ideas about gravity, extend back at least to a few ancient Greek thinkers. There had been much discussion of this topic two generations before Darwin based on the writings of Jean-Baptiste de Lamarck, and Darwin’s own grandfather, Erasmus Darwin, was explicit in his view that species could change. Darwin’s major contribution on this issue was not to introduce the idea, but to assemble a massive compendium of data in support of what he called “descent with modification”. In The Origin of Species, published in 1859, Darwin cited independent lines of evidence such as the biogeographical distribution of species, homology of structure, the occurrence of vestigial organs and atavisms, and the already well established process of extinction as all pointing to a conclusion that species have changed over time and are connected by descent from common ancestors. Through the force of Darwin’s argument and the mass of supporting data he presented, it was not long before the contemporary scientific community came to acknowledge the historical reality of evolutionary descent. As A.W. Bennett summarized the situation in 1870, The fascinating hypothesis of [descent with modification] has, within the last few years, so completely taken hold of the scientific mind, both in [Great Britain] and in Germany, that almost the whole of our rising men of science may be classed as belonging to this school of thought. Probably since the time of Newton no man has had so great an influence over the development of scientific thought as Mr. Darwin. Over the past 150 years, this initial list has been supplemented by countless observations in paleontology, comparative anatomy, developmental biology, molecular biology, and (most recently) comparative genomics, and through direct observations of evolutionary change in both natural and experimental populations. Each of thousands of peer-reviewed articles published every year in scientific journals provides further confirmation (though, as Futuyma (1998) notes, “no biologist today would think of publishing a paper on ‘new evidence for evolution’ ... it simply hasn’t been an issue in scientific circles for more than a century”). Conversely, no reliable observation has ever been found to contradict the general notion of common descent. It should come as no surprise, then, that the scientific community at large has accepted evolutionary descent as a historical reality since Darwin’s time and considers it among the most reliably established and fundamentally important facts in all of science.


List of peer-reviewers:

Editor-in-Chief:

T. Ryan Gregory, University of Guelph, Guelph, Canada

Senior Handling Editor:

Adam M. Goldstein, New York, NY, USA

Associate Editors:

David Baum, University of Wisconsin, Madison, USA

Norman Johnson, U. Mass, Amherst, USA

Ross Nehm, Stony Brook, NY, USA

Briana Pobiner, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, DC, USA

Donald Prothero, Natural History Museum of L.A. County, CA, USA

Book Reviews Editor:

Adam M. Goldstein, New York, NY, USA

Editorial Board:

Brian Alters, Chapman University, USA

Glenn Branch, National Center for Science Education, USA

Sarah Brem, Arizona State University, USA

Roy Caldwell, University of California Museum of Paleontology, USA

Joel Cracraft, American Museum of Natural History, USA

Douglas Eldredge, Lincoln High School, USA

Douglas Futuyma, Stony Brook University, USA

Penny Gilmer, Florida State University, USA

Rolando González-José, Centro Nacional Patagónico-CONICET, Argentina

Diddahally Govindaraju, Harvard University, USA

Joseph L. Graves Jr., Joint School of Nanoscience & Nanoengineering, NCATSU & UNC

Michael Hammond, University of Toronto, Canada

Sidney Horenstein, American Museum of Natural History, New York, USA

Kristin Jenkins, BioQUEST Curriculum Consortium, USA

David Kohn, Darwin Digital Library of Evolution, USA

Ulrich Kutschera, University of Kassel, Germany

Bruce S. Lieberman, University of Kansas, USA

Tania Lombrozo, University of California, Berkeley, USA

Lee Anne Martinez, Colorado State University - Pueblo, USA

William McComas, University of Arkansas, USA

Rodrigo Medel, University of Chile, Chile

William Miller III, Humboldt State University, USA

Ronald L Numbers, University of Wisconsin, Madison, USA

Telmo Pievani, University of Milan II, Italy

Darren Rebar, Cambridge University, UK

Eugenie C. Scott, National Center for Science Education, USA

Ian Tattersall, American Museum of Natural History, USA

Ilya Tëmkin, Northern Virginia Community College, USA

Anna Thanukos, University of California Museum of Paleontology, USA

John Thompson, University of California, Santa Cruz, USA

Jory P. Weintraub, Duke University, USA

David Sloan Wilson, Binghamton University, USA

_________________________________________________________________________________

Con't


Ok Phantom, didn't see this one, thanks
I will have a read and get back

Appreciate your time and effort




top topics



 
21
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join