Article <v9nlm6$1f0mv$1@dont-email.me>

Warning: mysqli::__construct(): (HY000/1203): User howardkn already has more than 'max_user_connections' active connections in D:\Inetpub\vhosts\howardknight.net\al.howardknight.net\includes\artfuncs.php on line 21
Failed to connect to MySQL: (1203) User howardkn already has more than 'max_user_connections' active connections
Warning: mysqli::query(): Couldn't fetch mysqli in D:\Inetpub\vhosts\howardknight.net\al.howardknight.net\index.php on line 66
Article <v9nlm6$1f0mv$1@dont-email.me>

Deutsch English Français Italiano

<v9nlm6$1f0mv$1@dont-email.me>

View for Bookmarking (what is this?)
Look up another Usenet article

Path: news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.szaf.org!nntp-feed.chiark.greenend.org.uk!ewrotcd!news.eyrie.org!beagle.ediacara.org!.POSTED.beagle.ediacara.org!not-for-mail
From: RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: ChatGPT contributing to current science papers
Date: Fri, 16 Aug 2024 08:54:12 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 61
Sender: to%beagle.ediacara.org
Approved: moderator@beagle.ediacara.org
Message-ID: <v9nlm6$1f0mv$1@dont-email.me>
References: <v98m8k$ttm6$1@dont-email.me> <v9arsc$2q87g$1@dont-email.me>
 <v9d36i$3ai4r$1@dont-email.me> <li17ruF1hqvU1@mid.individual.net>
 <v9g6eu$3vnpk$3@dont-email.me> <v9igi9$g9l8$2@dont-email.me>
 <v9ln4u$12qg0$2@dont-email.me> <v9lqlt$13ebu$2@dont-email.me>
 <v9mj2q$1a6pm$3@dont-email.me>
Reply-To: rokimoto557@gmail.com
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Info: beagle.ediacara.org; posting-host="beagle.ediacara.org:3.132.105.89";
	logging-data="57853"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@beagle.ediacara.org"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
To: talk-origins@moderators.isc.org
Cancel-Lock: sha1:n5TjWhiHuY5NC2GPXzn4aY62xGE=
In-Reply-To: <v9mj2q$1a6pm$3@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US

On 8/15/2024 11:03 PM, JTEM wrote:
>   RonO wrote:
> 
> 
>> This seems to be projection on your part. 
> 
> This was three years ago:
> 
> https://groups.google.com/g/alt.atheism/c/t6El0TKcsjY/m/fbDfyW-8CQAJ
> 
> You're defending a headline, pretending that you live this stuff when
> it's been around for years already.
> 
>> Who seems to be the religiousfundy in this case?
> 
> You can't name a single reason for rejecting anything, other than the
> fact that some headline never told you to believe it.
> 
> You are a religious fundamentalist. You cherry pick your scripture &
> believe it is literal truth.
> 
> 
> 

Just lost, do you even know what you are arguing about?  You snipped out 
what you were projecting onto me, and now you seem to be changing the 
subject of your rant.  You are the one that was anti peer review, and 
started in with your stupid junk on the multiregional hypothesis when it 
isn't being kept from being published by peer review.  As sad as it may 
be the fundy seems to be you when you can't even deal with the evidence 
that exists.  If you had read the linked to paper you would know that 
the author was citing the relevant literature, and was doing a 
comparison with 4 different models one of which was the possiblility of 
multiregional evolution, but he noted that the data was not consistent 
with the multiregional hypothesis, so he was trying to modify it in a 
way that it would be consistent with the data.  One of the alternatives 
(B) turns out to be the most consistent with the current data, but he 
was trying to support another alternative (with the data then available) 
that would involve much more interbreeding between all the regions.  As 
crazy as it may seem you don't seem to understand that the data that 
existed at that time would have required much more interbreeding between 
the regions than was acceptable to the multiregional hypothesis as it 
existed at that time.  You have even gone on about how you would like 
more interbreeding between Africans and Neanderthal, and if more 
interbreeding had in fact occurred, this guys alternative would have 
been supported instead of being rejected by the current data.

Pretending seems to be more projection on your part, by the time that I 
retired in May I had already reviewed 4 papers in 2024.  I informed the 
journals that I was retiring, and that my email address would change.  I 
did not give them a new email address because I do not want to continue 
to review papers.  As a working scientist I felt that I was under an 
obligation to participate in peer review.  Some of the research that I 
was involved with was still being published, but most was proprietary. 
Since I am no longer actively participating in the scientific endeavor, 
I no longer think that I need to contribute to peer review.  My last 
review was turned in, in May.  I haven't received any subsequent 
invitations to review papers because my company email was ended with my 
retirement.

Ron Okimoto