Matt Turner

Sorry for those that were genuinely interested, but I've decided to remove this thread. Bananas.org is supposed to be a friendly, helpful place, and I would like to keep it that way. I find baseless personal attacks very hard to handle, particularly since this work has cost me so much, and I am not even seeking to personally profit from it in any way. I have re-written to Nature magazine, and hopefully may this time get a response. Jack Daw, many thanks for having the decency to at least entertain the thought that I might be right (or at least partly right - five years' work surely can't all be wrong!).

Richard

I believe your proposal was rejected by Nature because it was the wrong venue, and not because it is blasphemy. Another issue you will have is that if you can't converse with evolutionary biologists using their language (terminology and concepts) then you will have very little impact. Finally, be aware that many bright individuals over the course of history have worked diligently for years on what they believed was a new idea only to find out that it already existed in different contextual framework -- or as we say in mathematics "isomorphic under change of notation".

__________________
Back in business at plantsthatproduce.com

Richard

A better venue would be Evol. Bio. Letters.

Stephen Krashen would point out it is a language.

Personal attacks are not going to help you at all.

__________________
Back in business at plantsthatproduce.com

jjjankovsky

kind sur...if i'm to listen to you and actuially download whatever i read about deep under this post,...i'd hope not to have to wade thru your defensiveness...

you want to pitch your ideas here,...do it.

you want to tell your story/struggle...do it here.

try not to confuse us by mixing the two...

many here are not stupid,...but might get bored fairly quickly by the 'quest'...in all it's chapters...

peace and love...

Jack Daw

Maybe if you made a shorter list of points from the book (I know it's difficult), but not many people with interest in the topic have the time to read almost 200 pages.
I, for one, would like to know, what you came to, but don't really have much time to read the book thoroughly enough. So what are the basic differences between your ideas and the Intelligent Design/Darwin's theory?

Btw.: You meeting with too many opponents doesn't necessarily mean that you are wrong. It would be a very long list, if I had to name everyone, who brought something to human knowledge, yet was fought against on many occasions.

__________________
Thnx to Marcel, Ante, Dr. Chiranjit Parmar and Francesco for the plants I've received.



Zeitgeist - Corporatocracy 101 (~2hrs)

Zeitgeist - Moving Forward (~2.5hrs)

jjjankovsky

" I deliberately and strenuously avoid the pompous language used particularly by philosophers. Fortunately for the reader, neither was the technical language used by biologists necessary, since my book discusses things from a more fundamental, axiomatic level."

i think you are fooling yourself...

Richard

I read the book early this morning. Several people here could easily do so. The discussion is nowhere concise. Several over-broad topics are also discussed at length; for example chapter 18 is not needed. Much text is also spent pointing out what the author views as flaws with present theories. I believe that if all this ancillary material was skipped and the author focused on a concise presentation of his theory, it could all be stated in about 1500 to 2500 words. The author clearly has a passion for the subject and would greatly benefit from a mentor at an established institution to guide him through the logistics of the academic research world.

No one has launched a personal attack against you.

For people still interested in the text, you'll find it here:

__________________
Back in business at plantsthatproduce.com

Matt Turner

Richard,

Your well-meaning actions are unfortunately in breach of copyright. I have removed this book from distribution at both Lulu and Smashwords. It is no longer freely available. Please remove my pdf from your post, you have no legal right to distribute it.

But thank you for your assessment! Sounds fair enough to me.

No-one on this particular thread was getting especially personal, but based on my experience on another forum I suspected that it was likely to get that way, hence my withdrawal.

Richard

Matt,

I have truncated the attachment so that only the title and publisher page are shown. Interested parties may still be able to find the text via ISBN search on pages cached by Google. Also, upon examination of the text I downloaded there is no declaration of copyright and thus it appears to be in the public domain.

__________________
Back in business at plantsthatproduce.com

Matt Turner

Richard,
Thanks for that!
(The copyright statement appears at the bottom of the very pdf you provide! But in any case a copyright statement is not actually necessary to ensure copyright protection.)

This work is not in the public domain (yet). But I withdrew this work only to ensure compliance with journal publishing embargo requirements. If I get no success with the academic route (I have re-submitted a proposal), I will re-release my work and let people make of it what they will. I know when to quit.

Richard

Ha! Chagrin!

Anyway, notice that Einstein did not submit his first papers to Nature. Get your ideas down to a concise 2,000 words and try for some low-hanging fruit, like Letters to Evol.Bio.

__________________
Back in business at plantsthatproduce.com

Matt Turner

OK! I'll try and summarize the theory part and submit to Letters to Evol.Bio. I'll let you know how it goes!
Thanks for your help,
Matthew

Richard

Here is a rule-of-thumb to keep in mind for peer-reviewed journals: A person with a Masters Degree will have their submissions rejected 4 out of 5 times, whereas a full professor with a long list of publications will be accepted for publication 4 out of 5 times. It all comes down to a person's experience in communicating their ideas through writing and their skill in choosing a journal that is highly relevant to the topic.

__________________
Back in business at plantsthatproduce.com