From owner-biophys@hgmp.mrc.ac.uk Tue May 1 15:53:11 2001 Return-Path: Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mercury.hgmp.mrc.ac.uk (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3BBE217AC9 for ; Tue, 1 May 2001 15:53:09 +0100 (BST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mercury.hgmp.mrc.ac.uk (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1E57F17ADE for ; Tue, 1 May 2001 15:53:01 +0100 (BST) Received: from niobium.hgmp.mrc.ac.uk (niobium [193.62.192.41]) by mercury.hgmp.mrc.ac.uk (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3A9C917A9C for ; Tue, 1 May 2001 15:52:44 +0100 (BST) Received: (from news@localhost) by niobium.hgmp.mrc.ac.uk (8.9.3+Sun/8.8.8) id PAA18031 for biophys-list@hgmp.mrc.ac.uk; Tue, 1 May 2001 15:52:43 +0100 (BST) X-Authentication-Warning: niobium.hgmp.mrc.ac.uk: news set sender to using -f From: Gromit X-Newsgroups: alt.atheism,alt.talk.creationism,sci.physics,alt.sci.physics,bionet.biophysics,harvard.course.physics11a.q-a,sci.bio.paleontology,talk.atheism Subject: Re: The "Science" of John Boatwright Message-ID: <1103_988728794@GANDALF> References: <3ae8b06a.109420557@nntp.we.mediaone.net> <3AE8B9E2.A73DB51B@mediaone.net> <1127_988344536@GANDALF> <3AE9B280.8406B3B2@mediaone.net> <3AEADE18.6CDCEC04@mediaone.net> <3aeafab8.259537105@nntp.we.mediaone.net> <3AEB1B0F.5D8C32D3@mediaone.net> <3AEC8193.FA637652@mediaone.net> <3AEC80E6.B2458DB@hvc.rr.com> <3AEC975E.37157E09@mediaone.net> <3AECB09B.83C68B85@mindspring.com> <3AED2DAD.810FE326@mediaone.net> <3AEDEF7F.7E7B31E5@mediaone.net> <3AEE46F7.12E64920@mediaone.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 5.0; Windows NT 5.0) Opera 5.02 [en] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Lines: 17 Date: Tue, 01 May 2001 14:53:14 GMT To: biophys@hgmp.mrc.ac.uk Sender: owner-biophys@hgmp.mrc.ac.uk Precedence: bulk On Tue, 01 May 2001 05:09:17 GMT, George Hammond wrote: > Dave Oldridge wrote: snip > The 13x13 experimental correlation matrix proves to be a > perfect CUBE when you plot out all the angles. > Now, don't tell me that's an ACCIDENT...! And if it isn't > an accident, how would you explain it being cubic? Perhaps it's an accident, perhaps not. But you cannot just claim that it is not an accident without some supporting evidence. > (BTW, I published the explanation, and discovery, in 1994 > in the peer reviewed literature). .