GoodScienceForYou

November 2009

Hello, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! I noticed that you recently added commentary to an article, mutation. While Wikipedia welcomes editors' opinions on an article and how it could be changed, these comments are more appropriate for the article's accompanying talk page. If you post your comments there, other editors working on the same article will notice and respond to them and your comments will not disrupt the flow of the article. However, keep in mind that even on the talk page of an article, you should limit your discussion to improving the article. Article talk pages are not the place to discuss opinions of the subject of articles nor are such pages a forum. Thank you. Tim Vickers (talk) 18:59, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

[Unfortunately, unlike the common belief that has no basis, there is no evidence for random in the physical world. This is easily verifiable. If you have belief projected on science then it is not science. Your whole premise is tautology and has no experimental data (no scientific method used but only a projection and guess on what you think you are observing) that would even suggest random is possible in DNA. Very little scientific methodology is shown anywhere in the theory of evolution. The whole theory of evolution is based on beliefs that have not been proven, but they take well known scientific laws and avoid them, while injecting only pre-belief on the subject. Opinions on what you think you see is NOT science. The facts are that science has no idea how these changes in the DNA take place, (not a clue) but they are not random, because in the real world of science it does not exist. You cannot show that random is a cause. There is only the transference of DNA and genetic coding and that DNA coding responses to life from the environment and nothing else. Your projection of belief in random is not science. You cannot falsify this, and you should try. Assumptions are terrible science and you use them all the time in your editorials. Most people trained in biology today are unaware of how science actually works. If you can show that this idea is nothing more than assumptions based on poor training in science I would love to see your response.]

Wikipedia aims to summarise what has been published in reliable sources and is no place to publish your own ideas, see our no original research policy. Tim Vickers (talk) 19:43, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

3RR

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on mutation. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop your disruptive editing, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. Tim Vickers (talk) 19:08, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

In case you have never taken a physics course, you cannot violate the laws of science. "Cause and effect" is the foundational law of science. There is no science without cause and effect or cause and result. If there is no cause and effect there is no science. Cause and effect negate any form of "random" in DNA. And DNA is not the cause of itself, because nothing can be the cause of itself. If you don't understand this then you need to get out of science and let people who do understand science teach proper scientific methodology.