Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,819 Year: 3,076/9,624 Month: 921/1,588 Week: 104/223 Day: 2/13 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Quality Control the Gold Standard
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 181 of 238 (286753)
02-15-2006 3:23 AM
Reply to: Message 156 by Evopeach
02-13-2006 11:49 AM


Re: Going back off topic
Evopeach responds to me:
quote:
Funny I jest took a look at two Biology books
Titles, please? I'd like to look them up.
Here's the title of my college bio textbook:
Life: The Science of Biology, Second Edition, by Purves/Orians.
Now, who are Purves and Orians? Well, Bull Purves was professor of Biology at Harvey Mudd College...and the prof from whom I took Biology. Gordon Orians is from the University of Seattle. The book was reviewed by 42 people, including Lynn Margulis, first wife of Carl Sagan and proponent of endosymbiotic theory.
But, none of those reviewers wrote the book. In fact, Purves and Orians didn't really collaborate that much. The majority of the book was written by Purves and covers basic biology from cellular dynamics through evolutionary theory while Orians wrote the sections on population biology. Oh, they certainly listened to their comments and the feedback from the first edition, but the book is theirs, not the reviewers'.
And let us not forget, just because someone's name is on the cover does not mean they had anything to do with the book. This was a fairly big scandal not so long ago as authors finally got a look at the books that bore their names and couldn't find anything that they had written inside.
And then there's just the fact that the books are piss poor. The AAAS did a review of the common science textbooks used for junior high school and not one textbook series from any of the publishers managed to get a good score in the life sciences. And this wasn't an issue of whether they covered evolution. It was rating things such as the ability to state a definition clearly, identifying what the purpose of a section was, etc.
The process by which a textbook is usually written, especially for primary and secondary education, is that the publisher decides to write a book. But, they don't have any authors so they hire a content provider. The content provider, however, doesn't have any authors, either, so they hire freelancers, assigning them topics and the state standards they are trying to meet. The freelancers, independently, write the various sections which is returned to the content provider. The content provider does some fact checking then edits and compiles the book and sends it to the publisher.
Do you really think that a public school biology textbook is "written by evos and reviewed by evos"? Please.

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 156 by Evopeach, posted 02-13-2006 11:49 AM Evopeach has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 186 by Evopeach, posted 02-15-2006 5:55 PM Rrhain has not replied

Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 182 of 238 (286755)
02-15-2006 3:45 AM
Reply to: Message 171 by Evopeach
02-14-2006 5:16 PM


Re: Going back off topic
Evopeach writes:
quote:
And such puts my figure which I have said was an estimate in thr range of 4100 plus.
Incorrect. 4013 to one significant figure is 4000, not 5000. Your error is more than 20%. And despite your claim that because there was no decimal point, that means the error term can be as much as 999, that isn't the way scientists actually calculate error terms. Instead, error terms are calculated statistically or to be within one measurable unit, depending upon the method of mensuration.
For example, suppose you are using a ruler to measure a distance. You should be able to measure the distance to within +/- 1 of the smallest gradations. In fact, you really ought to be able to eyeball half of one of those gradations, possibly a third.
I daresay counting students is something that you can get down to the individual student. And since students don't come in fractional amounts, claiming "5000" students indicates you may be off by as much as 999 students is to be disingenuous at best. If the count were 4013, any rounding would be to 4000, not 5000. Too, you wouldn't say that you started with 4013 and then went to 5000 in order to have one significant figure with an error term. Instead, you'd say 4013 +/- 1 student.
quote:
And if you think there has been any lessening of evolutionary teaching in high schools in Texas and California or anywhere else you are just intellectually dishonest.
You obviously don't live in California. Let me introduce you to the little town of Vista, CA, just north of San Diego and kitty-corner to the San Diego Wild Animal Park.
Let us not forget the recent flap regarding the California high school that was going to teach "intelligent design" as a "philosophy" class...except that it was going to be the only subject involved with the only presentation being that it was absolutely true and taught by a minister's wife.
quote:
He did of course turn down my offer to fly Duane Gish in from So Cal and sponsor all expenses for a debate at Rice on his turf.
That's because Gish is a fraud and a hack. Why would anybody waste his time and insult the intelligence of the students?

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 171 by Evopeach, posted 02-14-2006 5:16 PM Evopeach has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 184 by Evopeach, posted 02-15-2006 5:36 PM Rrhain has not replied

U can call me Cookie
Member (Idle past 4953 days)
Posts: 228
From: jo'burg, RSA
Joined: 11-15-2005


Message 183 of 238 (286767)
02-15-2006 4:58 AM
Reply to: Message 158 by Evopeach
02-13-2006 4:05 PM


Re: Getting back on topic
It’s almost amusing that you think you’ve defeated my arguments, if it wasn’t so . so sad.
All you’ve done is show, quite vehemently, that your understanding of DNA replication and repair is, at best, surface orientated.
Again, the 10** -09 was always in the context of defining the inherent dna copying mechanism in the human cell over huge populations and long time periods as in the Genome Project.
More accurately, it is in the context of the inherent DNA copying mechanism for point mutations.
STR mutations ARE due to the inherent DNA copying mechanism. Look it up .
You introduced all the other sources of mutation rates which are variant depending on a lot of variables that are difficult to isolate.
Could you explain this statement . it just sounds like an excuse to me. All cellular processes have variables including DNA replication and repair. Nothing occurs in isolation.
Hey I know an even better straw mand and red herring (you can do both simultaneously.. remarkable), IS TO USE THE RATE FOR 1,000 GENERATIONS IN RADIATED FRUIT FLYS.. THTA'S MUCH HIGHER.
Not one of your examples is apples to apples .. pitiful.
All my ref’s were based on observations of human DNA, so I have been comparing ”apples to apples’ . unless you don’t really know what that means .
Where did irradiated fruit flies come up in my words? Talk about apples with apples .
You do raise an interesting point here though; many organisms have a naturally occurring mutation rate that is substantially higher than in humans. How do you account for those? Or do you believe that people have been arguing over human evolution only, these past 150 years.
You know, I really wouldn’t have that much of a problem with the figure you’ve supplied had DNA replication and repair occurred solely in isolation . They Do Not.
Cells are not closed systems; substances enter and leave all the time, some of which are responsible for mutagenesis. Even substances produced by cells themselves can cause mutations. As such any practical mutation rate is a function of both the causation of mutation (whether extrinsic or intrinsic) and the adequacy of repair mechanisms (which themselves often result in the fixation of a mutation). Organisms live in the real world, not in test tubes.
It is now known that mutation rate differs depending not only on location in the genome, but also on the gene itself. The mutation rates of certain genes, for point mutations, can reach levels of 10E-5, rivaling even STR mutation rate.
You see, EP, there’s a lot more to mutation than a single number. If you actually knew anything about genetics . no, make that biology . you would realize this.
When one comes down to it, if mutations really were that rare, genetic disease would also be a rarity. Yet, do you know that there are more people living, and dying, of genetic disorders, than there are people living and dying of AIDS. Still, barring those, living and dying, of cancer.
Maybe one day, when you’re not blinded by your own ego, you might actually acknowledge that you live in the real world.

"The good Christian should beware the mathematician and all those who make empty prophecies. The danger already exists that the mathematicians have made a covenant with the devil to darken the spirit and to confine man in the bonds of hell." - St. Augustine

This message is a reply to:
 Message 158 by Evopeach, posted 02-13-2006 4:05 PM Evopeach has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 185 by Evopeach, posted 02-15-2006 5:45 PM U can call me Cookie has replied

Evopeach
Member (Idle past 6614 days)
Posts: 224
From: Stroud, OK USA
Joined: 08-03-2005


Message 184 of 238 (287074)
02-15-2006 5:36 PM
Reply to: Message 182 by Rrhain
02-15-2006 3:45 AM


Re: Going back off topic
PLease define fraud and hack regarding Dr. Gish. Does that mean he really has no Phd in science from Berkly. Does it mean he did not participate on the team at Berkley whose principal won a Nobel Prize for their work on the Tobacco Mosaic Virus. Does it mean the books he has written he really didn't write but were all plagerized.
Your infantile and erroneous posts are pitiful to read and display a maturity just below my very intelligent eight year old grandson. I have entertained Dr. Gish, met him many times and he is a fine gentleman unlike you.
As to error budgets and estimation theory the results are always stated as + or - a range for unbiased estimators. The range clearly depends on the accuracy of the sample in this case one innocuous number drawn from my memory and appropriately rounded, ie, to the nearest thousand because that is the level of detail that gave rise to my gross estimate. It was not a measuremnt , a quote or an analytical result.. a gross estimate sensibly treated.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 182 by Rrhain, posted 02-15-2006 3:45 AM Rrhain has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 189 by sidelined, posted 02-16-2006 2:52 AM Evopeach has replied
 Message 214 by nator, posted 02-17-2006 10:31 AM Evopeach has replied

Evopeach
Member (Idle past 6614 days)
Posts: 224
From: Stroud, OK USA
Joined: 08-03-2005


Message 185 of 238 (287078)
02-15-2006 5:45 PM
Reply to: Message 183 by U can call me Cookie
02-15-2006 4:58 AM


Re: Getting back on topic
My figure was simply a statement that the dna copying mechanism in the human cell in toto resulted in making no more than copying errors than 1 in 10**-09.
That is taken directly from the book Exons Entrons and Talking Genes.
You introduced the concept of the total spectrum of the things that might result in an altered or mutated genome.
My statement was that the human genome project and several other papers some of which I provided agreed with the quoted figure and that sucha system was operating at a Six Sigma level of 7.0+
I understand fully that considering radiation, mutagens, chemicals, carcinogens etc. the genome suffers mutations unrelated to the intrinsic copying errors.. but the intrinsic rate is unaltered.
If you disagree take it up with the author of the book, the reviewers and the publisher.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 183 by U can call me Cookie, posted 02-15-2006 4:58 AM U can call me Cookie has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 188 by U can call me Cookie, posted 02-16-2006 1:18 AM Evopeach has not replied

Evopeach
Member (Idle past 6614 days)
Posts: 224
From: Stroud, OK USA
Joined: 08-03-2005


Message 186 of 238 (287085)
02-15-2006 5:55 PM
Reply to: Message 181 by Rrhain
02-15-2006 3:23 AM


Re: Going back off topic
Dear egomaniac and immature bloviator,
Kenneth R. Miller - Home Page
You might review the strong evolutionary content and stance and agressive anti ID credentials of the authors.
Please feel free to email Dr. Miller Phd. in Biology 1974 and presently a tenured proferssor ar Brown University in Biological Sciences to inform him of his pi-- poor scholarship, intellect, writing and presentation. Pay particular attention to his anti-creationist positions, papers, talks and of course his teaching credentials at Brown.
And for Percy as well.. if you need help reading this direct and irrefutable source cutting off your last line of retreat maybe I can help further.
These authors series have been well accepted and used considerably.
Fried crow is on your menu for the next month.

You continue to demonstrate that you cannot understand what someone posts or respond to the content of their messages. We have made many allowances for you, yet you continue to show that you are unable to follow the rules or guidelines. Understand that your privileges to post have been continued simply because your posts serve to exemplify the capabilities of those who believe like you. They can and will be restricted if you continue to ignore the rules and guidelines.

This message has been edited by AdminJar, 02-15-2006 05:31 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 181 by Rrhain, posted 02-15-2006 3:23 AM Rrhain has not replied

Evopeach
Member (Idle past 6614 days)
Posts: 224
From: Stroud, OK USA
Joined: 08-03-2005


Message 187 of 238 (287089)
02-15-2006 6:06 PM
Reply to: Message 180 by Percy
02-14-2006 6:13 PM


Re: Going back off topic
I began a regular workout after January at the local YMCA.
The first day I could swim only four laps, the next time five and now I am up to twelve.
Your logic says Evopeach has demonstrated that a person can achieve a performance improvement of several hundred percent in only twenty iterations of his exercise experiment. SO far there is no limit to the number of laps he will eventually be able to swim non-stop.
You may have heard of the 100 year old science of selective breeding and the unalterable fact that every genetic progression yet observed hits the wall at some point and is never ever able to be advanced further.
Can you supply the experimental data to show that sugar beet sugar content is now routinely advanced by these means beyond say 20%?
Remember we are not talking intrusive genetic engineering.. just mutation and natural selection, gene shuffling and other evolutionary mechanisms.
LOL

This message is a reply to:
 Message 180 by Percy, posted 02-14-2006 6:13 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 192 by Percy, posted 02-16-2006 8:04 AM Evopeach has replied

U can call me Cookie
Member (Idle past 4953 days)
Posts: 228
From: jo'burg, RSA
Joined: 11-15-2005


Message 188 of 238 (287188)
02-16-2006 1:18 AM
Reply to: Message 185 by Evopeach
02-15-2006 5:45 PM


Re: Getting back on topic
As i understand it, the book you are refering to is a popularization; something for public consumption. As such, you gotta expect a fair bit of dumbing down, in order to keep things simple and interesting.
The point i was trying to make is that such a number is almost meaningless in the real world.
To say that the rate of mutation in actual organisms is unaltered by intrinsic and extrinsic factors is simply unrealistic.

"The good Christian should beware the mathematician and all those who make empty prophecies. The danger already exists that the mathematicians have made a covenant with the devil to darken the spirit and to confine man in the bonds of hell." - St. Augustine

This message is a reply to:
 Message 185 by Evopeach, posted 02-15-2006 5:45 PM Evopeach has not replied

sidelined
Member (Idle past 5908 days)
Posts: 3435
From: Edmonton Alberta Canada
Joined: 08-30-2003


Message 189 of 238 (287192)
02-16-2006 2:52 AM
Reply to: Message 184 by Evopeach
02-15-2006 5:36 PM


Re: Going back off topic
Evopeach
Does it mean he did not participate on the team at Berkley whose principal won a Nobel Prize for their work on the Tobacco Mosaic Virus
In all likelihood yes. Observe.
Wikipedia
Gish, a twin, was born in White City, Kansas, the youngest of nine children. He received a BS degree from UCLA in 1949 and a Ph.D. in biochemistry from the University of California, Berkeley in 1953. He is the author of several books and articles espousing the tenets of creationism.
Gish was an Assistant Research Associate at Berkeley, and an Assistant Professor at Cornell University Medical College, before joining the Upjohn Company as a Research Associate in 1960
The Nobel prize in Chemistry concerning the Tobacco Mosaic Virus was awarded in 1946.John Howard Northrop, Wendell Meredith Stanley USA, USA "for their preparation of enzymes and virus proteins in a pure form"
Wikipedia
Wendell Meredith Stanley (August 16, 1904 - June 15, 1971) was an American biochemist, virologist and Nobel prize laureate.
He was born in Ridgeville, Indiana, and earned a BS in Chemistry at Earlham College. He then studied at the University of Illinois, gaining a MS in science in 1927 followed by a PhD in chemistry two years later.
As a member of National Research Council he moved temporarily for academic work in Munich before he returned to the States in 1931. On return he was approved as an assistant at Rockefeller Institute, the post he held until 1948. He later became Professor of Biochemistry at University of California, Berkeley, and in 1958 Chairman of the Biochemistry Department.
Stanley's work contributed to knowledge on lepracidal compounds, diphenyl stereochemistry and the chemistry of the sterols. His researches on the virus causing the mosaic disease in tobacco plants led to the isolation of a nucleoprotein which displayed tobacco mosaic virus activity.
Wikipedia
wikipedia
John Howard Northrop (July 5, 1891 - May 27, 1987) was an American biochemist who won the Nobel Prize in Chemistry in 1946 (with James Batcheller Sumner and Wendell Meredith Stanley) for purifying and crystallizing certain enzymes.
Northrop was born in Yonkers, New York and educated at Columbia University, where he earned his PhD in chemistry in 1915. During World War I, he conducted research for the U.S. Army Chemical Warfare Service on the production of acetone and ethanol through fermentation. This work led to studying enzymes.
In 1929 he isolated and crystallized the gastric enzyme pepsin and determined that it was a protein and in 1938 he isolated and crystallized the first bacteriophage (a small virus that attacks bacteria), and determined that it was a nucleoprotein. Northrop also isolated and crystallized pepsinogen (the precursor to pepsin), trypsin, chymotrypsin, and carboxypeptidase.
His 1939 book Crystalline Enzymes was an important text. Northrop was employed by the Rockefeller Institute for Medical Research in New York City from 1916 to 1961, at which time he retired. Northrop died in Wickenberg, Arizona.
Perhaps you could connect the dots and provide info on how much he contributed if at all. Perhaps he ran for coffee and donuts.
Perhaps you can conduct yourself with some grace or you could continue to verify to others that you are free from the ravages of intelligence eh?

But I realize now that these people were not in science; they didn’t understand it. They didn’t understand technology; they didn’t understand their time. R.P. Feynman

This message is a reply to:
 Message 184 by Evopeach, posted 02-15-2006 5:36 PM Evopeach has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 190 by Wounded King, posted 02-16-2006 5:34 AM sidelined has replied
 Message 195 by Evopeach, posted 02-16-2006 9:34 AM sidelined has replied

Wounded King
Member
Posts: 4149
From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 190 of 238 (287201)
02-16-2006 5:34 AM
Reply to: Message 189 by sidelined
02-16-2006 2:52 AM


A critique of Sidelined's critique of Evopeach's claims
No one is saying that Gish participated in the work that won the Nobel prize, all they are saying is that he worked with one of those that did. The 'their' in your quote from Evopeach is in reference to the principal's work not the team's.
Gish worked with Stanley during his time at Berkley there is at least one paper that they published together (Gish, et al., 1958).
TTFN,
WK
This message has been edited by Wounded King, 16-Feb-2006 11:45 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 189 by sidelined, posted 02-16-2006 2:52 AM sidelined has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 193 by sidelined, posted 02-16-2006 9:19 AM Wounded King has replied

AdminPD
Inactive Administrator


Message 191 of 238 (287204)
02-16-2006 6:41 AM


Alert - Subtitle Change
I think the "Going back off topic" subtitle is past its prime.
If not then you all need to get back on topic and appropriate subtitles would be appreciated.
An accurate subtitle is like a book title. It catches the browser attention and leads them inside.
Thanks, carry on. Purple

Percy
Member
Posts: 22394
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 192 of 238 (287212)
02-16-2006 8:04 AM
Reply to: Message 187 by Evopeach
02-15-2006 6:06 PM


Re: Going back off topic
Evopeach writes:
The first day I could swim only four laps, the next time five and now I am up to twelve.
Your logic says Evopeach has demonstrated that a person can achieve a performance improvement of several hundred percent in only twenty iterations of his exercise experiment. SO far there is no limit to the number of laps he will eventually be able to swim non-stop.
Just as you have the Olympic athelete as an example of the possible, so do we have the replicators in the machinery of the modern cell as an example of the possible. Just as you shouldn't be postulating to cut the time for the world record for the 100 meter butterfly in half, no one in science is postulating eight or nine sigma replicators. We're only postulating that what we've observed taking place in the natural world arose through natural processes.
There are other factors you're ignoring. Someone in this thread, I think it's Crash, is trying to get you to understand that there are more types of mutations than just single substitutions. Another factor that you may be ignoring is that the measurements of the reliability of replication in human DNA could be post-facto, i.e., after a viable embryo forms. The number of failures before this stage is not well understood, and measurements of mutation rates during sperm/egg union are probably lacking. The point is that you're probably overestimating the reliability of replication, but I can't say by how much.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 187 by Evopeach, posted 02-15-2006 6:06 PM Evopeach has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 196 by Evopeach, posted 02-16-2006 9:47 AM Percy has replied
 Message 223 by Omnivorous, posted 02-17-2006 1:47 PM Percy has not replied

sidelined
Member (Idle past 5908 days)
Posts: 3435
From: Edmonton Alberta Canada
Joined: 08-30-2003


Message 193 of 238 (287241)
02-16-2006 9:19 AM
Reply to: Message 190 by Wounded King
02-16-2006 5:34 AM


Re: A critique of Sidelined's critique of Evopeach's claims
Wounded King
No one is saying that Gish participated in the work that won the Nobel prize, all they are saying is that he worked with one of those that did. The 'their' in your quote from Evopeach is in reference to the principal's work not the team's.
Certainly this is the case. My point, however, was that the implication that he participated with a member of the team at berkley
who had,previous to their connection. won a Nobel prize makes his participation on the team one of association with people on the cutting edge of biochemistry.This is no indication of how much he did contribute and this is what I was trying to arrive at.
As for the paper which he worked with Stanley on.
Studies on the amino acid sequence of tobacco mosaic virus (TMV) protein. I. Fractionation of products of tryptic hydrolysis by countercurrent distribution.
Arch Biochem Biophys. 1958 Dec;78(2):433-50. No abstract available.
PMID: 13618026 [PubMed - OLDMEDLINE for Pre1966]
Now what did each contribute since there were three in all on this team? How important a paper was this and how much of the work and insight was attributable to Stanley himself?
You will also note here in the Bio of Stanley from wikipedia
Stanley's work contributed to knowledge on lepracidal compounds, diphenyl stereochemistry and the chemistry of the sterols. His researches on the virus causing the mosaic disease in tobacco plants led to the isolation of a nucleoprotein which displayed tobacco mosaic virus activity.
And that of Northrop also from wikipedia
In 1929 he isolated and crystallized the gastric enzyme pepsin and determined that it was a protein and in 1938 he isolated and crystallized the first bacteriophage (a small virus that attacks bacteria), and determined that it was a nucleoprotein. Northrop also isolated and crystallized pepsinogen (the precursor to pepsin), trypsin, chymotrypsin, and carboxypeptidase
Now as for Gish we have this
Gish was an Assistant Research Associate at Berkeley, and an Assistant Professor at Cornell University Medical College, before joining the Upjohn Company as a Research Associate in 1960
No reference to any work that he did. Hence my poke in fun as to his contribution.
This message has been edited by sidelined, Fri, 2006-02-17 06:51 AM

But I realize now that these people were not in science; they didn’t understand it. They didn’t understand technology; they didn’t understand their time. R.P. Feynman

This message is a reply to:
 Message 190 by Wounded King, posted 02-16-2006 5:34 AM Wounded King has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 194 by Wounded King, posted 02-16-2006 9:31 AM sidelined has replied

Wounded King
Member
Posts: 4149
From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 194 of 238 (287249)
02-16-2006 9:31 AM
Reply to: Message 193 by sidelined
02-16-2006 9:19 AM


Re: A critique of Sidelined's critique of Evopeach's claims
Now what did each contribute since there were three in all on this team? How important a paper was this and how much of the work and insight was attributable to Stanley himself?
The general convention is that the first author will have done the majority, or at least an equal share, of the work. The last author is generally the supervisor of the group, which means a supervisor can get a lot of papers with little input other than general guidance. Any authors in between can range between substantial to small contributions, usually in descending order of contribution.
From this the chances are that Gish did the majority of the work for that paper. I'm not sure how you could even start to assess the level of input of insight without having been in the lab at the time.
TTFN,
WK
P.S. I don't think the Nobel they won was for Peace.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 193 by sidelined, posted 02-16-2006 9:19 AM sidelined has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 211 by sidelined, posted 02-17-2006 8:47 AM Wounded King has not replied

Evopeach
Member (Idle past 6614 days)
Posts: 224
From: Stroud, OK USA
Joined: 08-03-2005


Message 195 of 238 (287251)
02-16-2006 9:34 AM
Reply to: Message 189 by sidelined
02-16-2006 2:52 AM


Re: Going back off topic
Gish was an Assistant Research Associate at Berkeley, and an Assistant Professor at Cornell University Medical College, before joining the Upjohn Company as a Research Associate in 1960. According to Sidney W. Fox:
Duane Gish has scientific credentials. As a biochemist, he has synthesized peptides, compounds intermediate between amino acids and proteins. He has been co-author of a number of publications in peptide chemistry.1
Wikipedia is an objective source and you may have heard of Dr. Fox.
Is Dr. Fox in the habit of corroborating the credentials of hacks and frauds, especially people with whom he disagrees on the topic og origins.. his primary field of research?
Here are a few of the many peer reviewed research papers published by the FRAUD.
Just a moment...
Just a moment...
Just a moment...
Just a moment...
Just a moment...
Just a moment...
Just a moment...
Just a moment...
Just a moment...
If you had any class you would issue a public apology to Dr. Gish for your ignorant and uninformed ad hominem attack.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 189 by sidelined, posted 02-16-2006 2:52 AM sidelined has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 197 by sidelined, posted 02-16-2006 9:50 AM Evopeach has replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024