Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 66 (9078 total)
91 online now:
AZPaul3, dwise1, PaulK, Tanypteryx (4 members, 87 visitors)
Newest Member: harveyspecter
Post Volume: Total: 895,135 Year: 6,247/6,534 Month: 440/650 Week: 210/278 Day: 6/44 Hour: 2/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Meyer's Hopeless Monster
Ooook!
Member (Idle past 5132 days)
Posts: 340
From: London, UK
Joined: 09-29-2003


Message 11 of 207 (139540)
09-03-2004 11:10 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Nic Tamzek
08-25-2004 9:56 PM


Thanks for bringing attention to this travesty!

Aside from the appalling science and the almost unreadable scientific writing style, this represents a cynical attempt by ID to get scientific recognition. Contrary to what some (might) think this kind of action is to be strongly discouraged.

Don't get me wrong, if ID wants to be taken seriously as a science it should try and submit papers to journals to get properly peer reviewed - but this is not what happened here. As already has been pointed out on other sites discussing it, this is a unreviewed 'review' article put into a legitimate journal as a favour by a creationist editor. It has nothing to do with the advancement of understanding, and everything to do with being able to say: "look, ID is a science, we've published in a peer-reviewed journal"

Sorry for that everybody, it probably didn't contribute much to the discussion but I had to get that off my chest! This has got me slightly peeved!


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Nic Tamzek, posted 08-25-2004 9:56 PM Nic Tamzek has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by Percy, posted 09-07-2004 2:00 PM Ooook! has not replied

  
Ooook!
Member (Idle past 5132 days)
Posts: 340
From: London, UK
Joined: 09-29-2003


Message 48 of 207 (141719)
09-12-2004 6:30 AM
Reply to: Message 39 by NosyNed
09-11-2004 12:44 PM


Re: LUCA ?
I’m going to try and beat ID-man to the punch here, as he either has the wrong end of the stick (at best), or hasn’t a clue what he’s talking about (at worst).

There is quite a persuasive argument knocking around that the last universal ancestor was in fact a whole bunch of simple ancestors which swapped genes amongst themselves quite freely (lateral gene transfer) before ‘solidifying’ into the tree-of-life we all know and love. It was put forward as an answer to the fact that it is quite hard to pin-point where the branches all split at the base of the tree – if you analyse the sequences of a number of primitive genes for example you would be presented with a LUCA that had more biochemical functions than any existing prokaryote.

Here is a very good (4 year old) review of the ideas behind it

If you don’t have access to the full text then here is a pubmed central article (that I haven’t read in full) which is written by one of the main proponents of the theory about the origin of cells.

How this helps the ID movement I don’t know!

This message has been edited by Ooook!, 09-12-2004 09:20 AM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by NosyNed, posted 09-11-2004 12:44 PM NosyNed has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by Silent H, posted 09-12-2004 12:28 PM Ooook! has not replied
 Message 51 by Brad McFall, posted 09-13-2004 9:47 AM Ooook! has not replied

  
Ooook!
Member (Idle past 5132 days)
Posts: 340
From: London, UK
Joined: 09-29-2003


Message 78 of 207 (142375)
09-14-2004 3:51 PM
Reply to: Message 74 by Percy
09-14-2004 1:20 PM


Percy,

Aside from your summary, a couple of things (that I don't think have cropped up yet) probably need answering as well:


  1. Apart from the fact that the subject was beyond the scope of BSOW Proceedings normal fare, what should have happened once the article was submitted?

    My guess is that standard proceedure would be to have it passed on to one of the sub-editors who would then have designated three experts in the field (for example: a couple of evolutionary biologists and maybe someone knowledgable about how information theory relates to biology). If anybody knows how it would normally work, I'd be interested.

  2. If it was submitted in the normal way, why wouldn't it have been accepted?

    If someone thinks that there is good science in this piece of writing then can they kindly point me to where in article it is hidden?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by Percy, posted 09-14-2004 1:20 PM Percy has not replied

  
Ooook!
Member (Idle past 5132 days)
Posts: 340
From: London, UK
Joined: 09-29-2003


Message 102 of 207 (142759)
09-16-2004 2:39 PM
Reply to: Message 84 by ID man
09-16-2004 11:07 AM


Re: a response to Meyer's critics
What we will find, as with endo-symbiosis and the alleged origins of eukaryotesis that what is being looked for has to be assumed in the first place

This is at least the second time that you've made a comment like this and failed to expand on it. Care to expand on it in a new topic? We could even throw in your interpretations of common ancestry (also used as a throw away line earlier in this thread), as the two are kind of related.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 84 by ID man, posted 09-16-2004 11:07 AM ID man has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.1
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2022