[QUOTE]Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
[B]^ The truth is that there are no such rules. Every referee of a paper and every editor of a journal decides themselves what is admissable. One does not learn any such rules in BSc or PhD courses - at least at one of Australia's premier mainstream universities.
A pity Australia's premier mainstream universitites don't teach science properly anymore. Guess you have not bothered to look at the information for authors in most academic journals either.
If I wanted to, as a stunt, I could write a genomics paper that suggests that the pattern of protein family distribution in genomes is reminiscent of creation kinds and the referres would have absolutely no scientific reason to force me to withdraw that line.
As a stunt I could right a genomics paper on 18S rDNA sequence variation in Puff the Magic Dragon and his relatives and get it rejected as the stupidity it is as well. Have fun trying.
Protein families appear in higher life forms without a hint of where they came from - they are very suggestive of creation. It would only be utter mainstream bias that could allow such an interpretaiton to be withheld from publication.
It would be utter ignorance to think that the data is suggestive of creation. Define protein family...in another post you said that DNA is unimportant as well which is interesting for someone who keeps calling themselves a molecular bio scientist. Also define higher life form...bacteria are more numerous and have a more efficient genome than mammals...they are a higher life form....
Can you see that the scientific, mathematical and computational methods I would use would be no different to that of any other mainstream scientist. I would use sequence alignment tools and clustering and citations to show that protein families occur in conserved blocks and that new blocks of proteins appear from nowhere in higher taxa. It is simply the interpretaiton at the end that you don't like.
If the blocks came from nowhere there would be nothing to align in the first place and how do you use clustering algorithms to demonstrate appearance out of nowhere? Nothing clustering with something? It is simply your utter lack of comprehension of molecular biology and basic science that you don't like.
You are on an utterly futile witchhunt.
You are a fundie zealot
have a nice day