Posted on 11/03/2003 12:05:39 PM PST by Heartlander
But in regard to the peer review process…
It merely obfuscates a clear point. The genes and pseudogenes for vitamin C show clear evidence for evolution from common ancestry.
McCluskey finds a few additional data points from the literature from 1969 to 1980--he's writing in 1985--and announces "It's much more complicated than most people think."
Most things are, but the differences between the simplified version most people know and the McCluskey version are things like "some animals synthesize vitamin C in their livers, others in their kidneys, some in both." Perhaps some other animal lineages have lost vitamin C synthesis, more than are usually reported. (But are the pseudogenes in these other cases the same as the primate pseudogenes, or different as in the case of the guinea pig? As RightWingNilla correctly points out, it does matter.)
Well, wow! I guess Genesis is literally true now, huh? We're invited to think so.
Would original design plus degenerative loss serve to explain the present-day diversity?That might have been an interesting thing to show, but it would involve presenting an alternate history of life on Earth. That wouldn't do. It would be too obviously already falsified by what we know already. The author does not dare answer his own question.
An old paper trying to dazzle with detail. It's been ignored even by creationists. A Yahoo! shows that one of the five hits is an "article" by your compadre at DesUni, gore3000. (Guess we know where you got it, huh?) Two of the others are vitamin C faddist sites. One is the article itself.
What is ‘your’ problem? Or problem with the article?
I am not trying to prove creationism. What are you trying to prove?
Would original design plus degenerative loss serve to explain the present-day diversity?
OK?… So this statement means all must adhere to a literal interpretation of Genesis and ‘all’ biological science is wrong?
Look, I have linked to this article at least a year ago, found it on my own, posted it on this forum, and provided it only to this forum.
Apparently Vade is only allowed to draw conclusions and all others should rely on… – you for conclusions and guilt?
Vade is the source of knowledge and judgment?
Vade, by saying you are the source of knowledge and judgment, am I implying that you are; a pixie, fairy, or an imaginary being? I must mean that only a literal interpretation of Genesis is true.
Maybe I am just saying you are being ridiculous…
There is no "there" there. It's a big "So what?" It is not "Evidence Disproving Evolution," never mind it being cited as such.
I am not trying to prove creationism.
It's a creationist paper, originally published in a creationist publication. It's all head-fake, a lot of squirmy detail designed to gull those who can't read and understand into thinking that somehow what mainstream science says about vitamin C and mutations and evolution is wrong. It might work on people who already don't ask inconvenient questions, even to themselves.
What are you trying to prove?
I didn't post it here. I merely point out its factual content has no implications for the discussion. Perhaps you needed it explained to you. If so, I did the honors.
Vade, by saying you are the source of knowledge and judgment, am I implying that you are; a pixie, fairy, or an imaginary being?
The dance of what you are not saying is an old game. Why don't you think a bit about what you are saying and then try to say it?
[to vade:] You still fail to realize that now the State Board of Education in Ohio agreed to allow local districts to bring critical analysis of Darwin's ideas into classrooms.Actually, you could say that the actual wording of the Ohio standards contained a mild rebuke of ID:
H. Describe a foundation of biological evolution as the change in gene frequency of a population over time. Explain the historical and current scientific developments, mechanisms and processes of biological evolution. Describe how scientists continue to investigate and critically analyze aspects of evolutionary theory. (The intent of this benchmark does not mandate the teaching or testing of intelligent design.)
Thank you for the article, Heartlander!
It seems to me that the public would greatly appreciate an on-line publication of scientific papers which were submitted and rejected along with the rejection letters. There could be some pearls in there - or at least some interesting reading. After all, the first attempt to publish string theory was rejected.
For Lurkers interested in finding Electronic Journals and Newsletters:
Why don't you think a bit about what you are saying and then try to say it?
Fine:
You're not very accurate, and your inaccuracy seems very self-serving.
Ironically, it appears that you are posting on a Creationist site and following a Creationist leader. (by your own standards)
"On the issue of evolution, the verdict is still out on how God created the Earth."
-President George W Bush
What is ‘he’ saying?
Actually, why don't you think a bit about what you are saying and then try to say it.
I am not a Creationist but I don’t know if our President is… He is a Christian like myself though…
Is everyone who questions evolution a Creationist? Well, I think we both know that those who question neo-darwinism are not necessarily a Creationist.
No Child Left Behind Law
Signed by George W. Bush on January 8, 2002
Creationism, it’s a PC label applied by whom? You can straddle the fence with your agnostic label but why say that Christians are Creationists and all religions should be ignored based on ‘your’ scientific data?
Please explain how intelligence came from mindlessness. If you believe this than you are part of a religion.
Again, they are not asking for ID to be taught. They are only asking for the textbooks to be factual.
ThinkPlease: "If that were the case, do you think any ID paper would have been published.(?) Methinks you are overstating just a tad."
The overwhelmingly majority view remains that no peer-reviewd ID paper has been published. Just ask around. It's pretty much ex cathedra.
That's because no one wants to touch the question of who's the designer. If it's God, this is just Creationism. If it's not God, then who?
If ID is going to go anywhere as a serious body of knowledge, it has to get past this hurdle. Then it has to define "complexity" as something more than "I know it when I see it". And it needs to provide more evidence than "biologists don't know something".
You are absolutely correct… FYI…
Is evolution still secular? It has entered into something it intentionally omits.
Interesting that the higher orders can't make their own vitamin C, while the lower orders can. It certainly fits into change over time, but is it Evolution ? (accumulation of complexity?) or is it Devolution? (loss of complexity?).
That's what jumped out at me, too. Should have read down the thread.
It's different because ID starts with the designer, then assumes everything that's unknown now, will always remain unknown, proving that everything must be designed.
Evolution explains why you don't have a dinosaur for a pet and why no one is in possession of a 12 billion-year-old human fossil.
It certainly fits into change over time, but is it Evolution ? (accumulation of complexity?) or is it Devolution? (loss of complexity?).
Exactly. Dollo's Law.
Not really. Most rejections are of the types:
1. Spelling and grammar is terrible, not readable.
2. Mathematicsl mistakes abound, 2+2 isn't 6, it's not even 5 (which isn't even either.)
3a. The computations can't be replicated.
3b. The experiments can't be replicated.
4. The paper should be revised for minor errors and resubmitted.
5. The paper isn't suitable for this journal, try "The Journal of the Less Common Metals."
6. The observations of WWII bombers on the Moon were not verified.
Numbers 4 and 5 get published later anyway. The others are usually so bad as to be useless. You might be surprised what is submitted for publication. Most of the rejects really are sow's ears.
I seriously doubt this; when I get back to my office on Wednesday I'll see if I can refute it.
Any organism that has collagen in its joints needs vitamin C. You can't get adequate amounts of vitamin C from a diet of insects. Unless the bats in question are all fruit bats, they make vitamin C, and that's got nothing to do with evolution.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.