Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

New Dinosaur Species Found in India
AP ^ | August 13, 2003 | RAMOLA TALWAR BADAM

Posted on 08/13/2003 9:02:05 PM PDT by nwrep

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 1,961-1,9801,981-2,0002,001-2,020 ... 3,121-3,129 next last
To: All
Is it possible that a person may have his name used in a paper because his intellectual property was used?

From the Science instructions to authors:

By submitting a manuscript, the corresponding author accepts the responsibility that all authors have agreed to be so listed and have seen and approved the manuscript, its content, and its submission to Science. Any changes in authorship must be approved in writing by all the original authors.

You don't co-author a paper whose conclusions you disagree with. That's fraud. If you use someone's computer program, you cite the program in the reference section, and maybe thank the author if it's not generally available.

My own professional society, ACS, has published a quite detailed statement of ethical principles, at: http://pubs.acs.org/instruct/ethic2000.pdf

Quoting The co-authors of a paper should be all those persons who have made significant scientific contributions to the work reported and who share responsibility and accountability for the results. Other contributions should be indicated in a footnote or an “Acknowledgments” section.

1,981 posted on 08/21/2003 3:45:31 PM PDT by Right Wing Professor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1974 | View Replies]

To: Ichneumon; PatrickHenry; DittoJed2
Sure, cells have mechanisms to "limit change". But so bloody what? Enough change still occurs anyway to drive evolution, since no repair-and-maintenance process is ever 100% accurate.

I can see where the mechanism mentioned limits--as in "somewhat suppresses"--the rate of mutation. I don't see where it would over vast amounts of time completely cap the total number of mutations which do get through. The latter sort of limit was what Patrick was asking Ditto about. Without such a cap, once two populations have speciated, mutational differences just keep on accumulating. Everything we know about mutational clocks says that this idea works.

1,982 posted on 08/21/2003 3:58:51 PM PDT by VadeRetro
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1969 | View Replies]

To: VadeRetro
mutational clocks

Molecular clocks. Time for a break.

1,983 posted on 08/21/2003 4:00:53 PM PDT by VadeRetro
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1982 | View Replies]

To: VadeRetro
Molecular placemarker.
1,984 posted on 08/21/2003 4:07:46 PM PDT by Lurking Libertarian (Non sub homine, sed sub Deo et lege)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1983 | View Replies]

To: AndrewC
I agree. They would have interity and more to do research there.
1,985 posted on 08/21/2003 4:10:15 PM PDT by goodseedhomeschool (returned) (If history has shown us anything, labeling ignorance science, proves scripture correct)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1974 | View Replies]

To: DittoJed2
Noli Illegitimi Carborundum.

Caveat emptor, cave canem, cave perfidia.

I noted a Vitamin C DNA segment that did not change.

I noted in my post #1969 that this was highly misleading, since the Vitamin C synthesis psuedogene actually changed significantly. The fact that one can pick an arbitrarily small "segment" within it which wasn't among the portions which changed is a red herring. A fixation on "but not *all* of it has changed" is a failure to see the forest for the trees, or an attempt to distract attention from the actually significant regions (i.e., those which *did* change, and in what manner).

Guinea Pigs are not primates.

DittoJed2, notice that this is a red herring -- I never said that they were, nor does this obvious fact in any way change my points or the study I cited.

Of course there is no telling when they no longer could make Vitamin C.

Actually, there are several ways to tell, including: Guinea pigs possess a highly mutated gene for L-gulono-gamma-lactone oxidase, the key enzyme for L-ascorbic acid biosynthesis missing in this species , which used the amount of mutation in the guinea pig GLO pseudogene relative to the rat GLO gene to conclude, "...the date of the loss of L-gulono-gamma-lactone oxidase in the ancestors of the guinea pig was roughly calculated to be less than 20 million years ago."

Furthermore, DittoJed2, notice that the nature of the guinea pig mutations in the GLO pseudogene also fulfill the predictions of evolution and common descent. If the guinea pig GLO pseudogene were "broken" in the same way as the primate GLO pseudogene, this would pose a large problem for evolutionary theory, as it would strongly imply that guinea pigs were more closely related to primates (and vice versa) than any other lineage. So evolutionary theory predicts that although guinea pigs can't synthesize their own Vitamin C either, it must have arisen as an independent mutation from the one which occurred in the primate lineage, and that therefore it would be expected to be almost certainly a different set of mutations. And that is exactly what we find when we examine the DNA of guinea pigs, primates, and mammals with working GLO genes. Remember from my prior post, the human GLO pseudogene exhibits a missing Intron VIII, and a missing or highly damaged Exon XI. Meanwhile, the guinea pig GLO pseudogene is missing Exons I and V, while VIII and XI are present. It's "broken" in a different manner, and shares no statistical mutational similarities to the human/primate GLO pseudogenes. Evolution is, again, confirmed.

So if anyone hoped to imply a problem for evolutionary theory by pointing out that guinea pigs are not primates, they were mistaken.

1,986 posted on 08/21/2003 4:10:27 PM PDT by Ichneumon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1915 | View Replies]

To: Ichneumon; DittoJed2
Oops, while commenting on another post to DittoJed2 in my post #1986, I may have accidentally given the impression that the quoted portions in my post had been written earlier by DittoJed2. That is not, the case, and I apologize for the error.
1,987 posted on 08/21/2003 4:14:07 PM PDT by Ichneumon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1986 | View Replies]

To: RightWingNilla
Stop coughing on the apes.
1,988 posted on 08/21/2003 4:19:20 PM PDT by bondserv
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1726 | View Replies]

To: concisetraveler
So, concisetraveler, do you think a man of integrity on the one hand puts his name on a paper that claims the earth is a few thousand years old, and on the other hand co-authors a paper that discusses in detail movements of the earth's mantle over the last 150 million years, discussing Cenozoic and Mesozoic plate movements that are supposed to have happened tens or hundreds of millions of years ago? Both papers can't be true.
1,989 posted on 08/21/2003 4:19:53 PM PDT by Right Wing Professor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1985 | View Replies]

To: Ichneumon
Especially why a designer postulated to be omniscient and omnipotent would choose to do so.

I am getting tired of repeating this.

CURSE/SIN/WAXING OLD/DEATH/EROSION/WEAKENING/DEGRADING/DE-EVOLVING

1,990 posted on 08/21/2003 4:24:14 PM PDT by bondserv
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1729 | View Replies]

To: DittoJed2
Guinea pigs are not primates. 20,000,000 plus 50,000,000 is 70,000,000 years not 50,000,000. Neither is it 100,000,000 years, but it is a long time for a segment of DNA to go with absolutely no mutations when right next door(less than 9 bases) there are multiple hits including on animals with a conserved gene.(and of course the noteworthy primate deletion).

1,991 posted on 08/21/2003 4:34:03 PM PDT by AndrewC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1989 | View Replies]

To: concisetraveler
I also think that men with integrity assume that other men have integrity and are allowed that presumption lacking evidence pointing their lack.
1,992 posted on 08/21/2003 4:36:22 PM PDT by AndrewC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1985 | View Replies]

To: Right Wing Professor
Do not post to me please. I still do not appreciate being called a "loser".
1,993 posted on 08/21/2003 4:36:49 PM PDT by goodseedhomeschool (returned) (If history has shown us anything, labeling ignorance science, proves scripture correct)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1989 | View Replies]

To: nwrep
When is this thread going to be dropped? It has been here for two weeks. Enough. Go find another new dinosaur to talk about.
1,994 posted on 08/21/2003 4:38:23 PM PDT by LaMudBug
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Right Wing Professor
You may continue to post to me.
1,995 posted on 08/21/2003 4:41:05 PM PDT by PatrickHenry (Felix, qui potuit rerum cognoscere causas.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1993 | View Replies]

To: bondserv
I am getting tired of repeating this.

Then feel free to stop repeating it.

CURSE/SIN/WAXING OLD/DEATH/EROSION/WEAKENING/DEGRADING/DE-EVOLVING

This fails to have any explanatory power.

For example, if "DEGRADING/ETC." only began at the time of the Fall, which if it occurred would (obviously) be sometime after mankind had existed, then it fails to explain those many, many genetic "degradations" which are configured exactly as one would expect if they had arisen in a common ancestor prior to man first arriving on the scene.

For example, you are invited to explain how you feel that "DEGRADING/ETC." explains the pattern of shared endogenous retroviruses in man and other species, as well as the pattern of pseudogene mutations and so on. Contrast your answer to the manner in which evolution theory consistently explains such observations. For a concrete example you may wish to tackle, try my posts #1969 and #1986.

1,996 posted on 08/21/2003 4:42:20 PM PDT by Ichneumon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1990 | View Replies]

To: Right Wing Professor
You may post to me any time, my mind is still open to learn new things.
1,997 posted on 08/21/2003 4:43:47 PM PDT by Ichneumon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1989 | View Replies]

To: AndrewC
HI Andrew. Hope you are having one great day. I had to reread your post a couple times. It did a flyby then I think I got what you were saying. There are many scientists who believe in a young earth who have a lot of interity. There are many who believe in other sciences which have no integrity in my book. Charles Darwin rings up there at the top of my No integrity list.
Integrity, like respect, should be earned, not given simply because of a title. Would you agree?
1,998 posted on 08/21/2003 4:48:25 PM PDT by goodseedhomeschool (returned) (If history has shown us anything, labeling ignorance science, proves scripture correct)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1992 | View Replies]

To: concisetraveler
People in the field of science get my repsect the MOST, when they can look at the evidence and admit their previous hypothosis was wrong, not limiting themselves to previous bias.
1,999 posted on 08/21/2003 4:52:41 PM PDT by goodseedhomeschool (returned) (If history has shown us anything, labeling ignorance science, proves scripture correct)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1998 | View Replies]

To: concisetraveler
There are many scientists who believe in a young earth who have a lot of interity.

Could you name a few?

There are many who believe in other sciences which have no integrity in my book. Charles Darwin rings up there at the top of my No integrity list.

Reasons?

2,000 posted on 08/21/2003 4:57:50 PM PDT by Lurking Libertarian (Non sub homine, sed sub Deo et lege)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1998 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 1,961-1,9801,981-2,0002,001-2,020 ... 3,121-3,129 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson