Posted on 09/08/2004 4:50:10 PM PDT by PatrickHenry
Thanks for the ping!
I am not interested in the cat fight about arguments etc...
What was the article about and what were the criticism -- I'm talking methods and data and analysis.
Forget the political stuff.
No... Nor does the author say that.
The pre-oxygen atmosphere of the Earth mostly consisted of nitrogen, ammonia, carbon dioxide, and water vapor.
Later after plants arose with photosynthesis, oxygen appeared in the atmosphere.
Yes, around one billion years ago -- which is around a billion years after the appearance of the first eukaryote. (Oxygen was being produced long before that, but it was rapidly reacting with various compounds, including iron, until finally enough was produced to remain free in the atmosphere in significant amounts.)
The author wants us to believe that one or two methane utilizing bacteria combined to produce a eukaryotic cell that is oxygen based.
No he doesn't. You're wrong on the methane, and you're wrong in claiming that the author in any way asserts that the first eukaryotic cell had an oxygen-based metabolism. Clearly, oxygen consumption was developed long after the first eukaryote.
I don't think so.
And neither does the author.
No it isn't, but it's nice that you're trying.
No, I followed the link. I am not as stupid as you to not understand the link did not discuss criticism of the actual study but was about political issues relating to the paper's publication. Big difference you are clearly not bright enough to understand. Buts that's OK. You're special in your own way, I'm sure.
That depends on where you choose to draw the line between "non-life" and "life". Define your question more specifically and I'll be glad to answer.
The general answer is that "life" as we think of it includes many properties, but early "life" (or proto-life, or whatever you want to call it) wasn't that complicated. So while it seems baffling to think of "life" (*as we now know it*) arising *poof* from "non-life", instead the process was a much more gradual accumulation of properties, and there was no *poof* instant, nor any point where the preceding step was obviously "non-living" and the following step was obviously "alive" by our standards.
And how come all proteins are left handed, when the proteins we synthesize in vidrio are left and right handed?
They aren't all left-handed, just most of them. Numerous living things produce and incorporate right-handed amino acids. As for why, because things work out more neatly when working with building blocks that are mostly of the same handedness, so evolution favored processes of life which specialized in one "hand" (left, or right).
No, I followed the link. I am not as stupid as you to not understand the link did not discuss criticism of the actual study but was about political issues relating to the paper's publication. Big difference you are clearly not bright enough to understand. Buts that's OK. You're special in your own way, I'm sure.
You followed "the link", eh? There were "linkS", plural, Einstein. Try the other one and you'll see plenty of "criticism of the actual study".
I'll accept your apology any time you're ready, dunderhead.
Provide a serious criticism of the methods and approach.
Not some web site. And even that wasn't a comment on the methods. It was a comment on not citing or accepting other published articles.
First off in this article-- what were the methods?
Can you or anyone tell me what the article was about?
The latest release from the journal says the article in question got by their otherwise good peer-review process and that the journal in question regrets publishing the article. 'Course, you'll never post that -- creationists prefer partial truths, as they help the creationist cause.
No it wasn't. There were lots of pre-Cambrian multicellulars.
And chloroplasts.
Down the page, some people mention that. This is only the first-cut high-level treatment, anyway. A more detailed dissection has been promised.
How?
It's all politics.
Administrative bureaucrat types generally have no spine whatsoever and never take responsibility. Like democrats.
My guess is there are many articles that have been published in this "low impact" journal that have similarly skirted past the "otherwise good" peer review process.
It's not really an article, its an essay. I also read the "criticism" from the web site. It's not so much a criticism as a rebuttal.
The Meyer article really was pretty much the same ol same ol and so was the "criticism."
Since it is not a study and is more an essay there isn't all that much method to criticize. The criticisms thus are the same ol same ol. It comes down to one side saying this is how they see it and the other saying I don't see it that way and you are wrong and stupid and have no right to talk or say anything because you are stupid.
To the extent that method was presented, such as the section on "amino acid space" the criticisms did not address or criticize Meyer's methods. They criticized his analogies and assumptions, e.g. the analogy to human written language. The criticizers also criticized the writer for not citing what they felt he should cite. Yet their comments were not directed to what the writer was trying to say. They pointed to articles about gene shuffling and modifications of existing genes whereas the writer was not addressing that issue.
This is what I note of these "debates". To the extent that the sides try to argue science, they talk past each other.
The conclusion is that no one here has said anything about Jame's Lake's article and have chosen to focus on a meaningless "debate" regarding differing religious beliefs.
These threads and the subject in general remains bald men fighting frantically over a comb.
Those pesky creationists! The way you talk, one would hardly know you were Catholic!
This is, of course, false.
The folks at the NCSE seem to embrace peer-review only when it confirms their pre-determined conclusions, adds West. Their goal isnt peer-review, its censorship. They want to squelch the scientific debate. Fortunately, there are lots of scientists who still support free discussion.
West also points out the spurious nature of the NCSEs previous claim that supporters of intelligent design have not produced peer-reviewed publications. Mathematician William Dembski published a peer-reviewed monograph with Cambridge University Press, The Design Inference (1998). Biochemist Michael Behe has published his ideas recently in the peer-reviewed science journal Protein Science as well as previously in Philosophy of Science (2000) and And Stephen Meyer edited an entire volume of peer-reviewed articles with Michigan State University Press, Darwinism, Design, and Public Education (2003).
Your problem then is that this is not cellular evolution, but rather abiogenesis. Abiogenesis is on a much more speculative footing than the theory of evolution (not to say that there's no evidence favoring it). Once more for those who haven't been listening to these threads: Evolution is only concerned with what happens once a viable cell exists. It isn't concerned with how that cell came to be.
Ahem. Check again:
Meyer's ID Paper Embarrassing Society Which Published It
by Glenn Branch
email listsNCSE's Glenn Branch reports that the Biological Society of Washington has distanced itself from Steven Meyer's ID-friendly paper, strongly implying that it somehow got by their usual peer review process.
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.