|
Give Up Blog - for scientists like these!
You hid my archives, didn't you Steve!
Maps and Figures "Hitler or Coulter?" QuizMap1 - Teen Pregnancy Map2 - Incarceration Map3 - Homicide Rates Map4 - Drop-out Rates Map5 - Bankruptcy Rates Map6 - Driving Distances Map7 - Energy Use Map8 - Gonorrhea! Map9 - Tax Burden Map10 - State GDP Map11 - DHS funding Map12 - Adult Illiteracy. Map13 - Abortion Bans: Map14 - ER Quality Map15 - Hospital Quality Map16 - Coal Burners Map 17 - Infant Mortality Map 18 - Toxic Waste Map 19 - Obesity Map 20 - Poverty Map 21 - Occupational safety Map 22 - Traffic deaths Map 23 - Divorce Figure 1 - Wages vs Right to work Figure 2 - Unemployment vs Right to work Give Up Shopping guide  
link to xml feed
|
Monday, December 19, 2005
New Strategy Cont'd
Looks like they managed to get an abstract in this summer as well
Here's the abstract from MCB: Engineering Cell Biology: Centrioles as Tiny Turbines Jonathan Wells; Discovery Institute, Seattle, WA Centrioles consist of nine microtubule triplets arranged like the blades of tiny turbines. Except for their role in nucleating cilia and flagella, however, their precise function remains unknown. Because all centrioles appear to be equally complex, and there are no plausible evolutionary intermediates with which to reconstruct phylogenies, centrioles have attracted little interest from a Darwinian perspective. This and the genetic reductionism encouraged by neo-Darwinian theory have led to an emphasis on identifying the molecular constituents of centrioles rather than formulating testable theories that relate function to structure. From an intelligent design perspective, by contrast, centrioles are not fortuitous by-products of unguided evolution but irreducibly complex wholes that are engineered to be microscopic machines. In the theory presented here, which was developed from that perspective, a centriole is a tiny turbine driven by dynein molecules that turn a helical pump in its lumen. Orthogonally oriented centriolar turbines in dividing animal cells would generate oscillations in spindle microtubules that resemble the motion produced by a laboratory vortexer. The result would be a microtubule-mediated polar ejection force that would tend to move chromosomes away from spindle poles [Rivista di Biologia / Biology Forum 98 (2005): 71-96]. The rise in intracellular calcium that accompanies the onset of anaphase could regulate the polar ejection force by shutting down the centriolar turbines, but defective regulation could result in an excessive force leading to chromosomal instability and possibly to cancer. The American Society for Cell Biology 2005 Summer Meeting on Engineering Cell Biology—The Cell in Context, July 15–18, 2005 This is a major failure of peer-review. There are all sorts of claims in this abstract that have absolutely no business being published. Where are the citations for these things he says? How much you want to bet that now that he's said them, he'll cite back to this reference to justify it? |
6 Comments:
I don't know a darn thing about centrioles, science, or whatever, but am I wrong in thinking that this abstract doesn't do anything more than describe what the centriole does? Isn't this a lot like saying, "Wow! I have an arm. Look at all these muscles and ligaments, pulling and pressing on each other to make the arm lift. Nifty! It works so well, it must be the work of God."
6:08 PM, December 19, 2005
I thought that this was the same abstract as from the general meeting, but you're right - it's a totally different one. The society seems to have a big problem on its hands.
6:34 PM, December 19, 2005
And reen - you're right; the problem is that from a PR perspective he can now say "I've been published in a scientific journal, so even those scientists think I'm right." In a country where 20% of the population thinks that the sun rotates around the earth, the niceties of peer-review and the difference between a theory and a hypothesis might be lost on a lot of individuals
6:41 PM, December 19, 2005
Wow! You mean that I can become part of the robust practice of peer-reviewed science stuff merely by writing a blog entry about someone else's airy speculation? Super! This ID business sure does democratize modern science. Inveterate liars, selective quoters, and groundless theorizers will rise to the surface like cream. Or scum. I get confused.
At least I know the lies must be forgiven because they're told for the greater glory of God (who, if he exists, has been reduced to really lame advocates).
7:15 PM, December 19, 2005
I am confused by Zeno's quote.
Is he mocking us or the ID people?
Don't worry, there are no scientific democratizers here. We're pissed because we're almost exclusively scientists, and we know what a real review means. When I get a paper to review I often spend many hours or even days reading the paper, checking the references, examining the methods and on discussing the results with other peers. I hate it when I have to review a paper because it's an incredible time-suck. I realize this level of work can never happen with a meeting with 10,000 attendants and 3,000 abstracts, but we have to expect some level of control beyond a rubber stamp for every abstract submitted. The claims made in these abstracts are ludicrous and should never have even passed the most cursory of reviews.
11:48 PM, December 19, 2005
I wonder what the supposed mechanism is for the will of said Intelligent Designer? Just a straight-up, out-of-nowhere miracle?
On the one hand the guy says that "centrioles are not fortuitous by-products of unguided evolution" which would say to me that he thinks the mechanism is evolution but a guided evolution. An evolution with a secret plan. But in the same sentence he also says centrolies are "irreducibly complex wholes." So that seems to say that they must have pulled an Athena, springing fully formed from the forehead of Zeus.
Bizarre.
--Jeff
1:00 PM, December 20, 2005
Post a Comment
<< Home