Comments on: Another Darwin-Doubter Criminalized http://academicfreedomblog.org/2008/02/08/another-darwin-doubter-criminalized/ An opportunity to discuss the interface of faith, science, and culture Sun, 20 May 2012 13:20:53 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.2.1 By: Jay Clayton http://academicfreedomblog.org/2008/02/08/another-darwin-doubter-criminalized/#comment-1401 Jay Clayton Tue, 12 Feb 2008 20:21:18 +0000 http://academicfreedomblog.org/2008/02/08/another-darwin-doubter-criminalized/#comment-1401 The paper has been officially retracted, for plagiarism. Let me repeat I appreicate this blogger ultimately unhiding the critical comments. This blogger seems to have interest in the subject of the blog's title- truth-in-advertising, as it were. The paper has been officially retracted, for plagiarism.

Let me repeat I appreicate this blogger ultimately unhiding the critical comments. This blogger seems to have interest in the subject of the blog’s title- truth-in-advertising, as it were.

]]> By: Jay Clayton http://academicfreedomblog.org/2008/02/08/another-darwin-doubter-criminalized/#comment-1397 Jay Clayton Tue, 12 Feb 2008 10:09:07 +0000 http://academicfreedomblog.org/2008/02/08/another-darwin-doubter-criminalized/#comment-1397 Let me thank you for an open mind, blogger. Let me thank you for an open mind, blogger.

]]> By: Wes http://academicfreedomblog.org/2008/02/08/another-darwin-doubter-criminalized/#comment-1389 Wes Mon, 11 Feb 2008 21:24:19 +0000 http://academicfreedomblog.org/2008/02/08/another-darwin-doubter-criminalized/#comment-1389 Large portions of the paper are plagiarized. You can see a comparison here: http://udel.edu/~mcdonald/wandahan.pdf A sentence or two would be excusable as a possible goof, but there's much too much plagiarism in that paper to simply brush it aside. Also, many of the citations in the paper misrepresent the cited material: http://larsjuhljensen.wordpress.com/2008/02/10/commentary-neither-buried-nor-treasure/ As for the "creator" thing, the problem with the claims is that they don't follow logically at all from the information discussed in the paper. The authors make claims about "mighty creator" and "organized wisdom" but don't provide anything to support those claims. Large portions of the paper are plagiarized. You can see a comparison here:

http://udel.edu/~mcdonald/wandahan.pdf

A sentence or two would be excusable as a possible goof, but there’s much too much plagiarism in that paper to simply brush it aside.

Also, many of the citations in the paper misrepresent the cited material:

http://larsjuhljensen.wordpress.com/2008/02/10/commentary-neither-buried-nor-treasure/

As for the “creator” thing, the problem with the claims is that they don’t follow logically at all from the information discussed in the paper. The authors make claims about “mighty creator” and “organized wisdom” but don’t provide anything to support those claims.

]]> By: Ura Hack http://academicfreedomblog.org/2008/02/08/another-darwin-doubter-criminalized/#comment-1386 Ura Hack Mon, 11 Feb 2008 15:19:18 +0000 http://academicfreedomblog.org/2008/02/08/another-darwin-doubter-criminalized/#comment-1386 This is very sad. The author here has been notified that almost the entire article by Warda and Han was plagiarized. Warda and Han are now apologizing for scientific fraud and are retracting it. This is very sad. The author here has been notified that almost the entire article by Warda and Han was plagiarized. Warda and Han are now apologizing for scientific fraud and are retracting it.

]]> By: Jay Clayton http://academicfreedomblog.org/2008/02/08/another-darwin-doubter-criminalized/#comment-1378 Jay Clayton Sun, 10 Feb 2008 20:51:40 +0000 http://academicfreedomblog.org/2008/02/08/another-darwin-doubter-criminalized/#comment-1378 "One sentence" plagiarized? Try a large part of the paper, cut-and-pasted. I would hope you would not want to willfully lie here. “One sentence” plagiarized? Try a large part of the paper, cut-and-pasted. I would hope you would not want to willfully lie here.

]]> By: Adam Ricketson http://academicfreedomblog.org/2008/02/08/another-darwin-doubter-criminalized/#comment-1375 Adam Ricketson Sun, 10 Feb 2008 18:34:40 +0000 http://academicfreedomblog.org/2008/02/08/another-darwin-doubter-criminalized/#comment-1375 I have information regarding two of your points: 1) Many non-native English speakers publish in English-language journals. Sometimes their writing is hard to comprehend, but this article is the worst sample that I've ever seen. 2) "Oxygen-processing" by mitochondria is not essential to life. Many organisms (eukaryotic and prokaryotic) live in anaerobic or micro-aerobic environments. Some eukaryotic species have mitochondrial-like organelles that do not process oxygen, and in the laboratory, we frequently recover mutants that have defective mitochondria. They don't thrive, but they do survive. Finally, the problem with this paper isn't that they appealed to a "creator", it's that they made an extraordinary claim with absolutely no attempt to back it up. They hinted at this new hypothesis in the introduction, but only once sentence in their 23-page paper was dedicated to describing this new theory. I hope that helps clarify things. Sincerely, Adam Ricketson I have information regarding two of your points:

1) Many non-native English speakers publish in English-language journals. Sometimes their writing is hard to comprehend, but this article is the worst sample that I’ve ever seen.

2) “Oxygen-processing” by mitochondria is not essential to life. Many organisms (eukaryotic and prokaryotic) live in anaerobic or micro-aerobic environments. Some eukaryotic species have mitochondrial-like organelles that do not process oxygen, and in the laboratory, we frequently recover mutants that have defective mitochondria. They don’t thrive, but they do survive.

Finally, the problem with this paper isn’t that they appealed to a “creator”, it’s that they made an extraordinary claim with absolutely no attempt to back it up. They hinted at this new hypothesis in the introduction, but only once sentence in their 23-page paper was dedicated to describing this new theory.

I hope that helps clarify things.

Sincerely,
Adam Ricketson

]]> By: Mike O'Risal http://academicfreedomblog.org/2008/02/08/another-darwin-doubter-criminalized/#comment-1373 Mike O'Risal Sun, 10 Feb 2008 18:00:43 +0000 http://academicfreedomblog.org/2008/02/08/another-darwin-doubter-criminalized/#comment-1373 You state that no cells without mitochondria have ever been found... but that's absolutely not true. In fact, the phylum Microsporidia is made up of amitochondrial single-celled organisms. This isn't even new information; the Microsporidia have been known for quite some time. You might also want to have a look at the trichomonads, cells without mitochondria, having hydrogenosomes instead. You state that no cells without mitochondria have ever been found… but that’s absolutely not true. In fact, the phylum Microsporidia is made up of amitochondrial single-celled organisms. This isn’t even new information; the Microsporidia have been known for quite some time. You might also want to have a look at the trichomonads, cells without mitochondria, having hydrogenosomes instead.

]]>