Mike Dunford posted Entry 2728 on November 17, 2006 02:49 PM.
Trackback URL: http://www.pandasthumb.org/cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.fcgi/2719

Over at the ARN blog, Denyse O’Leary has a four-part article up attacking the peer-review system. Rob Crowther, of the Discovery Institute’s
Media Complaints Division, has chimed in with his own post on the topic. There’s a great deal of humor in watching anti-evolutionists try to dismiss peer review as not worth the effort anyway. It bears an amazing resemblance to this really cute old fable about a fox, but I’ll be kind and pretend that there is actually something more to the O’Leary and Crowther rants than good old sour grapes.

Their major complaint about peer review is, of course, that their stuff, for some bizarre and unaccountable reason, has a really hard time surviving the process. In Crowther’s words:

To sum up, science journals that are wedded to Darwinian evolution refuse to publish authors who explicitly advocate intelligent design. Then Darwinists attack intelligent design as unscientific because it isn’t published in peer-reviewed journals.

O’Leary puts it a bit differently, but the basic concept is the same:

There is a modest but growing number of ID-friendly peer-reviewed publications. But - given the woeful state of peer review - papers that support or undermine ID hypotheses would probably be neither better nor worse recommended if they were never peer reviewed, just published, amid cheers and catcalls..

Of course, they try to justify their criticism of peer review on grounds other than their inability to reach the grapes. Peer review, they claim, doesn’t identify fraud. It’s not that good at catching incorrect findings. It squelches new ideas. It places “intellectual pygmies” in judgement of intellectual giants. It favors consensus. It sucks the life out of people, and is entirely responsible for global hunger and bad hair days. OK, I made the last two up, but you should still get a taste for the basic strategy that’s being employed here - it’s an oldie, but a goodie. Throw as much crap as you can at the wall, and hope that some of it sticks.

In this case, some of it does stick. It should. Peer review is not a perfect system. It is absolutely flawed. It is, in fact, not good at catching fraud. It does not catch many flawed studies. It does make it more difficult to publish new ideas, and it is absolutely capable of sucking the will to live from people. (Just because I made that one up doesn’t mean it isn’t right.) To paraphrase Churchill, peer review is the worst system out there, except for all the others that have been tried.

Read more (at The Questionable Authority):

Commenters are responsible for the content of comments. The opinions expressed in articles, linked materials, and comments are not necessarily those of PandasThumb.org. See our full disclaimer.

Comment #144809

Posted by steve s on November 17, 2006 3:43 PM (e)

It is sometimes difficult to get new ideas published, in large part because reviewers are more likely to scrutinize every detail of a paper that does not match up with what they think they know about the subject. That’s just human nature, and it’s hard to get around. O’Leary and Crowther point out that ideas that eventually resulted in Nobel Prizes were originally rejected for publication, but they miss one important detail - the ideas were, in fact, eventually published. The authors might well have needed to do a lot more work to get them published, and provide a lot more evidence, but they did eventually succeed.

Indeed, I think of the discovery of Helicobacter pylori as the cause of ulcers. Around 1980, Warren and Marshall wrote a paper alledging the link, but it was rejected for publication. So, of course, they started a BBS site called “UncommonHeartburn–the weblog of Barry Marshall, Robin Warren and friends.” Lots of middle-aged engineers, lawyers, video store clerks, converged on the site, and started performing amazing work, theorizing about Cantankerous Stomach Infections, or CSI. Scientists would ask them, “why aren’t you doing experiments? Why aren’t you in a lab?” but they would reply, “The burden of proof is on you. Just look at this stomach. It’s obviously the work of Unknown Bacteria.” After several years of lobbying school boards by this motley crew, a school board approved their insertion into the lesson plans, and the battle was over. They had arrived.

Comment #144811

Posted by Jake on November 17, 2006 3:49 PM (e)

OT
check it out:
Evolution produces super lions.

Comment #144822

Posted by Jedidiah Palosaari on November 17, 2006 4:18 PM (e)

And what exactly is wrong with consensus?

Comment #144824

Posted by Dr. Michae Martin on November 17, 2006 4:20 PM (e)

I think we should actually look at what they stated about the topic before we go any further on this subject.

Quite frankly, while I disagree with the ID movement, this article has a good point to it. All its really saying is, don’t put too much emphasis on who’s peer reviewed and who’s not, because just because someone’s peer reviewed, doesn’t make them the demi-god of Science. A person with a Masters degree could have just as much knowledge, if not more so than someone who is a complete dunce and has a PHD in a certain area. In a like manner, a person who has not had peer reviewed material may or may not be more reputable than someone who has published peer reveiwed material. In other words, this is not the objective standard of evaluation to go by. Simply, is the material accurate and true is enough.

Comment #144825

Posted by Matt Inlay on November 17, 2006 4:21 PM (e)

While anyone who’s ever tried to get anything published would agree that the peer-review system sucks, it’s still a pretty good system. It’s certainly not designed to catch outright fraud. That check comes later, when other groups try to reproduce the original experiments in order to expand on them. Getting published is only the 1st step toward scientific acceptance. Here’s Irv Weissman’s take on the process, in the context of the South Korean stem cell scandal:

I should point out that before any research finding should be considered solid, several practical barriers must be surmounted. First, the finding should be published in a peer-reviewed journal (the Hwang paper was). Second, several independent laboratories must publish in peer-reviewed journals that the experiments and the findings are reproducible. So far that has not occurred for the Hwang findings. Third, the scientific principle revealed by the findings must be strong enough to be validated, or proven false, by virtually all kinds of experiments. The Hwang research had only passed the first benchmark and was therefore not yet considered proven by the scientific community.

source: http://med.stanford.edu/five_questions/archive/s…

Comment #144828

Posted by Steviepinhead on November 17, 2006 4:27 PM (e)

I’m calling BS on “Dr.” Michael.

He never graduated as a Ph.D. from the Yale University cell biology department in 2004. He never wrote or defended a doctoral thesis there, on leukocytosis or anything else.

If you complete a thesis, and it’s accepted, it’s going to be shelved in some library somewhere and it’s going to be searchable on the internet.

Go ahead, “Doc” Martin. Give us the full title and the name of all the scholars on your committee. Heck, just give us the link.

Otherwise, quit yer yappin’!

Comment #144830

Posted by stevaroni on November 17, 2006 4:29 PM (e)

Bla, Bla, Bla.

It’s 2006, and any 12 year old can get a world-wide audience by putting his video up on YouTube.

Yes, the peer-revue publication system is the gold standard for disseminating scientific information, but let’s be honest here.

If ID had something - anything significant to say, getting the word out in front of a worldwide audience would be a trivial act, and there’d be plenty of honest scientists out there who would pick up the ball dropped at their feet.

Comment #144831

Posted by David B. Benson on November 17, 2006 4:35 PM (e)

Both the Yale University library and an organization (previously(?)) known as University Microfilms ought to have copies of any purported thesis by Dr. M&M.

But in any case, he is the uber-troll of all time, and I call shenanigans. He has completely wrecked one of Nick’s threads.

Comment #144835

Posted by David B. Benson on November 17, 2006 4:43 PM (e)

Peer-review is not con census, at least for the journals I have used and reviewed for. In these, the editor chooses the referees, reads the paper and the reports to make the final decision. If all the reviews are favorable, the editor will, almost always, accept the paper. If the general tenor of the reviews is lukewarm, the editor might or might not accept the paper. If a referee points out actual errors then the paper is rejected, or at best, accepted only after corrections are made.

Publication of a peer-reviewed paper is, as has been pointed out, only the first step. However, in maths and parts of computer science, it may be the last step in that the results of the paper are therein after ignored, even my the author(s).

Comment #144847

Posted by Coin on November 17, 2006 4:54 PM (e)

All its really saying is, don’t put too much emphasis on who’s peer reviewed and who’s not, because just because someone’s peer reviewed, doesn’t make them the demi-god of Science.

It makes them science. Demigods aren’t used in this particular field.

The peer review system, as this article notes, has some problems; it may be inefficient, it may be be too harsh on new ideas, it is not guaranteed to catch academic fraud. But it does serve the crucial purpose of discriminating science from non-science. And since we badly need some rubric for doing this the peer review system is indispensable (though of course we may be able to find ways to refine the exact process in future).

As for the edge cases where research in young fields has trouble reaching the standard required by peer review right off the bat, or where researchers in old fields commit academic fraud, the lesson to take away I think is that the peer review system can’t work by itself– individual scientists must still be able, above and beyond the peer review system, to keep an eye out for neglect of innovative ideas or the possibility of fraud.

But this does not make the peer review system any less useful as a simple basic first bar in the scientific community to keep non-science out.

Comment #144849

Posted by Funguy on November 17, 2006 4:58 PM (e)

As an aside, notice how Luskin steps in it (yet again) by claiming that “University of California, San Diego Forces All Freshmen To Attend Anti-ID Lecture” by Robert Pennock:
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2006/11/university_…

If you have any idea of the size of the UCSD student body, you’ll know how ludicrous an idea this is.

And of course, Sal Cordova laps it up and echos it over at UD.

Comment #144850

Posted by Coin on November 17, 2006 4:59 PM (e)

Michael Martin wrote:

My paper was written in the ancient days before computers were used all over schoolrooms like they are today.

Didn’t you say in the other thread that it was written in 1998?

For all we know, it could be sitting in the library on campus wrotting with dirt.

Do you know what “microfilm” is?

Comment #144852

Posted by Steviepinhead on November 17, 2006 5:02 PM (e)

Oops! My bad–“Dr.” Marty’s drivel can be hard to unravel, since he refuses to use the quote boxes (or even to use the “ “ keys, for crying out loud!)–apparently he claims to have received his cell biology doctorate from Yale in 1998, whereas he got his master’s in theology from some little arm of, koff koff, Biola University, in 2004.

Over on the Hoving tax conviction thread, he’s trying to argue that Yale didn’t have computers in 1998, that Yale doesn’t keep track of its dissertations from 1998 (heck, little ol’ University of Washington’s library’s database is searchable for doctoral theses approved way before that! I recently searched for a master’s thesis from the ’70s and a doctoral thesis from 1984…).

And I’m sure plenty of Yale cell bio Ph.D.s can think of nothing better to do with that hard-earned, expensive, and marketable degree but head for Biola U. to get a master’s.

Uh-huh…

Comment #144855

Posted by Sir_Toejam on November 17, 2006 5:07 PM (e)

Dr. Fubar is even worse than Larry Farfromsane was.

taking up bandwidth with stream of consciousness inannities, invading and polluting multiple thread.

would someone please toss this sorry ass, batshit insane, creobot, please?

Comment #144857

Posted by David B. Benson on November 17, 2006 5:10 PM (e)

“consensus”, not “con census”
“thereinafter”, not “therei after”
“by”, not “my”

A quick check shows nothing in the Yale Library on-line catalog by “Martin, Michael”. However, checking my own on-line catalog for a thesis by one of my PhD students at a comperable date does not locate his thesis. A check for a student in the 90s does locate his.

Comment #144858

Posted by Sir_Toejam on November 17, 2006 5:10 PM (e)

Dr. Fubar was incomplete:

I can’t find any dissertations for this matter.

what he really means is:

“I can’t find any information to cut and paste on this matter from AIG or CMI.”

Comment #144861

Posted by Sir_Toejam on November 17, 2006 5:13 PM (e)

I guess some people just find time to get jealous about the PHDs they don’t have, right?

nooo… some people get pissed off at idiots who proceed to WASTE their educations like you have.

remember back when i told you I had a graduate degree from Berkeley?

hmmm?

of course not.

you have the attention span of a mosquito.

Comment #144867

Posted by Coin on November 17, 2006 5:23 PM (e)

Though I cannot think of anything else positive to say about Larry F_man, I must admit that at least he speaks in complete sentences and has a basic grasp of spelling and punctuation.

Michael Martin wrote:

(ever heard of a METAPHOR?)

Oh, you mean like the Book of Genesis?

“Strawman, I’m trying to say that we didn’t use [Computers] as frequently [back in 1998, the stone ages] as we use them today and not everybody’s paper was put up there as a consequence.”

I’m not familiar with Yale’s online setup, but surely they’ll at least be in the catalogue?

whereas he got his master’s in theology from some little arm of, koff koff, Biola University, in 2004.” - Wrong Again. It was Talbot University in 2004 where I got a Masters in Theology.

The Talbot School of Theology is part of Biola University. Says so right on their web page. Technically no organization by the name of “Talbot University” exists.

Wait, did you in fact even go to Talbot?

Comment #144869

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on November 17, 2006 5:28 PM (e)

Hey Doc, I have a few questions for you. They should be pretty easy for someone who, uh, has a doctorate from Yale ….

(1) If, as AiG keeps yammering, mutations only produce a LOSS of genetic information, then, uh, how did the number of human alleles INCREASE from a maximum of 8 to over 400? (or, in creationist math, is 400 a LOSS from 8?)

(2) where can I see a natural mutation rate high enough to produce 400 beneficial mutations in the sapce of 4-6,000 years?

(3) what mechanism allows these mutations to appear ONLY in the germ cells, and not in the somatic cells where they would kill the human race with cancers?

(4) what exactly is the genetic barrier between “created kinds”? What genetic mechanism, specifically, allows “microevolution” within a “created kind”, but prevents that “microevolution” from straying outside the “created kind”?

(5) what happened to the cities that humans were living in before the Flood — did the stones and buildings run for the high ground too? Oh, and what about the people who died before the Flood happened — did the fleeing people stop long enough to dig up all the buried corpses of their ancestors and carry them to the high ground, too?

(6) why is the modern leatherback turtle found ONLY in the top layers of the geological column, and NOT in the middle or lower layers —- after all, it (1) lives in the open sea, (2) sinks like a rock when it’s dead, and (3) can’t crawl on land, so by every one of the idiotic “hydraulic sorting” “explanations” I’ve seen from YECs, they should be at the very BOTTOM of the fossil column. Why aren’t they?

(7) And I’d very much like to hear how the willow trees managed to outrun the velociraptors to the top of the geological column ……?

By the way, Doc, how many peer-reviewed articles have creation “scientists” ever had setting out their, uh, “science” …. …. . ?

Oh, that would ZERO, wouldn’t it.

Comment #144871

Posted by Sir_Toejam on November 17, 2006 5:31 PM (e)

Its not much different from the former Research Company I used to work for.

er, except now you have abandoned any pretense of actually doing the science they spent years training you to do at Yale.

now all you do is a poor excuse for apologetics.

somehow, I doubt that’s what you learned at Yale.

ergo, you are, in fact, wasting your education.

congrats, Dr. Fubar.

Comment #144873

Posted by Mod on November 17, 2006 5:32 PM (e)

According Behe (quoted by Crowther), he wasn’t saying that Darwinian evolution couldn’t explain complex systems but instead that one element of evolutionary theory couldn’t explain complex systems. So basically he was stating the bleeding obvious:

Behe wrote:

The manuscript did not argue for intelligent design, nor did it say that complex systems would never be explained within Darwinian theory. Rather, it just made the simple, obvious, and unarguable point that gene duplication by itself is an incomplete explanation.

Colour me confused. The last time I checked science magazines tend to only accept science that actually adds to scientific knowledge. Saying that the Theory of Evolution might be able to explain it, but one mechanism involved alone cannot, is not really worthy of publishing.

Perhaps I should submit a paper to an ID magazine that concludes that natural selection alone cannot account for complex systems.

Comment #144875

Posted by Sir_Toejam on November 17, 2006 5:33 PM (e)

just a note to thread ownners:

I doubt there is ANYBODY here who thinks Doc Fubar has anything intelligent to contribute to ANY thread he “participates” in.

If you don’t start tossing his sorry ass, to the BW if nothing else, expect your threads for now and evermore to be continually polluted with his drivel, and the responses to it.

start paying attention to your own threads.

Comment #144879

Posted by Oleg Tchernyshyov on November 17, 2006 5:42 PM (e)

It’s worth pointing out that O’Leary’s piece is not particularly original. In fact, most of the content is lifted from the New Atlantis article. See here: http://www.thenewatlantis.com/archive/13/soa/pee…

Comment #144881

Posted by MarkP on November 17, 2006 5:45 PM (e)

And what exactly is wrong with consensus?

Amen. We may not know everything, but we know a lot. Those who like to point to the Einsteins of history as support for the idea that the consensus should not be trusted need to accept two things:

1) You are not Einsteinian
2) The vast majority of goofy-assed theories rejected by the consensus remain that way forever, and rightfully so.

Comment #144887

Posted by Steviepinhead on November 17, 2006 5:58 PM (e)

Uh, “Doc,” nobody here is fooled by your attempts to change the subject.

We’re still waiting for the exact title of your 1998 Yale cell biology doctoral thesis, remember (the one you claim to have located a paper copy of, but the one nobody can find in the Yale Library system).

And the abstract of that thesis.

And the names of the rest of your dissertation committee members.

And for links or abstracts to the other peer-reviewed journal articles you claim to have written.

You don’t have to be a biology Ph.D. to post here–heck, they even let pinheads like me post.

But once you claim to have some special expertise, you’ve got to be able to back it up when challenged.

So far, you’re looking a whole lot like Hovind and Haggard. Let me spell it out for you: L - I - A - R.

I’m still willing to be proved wrong, though, and I’ll admit it if you do. But, since you claim you’ve got your very own paper copy of your thesis right in your hot little hands, I’m kind of curious what’s taking you so long.

I hope you’re not waiting for one of those internet “paper-writing” services to come through for you. They, uh, don’t really deal in committee-approved doctoral theses.

Comment #144888

Posted by Bill Gascoyne on November 17, 2006 5:59 PM (e)

Frankly, I don’t see any point in reading any more comments on any thread until Dr. Fullgoosebozo’s name drops off the New Comments bar.

‘Bye!

Comment #144891

Posted by Coin on November 17, 2006 6:01 PM (e)

Okay….so its accredited through Biola. Accreditation
Talbot, as a school of Biola University, is included within Biola University’s accreditation by the Accrediting Commission for Senior Colleges and Universities of the Western Association of Schools and Colleges. Talbot is also a member of the Association of Theological Schools (member), the internationally recognized accrediting body of seminaries and schools of divinity in the United States and Canada.http://www.talbot.edu/about/

What that quote says is:

1. Talbot is a school of Biola University
2. Biola University is accredited by the Western Association of Schools and Colleges
3. Talbot is also separately accredited by the Association of Theological Schools

You do understand the relationship between a university and the schools that comprise that university, right?

Not being familiar with Talbot, I wouldn’t be surprised to learn that its status as a part of Biola University would not come up often when dealing with the school itself– but it does seem quite strange that someone could get a degree there without ever becoming aware of that fact.

Comment #144900

Posted by MarkP on November 17, 2006 6:25 PM (e)

[sigh] unDoc Martin, Master of Logic and All That is Pollysyllabic, Ruler of All Yale PhDs, might I remind your grace, that an “ad hominem” attack is the act of claiming someone’s view is wrong by attacking them personally. It is not the mere act of implying they are an idiot, or even calling them an idiot.

Idiot.

Comment #144918

Posted by cak on November 17, 2006 7:16 PM (e)

“Dr.” MM:

De-lurking to comment:

I received my Ph.D. in 1977 from Yale’s biology dept. I searched on the Yale library web site for my last name and retrieved my thesis title with two entries - one with a book call number and the other with a microfilm number.

Why did they record theses in the 1970’s but not the 1990’s?

cak

Comment #144924

Posted by minimalist on November 17, 2006 7:37 PM (e)

Mikey Mike wrote:

Look, I’m sorry if I’m getting a bit flustered, but answering the same questions over and over again is really wearing me down here guys.

Except you’re not really answering them. Just providing the same excuses over and over again.

I can see how that would be tiring, when you’d just ratherthe bad ol’ questions would go away.

But they won’t.

So answer them.

What’s the title of your dissertation?
What was the abstract?
Who was the head of your lab?
What journals did you publish in?
Will you ever answer Lenny’s questions?

Comment #144928

Posted by Tracy P. Hamilton on November 17, 2006 7:55 PM (e)

From Dissertation abstracts:

Title: EXPLORATION OF DIVERSITY, ADAPTATION AND COMPLEXITY IN EXPERIMENTAL SYSTEMS OF EVOLUTION IN VITRO
Author(s): HANCZYC, MARTIN MICHAEL
Degree: PH.D.
Year: 1999
Pages: 00121
Institution: YALE UNIVERSITY; 0265
Advisor: Director ROBERT LAWRENCE DORIT
Source: DAI, 60, no. 05B (1999): p. 1987
Abstract: This thesis explores the evolution of diversity, complexity and adaptation using simple systems of evolution in vitro. The various ways in which populations of molecules respond to directed evolution in a simple, homogeneous environment are explored in phenotypic and genotypic detail. Using the technique of evolution in vitro, populations of RNA catalysts (ribozymes) were characterized as they evolved in response to selection for increased functionality on a DNA substrate. In Chapter 1, experimental models of evolution are introduced, and studies particularly relevant to this thesis are presented. The evolution of a complex system of intermolecular partners that arose de novo in response to the selection for improved DNA catalysis is presented in Chapter 2, and the sequence and functional interactions of these evolved partners are characterized in detail. The mechanism by which this evolved interaction occurs is also explored. Chapter 3 describes how a series of replicate evolution in vitro experiments resulted in a variety of outcomes including phenotypic and genotypic convergence and divergence. The results show how divergent trajectories in evolution may evolve even in simple systems as a result of both deterministic and stochastic forces. Finally, important questions not fully answered by the studies presented in this thesis are discussed in Chapter 4, and the limitations of the evolution in vitro approach are presented. In addition, some future directions of evolution in vitro are discussed. Overall, this thesis contains detailed experimental accounts of how complexity and diversity arise in simple, evolving systems.

SUBJECT(S)
Descriptor: BIOLOGY, MOLECULAR
CHEMISTRY, BIOCHEMISTRY
Accession No: AAG9931054
Database: Dissertations

Comment #144931

Posted by cak on November 17, 2006 8:01 PM (e)

I am not interested in reading your thesis. If your degree is legit you should contact the library and your department to make sure your thesis is properly recorded. Until it is, the rest of us are entitled to skepticism.

Comment #144932

Posted by MarkP on November 17, 2006 8:01 PM (e)

unDoc Martin said:

I will define my personal view for you…

There’s your problem bro. What makes you think anyone here is interested in your personal view?

and again: So, its not a matter of attacking me personally to call me an idiot or imply that I’m an idiot?

Nooooooooo, it is not an ad hominem to do so. Once again, an “ad hominem” is the act of claiming someone’s view is wrong by attacking them personally. Just attacking them is, well, just an attack.

In other words, “You’re deranged, therefore you’re wrong” is an ad hominem. No one here has done that. What they have been implying is “you are so wrong, so utterly clueless, so immensely incoherant, that one can conclude that you are deranged.”

Let’s see, you can’t handle complex sentences, you can’t figure out a very simple editor, and you claim to be a PhD? Riiiiight, and I’m cuddling up with Jennifer Aniston tonight.

Comment #144933

Posted by steve s on November 17, 2006 8:15 PM (e)

I used to find very disagreeable, people like Timothy Sandefur who close the comment sections to their threads. But with threads like these, I’m coming to appreciate their position. What use is any of this garbage.

Comment #144935

Posted by David B. Benson on November 17, 2006 8:23 PM (e)

Tracy P. Hamilton provided the clue. With that I found two copies of the thesis listed in the Yale on-line library, one bound and one microform.

What does that tell you about Dr. M&M?

Shenanigans. Shenanigans!

Comment #144940

Posted by David B. Benson on November 17, 2006 8:28 PM (e)

Martin Hanczyc has been Protolife’s Chief Chemist since 2005 and was or still is employed at Harvard or its Medical Center.

Shenanigans!

Comment #144945

Posted by Steviepinhead on November 17, 2006 8:35 PM (e)

Thanks, Tracy, for an example of what we’re looking for to support Martin’s claims.

But Martin Michael Hancyzc is not the right guy. While the name is similar, it’s not the same. Not to mention:

Different year (1999 versus 1998); different thesis topic (evolution of intermolecular partners versus some gobbledygook about cancer and white blood cells and protein folding); different advisor; different department (this sounds like molecular biology or organic chemistry, not cell biology); etc.

Dr. Hancyzc, far from tailspinning into Creationism like “Doc” Martin claims to have done, appears to be a productive and ongoing contributor to–among other things, origin of life/RNA World research–whose journal publications are easily found just by googling his name.

Now, “Doc” Mikey-Troll, isn’t it time to just come clean? Admitting your sin–lying about your asserted academic credentials–is the first step towards redemption and forgiveness.

Well, I might not forgive you. But Jesus is supposed to be a more understanding guy…

Comment #144946

Posted by Coin on November 17, 2006 8:37 PM (e)

Tracy P. Hamilton wrote:

Title: EXPLORATION OF DIVERSITY, ADAPTATION AND COMPLEXITY IN EXPERIMENTAL SYSTEMS OF EVOLUTION IN VITRO
Author(s): HANCZYC, MARTIN MICHAEL

Ah, now that one does show up in the Yale library catalog. Immediately, in fact, the first thing you see if you type in that last name.

And a simple google search shows that “Martin M Hanczyc” has indeed published in noteworthy peer reviewed publications, and is currently a researcher working at Harvard.

But I don’t think that could possibly be our little spammer here, since Dr. Hanczyc’s publication record not only shows active work being published in places like Science in 2003 and 2004 (which does not seem to leave enough time to have been completing a masters of theology in California during those years), but also covers a lot of stuff… shall we say, somewhat incompatible with a YEC mindset, such as investigation of abiogenesis of pre-DNA molecules.

This story is actually pretty interesting:

Harvard researchers demonstrated how the first living cells may have formed in a series of experiments that indicate that clay can be an important catalyst for life.

While the research is a far cry from proving that humans sprang from clay, as some creation myths assert, it does provide a possible mechanism for explaining how life initially arose from nonliving molecules.

Researchers at the Howard Hughes Medical Institute and Massachusetts General Hospital showed that the presence of clay aids naturally occurring reactions that result in the formation of fatty sacks called vesicles, similar to what scientists expect the first living cells to have looked like.

Further, the clay helps RNA form. The RNA can stick to the clay and move with it into the vesicles. This provides a method for RNA’s critical genetic information to move inside a primitive cell.

Harvard Medical School Professor of Genetics Jack Szostak said he and colleagues Martin Hanczyc and Shelly Fujikawa aren’t suggesting they’ve hit on the exact method by which life initially arose. Still, he said, there are exciting parallels, including the fact that the clay aids in the creation of both the vesicles and the genetic material that would be needed to create a primitive cell.

“It’s exciting because we know that a particular clay mineral helps with the assembly of RNA,” Szostak said. “There certainly would have been lots of environments on early Earth with clay minerals. It’s something that forms relatively easily as rocks weather.”

You know, one almost begins to wonder if doesn’t even work with Answers in Genesis. It doesn’t seem to be AIG’s style to hire people who claim imaginary degrees from real universities. AIG seems to prefer working with people who have real degrees from imaginary universities. A search for “Michael Martin” on AIG’s site turns up only references to the elderly atheist philospher Michael Martin. But this is of course just conjecture…

Comment #144951

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on November 17, 2006 8:47 PM (e)

These are tired and old questions Lenny.

Then you should have no problem, uh, answering them. Right?

Put up or shut up.

Comment #144954

Posted by Coin on November 17, 2006 8:51 PM (e)

Dr. Michael Martin, probably not his real name, wrote:

I found some things online regarding my Scientific career. Here we are as a few of them are concerned:

There is also a seminar that I attended too. Not sure if this is the same thing as what you’re looking for or not. I used to teach as a professor at John Carroll University.

We also have:
“Dr. Michael Martin, the former deputy associate director of the Division of Extramural Activities, has taken a position as director of the Division of Physiological Systems in the NIH Center for Scientific Review.”

Ah. Caught in a lie at last. As sloppy as you’ve been, I guess it’s surprising it took this long.

Checking around, one finds two things. One, that article you’re quoting is from 1999, just one year after you claim to have finished a PHD at Yale; two, the Dr. Michael Martin described therein still works at the NIH Center for Scientific Review. And his biography says this:

A native of San Francisco, Dr. Martin did his undergraduate work at the University of California, Berkeley. His graduate and postdoctoral studies were at the University of Bristol, England, where he received his Ph.D. in physiology (neurosciences) for research characterizing the role of amino acids as neurotransmitters. In 1977, he returned to the United States and to NIH, where he was a senior staff fellow and pharmacologist in the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke.

In 1985, he left the lab and joined the NIH Grants Associate Program. Dr. Martin then became program director in the National Cancer Institute’s Cancer Biology Branch. From there, he became Deputy Associate Director for Extramural Activities in the National Institute of General Medical Sciences, a position he held until joining CSR.

This Michael Martin clearly was not anywhere near Yale in the period 1994-1998, except in the sense that Maryland and Connecticuit are near one another; and is highly improbable to have had the time in this decade to have received a masters in theology from any California university.

So, what was the lie?

That you got a PHD in Genetics from Harvard in 1998?
That you got a masters of theology from “Talbot University” in 2004?
That you are the Dr. Michael Martin who has been working at the NIH apparently continuously since 1985?
Or were all three lies?

Frankly, I’d be inclined to suspect that everything you’ve said so far has been a lie. Are you at least out of high school yet?

Comment #144958

Posted by minimalist on November 17, 2006 8:56 PM (e)

Mr. Mike isn't even trying anymore wrote:

We also have:
“Dr. Michael Martin, the former deputy associate director of the Division of Extramural Activities, has taken a position as director of the Division of Physiological Systems in the NIH Center for Scientific Review.”

Michael, Michael, Michael, you’ve really sunk to new depths. This took me all of two seconds to find with Google:

A native of San Francisco, Dr. Martin did his undergraduate work at the University of California, Berkeley. His graduate and postdoctoral studies were at the University of Bristol, England, where he received his Ph.D. in physiology (neurosciences) for research characterizing the role of amino acids as neurotransmitters. In 1977, he returned to the United States and to NIH, where he was a senior staff fellow and pharmacologist in the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke.

You’ve had quite the busy life! Why didn’t you tell us all about your FIRST PhD, the one you got in 1977? Did that “slip your mind” too?

I will say this right now: you are the best poster we’ve had in months. BWAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

Comment #144959

Posted by minimalist on November 17, 2006 8:57 PM (e)

Curse you, Coin!

Comment #144974

Posted by minimalist on November 17, 2006 9:18 PM (e)

Mikey, the NIH page I and Coin linked to was LAST UPDATED 11/17/06.

http://www.csr.nih.gov/photodisplay/finalinter.a…

Does the NIH know you’re also employed full-time at AIG?

You’re amazing, you know that? You’re either the funniest Loki troll we’ve eevr had or you are indeed dumber than a bag of hair.

Comment #144976

Posted by Coin on November 17, 2006 9:20 PM (e)

Right, in 1998! Beforehand I attended Yale and got my PHD in Molecular and Cell Biology.
Right, in 1998! Beforehand I attended Yale and got my PHD in Molecular and Cell Biology. They left this entire part out here.

As the bios– both the one on the NIH webpage now, and the one you just linked– for Dr. Michael Martin (whose long career of public service you have, seemingly randomly, decided to besmirch) clearly indicate, Dr. Martin finished his schooling in the 1970s. A bio on an NIH page clearly would not leave out something as critically important as someone getting an entire new PH.D after two decades. Meanwhile, both bios make it clear that Dr. Martin was busy serving as Deputy Associate Director for Extramural Activities in the period leading up to 1999, and has been serving at CSR since. Had Dr. Martin been working on a PH.D at Yale before 1998, or had he been working on a degree in theology around 2004, someone else would have had to have taken over his positions at the NIH during that time.

Geez, these aren’t even good lies.

And was your imaginary PHD in “Molecular and Cell Biology”, as you say here, or “Genetics”, as the impression was given in the other thread? Think carefully, now.

There sure are a lot of Dr. Michael Martins running around.

Comment #144978

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on November 17, 2006 9:22 PM (e)

Hey Doc, when you’re done bullshitting everyone about your marvelous science degree, would you mind answering my simple questions?

After all, we wouldn’t want people to think that you, uh, CAN’T answer them … right?

Comment #144979

Posted by minimalist on November 17, 2006 9:24 PM (e)

Mikey, obvious and amazingly stupid lies only work on people who are dumber than you.

And brother, ain’t NOBODY on this planet qualifies.

Comment #144987

Posted by Gary Hurd on November 17, 2006 9:43 PM (e)

Posted by Dr. Michael Martin on November 17, 2006 4:55 PM (e)

I can’t find any dissertations for this matter.

I found references to mine, UC Irvine 1976, using google scholar.

I have boxed the compass on peer review, I still hate the reviewers from my first submitted paper, I have both praised and savaged grant and article submissions as a reviewer, my last paper was torn to shreds in review (and they were right!).

Early in my career I had a grant reviewer trash my proposal and then plagiarize it. He amended a grant he already had with a big chunk of my proposal. Lucky for him, he died before I found out.

But peer review is still a significant improvement over editorial fiat.

The Internet has made a major change in scientific publication, and there are changes still to come.

Comment #144993

Posted by John Marley on November 17, 2006 9:55 PM (e)

Mikey,

You lied. You’ve been caught. No one is going to believe you, no matter how many times you comment and call us stupid.

Really.

No One Will Ever Fall For It. At least no one here.

Please go away. Or admit that you are a 14 year-old punk, then go away.

I would like to get back to that whole peer-review process thing.

Comment #144996

Posted by Mike Dunford on November 17, 2006 9:58 PM (e)

A person posting under the name “Dr. Michael Martin” has left numerous semi-coherent posts in this thread. These have included numerous ridiculous claims, among them the claim to have completed a PhD as recently as 1998, yet not remember the name of anyone on his committee. Somewhat more recently, this person has claimed to be “Dr. Michael Martin,” “formerly” of the National Institutes of Health’s Center for Scientific Review and current employee of Answers in Genesis. A cursory google search reveals that, while there is a Dr. Michael Martin who is the director of the NIH CSR, the details given in his online biography bear absolutely no similarity to the claims made by the unknown poster, and further non-internet based research makes it appear highly unlikely that the actual Dr. Michael Martin has left NIH.

At present, it appears likely that this person is not “Dr. Michael Martin,” and that he or she has absolutely no affiliation with either NIH or AiG. All posts by that poster in this thread have been unpublished, and a request to permanently ban the poster from these boards for violation of item 6 of the comment integrity policy is pending.

I would further warn the poster in question that the IP address he or she has been posting from is identified in a whois search as being registered to the College of William and Mary, that most college computing services departments require users to follow a set of terms and conditions that usually prohibit the sort of nonsense that is taking place here, and that it would not be difficult for me to send a complaint to the appropriate source, along with the full IP address and a listing of dates and times for the offending posts. Keep that in mind before trying to get in more posts before getting banned.

In short, find some other way to waste your Friday nights.

Comment #144997

Posted by Steve Reuland on November 17, 2006 9:59 PM (e)

Here…lets play a game guys. Its called, find Michael Martin on the Special Emphasis Panel:

http://www.drg.nih.gov/Roster_proto/meeting_rost…

Um, Michael Martin isn’t there. There are three people with the name Michael, and one person with the name Martin, but no one with the name “Michael Martin”.

Let me let you in on something: If you google a first and last name, sometimes you get back a hit with those names separated by lots of text. Next time you should really check the page and make sure that the names actually appear together. Otherwise, you’re never going to convince anyone that you’re a PhD when you demonstrate such stupidity.

Comment #144999

Posted by minimalist on November 17, 2006 10:00 PM (e)

Mikey, you’ve onlydemonstrated one thing to be true:

You and Josh McDowell definitely did learn “logic” at the same place.

BWAHAHAHAHA!!!

Comment #145001

Posted by minimalist on November 17, 2006 10:02 PM (e)

Kid Mikey wrote:

DERRR, think about it. If I’m a “14 year old kid” would I have been able to construct even the slightest notion of the Thesis project idea that I was able to construct? Think about it. It doesn’t take the brains of a monkey to figure this out guys.

Well, considering that all you came up with for a “thesis” was a bunch of words you didn’t understand strung together into non-sequiturs, then I guess that pretty much sews it up: you’re 14.

Comment #145007

Posted by minimalist on November 17, 2006 10:19 PM (e)

Bye, liar. Don’t let the lies hit you on your ass on your way out.

Comment #145012

Posted by John Marley on November 17, 2006 10:27 PM (e)

I would no doubt love to bury your head in Genetics. Evolution’s side is very weak in these regards.

the Theory of Evolution. Weak in regards to genetics.

BWAAHAAAHAAA!

Good one, Mikey!

Comment #145015

Posted by John Marley on November 17, 2006 10:34 PM (e)

Steve Reuland wrote:

Um, Michael Martin isn’t there. There are three people with the name Michael, and one person with the name Martin, but no one with the name “Michael Martin”.

What was the date of that meeting?

On 11/17/06, Martin, Michael (NIH/CSR) [E] [Enable javascript to see this email address.]> wrote:

I will be out of the office from Friday, November 10 thru Tuesday November 28. I will not be in email contact. If you have questions please contact Don Schnedier at 301-435-1727.

This might explain why his name wasn’t on that roster. It also proves that Dr. Michael Martin is still emplyed at NIH.

You still lose, Mikey-Liar.

Comment #145018

Posted by Mike Dunford on November 17, 2006 10:41 PM (e)

I am continuing to unpublish comments by “Michael Martin.” I would greatly appreciate it if other users refrain from responding to his comments in the period between when he leaves them and when I unpublish them.

Since “Dr. Martin” has not responded to my email, but is clearly checking this thread at what appear to be 30-second intervals, I will take this opportunity to restress what I said in the email. Further comments in this thread will result in both [Enable javascript to see this email address.] and [Enable javascript to see this email address.] being informed of your impersonations.

Comment #145019

Posted by John Marley on November 17, 2006 10:41 PM (e)

Sorry about feeding the troll, Mike (Dunford)

I can’t help myself sometimes.

Comment #145021

Posted by Mike Dunford on November 17, 2006 10:44 PM (e)

Understood. I’ve had that problem from time to time myself. This one just stopped being amusing a long time ago.

Comment #145029

Posted by MarkP on November 18, 2006 1:46 AM (e)

Thanks Mike Dunford. It was overdue.

Comment #145031

Posted by Zarquon on November 18, 2006 1:58 AM (e)

Well I guess MM got peer-reviewed out of existence.

Comment #145050

Posted by Millipj on November 18, 2006 5:47 AM (e)

In my experience of peer-review (both as reviewer and reviewed) a referee will never reject a paper just because they disagree with it or because it goes against the mainstream. They will reject it if the conclusions are not supported by or are inconsistent with the data it contains or if the experimental work is seriously flawed.

The same applies to PhD examinations (again speaking as both examined and examiner under the UK system).

I have never seen it stifle the publication of new ideas - we have patent lawyers for that.

Comment #145053

Posted by Frank Marshall on November 18, 2006 6:49 AM (e)

There are no widely accepted standards for peer review. Theoretically, a Journal of Criticism of Darwinism could be established for the express purpose of publishing peer-reviewed criticisms of Darwinism.

The terms “peer review,“ “peer reviewed,“ and “peer-reviewed“ appear a total of 21 times in Judge Jones‘ final Kitzmiller v. Dover opinion. It is noteworthy that neither that opinion nor any other decision in the case was peer-reviewed prior to release. An appeal might be considered to be a form of peer review, but there was no appeal in Kitzmiller. The final opinion is at –
http://media.ljworld.com/pdf/2005/12/20/kitzmill…

Comment #145062

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on November 18, 2006 10:26 AM (e)

At present, it appears likely that this person is not “Dr. Michael Martin,” and that he or she has absolutely no affiliation with either NIH or AiG.

(shocked gasp) You mean … creationists LIE ABOUT THEIR CREDENTIALS??????

I am utterly flabbergasted by that.

Truly.

How unexpected.

Comment #145063

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on November 18, 2006 10:32 AM (e)

DI’s whining about “peer review” brings to mind the comedy that ran during the Dover trial, when Behe tried to claim that his BOOK was “peer-reviewed” (IIRC, it was somebody who only heard Behe read part of the manuscript to him over the phone or something… )

As I pointed out at the time, my dinky little book about keeping tarantulas as pets underwent a far more rigorous “peer review” than Behe’s, uh, magnum opus did – I had three different experts on tarantulas (two with PhD’s in arachnology and books of their own) read the entire manuscript, cover to cover, twice, before I even sent it to the publisher.

Comment #145064

Posted by Stevaroni on November 18, 2006 10:36 AM (e)

The biggest shame of this whole Yale is that the ID crowd still doesn’t get it.

Rank doesn’t matter nearly as much as they think it does. Maybe in their world just because the Reverend says it, you must believe it. After all, he must be smarter than you since he more letters after his name.

But that’s not the way it is in science. Yes, those with advanced degrees get the initial benefit of the doubt, but that doesn’t last much longer than it takes for them to open their mouths and say something really stupid (think of Behe).

Some of the greatest minds in science and technology never had much formal training at all (Einstein, for example, had a couple of years of college and was working in a field completely unrelated to physics).

No, in science all it takes is that you’re right, and can show it. It may take a while, but at the end of the day, there’s just no way to argue with a simple-to-demonstrate fact.

If Doc M&M had some of that that, there would be no need for the bluster. But I guess he doesn’t, hence the need to, oh, how shall I put this… bear false witness.

Comment #145075

Posted by PvM on November 18, 2006 12:23 PM (e)

At least peer review worked in the case of Meyer’s abysmal Cambrian paper.

Comment #145077

Posted by Gerard Harbison on November 18, 2006 12:37 PM (e)

What is the minimum sentence for impersonating a Federal official?

Oh wait, that would be persecuting a minority scientific viewpoint. Never mind.

Comment #145106

Posted by Sounder on November 18, 2006 6:13 PM (e)

Damn, another Liar For Jesus goes down. Only a few hundred more to go, I guess.

Comment #145107

Posted by Sir_Toejam on November 18, 2006 6:24 PM (e)

Only a few hundred more to go, I guess.

In my dreams!

try 30 million:

http://www.nae.net/

Comment #145271

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on November 19, 2006 5:14 PM (e)

I thought that Doc got his lying ass kicked out of here …. ?

Comment #145295

Posted by Steviepinhead on November 19, 2006 6:02 PM (e)

Gosh, there’s sure a lot of similarity between this list:
http://www.yale.edu/yibs/reports/9899hutch.html

1998 - 1999 G. Evelyn Hutchinson Prize
Graduate Student Abstracts
Index
Homayoun Bagheri
Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology
Luis Cadavid
Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology
Martin Hanczyc
Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology
Maxim Shpak
Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology
Michael Slotman
Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology
Eva Cuadrado
Yale School of Forestry and Environmental Studies
Timothy Farnham
Yale School of Forestry and Environmental Studies
Carlos Gonzalez
Yale School of Forestry and Environmental Studies
Xinxhang Hu
Yale School of Forestry and Environmental Studies
B. Brooke A. Parry
Yale School of Forestry and Environmental Studies
Montira J. Pongsiri
Yale School of Forestry and Environmental Studies
Jessica Maisano
Department of Geology & Geophysics
Cynthia Marshall
Department of Geology & Geophysics
Steven Petsch
Department of Geology & Geophysics
Jeffrey Chen
Department of Environmental Engineering
Eric Vrijenhoek
Department of Environmental Engineering

and Mikey-Troll’s latest pitiful attempt at trying to rehabilitate his credentials, as posted in Comment 145266:

Department of Molecular and Cellular Biology
Andrew Miranker
Homayoun Bagheri
Luis Cadavid
Martin Hanczyc
Maxim Shpak
Michael Slotman

Yale School of Forestry and Environmental Studies
Eva Cuadrado
Timothy Farnham
Carlos Gonzales
Xinzhang Hu
B. Brooke A. Parry
Montira J. Pongsiri

Department of Geology and Geophysics
Jessica Maisano
Cynthia Marshall
Steven Petsch

Department of Environmental Engineering
Jeffrey Chen
Eric Vrijenhoek

Gosh, itself for Mikey’s first “advisor,” who only got to Yale the year that Mikey claims to have received his doctorate, Mikey’s latest list is identical with the Hutchinson Prize graduate students list. Quite a coincidence! Wow, that Mikey really knows how to pick ‘em…

In addition to the ridiculous coincidence, of course, there’s the fact that all these other people were graduate students at the time Mikey claims they were on his committee.

Mikey, take a tip, you little lying pipsqueak–don’t ever actually try to make your way through graduate school. You’re not good enough at lying and plagiarizing to last a week.

Comment #145308

Posted by Steviepinhead on November 19, 2006 6:40 PM (e)

To quote the illustrious Lenny:

BWA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA…!

Give it up, junior. You’re stinking up the joint.

Comment #145332

Posted by Mike Dunford on November 19, 2006 7:55 PM (e)

I apologize for the repeat posts by liar-boy. (20-member dissertation committee, including Vrba, with an advisor who had been there for one year, that was cute.) I personally don’t have the ability to ban, and it is the weekend. I can’t sit in front of the computer indefinitely, but I will continute to unpublish those posts as the opportunity comes up.

I have already emailed a complaint to [Enable javascript to see this email address.] and [Enable javascript to see this email address.], and I’m still waiting for an admin here to block him. In the meantime, I would again request that people refrain from feeding him either here or in other threads.

Comment #145352

Posted by GvlGeologist, FCD on November 19, 2006 8:23 PM (e)

Um, Michael Martin, you might want to actually find out what you’re talking about before lying for Jesus about what you know. This is true for most of what you’ve been saying, but in the case about your claims about your “education”… Many PhDs and MS/MAs read this blog, and we all know how many people are on the typical committee. My PhD committee had 5 members and my MS had 4 members.

How many on “yours”? Nineteen? Come on, you can do better than that. If we contacted them (easy to do) what’s the chance of any of them knowing who you are?

Grow up.

Comment #145353

Posted by GvlGeologist, FCD on November 19, 2006 8:26 PM (e)

Sorry ‘bout that. Won’t happen again.

Comment #145446

Posted by Steviepinhead on November 20, 2006 1:49 PM (e)

Thanks, Mike Dunford.

While it’s been fun–and an interesting-in-itself live demonstration of the dishonesty of Creationism tactics–to fisk this little rascal’s claims, I’ll try to suppress any further urge to pile on, and thus to respect your request not to feed the troll.

Thanks for actively maintaining your thread, to the extent practical.

In an ideal case, it would’ve been fun to have “preserved” all the evidence of Mikey’s untenable claims in some appropriate place, perhaps over at “The Bathroom Wall,” on After the Bar Closes.

Comment #145492

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on November 20, 2006 5:41 PM (e)

Well, just in case there is someone, ANYone, out there who isn’t convinced that “Doc” Martin is an unabashed shameless liar, I offer the positive proof …

When Doc first made his claim that he was a staff member of AIG, I was suspicious since his name doesn’t appear anywhere on AiG’s website. So, I did the logical thing and wrote to AiG (under an alternate email – they know my name and won’t answer questions from me)and ASKED them:

I’m curious — do you have a staff member named Dr Michael Martin, with a PhD in genetics from Yale?

I just got AiG’s response today:

Thank you for contacting Answers in Genesis.

No, we do not have a Michael Martin on staff at Answers in Genesis-USA, nor is he someone with whom we are familiar.

Gary Vaterlaus
Director of Curriculum & Correspondence
Answers in Genesis
PO Box 510 * Hebron, KY 41048
(859) 727-2222

So there you have it … Doc Martin is a liar.

I’m sure everyone is, um, shocked and surprised to hear that …