tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post7178757150499563569..comments2024-03-27T14:50:47.345-04:00Comments on <center>Sandwalk</center>: The Arsenic Affair: No Arsenic in DNA!Larry Moranhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05756598746605455848noreply@blogger.comBlogger9125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-66960579084186438442012-02-10T21:19:55.150-05:002012-02-10T21:19:55.150-05:00If the authors signed the rebuttal that was publis...If the authors signed the rebuttal that was published, then that is their response. Why do they owe you an appearance on Judge Judy? When new results are *published* Oremland has said that he is likely to respond to them. As of now that has not happened.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-40275449243844935512012-02-06T16:22:24.601-05:002012-02-06T16:22:24.601-05:00Thanks Matt, those look promising!Thanks Matt, those look promising!Torbjörn Larssonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13304729731231255545noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-88124898972343627332012-02-04T21:58:17.537-05:002012-02-04T21:58:17.537-05:00Torbjorn-
Davies appears to be of the "god i...Torbjorn-<br /><br />Davies appears to be of the "god is in quantum mechanics," or "god is in the laws of physics" ilk. He may criticize ID, but since when has that ever deterred a creationist from nevertheless embracing it, albeit in another form? Cognitive dissonance is part and parcel of ID. Check out posts by Jerry Coyne about comments by Davies, and look at Davies' statements on the "Speaking of Faith" program. Davies can't claim to be a theistic evolutionist, I don't think.<br /><br />MattMatt Ghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07745943486966305844noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-30248548120084654162012-02-04T17:02:49.070-05:002012-02-04T17:02:49.070-05:00Interesting how the polarization among critics fol...Interesting how the polarization among critics follow the cold fusion pathological science pathway, some notes that the bacteria simply lives well on phosphorous, some claims that arsenic uptake isn't invalidated. (Actually both groups seem to agree on the result, they just choose to interpret the context differently.)<br /><br />@ Matt G: <br /><br />I'm interested in "the ID creationist Paul Davies" stance in as much as it affects his astrobiology as it does his physics. He seems to be a deist, reading his physics books and seeing his Templeton success there. <br /><br />But he has been outspoken against ID. What is your reference?Torbjörn Larssonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13304729731231255545noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-17981970307562901072012-02-04T11:56:50.265-05:002012-02-04T11:56:50.265-05:00her original paper never actually claimed that ars...<i>her original paper never actually claimed that arsenate was being incorporated in GFAJ-1’s DNA, but that others had jumped to that conclusion.</i><br /><br />From her paper's title: "using arsenic instead of phosphorus". Does she know the meaning of the word "instead"? <br /><br />Verdict: Dishonesty coupled with incompetence.DKnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-90972447668484471822012-02-04T06:50:56.633-05:002012-02-04T06:50:56.633-05:00Haven't followed this affair. But it seems to ...Haven't followed this affair. But it seems to me that the question she asked in the first place lead her astray, because a microbe surviving in a lake with high arsenic could as well detoxifying arsenic somehow rather than replacing it for phosphorus. Seems to be a case of not taking all possible alternatives into consideration and therefore misinterpreting data.<br /><br />But that would just be normal human fallibility. I think what irated the skeptics and got her in for a thorough bashing is her vainglory announcing things lke "stay tuned fot the enxt 15 years ..." combined with the media hype. Otherwise such papers are being published and simply forgotten and no affair ever arises.Joachim Dagghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00985198925581721229noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-42413615003711475952012-02-03T21:07:32.653-05:002012-02-03T21:07:32.653-05:00Jonathan Eisen found this version on NASATV's ...Jonathan Eisen found this version on NASATV's YouTube channel (and it's embeddable, if you want to grab the code):<br />http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JVSJLUIQrA0Brian Malowhttp://www.sciencecomedian.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-39146590906976509502012-02-03T17:54:33.863-05:002012-02-03T17:54:33.863-05:00One of the co-authors of the original paper is the...One of the co-authors of the original paper is the ID creationist Paul Davies. He said something recently about how being "unencumbered by knowledge" (paraphrasing) helped him to wrap his mind around the paper. How/why he was a co-author is a mystery to me since molecular biology is not his field. Anyhow, good riddance to bad science!Matt Ghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07745943486966305844noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-28348256530729987552012-02-03T16:55:46.677-05:002012-02-03T16:55:46.677-05:00It's really awesome that Redfield's group ...It's really awesome that Redfield's group did this, a lot of people were just rejecting the NASA claims in theory, so it's really great to see that someone actually investigated it and attempted to confirm/reproduce the results. Even more fantastic that Redfield's initial suspicions were publically aired on her blog, so great to see such an open version of science with a high impact publication to follow up.<br /><br />It's unfortunate that the co-Author's on Wolfe-Simon's paper seemed to have left it's defense to her. It's also unfortunate that her group didn't seem to want to debate anyone outside of a series of peer-reviewed articles too.Schenckhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10802843636373254323noreply@blogger.com