FRDB Archives

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.


Go Back   FRDB Archives > Archives > IIDB ARCHIVE: 200X-2003, PD 2007 > IIDB Philosophical Forums (PRIOR TO JUN-2003)
Welcome, Peter Kirby.
You last visited: Today at 05:55 AM

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 02-10-2002, 02:36 PM   #1
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Orion Arm of the Milky Way Galaxy
Posts: 3,092
Post As the Shrimp Turns....

Wells has retracked the "mutant shrimp" claims in a message reproduced <a href="http://www.arn.org/ubb/Forum1/HTML/001795.html" target="_blank">here</a>.

The basic excuse is that he did his press release one day before the Nature article was released. His original attack attacked a RUSH to make exagerated claims and yet he could not wait ONE day to read the paper for himself.
Valentine Pontifex is offline  
Old 02-10-2002, 04:41 PM   #2
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Dana Point, Ca, USA
Posts: 2,115
Post

Your point is well taken.

I begin to suspect that PLA is Wells.
Dr.GH is offline  
Old 02-10-2002, 04:53 PM   #3
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Denver, CO, USA
Posts: 9,747
Post

All in all, it's a pretty pathetic attempt at damage control. The part that got me in his initial response was this:

Quote:
"Wells points out, however, that the mutation reported by McGinnis and his colleagues occurs midway through development, after the embryo is already a shrimp. The mutation does not transform the embryo into anything like an insect, but only into a disabled shrimp. Whatever produced the first insect would have had to transform the embryo from the very beginning." Wells adds that critics of Darwinism have never claimed that major mutations result in dead animals, but only in animals that are less fit, and thus likely to be eliminated by natural selection. According to Wells, "this report does nothing to refute that criticism."
This is not simply a matter of having the facts wrong. This is about making up facts out of thin air. Had he simply said that he wasn't impressed by a mutant shrimp, it would be a minor (though still embarasing) error. Instead, he made specific claims about the shrimp, when the mutation is expressed, and how the shrimp is "disabled". None of these claims can possibly be based on any study that he's done since the shrimp never existed. What he's demonstrated here is a penchant for dishonesty and the willingness to invent falsehoods whole cloth.

theyeti
theyeti is offline  
Old 02-10-2002, 05:03 PM   #4
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: USA
Posts: 5,393
Post

Well's would have done a better job of confusing the issue if he had just been contrite and originally said something such as "this experiment doesn't prove anything." There is so much evidence to support evolution from so many fields of science that there was really no need for him to make such an ass of himself over this one press release.
Dr Rick is offline  
Old 02-10-2002, 05:17 PM   #5
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: St. John's, Nfld. Canada
Posts: 1,652
Post

Quote:
Originally posted by theyeti:
<strong>



This is not simply a matter of having the facts wrong. This is about making up facts out of thin air. Had he simply said that he wasn't impressed by a mutant shrimp, it would be a minor (though still embarasing) error. Instead, he made specific claims about the shrimp, when the mutation is expressed, and how the shrimp is "disabled". None of these claims can possibly be based on any study that he's done since the shrimp never existed. What he's demonstrated here is a penchant for dishonesty and the willingness to invent falsehoods whole cloth.

theyeti</strong>
I'm confused. The article states:

"The UCSD team, which included Matthew Ronshaugen and Nadine McGinnis, showed in its experiments that this could be accomplished with relatively simple mutations in a class of regulatory genes, known as Hox, that act as master switches by turning on and off other genes during embryonic development. Using laboratory fruit flies and a crustacean known as Artemia, or brine shrimp, the scientists showed how modifications in the Hox gene Ubx—which suppresses 100 percent of the limb development in the thoracic region of fruit flies, while its crustacean counterpart from Artemia only represses 15%—would have allowed the crustacean-like ancestors of Artemia, with limbs on every segment, to lose their hind legs and diverge 400 million years ago into the six-legged insects."

Since they used a brine shrimp how can you say the shrimp never existed? I must be missing something.
tgamble is offline  
Old 02-10-2002, 05:36 PM   #6
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Denver, CO, USA
Posts: 9,747
Post

Quote:
Originally posted by tgamble:
<strong>
Since they used a brine shrimp how can you say the shrimp never existed? I must be missing something.</strong>
Read the NCSE article. There was never a mutant shrimp like Wells claims. The gene came from a shrimp, was mutated, and then expressed in a fruitfly embryo, at least if I understand correctly. I haven't read the paper either, but then again I'm not issuing any press releases making bold claims.

theyeti
theyeti is offline  
Old 02-10-2002, 10:49 PM   #7
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: ...
Posts: 1,245
Post

Quote:
Originally posted by LordValentine:
<strong>Wells has retracked the "mutant shrimp" claims in a message reproduced <a href="http://www.arn.org/ubb/Forum1/HTML/001795.html" target="_blank">here</a>.</strong>
So his excuse is "Forgive me, for I haven't the integrity to refrain from commenting on an article I haven't even read yet." What's truly frightening is that they will forgive him.

And he still gets his facts wrong, as pz points out. Wells political success shows the true extent of American democracy: even a moron can manage to advise a school board on science standards. <img src="graemlins/banghead.gif" border="0" alt="[Bang Head]" />
Kevin is offline  
Old 02-11-2002, 05:00 PM   #8
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Orion Arm of the Milky Way Galaxy
Posts: 3,092
Post

Quote:
Originally posted by Kevin:
<strong>

So his excuse is "Forgive me, for I haven't the integrity to refrain from commenting on an article I haven't even read yet." What's truly frightening is that they will forgive him.

And he still gets his facts wrong, as pz points out. Wells political success shows the true extent of American democracy: even a moron can manage to advise a school board on science standards. <img src="graemlins/banghead.gif" border="0" alt="[Bang Head]" /> </strong>
And it was pointed out that contrary to what he said, the Nature paper was availiable when he issued his press release.
Valentine Pontifex is offline  
Old 02-13-2002, 09:58 PM   #9
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: NCSU
Posts: 5,853
Post

Shouldn't we nominate "mutant shrimp" to be our next non-god. Maybe "mutant shrimp" could be IPU avatar on earth?

-RvFvS
RufusAtticus is offline  
Old 02-14-2002, 06:27 AM   #10
Contributor
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Proud Citizen of Freedonia
Posts: 42,473
Post

Quote:
Originally posted by LordValentine:
<strong>The basic excuse is that he did his press release one day before the Nature article was released. His original attack attacked a RUSH to make exagerated claims and yet he could not wait ONE day to read the paper for himself.</strong>
I thought his retraction was great. Not only was his mistake not his fault (somehow), but the experiment which he lambasted that never happened was more progress than the actual experiment done, or so he says.

You can always tell the mindset and bad intentions of someone when they make a mistake of that proportion and then go about blaming someone else for it and not even apologizing for making something up. His retraction was hardly what I'd call heartfelt and sincere. And he wants people to take him seriously?
Jimmy Higgins is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 08:45 PM.

Top

This custom BB emulates vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.