bio-engineering; synthetic DNA, that replicates - a bit scarey - Page 10

Oh, Bee, did you mean that one-liner, that Carlin 'liked' his own self ?

Lol. I get that a lot. 

NB... ?  

.... No Beers? Nice Butt?   

Hundmutter, perhaps nobody is offering to explain anything because no one asking is really interested in any answers they haven't already accepted. LOL  A tad unfortunate, really, as far as a discussion goes.

Still, I do think vk4 is whipping up to a proper froth, and that is entertaining enough for the moment. I need a diversion. I finally got all my tax stuff together even though I will need an extension. It gets to be taxing on the brain thinking of deductions that won't land me in the clinker!

Any way, now I can relax enough so I can finish painting those aliens tonight, so I get back in time to watch the Championship game. That calls for a  . 

 

 

Quote from ggturner:

Are you that naive sevenpatch?  Ok, you asked for it, so here you go:

Well, I don’t have any desire to be naïve.  I’m not the one making blanket statements to confirm my bias though, so are you that naïve, ggturner?

 Let’s look at your sources.

 Quote from ggturner:

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-edinburgh-east-fife-22186220

Wow!  One scientist who faked experimental research data.  How was this one guy discovered to be a fraud?  Wait for it … his work was reviewed and scrutinized by his superiors by using the scientific method.

 Quote from ggturner:

http://www.globalresearch.ca/how-many-scientists-fabricate-and-falsify-research/5363417

You really should read your own sources, as your second link here disproves your blanket statement that many scientists try to be politically correct or are just plain corrupt.

 Directly from the article:

“To measure the frequency of misconduct, different approaches have been employed, and they have produced a corresponding variety of estimates. Based on the number of government confirmed cases in the US, fraud is documented in about 1 every 100.000 scientists [11], or 1 every 10.000 according to a different counting [3]. Paper retractions from the PubMed library due to misconduct, on the other hand, have a frequency of 0.02%, which led to speculation that between 0.02 and 0.2% of papers in the literature are fraudulent [17]. Eight out of 800 papers submitted to The Journal of Cell Biology had digital images that had been improperly manipulated, suggesting a 1% frequency [11]. Finally, routine data audits conducted by the US Food and Drug Administration between 1977 and 1990 found deficiencies and flaws in 10–20% of studies, and led to 2% of clinical investigators being judged guilty of serious scientific misconduct [18].”

Does the number of confirmed and documented cases between 1 in every 100,000 scientists (a mere .001 percent) and 1 in every 10,000 (a mere .01 percent) constitute MANY scientists?  Does speculation of between .02 and .2 percent of papers in literature are fraudulent constitute MANY fraudulent papers?  Does 1 percent of improperly manipulated digital images mean that MANY scientists are trying to be politically correct or are just plain corrupt?

 Care to retract your blanket statement or would that violate your bias?

 Shall I continue?

 Quote from ggturner:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2085814/Scientists-falsify-data-research-published-whistleblowers-bullied-keeping-quiet-claim-colleagues.html

This article is in regards to a survey done by the British Medical Journal in England.  I’m not sure how things work in England but here in the U.S. the medical field has underlying problems related to funding and outside influence from corporations.  Additionally the survey was given to medical research scientists and doctors in England, so the results are indicative of problems in the medical field of England.  Also, the survey was anonymous so it is hard to gauge exactly what the cause or source of the problems are (hence the inquiry by the BMJ).  Still, the survey indicates that more than 10 percent of the survey respondents indicate that they have witnessed deliberate fabrication.  Does more than 10 percent constitute MANY scientists?  Perhaps more than there should be yes, but not a majority.  One additional thing to consider is that this is a survey, and do we know that the results are trustworthy?  Interesting enough, the survey also found that 6 percent knew of possible research misconduct.  Right there is a problem, why is it that more than 10 percent have witnessed fabrication yet only 6 percent report that they knew of POSSIBLE research misconduct.  Sounds very suspicious to me.

 Of course, you really didn’t care to ask questions did you, you found an article that confirms your bias.

 Look, I commend Liz Wager for attempting to tackle misconduct in the medical research field and science in general but that doesn’t mean we should overreact and incorrectly assume the majority of scientists are behaving improperly.  Does misconduct happen sure, but you could be talking anywhere between simple carelessness or incompetence (yes even people with Ph.D.’s can be incompetent) to actual corruption or deliberate misconduct.  Again, remember we’re talking about anywhere from a fraction of a percent to 1 percent, which hardly constitutes MANY.

 Quote from ggturner:

http://www.cnn.com/2014/04/01/health/time-stem-cell/

Wow, one scientist in Japan.  AND AGAIN, how was he discovered to be a fraud?  Fellow researchers could not replicate the results which led to investigation.  Thanks for proving my point that the scientific method works.

 Hey, let’s keep going, perhaps after I go through the rest of your sources you can post some more that prove my point and disprove your blanket statements.

 Quote from ggturner:

http://articles.latimes.com/2011/nov/05/science/la-sci-science-fraud-20111106

Wow again, one scientist in the Netherlands.  How was he discovered to be a fraud?  BOOM, junior researches reviewing some of his work.  What exactly are you trying to prove with your sources here, they do nothing to justify your blanket statement.

 Quote from ggturner:

http://www.sfgate.com/health/article/S-F-scientist-resigns-after-faking-data-4158921.php

Well, this one is interesting.  Although again it doesn’t support your blanket statement, did you read your own sources?  So this guy Muchowski, didn’t actually fabricate research, what he did was fabricate data on applications for grants.  Research is peer reviewed, applications aren’t.  Actually it is the responsibility of the supplier of the grant to verify applications and compare it with the actual research which was peer reviewed.  Funnily enough, the article in fact says “The misconduct findings apply only to Muchowski’s research applications, and not to scientific work that was published.”

 I have to say, posting a bunch of links without actually reading them to see if they even support your claim is fairly dishonest.

 I’d bet you were hoping I wouldn’t actually read them huh, come on, be honest, you wanted to shoo me away because I’m challenging your tightly held preconceived beliefs.

 Quote from ggturner:

http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/33695/title/Top-Science-Scandals-of-2012/

Uh oh, you might got me here “In fact, more than 65 percent of the 2,000 or so papers studied were retracted because of poor ethical judgement.”  Wait.  That is misleading if you read the actual article that is being sourced.  2,000 articles have been retracted from Pubmed since 1977 (so that is oh what 37 years or so).  The study was regarding those specific 2,000 articles, of which 65 percent were identified as being retracted due to fraud.  SO how many articles does Pubmed reference?  Answer: Over 23 million.  So what is 65 percent of .0086 percent anyway?

 You’re getting tricky now.

 Quote from ggturner:

http://news.sciencemag.org/2005/03/scientist-pleads-guilty-falsifying-data

Hey look, more anecdotal evidence, how surprising.  One guy, another case of grant application fraud (not research fraud).  Although the article does say that several of his research papers had falsified data.  It only specifically mentions his work “Annals of Internal Medicne” which was later retracted after investigation.  It is amazing how the scientific method reveals fraud isn’t it.

 Quote from ggturner:

http://www.kentucky.com/2012/11/26/2422095/university-of-kentucky-researcher.html

This is starting to get old here gg.  One guy, accused of grant application fraud.  The university of Kentucky reviewed his work and found that some data had been fabricated and he resigned (or got fired).  What are the details?  We really don’t know.  I guess we’ll throw this on your little pile of anecdotal evidence.

 Quote from ggturner:

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/99298.php

Changing things up now, 2 guys from South Korea.  Say it with me now, how were they discovered to be frauds?  Peer review by doctoral students who were unable to replicate the results after repeating the experiments numerous times.

 Once again, through the scientific method, one scientist tries to make money or advance his career through fraud and many other scientists expose the fraud.  One scientist does something bad, many scientists identify the problem.  Perhaps we should be like you and generalize many scientists as corrupt instead of actually acknowledging that it is scientists that identify the few bad apples.

 Quote from ggturner:

http://www.nature.com/news/2008/080618/full/453969d.html

Kristin Roovers got busted pretty fast, 2 years and her fraud was found.  9 people so far, almost double digits!  This anecdotal evidence sure is overwhelming.

 By the way, if I’m being snarky or sarcastic, I’m not sorry.  I’m kind of annoyed that you chose to bombard me with useless anecdotal evidence that doesn’t support your blanket statement.  Still it is pretty obvious to me at this point that you probably don’t care and are only interested in confirming your bias.

 Last link, did you save the best for last?

 Quote from ggturner:

http://www.biotechniques.com/news/Neuroscientist-Apologizes-for-Falsifying-Data/biotechniques-338952.html#.U0P8lfldVEI

 Nope.  The 10^th person in your list of anecdotal evidence.  This guy by the way didn’t actually fabricate any data in his research, instead he used fabricated results in his research grant applications prior to the results being available.  Certainly not the most ethical thing to do but hardly corrupt or politically correct.

I'll ask again, do you want to retract your claim that MANY scientists are trying to be politically correct or are just corrupt?  Or have you just been wasting my time?

Quote from ggturner:

Shall I continue?  Because there is so much evidence showing that scientists do indeed falsify data.  Very sad indeed.

I’m waiting for you to start.  You mean the anecdotal evidence which you use to justify your confirmation bias, which I agree is very sad.  I see you are backpedling now, care to rephrase your claim then?  I've never claimed that some scientists don't falsify data.  That much I could agree on, however what you seem to be doing when you make blanket statements by saying that MANY scientists are trying to be politically correct or are just corrupt, all you are doing is spreading misinformation meant to justify preconcieved beliefs and bias.  If a person assumes that scientists are corrupt, then they can assume scientist corruption when the discovery doesn't conform with their beliefs.   Unfortunately, reality doesn't work like that, you actually have to do the research to verify if a scientist is corrupt or not.  Just because you don't like what science discovers, doesn't mean it hasn't been verified and/or is true.  I personally am concerned that this country (the United States) is shifting to a ignorant superstious state where confirmation bias rules based on mythologies.  I'm sorry, but gravity is what causes you to fall towards the center of the Earth, the Earth is not flat, the Earth revolves around the Sun, the Earth is 4.5 billion years old, the universe is 13.8 Billion years old, and yes the theory of evolution is the best and most viable explaination for species.  Whether you like it or not matters not.  Do some research.

Quote from ggturner:

Sevenpatch:  Dissent from Darwinism may be a project of the Discovery Institute, but it is not in any way religious.  Can you prove it is religious?

Oh look, a straw-man argument, how cute.  I never said the Discovery Institute was religious.  Care to try again?

 I did however say it was driven by religion.  Are you naïve enough to pretend that it isn’t driven by religion?  Not that I would ask you to prove a negative.  There is evidence out there that it is driven by religious, say for instance a number of its supporters and contributors regularly speak at churches and affirm that they are doing what they do in for their god.  There is the many donations from religious organizations and churches.  The U.S. court system has regularly found creationism to be religious.  There is the Wedge document.  Hey, don’t believe me, look it up yourself.

 Is the Discovery institute religious? No, but again I never said it was.

 Quote from ggturner:

Also, life scientists are not the only scientists who study evolution.  Are you that naive?  Physicists for example try to explain the origins of the universe with evolution.

Wow, another straw-man argument.  Swing batter batter.  Whiff.  First, I never said that life scientists are the only scientists who study evolution, although I will say they are the most qualified and most relevant.  Now, that is not to say that other scientists can’t have useful knowledge relating to the theory of evolution, but they might not have the necessary training, experience or education to be able to give a valuable opinion.

Second, Physicists try to do what now?  They try to explain the origins of the universe with evolution?  LOL.  Really?!?!?!  Source, please! LOL on that one.   Now you sound like a complete moron.  Note, I said you sound like one, not that you are one.  Maybe you are just tired and made a mistake.  Let me explain your mistake(s).  Physicists don’t really try to explain the origins of the universe, and they certainly don’t do it with the theory of evolution.  I would guess that everyone is interested in the origin of the universe, some physicists might be involved with investigating the origin of the universe (if it does in fact have an origin so to speak), like cosmologists, astrophysics or quantum physicists, but there are others that don’t like Atomic, molecular, optical physicists, condensed matter physicists and applied physics scientists.  Ggturner, you seem to like to make blanket statements when it suits your agenda don’t you.  Your most obvious mistake though was thinking that the theory of evolution has anything to do with the origin of the universe, it doesn’t.  If you knew anything about the theory of evolution, you wouldn’t have made such an obvious mistake.

 Quote from ggturner:

As to the qualifications of the signers of the petition, I guess Duke, John's Hopkins, Penn State, Rice, Baylor, Rutgers, UC Davis, UC Berkeley, Cambridge, Princeton, Dartmouth, MIT, Emory, Cornell, Purdue, Yale, Vanderbilt, etc. don't meet your criteria?  Everyone who signed the petition had to have a PhD.

Come now ggturner, who is being naïve.  You should know that the name of the school doesn’t make someone qualified or not and a PhD isn’t everything you know.  I see you are happy to read your own link, but have you actually done any research on the individuals?

Google their names and read up on them.  I’ll just start with the last names that begin with A.

Paul Ashby, PhD Chemistry, his research is unrelated to the theory of evolution but he does seem to be a competent scientist at least.

Richard Anderson, Assistant Proffesor of Environmental Science and Policy.  Qualified researcher but in a completely unrelated field.

Bernard d’Abera, listed as part of the British Museum, which is a lie, he is affiliated with the Natural History Museum which has not been part of the British Museum for several decades, also Mr. d’Abera does not have a PhD and is not a scientist, so much for everyone who has signed the petition needing to have a PhD.

Michael Atchison, Professor of Biochemistry and does do actual research although he is involved with Christian Leadership Ministries, appears that bias might be involved in his signing the petition.

Joel Adams, Professor of Computer science, involved in curriculum development at Calvin College.  Unrelated field.

Domingo Aerden, Professor of Geology, research is in an unrelated field, but at least is a qualified researcher.

Neal Adrian, PhD Microbiology, qualified researcher in mold remediation and owns his own company.

Moorad Alexanian, apparently thinks the theory of evolution is unfalsifiable.  Of course if he were actually knowledgeable about the theory of evolution, he would know that is not the case.

Braxton Alfred, ID apologist.

Wesley Allen, Professor of Chemistry although the university website lists him as an associate professor.  Qualified researcher but in unrelated fields.

Joseph Atikinson, can’t find any confirmation of this guys qualifications.  While that doesn’t necessarily mean anything, most scientists have published papers which can be easily found and reviewed.

Richard Austin, Associate Professor and Chair of Biology and Natural Sciences.  The little research he’s done actually supports the theory of Evolution.  I suspect that he signed this petition as a political move though as he was a Republican member of the Georgia State House of Representatives from 2009 to 2011.  He is currently a county commissioner.  By the way, he doesn’t have a PhD, not that he claimed that he did.

Todd Anderson, limited recent information about him.  Previous research was in an unrelated field.

William Arion, Emeritus Professor of Biochemistry, although is publications are in an unrelated field.  Fully accepts the Biblical account of creation, notable climate change denialist and signer of the Oregon Petition.

Gary Achtemeier, PhD in Meteorology,  Currently does research for the USDA forest service on smoke management and air quality.  Does work in an unrelated field.  Involved in the Christian Student Survival Conference.  Acknowledged creationist.

Janice Arion, PhD Animal Science, hasn’t done research since she was going to school for her PhD.  Currently an elementary school teacher for a private Christian school.

Mauricio Alcocer, Director of Graduate Studies, Autonomous University of Gaudalajara.  This guy is pretty nutty, very funny stuff.  Hasn’t done anything in the last decade or so.

Jesus Ambriz, Professor of Medicine, I can’t find anything on this guy except he’s listed at the same University as Alcocer.

Gail Allwine, Professor of Electrical Engineering (retired), can’t find any research or publications from her.

Marshall Adams, PhD Marine Sciences, his research and publications support the theory of evolution and I’m not sure why he is on this list.

Mark Apkarian, PhD Exercise Physiology.  I can’t find any research or publications for this guy, he is currently listed on Biola University which is Biblically Centered Education.  Exercise Physiology is an unrelated field.

Joao Araujo, Assistant Professor of Mathematics, does actual research and has many publications in number theory, information theory and semigroup theory, all unrelated though.

Rafi Ahmed, PhD Computer Science.  Consulting member of Oracle and I couldn’t find any research or publications from this guy.

D. Albrey Arrington, PhD Wildlife and Fisheries Sciences, research and publications in unrelated fields.

Yoshiyuki Amerniya, Professor of Advanced Materials Sciences and Applied Physics.  Research and publications are in unrelated fields.

Changhyuk An, PhD Physics.  I couldn’t verify any research or publications from this person.

Eugene Ashby, Regents Professor and Distinguished Professor Emeritus, Creationist not involved in any research for the past 25 years.

Douglas Axe, Director of Biologic Institute, seems to have a tenuous grasp of basic biology and is a creationist, although he does have actual publications in journals.

Eduardo Arroyo, Professor of Forensics, research is done in an unrelated field.

Gegory Ator, Associate Professor of Otolaryngology, research is done in unrelated fields.

Neil Armitage, Associate Professor of Civil Engineering, qualified researcher but in an unrelated field.

S. Thomas Abraham, Assistant Professor of Pharmacology and Toxicology, has publications in unrelated fields for a religious university.

 

 So that was just those with last names starting with A who have signed the petition.  Not very promising.  Most do research or have publications in unrelated fields and it’s not clear how much they actually know about the theory of evolution.  Having a PhD doesn’t mean a person knows everything, don’t be naïve.  Some are creationist / ID proponents who have suspect methods and qualifications.  Some don’t even do any research or have any publications.  Some are actually not qualified.

 My personal favorite on the petition list is William Dembski though as I have personally debunked some of his work on Intelligent Design and shown why it is pseudoscience.  William Dembski doesn’t even understand Information theory and is a pathological liar.

 Shall I continue?

 Quote from ggturner:

Please, tell us your credentials.

Why?  You don’t actually care one way or the other as you’ve already decided to dismiss anything I say since it doesn’t conform with your preconceived beliefs.  Considering your use of logical fallacies and lack of understanding regarding science and the theory of evolution, I’m not surprised.

 

 

 

7Patch, re:  not knowing how things work in England -

I think scientists in the UK probably have many of the same

problems as those in the USA.   Funding / influence of Big

Pharma / difficulties with those managers & politicians 'in charge'

of medical care services ...

An additional problem however - and  ggturner  ought to note this -

is that we have elements of our national Press, like the Daily Mail,

who lie.

@Carlin, you click on the 'like' button on your own posts, 'a lot' ? 

Hund... as far as I know, Big Pharma funds their own research. The Universities are chasing their own research dollars. Integrity is a universal option regardless of money or profession. I think your argument needs an update.

@Carlin, you click on the 'like' button on your own posts, 'a lot' ?

 

No, that's not what I meant.  I was referring to your wording more than anything:

 

Carlin 'liked' his own self ?

Bee i think yr alien mural needs an update. the place you go to avoid an argument which invariably you start.

ie drop yr opinion then back to yr aliens and avoid any scrutiny until you have another unrelated opinion to drop.


anyhoo now gg has provided data to prove their is little dissent in science and that it very low on corruption and self correcting from within lets apply the same criteria to xtians.


lets start with evangelicals shown to be frauds, look at their wealth and how they got it.


how much wealth they have hidden with their families how many are in jail.



gg yr good at research, wanna get the ball rolling or perhaps shtal could start with hovind's trial and conviction.


make a good comparison, integrity of scientists versus xtian leaders. lets throw in child offences in the last 50 years, slavery, genocide....

LOL@vk4

You sound so cute when you are angry! Here, I will share my alien painting with you. It isn't even finished! And I didn't do the best photo work as I cut some of the painting off with the camera shot. I was a bit hasty, wanting to leave, so I could watch the Lady HUSKIES win their championship. It doesn't get any better than CT for College B-Bal! The painting is about 8 ft. tall, and done with acrylics on cardboard, of all things. I actually painted over what was a group of paparazzi, and turned them into my alien audience. They are gathering for an intergalactic rock and roll concert. I am turning a whole hallway into some kind of galaxy out in the beyond and future. I just am doing it freehand, winging it as I go along. Like I do everything! Phoney? Hardly! I'll take another picture when it is "done". 

Quote from beetree:

Integrity is a universal option regardless of money or profession.

Name one profession that is free of corruption.