Sunday, April 15, 2007

ID vs ERVs-- Part Six: An Unexpected Epilogue

Check out this 'news' from my doppelgangers at 'Intelligently Sequenced':

A post at Uncommon Descent entitled, 'NY Academy of Sciences peer-reviewed paper acknowledges ID proponents,' contains the following remark:

"Most Darwinists erroneously predicted that 98.7% of the DNA was devoid of function (“junk”), while the ID/ET theory correctly predicted some yet to be decoded function of junkDNA."
Oh wow! NY Academy of Sciences! Well cool! Thats a real journal, not 'Medical Hypothesis'! So I click around, trying to find a link to this paper, and I accidentally give UD a hit. Seems they just posted on this topic too:
I’ve been delayed in reporting that a peer-reviewed paper in the annals of the New York Academy of Sciences by Richard Sternberg gives an acknowledgement to several ID proponents. In 'On the Roles of Repetitive DNA Elements in the Context of a Unified Genomic-Epigenetic System' it says:

I also thank Drs. Paul Nelson, Stanley Salthe, Jonathan Wells, and Todd Wood (alphabetical order)for their very helpful criticisms of the manuscript.

Congrats to all those involved.

So I clicked around a bit more. When was this paper published?


ROFL!!! What the hell?? 'Delayed in reporting' is a bit of an understatement there, Sally Baby. And that 'Richard Sternberg' name sure sounds familiar... Hmm where have I heard this name before...

The Sternberg Affair! YAY!!

After a preliminary perusal of this groundbreaking 2002 paper (that has been ignored, even by ID Creationists), its exactly what you all would expect. Misuse of real words, use of non-words, no data, *yawn*

I wish I had found this before I started writing up my 'Viral World' posts-- I would have held off on those. And Ive still got to fisk Horowitzs 'peer reviewed' paper. Ak! lol!


Chris Noble said...

ID/ET theory

Andras Pellionisz seems to be as woo as Horowitz.

ERV said...

Oh shit. The ET stands for Extra Terrestrial doesnt it?

Oh god.

Dont answer that.


TR Gregory said...

Could be worse - you could be cited in the Sternberg paper along with Wells (I'm ref #4, sadly).

ERV said...



Is there anything you can do? Can you say anything like 'While my paper is referenced, I do not agree with the authors conclusions, nor does my paper support this hypothesis'?

Well, take heart-- I can, thus far, find no indication that Sternberg read the scientific papers he referenced. So youve just been PubJacked, along with other mighty scientists-- Nobel Prize winners, National Academy members, pioneers in every field of science... You should feel flattered a Creationist found it necessary to PubJack your work :)

TR Gregory said...

While my paper is referenced, I do not agree with the authors conclusions, nor does my paper support this hypothesis.

ERV said...

Sweet! Im going to reference that quote :P

TR Gregory said...

OK, but make sure you reference the original source (some blog somewhere, I think). ;-)