> From: alfred oelson <lurkykid@yahoo.com>
> Subject: Re: NCSE Contacts Every Living Scientist
>
> The Discovery Institute has posted replies to Ken
> Miller. E.g. here's one on the genetic code:
>
> http://www.discovery.org/viewDB/index.php3?program=CRSC%20Responses&command=view&id=1059
>
I am not trained in evo. biology or genetics so assessing things like
this is difficulty. Nevertheless, my impression after reading both
together was that they avoided answering much of the substance of
Miller's critique. My quick read showed no response to Miller's
strikes two and three.
More importantly, Miller accused Discovery Institute (DI)of
misrepresenting the results of a paper by Robin D. Knight, Stephen
J. Freeland and Laura F. Landweber, and quoted Landweber as stating,
"That is indeed a horrible misinterpretation, because it is clear,
particularly in the tree in our paper and in others, that each
nonstandard code is a subtle derivative of the standard genetic code
and that all codes are derived from it." Without mentioning that one
of the co-authors says that the DI misrepresented the paper, the DI
response states that "Miller completely misrepresents Knight et al.?s
composite phylogeny of genetic codes." One would get the impression
from reading the DI's reply that Knight would agree with DI's
characterization of Miller. While this does not answer the more
technical question, it would seem to cast doubt on the trustworthiness
of the author? Shouldn't a reader know that the author they are using
to support their case feels that they are misrepresenting the
substance of the paper?
Have others that have some technical knowledge looked at this?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Joel W. Cannon | (724)223-6146
Physics Department |
Washington and Jefferson College |
Washington, PA 15301 |
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Oct 18 2001 - 11:21:40 EDT