<< > > >I wonder if Jon Wells has ever heard of the phrase 'experiment'?
> >
> > Art: Jon has a Ph.D. in Molecular Biology from Berkeley, and many years
of
> > research experience and publications.
> >
> > Wow, a classic example of "appeal to authority".
> My take on this is: Wow, a classic example of someone making an
unsupported
> assertion and being shown blatantly wrong.
****** Wells supposedly has a Ph.D. in molecular biology (or emryology,
depending on which bio of him you read). These bios fail to mention that he
also has a Ph.D. - his first one - in theology. In fact, the topic was
something about the impact of Darwinism... blah blah blah.
>
> I thought that Wells' PhD had been established as real.
It sure sounded like you were criticizing Art for showing that the first
statement was wrong. The fact that Wells has a PhD sure seems to imply to
me that he knows a fair bit about experimentation. >>
****** My initial response was a rhetorical question. Of course Wells knows
what an experient is (although I would argue that his 'many years of
experimentation and publication' is a bit overblown. A simple medline search
reveals not a single paper on which Wells is first author. As a post-doc in
an (apparently) active molecular biology lab, one would expect at least one
or two publications from the 'many years' of research). Then one has to
wonder why he chooses to label the peppered moth business as fraudulent.
Does Wells do his experiments in their 'natural state?' Since biochemical
reactions take place within cells, doing them in test tubes is obviously
fraudulent. Since embryoes develop within a womb, or within an egg,
experimenting on them anywhere but those places is fraudulent, at least it
would seem according to Wells' experimental criteria.