Questionable Link?

[sfs]

Also as indicated, it is in a pay-to-play journal, which have notoriously low standards for publication. I'm betting the reviewers were the authors themselves or their pals at the DI.

This paper was published in one of the BMC kennel of journals, which are part of the Springer group. Not really part of the predatory journal ecosystem -- I've been an author of a paper in at least one BMC journal. The paper may be crap, but it's a real journal, albeit one that sounds like it welcomes kind of out there stuff.

 

[tas8831]

This paper was published in one of the BMC kennel of journals, which are part of the Springer group. Not really part of the predatory journal ecosystem -- I've been an author of a paper in at least one BMC journal. The paper may be crap, but it's a real journal, albeit one that sounds like it welcomes kind of out there stuff.

Great....

 

[tas8831]

Whilst the author (John Sanford) is the president of a creationist organization...

http://www.logosresearchassociates.org/convictions

He also appears to have published many credible scientific papers.

He also wrote in his book, regarding Haldane's "dilemma":

"Selection for 1,000 specific and adjacent mutations could not happen in 6 million years because that specific sequence of adjacent mutations would never arise, not even in 6 billion yrs."

-pp 128-9


IOW - the claims re: Sanford's genetics expertise have been greatly exaggerated.

 

[PsychoSarah]

He also wrote in his book, regarding Haldane's "dilemma":

"Selection for 1,000 specific and adjacent mutations could not happen in 6 million years because that specific sequence of adjacent mutations would never arise, not even in 6 billion yrs."

-pp 128-9


IOW - the claims re: Sanford's genetics expertise have been greatly exaggerated.

Ha, I am debating a creationist that defended Behe citing that Sanford agreed with him, all published in Theoretical Biology and Medical Modelling. Seems to be a go-to journal for creationist authors now.

 

[tas8831]

Ha, I am debating a creationist that defended Behe citing that Sanford agreed with him, all published in Theoretical Biology and Medical Modelling. Seems to be a go-to journal for creationist authors now.

The new Rivista?

 

[USincognito]

The following link was posted recently by a creationist in this forum. It looks like a government site, but reads like a creationist paper. The subject matter literature is outside my expertise so I don't quite know what to make of it.

Is it legit?

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4573302/#CR15

As was pointed out the National Library of Medicine is just a repository for articles published in various journals. The journal itself is much more important and in this case it's an open access journal with very loose editorial policies.
https://www.researchgate.net/journal/1742-4682_Theoretical_Biology_and_Medical_Modelling

 

[USincognito]

But it must be true because it's quoted from a .gov site, Right?

You're getting too bogged down in the URL. Focus more on the fact that particular journal has very loose editorial guidelines for content and accept papers from philosophers, social scientists and mathematicians so it's mere publication isn't that impressive.

 

[sfs]

You're getting too bogged down in the URL. Focus more on the fact that it's a pay to play journal.

Open access journals include some fine journals (and we often pay for open access publication even in journals that aren't normally open access -- and sometimes we shame them into it).

 

[Job 33:6]

The following link was posted recently by a creationist in this forum. It looks like a government site, but reads like a creationist paper. The subject matter literature is outside my expertise so I don't quite know what to make of it.

Is it legit?

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4573302/#CR15

https://biology.stackexchange.com/q...ims-in-this-paper-have-any-degree-of-validity

Looks like you can find a few comments in the link above.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_C._Sanford

Looks like the article was authored by some crazy guy.

 

[USincognito]

Open access journals include some fine journals (and we often pay for open access publication even in journals that aren't normally open access -- and sometimes we shame them into it).

I'll edit my comment so it doesn't slur all open access journals.

Going to be in Massachusetts the 2nd week in August doing genealogical stuff, revisiting childhood stomping grounds in Essex County, and eating my weight in proper fired clams.

 

[USincognito]

https://biology.stackexchange.com/q...ims-in-this-paper-have-any-degree-of-validity

Looks like you can find a few comments in the link above.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_C._Sanford

Looks like the article was authored by some crazy guy.

Sanford has solid credentials even if his Creationism is a little out there.

 

[Job 33:6]

Sanford has solid credentials even if his Creationism is a little out there.

I trust is credentials are solid in areas not related to the age of the earth. But still, these people i think are...they are in part, crazy. Maybe hes the nicest guy, he could be a good person who helps in society, a loving kind hearted and intelligent person.

But it takes a special something to blot out reality in favor of a 6000 year old planet.

 

[tas8831]

Sanford has solid credentials even if his Creationism is a little out there.

Sadly, i have found that credentials are irrelevant when it comes to assessing the validity of creationist research.

Dean Kenyon was an established scientist, wrote a textbook (which was not the best-seller that creationists claim, but it was still a textbook). Then he had a family tragedy, became a creationist, and started churning out easily-refutable nonsense.

Jeff Tomkins once ran the genetics core facility at Clemson. Then he joined the ICR and started churning out papers in which he claims to "debunk" all kinds of accepted genetics-related evolutionary biology. Papers which are routinely torn apart for their embellishments, misinterpretatons/misrepresentations of published work, errors, etc.

John Sanford was an accomplished genetics/agro researcher at Cornell. Then he decided to pontificate against evolution and wrote some really dumb stuff - about genetics.

Once one decides to become a propagandist for Jesus, credentials are merely tools to awe the under-educated.