(pseudo) scientific debate: any takers?

Tiger · Feb 2, 2007

Aloha, all...

I was wondering if anyone has been following this recent controversy as closely as have I...

Morikawa in two respective papers submitted to the Talmadge Institute this past Spring (2007), attempted to refute Jonathan Morlocke's groundbreaking research on the "Synthesis of Reactive Proteins in Triassic Arthropoda (March 2004; the University of Mensis)"

Said Morikawa on page 78 of his paper:

"Common enzymes, if improperly sequestered prior to activation, may actually bleed from the radial secreting flanges within the subocciptal dura. This may result in the necrotization of the least viable stem proteins, which will prejudice subsequent sample data."

I believe this to be patently false!

Could somebody please comment?

Your input is much appreciated!

Silvius Skitlok, PhD

The Commatose Kidd · Feb 3, 2007

got any pictures?

tourdeforce · Feb 3, 2007

Tiger said assic.

Speck · Feb 3, 2007

Tiger said:
"Common enzymes, if improperly sequestered prior to activation, may actually bleed from the radial secreting flanges within the subocciptal dura. This may result in the necrotization of the least viable stem proteins, which will prejudice subsequent sample data."

I believe this to be patently false!

Silvius Skitlok, PhD

Depends on who exactly was sequestering enzymes back in the Triassic, and on what the "proper" method for doing so was. And where is his evidence that improperly sequestered enzymes can actually bleed from the flanges? WHERE'S THE PROOF, DOC???

And how dare he be so bold as to declare which stem proteins are the "least viable"?? Sounds like the prejudice here lies with the author, not the sample data.

Tiger · Feb 3, 2007

Speck said:
And how dare he be so bold as to declare which stem proteins are the "least viable"?? Sounds like the prejudice here lies with the author, not the sample data.

Oh, I've heard this tired old argument a hundred times. "Least viable" is NOT a subjective observation. How can it be? The stem proteins were, literally, falling off of secreting flanges and showing definite stage 2 necrosis within the first hour of exposure.

How is the prejudice with the author?

Tiger · Feb 3, 2007

The Commatose Kidd said:
got any pictures?

PHP:

www.triassicfaunagonewild.com

benbradley · Feb 3, 2007

The C-word is all the Scientific Debate I need

Tiger said:
PHP:

www.triassicfaunagonewild.com

Wow, that site http://www.triassicfaunagonewild.com has already been taken down.

It's a Conspiracy!!!

Tiger · Feb 3, 2007

benbradley said:
Wow, that site http://www.triassicfaunagonewild.com has already been taken down.

It's a Conspiracy!!!

Fiends! They can't censor the truth

Soccer Mom · Feb 3, 2007

I love this. It's very Alan Sokol. Keep it up.

Carrie in PA · Feb 3, 2007

Tiger said:
Said Morikawa on page 78 of his paper:

"Common enzymes, if improperly sequestered prior to activation, may actually bleed from the radial secreting flanges within the subocciptal dura. This may result in the necrotization of the least viable stem proteins, which will prejudice subsequent sample data."

That is BULLSHIT. How anyone with half a brain could even bring himself to put this drivel down on paper is beyond me.

Tiger · Feb 3, 2007

Total agreement here

robeiae · Feb 3, 2007

Tiger said:
"Common enzymes, if improperly sequestered prior to activation, may actually bleed from the radial secreting flanges within the subocciptal dura. This may result in the necrotization of the least viable stem proteins, which will prejudice subsequent sample data."

Part of the problem here is a a failure to differentiate enzyme varieties within a sample group, both qualitatively and temporally. Thus, subsequent sample data is only prejudiced with regard to this failure of differentiation. It's an easy fix, really.

Where the hell do these guys get their degrees from, anyway? This is worse science than some of that string theory nonsense.

Soccer Mom · Feb 3, 2007

I must disagree most strenuously with the paradigm of sample data as being inherently susceptible to bias and manipulation. Focus on enzyme variaties vis a vis differentiation is simply a straw man argument. The true issue is whether the radial secreting flanges were in fact properly innoculated against contamination.

limitedtimeauthor · Feb 3, 2007

Tiger said:
Said Morikawa on page 78 of his paper:

"Common enzymes, if improperly sequestered prior to activation, may actually bleed from the radial secreting flanges within the subocciptal dura. This may result in the necrotization of the least viable stem proteins, which will prejudice subsequent sample data."

I believe this to be patently false!

I don't see anything wrong with it, Tiger. Which part do you have a problem with? The possibility of suboccipital bleeding, the necrotization event, or that either would influence the reading and analysis of the data?

p.s. I love you guys! Ya'll are so dern smart. (Soccer Mom hit it out of the park! LOL! Lawyer on, girl!!)

ltd.

Jean Marie · Feb 3, 2007

Mahalo, Tiger

Tiger · Feb 4, 2007

robeiae said:
Part of the problem here is a a failure to differentiate enzyme varieties within a sample group, both qualitatively and temporally. Thus, subsequent sample data is only prejudiced with regard to this failure of differentiation. It's an easy fix, really.

Where the hell do these guys get their degrees from, anyway? This is worse science than some of that string theory nonsense.

Well, I credit you with getting to the heart of the matter. The flaws I've seen in most of Morlocke's dectractors have centered around this "prejudiced data collection" non-issue.

Morikawa, et al. even went so far as to question the purity of sample data collected because it was later discovered that one of Morlocke's lab assistants may have been wearing a watch which contained tritium diodes! As if such a minute level of radiation (one particle per trillion is it?) could have influenced cells' longevity one way or the other!

Carrion feeders all, I say, who wouldn't know an orginal idea were it reverse transcribed onto their own RNA!

NeuroFizz · Feb 4, 2007

Give me references in peer-reviewed journals, please.

Falling off of the secreting flanges???

Tiger · Feb 4, 2007

Soccer Mom said:
I must disagree most strenuously with the paradigm of sample data as being inherently susceptible to bias and manipulation. Focus on enzyme variaties vis a vis differentiation is simply a straw man argument. The true issue is whether the radial secreting flanges were in fact properly innoculated against contamination.

And how, madame, are we supposed to prevent data comtamination by innoculation?

Innoculation itself is an invasive act that is, almost by definition, guaranteed to render predictable (i.e. manipulated) test results. Asaboke, et al. (August, 1999) and Dingelbury (June 1999) not so surprisingly, using weakly innoculated flanges arrived at levels of protein necrosis within .00000017 of what they predicted.

I'm sorry, but I do not believe in that kind of "accuracy."

Tiger · Feb 4, 2007

NeuroFizz said:
Give me references in peer-reviewed journals, please.

I think, sir, that you are being intentionally offensive...

NeuroFizz · Feb 4, 2007

Tiger said:
I think, sir, that you are being intentionally offensive...

No. I can't enter a debate of this type without having solid scientific work to evaluate. If you find this offensive, I'm sorry. If you can't produce solid scientific information on the topic, you may want to consider the value of debating the topic in the first place.

And the last statement I questioned sounds unlike anything I've read about the biology of secretory tissues. That's why I want the references--to either judge the research in the proper scientific context and/or to bring myself up to snuff if my own background is lacking in this area.

You see, with the limited information given here, and the lack of references, I have to point out that Arthropods don't have occipital lobes or any kind of meningeal structures that could be referred to as a dura mater. And, I've never heard of anything called a secreting flange.

NeuroFizz · Feb 4, 2007

Rather than deleting my responses (along with my reddened face), I'll leave them as a tribute to the success of Tiger's ultimate goal. I should have known when one of the authors was named "Dingelbury."

Anyone have a spare charcoal briquette? I want to make a diamond.

Tiger · Feb 4, 2007

You can't make a diamond with a charcoal briquette! Geez, bad science, dude!

NeuroFizz · Feb 4, 2007

You can where I'm going to put it, at least figuratively.

Tiger · Feb 4, 2007

Seriously, folks...

1. I started this thread in a section of AW called, "Office Party" and (I thought) nowhere near TIO or any other section where folks debate such topics seriously

2. Gave it a title that (I thought) made it clear that I was kidding

3. Engaged in some pretty off the wall, but (I thought)clearly tongue in cheek debate, meant to be good-natured, fun-poking, role-play at over-educated people and the way they (we) can bicker about absolutely nothing if given half a chance and an audience

4. Etc.

It seems that I have managed to genuinely offend people.

Perhaps I could have posted a clear disclaimer at the very beginning but, left one out for... uh, aesthetic reasons, but perhaps too, people might have missed that as well.

I apologize for the confusion. I'll go play somewhere else now.

Bravo · Feb 4, 2007

it was pretty clever.

and im glad no one made fools of themselves.

so, in my book, you get away w this.

(pseudo) scientific debate: any takers?

AKA: "Gums of Steel"

color me gone

Speck

AKA: "Gums of Steel"

AKA: "Gums of Steel"

It's a doggy dog world

AKA: "Gums of Steel"

Crypto-fascist

Write All The Words!

AKA: "Gums of Steel"

Touch and go

Crypto-fascist

Super duper user

calm waters ahead

AKA: "Gums of Steel"

The grad students did it

AKA: "Gums of Steel"

AKA: "Gums of Steel"

The grad students did it

The grad students did it

AKA: "Gums of Steel"

The grad students did it

AKA: "Gums of Steel"

Socialitest