Is the vitamin C-making pseudogene evidence of shared ancestry?

[one.opinion]

21 minutes ago, Tristen said:

And so I think it naive in such a volatile climate, to suggest that finding a function for GULOP would result in creationists “being taken more seriously” by anyone.

It is quite possible you are right about this. But I can tell you with certainty that discovery of a function associated with GULOP would certainly be publishable. Unfortunately, any mention of creation would make that impossible. I’m not saying it should be that way, but it is.

If AiG has the capital for building museums and theme parks, they also have the capital to do research.

Additionally, please notice that what I said was “a step toward being taken more seriously.” You left out that important bit of context. I do not believe what I actually said was naive.

[Tristen]

3 hours ago, one.opinion said:

It is quite possible you are right about this. But I can tell you with certainty that discovery of a function associated with GULOP would certainly be publishable. Unfortunately, any mention of creation would make that impossible. I’m not saying it should be that way, but it is.

If AiG has the capital for building museums and theme parks, they also have the capital to do research.

Additionally, please notice that what I said was “a step toward being taken more seriously.” You left out that important bit of context. I do not believe what I actually said was naive.

“It is quite possible you are right about this. But I can tell you with certainty that discovery of a function associated with GULOP would certainly be publishable. Unfortunately, any mention of creation would make that impossible. I’m not saying it should be that way, but it is.”

I wonder if we are starting to argue for argument's sake. Though I think here we agree – a paper could be accepted if they presented the secular story of GULOP as fact in the introduction, but any serious inclusion of the creationist story would be rejected until 'corrected' (i.e. the creation implications removed) - even if they were both presented fairly, alongside each other.

 

“If AiG has the capital for building museums and theme parks, they also have the capital to do research.”

I don't know much about them. I don't know their financial situation or budgeting priorities. It's not my job to tell them how they should spend their money. I still think you may be underestimating how much it costs to set up and maintain a lab properly equipped and staffed to perform molecular biology experiments.

 

“Additionally, please notice that what I said was “a step toward being taken more seriously.” You left out that important bit of context. I do not believe what I actually said was naive.”

Is this really an actual issue? Your “important bit of context” seems redundant to me; overly hedged.

Either way, creationists already perform research. This has not resulted in any 'movement towards' serious or fair consideration of creationism by the “establishment”. So I don't see any reason why this one proposed experiment should alter the current status quo one iota.

[one.opinion]

1 hour ago, Tristen said:

I wonder if we are starting to argue for argument's sake. Though I think here we agree – a paper could be accepted if they presented the secular story of GULOP as fact in the introduction, but any serious inclusion of the creationist story would be rejected until 'corrected' (i.e. the creation implications removed) - even if they were both presented fairly, alongside each other.

 

I prefer to think of our conversations as “dialogue” :-P This is quite a bit different from arguments I’ve had here!

I am sincere in my statement that it is upsetting to me that a mention of creation in a paper will disqualify it from publication. I am a creationist, although of a different vein.

1 hour ago, Tristen said:

I don't know much about them. I don't know their financial situation or budgeting priorities. It's not my job to tell them how they should spend their money. I still think you may be underestimating how much it costs to set up and maintain a lab properly equipped and staffed to perform molecular biology experiments.

I shouldn’t tell them how to spend their money either, but the Ark Encounter theme park cost over $100 million. It’s safe to say a good research lab could be built, funded, and staffed with that.

1 hour ago, Tristen said:

Either way, creationists already perform research.

Are you aware of any molecular biology “wet work”?

[Tristen]

On 09/12/2017 at 2:44 PM, one.opinion said:

I prefer to think of our conversations as “dialogue” :-P This is quite a bit different from arguments I’ve had here!

I am sincere in my statement that it is upsetting to me that a mention of creation in a paper will disqualify it from publication. I am a creationist, although of a different vein.

I shouldn’t tell them how to spend their money either, but the Ark Encounter theme park cost over $100 million. It’s safe to say a good research lab could be built, funded, and staffed with that.

Are you aware of any molecular biology “wet work”?

"I shouldn’t tell them how to spend their money either, but the Ark Encounter theme park cost over $100 million. It’s safe to say a good research lab could be built, funded, and staffed with that."

Sure, but all that speaks to is their capacity to raise funds, not to the mission priorities of their organisation. Do they even have a research arm to their organisation?

 

"Are you aware of any molecular biology “wet work”?"

Nothing specific off the top of my head. Most of the experimental research performed by creationists (as far as I'm aware) is related to earth sciences. The few molecular studies I know about are primarily bioinformatic. I suppose I could have a better look - if there's a reason.

[one.opinion]

2 hours ago, Tristen said:

Sure, but all that speaks to is their capacity to raise funds, not to the mission priorities of their organisation. Do they even have a research arm to their organisation?

They have science writers, but I don’t know about any actual research. That doesn’t seem to be a high priority.

2 hours ago, Tristen said:

The few molecular studies I know about are primarily bioinformatic.

That’s what I’ve seen, as well. But I was confident you would know better than I.

I just think it’s unfortunate that there is an interesting research opportunity there, but I’m afraid no one willing to pursue it.

[Enoch2021]

23 hours ago, one.opinion said:

I just think it’s unfortunate that there is an interesting research opportunity there, but I’m afraid no one willing to pursue it.

They're not gonna do it because they know that the: "Pseudo-Genes", ERV, Junk DNA  Texas Two-Step fiascos used to 'grease the skids' for the Pseudo-Scientific Trainwreck "Common Ancestry" Affirming The Consequent Formal Logical Fallacy from the Indoctrinated Peanut Gallery is a Tear Jerk'n Belly Laugher.  Their time would be better spent filling their common corporate latrines with "Mountain Fresh" Scents.

 

regards

[one.opinion]

2 hours ago, Enoch2021 said:

They're not gonna do it because they know that the: "Pseudo-Genes", ERV, Junk DNA  Texas Two-Step fiascos used to 'grease the skids' for the Pseudo-Scientific Trainwreck "Common Ancestry" Affirming The Consequent Formal Logical Fallacy from the Indoctrinated Peanut Gallery is a Tear Jerk'n Belly Laugher.  Their time would be better spent filling their common corporate latrines with "Mountain Fresh" Scents.

What, in your opinion, is stopping scientists from YEC or ID institutions from pursuing such investigations?