Peer Review

It is sometimes difficult to get new ideas published, in large part because reviewers are more likely to scrutinize every detail of a paper that does not match up with what they think they know about the subject. That's just human nature, and it's hard to get around. O'Leary and Crowther point out that ideas that eventually resulted in Nobel Prizes were originally rejected for publication, but they miss one important detail - the ideas were, in fact, eventually published. The authors might well have needed to do a lot more work to get them published, and provide a lot more evidence, but they did eventually succeed.

OT
check it out:
Evolution produces super lions.

And what exactly is wrong with consensus?

I think we should actually look at what they stated about the topic before we go any further on this subject.

Quite frankly, while I disagree with the ID movement, this article has a good point to it. All its really saying is, don't put too much emphasis on who's peer reviewed and who's not, because just because someone's peer reviewed, doesn't make them the demi-god of Science. A person with a Masters degree could have just as much knowledge, if not more so than someone who is a complete dunce and has a PHD in a certain area. In a like manner, a person who has not had peer reviewed material may or may not be more reputable than someone who has published peer reveiwed material. In other words, this is not the objective standard of evaluation to go by. Simply, is the material accurate and true is enough.

I should point out that before any research finding should be considered solid, several practical barriers must be surmounted. First, the finding should be published in a peer-reviewed journal (the Hwang paper was). Second, several independent laboratories must publish in peer-reviewed journals that the experiments and the findings are reproducible. So far that has not occurred for the Hwang findings. Third, the scientific principle revealed by the findings must be strong enough to be validated, or proven false, by virtually all kinds of experiments. The Hwang research had only passed the first benchmark and was therefore not yet considered proven by the scientific community.

I'm calling BS on "Dr." Michael.

He never graduated as a Ph.D. from the Yale University cell biology department in 2004. He never wrote or defended a doctoral thesis there, on leukocytosis or anything else.

If you complete a thesis, and it's accepted, it's going to be shelved in some library somewhere and it's going to be searchable on the internet.

Go ahead, "Doc" Martin. Give us the full title and the name of all the scholars on your committee. Heck, just give us the link.

Otherwise, quit yer yappin'!

Bla, Bla, Bla.

It's 2006, and any 12 year old can get a world-wide audience by putting his video up on YouTube.

Yes, the peer-revue publication system is the gold standard for disseminating scientific information, but let's be honest here.

If ID had something - anything significant to say, getting the word out in front of a worldwide audience would be a trivial act, and there'd be plenty of honest scientists out there who would pick up the ball dropped at their feet.

Both the Yale University library and an organization (previously(?)) known as University Microfilms ought to have copies of any purported thesis by Dr. M&M.

But in any case, he is the uber-troll of all time, and I call shenanigans. He has completely wrecked one of Nick's threads.

Peer-review is not con census, at least for the journals I have used and reviewed for. In these, the editor chooses the referees, reads the paper and the reports to make the final decision. If all the reviews are favorable, the editor will, almost always, accept the paper. If the general tenor of the reviews is lukewarm, the editor might or might not accept the paper. If a referee points out actual errors then the paper is rejected, or at best, accepted only after corrections are made.

Publication of a peer-reviewed paper is, as has been pointed out, only the first step. However, in maths and parts of computer science, it may be the last step in that the results of the paper are therein after ignored, even my the author(s).

All its really saying is, don't put too much emphasis on who's peer reviewed and who's not, because just because someone's peer reviewed, doesn't make them the demi-god of Science.

As an aside, notice how Luskin steps in it (yet again) by claiming that "University of California, San Diego Forces All Freshmen To Attend Anti-ID Lecture" by Robert Pennock:
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2006/11/university_of_california_san_d.html

If you have any idea of the size of the UCSD student body, you'll know how ludicrous an idea this is.

And of course, Sal Cordova laps it up and echos it over at UD.

My paper was written in the ancient days before computers were used all over schoolrooms like they are today.

— Michael Martin

For all we know, it could be sitting in the library on campus wrotting with dirt.

Oops! My bad--"Dr." Marty's drivel can be hard to unravel, since he refuses to use the quote boxes (or even to use the " " keys, for crying out loud!)--apparently he claims to have received his cell biology doctorate from Yale in 1998, whereas he got his master's in theology from some little arm of, koff koff, Biola University, in 2004.

Over on the Hoving tax conviction thread, he's trying to argue that Yale didn't have computers in 1998, that Yale doesn't keep track of its dissertations from 1998 (heck, little ol' University of Washington's library's database is searchable for doctoral theses approved way before that! I recently searched for a master's thesis from the '70s and a doctoral thesis from 1984...).

And I'm sure plenty of Yale cell bio Ph.D.s can think of nothing better to do with that hard-earned, expensive, and marketable degree but head for Biola U. to get a master's.

Uh-huh...

Dr. Fubar is even worse than Larry Farfromsane was.

taking up bandwidth with stream of consciousness inannities, invading and polluting multiple thread.

would someone please toss this sorry ass, batshit insane, creobot, please?

"consensus", not "con census"
"thereinafter", not "therei after"
"by", not "my"

A quick check shows nothing in the Yale Library on-line catalog by "Martin, Michael". However, checking my own on-line catalog for a thesis by one of my PhD students at a comperable date does not locate his thesis. A check for a student in the 90s does locate his.

I can't find any dissertations for this matter.

I guess some people just find time to get jealous about the PHDs they don't have, right?

(ever heard of a METAPHOR?)

— Michael Martin

"Strawman, I'm trying to say that we didn't use [Computers] as frequently [back in 1998, the stone ages] as we use them today and not everybody's paper was put up there as a consequence."

Hey Doc, I have a few questions for you. They should be pretty easy for someone who, uh, has a doctorate from Yale . . . .

(1) If, as AiG keeps yammering, mutations only produce a LOSS of genetic information, then, uh, how did the number of human alleles INCREASE from a maximum of 8 to over 400? (or, in creationist math, is 400 a LOSS from 8?)

(2) where can I see a natural mutation rate high enough to produce 400 beneficial mutations in the sapce of 4-6,000 years?

(3) what mechanism allows these mutations to appear ONLY in the germ cells, and not in the somatic cells where they would kill the human race with cancers?

(4) what exactly is the genetic barrier between "created kinds"? What genetic mechanism, specifically, allows "microevolution" within a "created kind", but prevents that "microevolution" from straying outside the "created kind"?

(5) what happened to the cities that humans were living in before the Flood --- did the stones and buildings run for the high ground too? Oh, and what about the people who died before the Flood happened --- did the fleeing people stop long enough to dig up all the buried corpses of their ancestors and carry them to the high ground, too?

(6) why is the modern leatherback turtle found ONLY in the top layers of the geological column, and NOT in the middle or lower layers ---- after all, it (1) lives in the open sea, (2) sinks like a rock when it's dead, and (3) can't crawl on land, so by every one of the idiotic "hydraulic sorting" "explanations" I've seen from YECs, they should be at the very BOTTOM of the fossil column. Why aren't they?

(7) And I'd very much like to hear how the willow trees managed to outrun the velociraptors to the top of the geological column ......?

By the way, Doc, how many peer-reviewed articles have creation "scientists" ever had setting out their, uh, "science" . . . . . . . . . ?

Oh, that would ZERO, wouldn't it.

Its not much different from the former Research Company I used to work for.

The manuscript did not argue for intelligent design, nor did it say that complex systems would never be explained within Darwinian theory. Rather, it just made the simple, obvious, and unarguable point that gene duplication by itself is an incomplete explanation.

— Behe

just a note to thread ownners:

I doubt there is ANYBODY here who thinks Doc Fubar has anything intelligent to contribute to ANY thread he "participates" in.

If you don't start tossing his sorry ass, to the BW if nothing else, expect your threads for now and evermore to be continually polluted with his drivel, and the responses to it.

start paying attention to your own threads.

It's worth pointing out that O'Leary's piece is not particularly original. In fact, most of the content is lifted from the New Atlantis article. See here: http://www.thenewatlantis.com/archive/13/soa/peerreview.htm

And what exactly is wrong with consensus?

Uh, "Doc," nobody here is fooled by your attempts to change the subject.

We're still waiting for the exact title of your 1998 Yale cell biology doctoral thesis, remember (the one you claim to have located a paper copy of, but the one nobody can find in the Yale Library system).

And the abstract of that thesis.

And the names of the rest of your dissertation committee members.

And for links or abstracts to the other peer-reviewed journal articles you claim to have written.

You don't have to be a biology Ph.D. to post here--heck, they even let pinheads like me post.

But once you claim to have some special expertise, you've got to be able to back it up when challenged.

So far, you're looking a whole lot like Hovind and Haggard. Let me spell it out for you: L - I - A - R.

I'm still willing to be proved wrong, though, and I'll admit it if you do. But, since you claim you've got your very own paper copy of your thesis right in your hot little hands, I'm kind of curious what's taking you so long.

I hope you're not waiting for one of those internet "paper-writing" services to come through for you. They, uh, don't really deal in committee-approved doctoral theses.

Frankly, I don't see any point in reading any more comments on any thread until Dr. Fullgoosebozo's name drops off the New Comments bar.

'Bye!

Okay....so its accredited through Biola. Accreditation Talbot, as a school of Biola University, is included within Biola University's accreditation by the Accrediting Commission for Senior Colleges and Universities of the Western Association of Schools and Colleges. Talbot is also a member of the Association of Theological Schools (member), the internationally recognized accrediting body of seminaries and schools of divinity in the United States and Canada.http://www.talbot.edu/about/

[sigh] unDoc Martin, Master of Logic and All That is Pollysyllabic, Ruler of All Yale PhDs, might I remind your grace, that an "ad hominem" attack is the act of claiming someone's view is wrong by attacking them personally. It is not the mere act of implying they are an idiot, or even calling them an idiot.

Idiot.

"Dr." MM:

De-lurking to comment:

I received my Ph.D. in 1977 from Yale's biology dept. I searched on the Yale library web site for my last name and retrieved my thesis title with two entries - one with a book call number and the other with a microfilm number.

Why did they record theses in the 1970's but not the 1990's?

cak

Look, I'm sorry if I'm getting a bit flustered, but answering the same questions over and over again is really wearing me down here guys.

— Mikey Mike

From Dissertation abstracts:

Title: EXPLORATION OF DIVERSITY, ADAPTATION AND COMPLEXITY IN EXPERIMENTAL SYSTEMS OF EVOLUTION IN VITRO
Author(s): HANCZYC, MARTIN MICHAEL
Degree: PH.D.
Year: 1999
Pages: 00121
Institution: YALE UNIVERSITY; 0265
Advisor: Director ROBERT LAWRENCE DORIT
Source: DAI, 60, no. 05B (1999): p. 1987
Abstract: This thesis explores the evolution of diversity, complexity and adaptation using simple systems of evolution in vitro. The various ways in which populations of molecules respond to directed evolution in a simple, homogeneous environment are explored in phenotypic and genotypic detail. Using the technique of evolution in vitro, populations of RNA catalysts (ribozymes) were characterized as they evolved in response to selection for increased functionality on a DNA substrate. In Chapter 1, experimental models of evolution are introduced, and studies particularly relevant to this thesis are presented. The evolution of a complex system of intermolecular partners that arose de novo in response to the selection for improved DNA catalysis is presented in Chapter 2, and the sequence and functional interactions of these evolved partners are characterized in detail. The mechanism by which this evolved interaction occurs is also explored. Chapter 3 describes how a series of replicate evolution in vitro experiments resulted in a variety of outcomes including phenotypic and genotypic convergence and divergence. The results show how divergent trajectories in evolution may evolve even in simple systems as a result of both deterministic and stochastic forces. Finally, important questions not fully answered by the studies presented in this thesis are discussed in Chapter 4, and the limitations of the evolution in vitro approach are presented. In addition, some future directions of evolution in vitro are discussed. Overall, this thesis contains detailed experimental accounts of how complexity and diversity arise in simple, evolving systems.

SUBJECT(S)
Descriptor: BIOLOGY, MOLECULAR
CHEMISTRY, BIOCHEMISTRY
Accession No: AAG9931054
Database: Dissertations

I am not interested in reading your thesis. If your degree is legit you should contact the library and your department to make sure your thesis is properly recorded. Until it is, the rest of us are entitled to skepticism.

unDoc Martin said: I will define my personal view for you...

and again: So, its not a matter of attacking me personally to call me an idiot or imply that I'm an idiot?

I used to find very disagreeable, people like Timothy Sandefur who close the comment sections to their threads. But with threads like these, I'm coming to appreciate their position. What use is any of this garbage.

Tracy P. Hamilton provided the clue. With that I found two copies of the thesis listed in the Yale on-line library, one bound and one microform.

What does that tell you about Dr. M&M?

Shenanigans. Shenanigans!

Martin Hanczyc has been Protolife's Chief Chemist since 2005 and was or still is employed at Harvard or its Medical Center.

Shenanigans!

Thanks, Tracy, for an example of what we're looking for to support Martin's claims.

But Martin Michael Hancyzc is not the right guy. While the name is similar, it's not the same. Not to mention:

Different year (1999 versus 1998); different thesis topic (evolution of intermolecular partners versus some gobbledygook about cancer and white blood cells and protein folding); different advisor; different department (this sounds like molecular biology or organic chemistry, not cell biology); etc.

Dr. Hancyzc, far from tailspinning into Creationism like "Doc" Martin claims to have done, appears to be a productive and ongoing contributor to--among other things, origin of life/RNA World research--whose journal publications are easily found just by googling his name.

Now, "Doc" Mikey-Troll, isn't it time to just come clean? Admitting your sin--lying about your asserted academic credentials--is the first step towards redemption and forgiveness.

Well, I might not forgive you. But Jesus is supposed to be a more understanding guy...

Title: EXPLORATION OF DIVERSITY, ADAPTATION AND COMPLEXITY IN EXPERIMENTAL SYSTEMS OF EVOLUTION IN VITRO Author(s): HANCZYC, MARTIN MICHAEL

These are tired and old questions Lenny.

I found some things online regarding my Scientific career. Here we are as a few of them are concerned: There is also a seminar that I attended too. Not sure if this is the same thing as what you're looking for or not. I used to teach as a professor at John Carroll University. We also have: "Dr. Michael Martin, the former deputy associate director of the Division of Extramural Activities, has taken a position as director of the Division of Physiological Systems in the NIH Center for Scientific Review."

— Dr. Michael Martin, probably not his real name,

A native of San Francisco, Dr. Martin did his undergraduate work at the University of California, Berkeley. His graduate and postdoctoral studies were at the University of Bristol, England, where he received his Ph.D. in physiology (neurosciences) for research characterizing the role of amino acids as neurotransmitters. In 1977, he returned to the United States and to NIH, where he was a senior staff fellow and pharmacologist in the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke. In 1985, he left the lab and joined the NIH Grants Associate Program. Dr. Martin then became program director in the National Cancer Institute's Cancer Biology Branch. From there, he became Deputy Associate Director for Extramural Activities in the National Institute of General Medical Sciences, a position he held until joining CSR.

We also have: "Dr. Michael Martin, the former deputy associate director of the Division of Extramural Activities, has taken a position as director of the Division of Physiological Systems in the NIH Center for Scientific Review."

— Mr. Mike isn't even trying anymore

A native of San Francisco, Dr. Martin did his undergraduate work at the University of California, Berkeley. His graduate and postdoctoral studies were at the University of Bristol, England, where he received his Ph.D. in physiology (neurosciences) for research characterizing the role of amino acids as neurotransmitters. In 1977, he returned to the United States and to NIH, where he was a senior staff fellow and pharmacologist in the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke.

Curse you, Coin!

Mikey, the NIH page I and Coin linked to was LAST UPDATED 11/17/06.

http://www.csr.nih.gov/photodisplay/finalinter.aspx?id=1218&other=0

Does the NIH know you're also employed full-time at AIG?

You're amazing, you know that? You're either the funniest Loki troll we've eevr had or you are indeed dumber than a bag of hair.

Right, in 1998! Beforehand I attended Yale and got my PHD in Molecular and Cell Biology. Right, in 1998! Beforehand I attended Yale and got my PHD in Molecular and Cell Biology. They left this entire part out here.

Hey Doc, when you're done bullshitting everyone about your marvelous science degree, would you mind answering my simple questions?

After all, we wouldn't want people to think that you, uh, CAN'T answer them . . . right?

Mikey, obvious and amazingly stupid lies only work on people who are dumber than you.

And brother, ain't NOBODY on this planet qualifies.

Posted by Dr. Michael Martin on November 17, 2006 4:55 PM (e) I can't find any dissertations for this matter.

Mikey,

You lied. You've been caught. No one is going to believe you, no matter how many times you comment and call us stupid.

Really.

No One Will Ever Fall For It. At least no one here.

Please go away. Or admit that you are a 14 year-old punk, then go away.

I would like to get back to that whole peer-review process thing.

A person posting under the name "Dr. Michael Martin" has left numerous semi-coherent posts in this thread. These have included numerous ridiculous claims, among them the claim to have completed a PhD as recently as 1998, yet not remember the name of anyone on his committee. Somewhat more recently, this person has claimed to be "Dr. Michael Martin," "formerly" of the National Institutes of Health's Center for Scientific Review and current employee of Answers in Genesis. A cursory google search reveals that, while there is a Dr. Michael Martin who is the director of the NIH CSR, the details given in his online biography bear absolutely no similarity to the claims made by the unknown poster, and further non-internet based research makes it appear highly unlikely that the actual Dr. Michael Martin has left NIH.

At present, it appears likely that this person is not "Dr. Michael Martin," and that he or she has absolutely no affiliation with either NIH or AiG. All posts by that poster in this thread have been unpublished, and a request to permanently ban the poster from these boards for violation of item 6 of the comment integrity policy is pending.

I would further warn the poster in question that the IP address he or she has been posting from is identified in a whois search as being registered to the College of William and Mary, that most college computing services departments require users to follow a set of terms and conditions that usually prohibit the sort of nonsense that is taking place here, and that it would not be difficult for me to send a complaint to the appropriate source, along with the full IP address and a listing of dates and times for the offending posts. Keep that in mind before trying to get in more posts before getting banned.

In short, find some other way to waste your Friday nights.

Here...lets play a game guys. Its called, find Michael Martin on the Special Emphasis Panel: http://www.drg.nih.gov/Roster_proto/meeting_rost...

Mikey, you've onlydemonstrated one thing to be true:

You and Josh McDowell definitely did learn "logic" at the same place.

BWAHAHAHAHA!!!

DERRR, think about it. If I'm a "14 year old kid" would I have been able to construct even the slightest notion of the Thesis project idea that I was able to construct? Think about it. It doesn't take the brains of a monkey to figure this out guys.

— Kid Mikey

Bye, liar. Don't let the lies hit you on your ass on your way out.

I would no doubt love to bury your head in Genetics. Evolution's side is very weak in these regards.

Um, Michael Martin isn't there. There are three people with the name Michael, and one person with the name Martin, but no one with the name "Michael Martin".

On 11/17/06, Martin, Michael (NIH/CSR) [E] wrote: I will be out of the office from Friday, November 10 thru Tuesday November 28. I will not be in email contact. If you have questions please contact Don Schnedier at 301-435-1727.

I am continuing to unpublish comments by "Michael Martin." I would greatly appreciate it if other users refrain from responding to his comments in the period between when he leaves them and when I unpublish them.

Since "Dr. Martin" has not responded to my email, but is clearly checking this thread at what appear to be 30-second intervals, I will take this opportunity to restress what I said in the email. Further comments in this thread will result in both abuse@yahoo.com and abuse@wm.edu being informed of your impersonations.

Sorry about feeding the troll, Mike (Dunford)

I can't help myself sometimes.

Understood. I've had that problem from time to time myself. This one just stopped being amusing a long time ago.

Thanks Mike Dunford. It was overdue.

Well I guess MM got peer-reviewed out of existence.

In my experience of peer-review (both as reviewer and reviewed) a referee will never reject a paper just because they disagree with it or because it goes against the mainstream. They will reject it if the conclusions are not supported by or are inconsistent with the data it contains or if the experimental work is seriously flawed.

The same applies to PhD examinations (again speaking as both examined and examiner under the UK system).

I have never seen it stifle the publication of new ideas - we have patent lawyers for that.

There are no widely accepted standards for peer review. Theoretically, a Journal of Criticism of Darwinism could be established for the express purpose of publishing peer-reviewed criticisms of Darwinism.

The terms ``peer review,`` ``peer reviewed,`` and ``peer-reviewed`` appear a total of 21 times in Judge Jones` final Kitzmiller v. Dover opinion. It is noteworthy that neither that opinion nor any other decision in the case was peer-reviewed prior to release. An appeal might be considered to be a form of peer review, but there was no appeal in Kitzmiller. The final opinion is at --
http://media.ljworld.com/pdf/2005/12/20/kitzmiller_342.pdf

At present, it appears likely that this person is not "Dr. Michael Martin," and that he or she has absolutely no affiliation with either NIH or AiG.

DI's whining about "peer review" brings to mind the comedy that ran during the Dover trial, when Behe tried to claim that his BOOK was "peer-reviewed" (IIRC, it was somebody who only heard Behe read part of the manuscript to him over the phone or something. . . )

As I pointed out at the time, my dinky little book about keeping tarantulas as pets underwent a far more rigorous "peer review" than Behe's, uh, magnum opus did -- I had three different experts on tarantulas (two with PhD's in arachnology and books of their own) read the entire manuscript, cover to cover, twice, before I even sent it to the publisher.

The biggest shame of this whole Yale is that the ID crowd still doesn't get it.

Rank doesn't matter nearly as much as they think it does. Maybe in their world just because the Reverend says it, you must believe it. After all, he must be smarter than you since he more letters after his name.

But that's not the way it is in science. Yes, those with advanced degrees get the initial benefit of the doubt, but that doesn't last much longer than it takes for them to open their mouths and say something really stupid (think of Behe).

Some of the greatest minds in science and technology never had much formal training at all (Einstein, for example, had a couple of years of college and was working in a field completely unrelated to physics).

No, in science all it takes is that you're right, and can show it. It may take a while, but at the end of the day, there's just no way to argue with a simple-to-demonstrate fact.

If Doc M&M had some of that that, there would be no need for the bluster. But I guess he doesn't, hence the need to, oh, how shall I put this... bear false witness.

At least peer review worked in the case of Meyer's abysmal Cambrian paper.

What is the minimum sentence for impersonating a Federal official?

Oh wait, that would be persecuting a minority scientific viewpoint. Never mind.

Damn, another Liar For Jesus goes down. Only a few hundred more to go, I guess.

Only a few hundred more to go, I guess.

I thought that Doc got his lying ass kicked out of here . . . . ?

Gosh, there's sure a lot of similarity between this list:
http://www.yale.edu/yibs/reports/9899hutch.html

1998 - 1999 G. Evelyn Hutchinson Prize
Graduate Student Abstracts
Index
Homayoun Bagheri
Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology
Luis Cadavid
Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology
Martin Hanczyc
Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology
Maxim Shpak
Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology
Michael Slotman
Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology
Eva Cuadrado
Yale School of Forestry and Environmental Studies
Timothy Farnham
Yale School of Forestry and Environmental Studies
Carlos Gonzalez
Yale School of Forestry and Environmental Studies
Xinxhang Hu
Yale School of Forestry and Environmental Studies
B. Brooke A. Parry
Yale School of Forestry and Environmental Studies
Montira J. Pongsiri
Yale School of Forestry and Environmental Studies
Jessica Maisano
Department of Geology & Geophysics
Cynthia Marshall
Department of Geology & Geophysics
Steven Petsch
Department of Geology & Geophysics
Jeffrey Chen
Department of Environmental Engineering
Eric Vrijenhoek
Department of Environmental Engineering

and Mikey-Troll's latest pitiful attempt at trying to rehabilitate his credentials, as posted in Comment 145266:

Department of Molecular and Cellular Biology
Andrew Miranker
Homayoun Bagheri
Luis Cadavid
Martin Hanczyc
Maxim Shpak
Michael Slotman

Yale School of Forestry and Environmental Studies
Eva Cuadrado
Timothy Farnham
Carlos Gonzales
Xinzhang Hu
B. Brooke A. Parry
Montira J. Pongsiri

Department of Geology and Geophysics
Jessica Maisano
Cynthia Marshall
Steven Petsch

Department of Environmental Engineering
Jeffrey Chen
Eric Vrijenhoek

Gosh, itself for Mikey's first "advisor," who only got to Yale the year that Mikey claims to have received his doctorate, Mikey's latest list is identical with the Hutchinson Prize graduate students list. Quite a coincidence! Wow, that Mikey really knows how to pick 'em...

In addition to the ridiculous coincidence, of course, there's the fact that all these other people were graduate students at the time Mikey claims they were on his committee.

Mikey, take a tip, you little lying pipsqueak--don't ever actually try to make your way through graduate school. You're not good enough at lying and plagiarizing to last a week.

To quote the illustrious Lenny:

BWA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA...!

Give it up, junior. You're stinking up the joint.

I apologize for the repeat posts by liar-boy. (20-member dissertation committee, including Vrba, with an advisor who had been there for one year, that was cute.) I personally don't have the ability to ban, and it is the weekend. I can't sit in front of the computer indefinitely, but I will continute to unpublish those posts as the opportunity comes up.

I have already emailed a complaint to abuse@yahoo.com and abuse@wm.edu, and I'm still waiting for an admin here to block him. In the meantime, I would again request that people refrain from feeding him either here or in other threads.

Um, Michael Martin, you might want to actually find out what you're talking about before lying for Jesus about what you know. This is true for most of what you've been saying, but in the case about your claims about your "education"... Many PhDs and MS/MAs read this blog, and we all know how many people are on the typical committee. My PhD committee had 5 members and my MS had 4 members.

How many on "yours"? Nineteen? Come on, you can do better than that. If we contacted them (easy to do) what's the chance of any of them knowing who you are?

Grow up.

Sorry 'bout that. Won't happen again.

Thanks, Mike Dunford.

While it's been fun--and an interesting-in-itself live demonstration of the dishonesty of Creationism tactics--to fisk this little rascal's claims, I'll try to suppress any further urge to pile on, and thus to respect your request not to feed the troll.

Thanks for actively maintaining your thread, to the extent practical.

In an ideal case, it would've been fun to have "preserved" all the evidence of Mikey's untenable claims in some appropriate place, perhaps over at "The Bathroom Wall," on After the Bar Closes.

I'm curious --- do you have a staff member named Dr Michael Martin, with a PhD in genetics from Yale?

Thank you for contacting Answers in Genesis. No, we do not have a Michael Martin on staff at Answers in Genesis-USA, nor is he someone with whom we are familiar. Gary Vaterlaus Director of Curriculum & Correspondence Answers in Genesis PO Box 510 * Hebron, KY 41048 (859) 727-2222