AronRa said:I don't know what y'all are talking about. I originally linked to the Osnabrück paper, showing those illustrations. That citation had a link at the bottom for the Full PDF. There was no subscription required for that. Then I showed that this same research was also examined in peer review at PubMed and Nature, under the title, "Inventing the dynamo machine: the evolution of the F-type and V-type ATPases". That one I didn't provide the full text to, because my point was made without that. Then I cited a second study from Upstate Med.U., and I made sure to show the accessible version of that too. I don't what you guys are confused about when you say that I didn't cite the same thing as last time.Inferno said:To be fair, it's hard to keep up with which paper was talked about at which point. In the original thread, an excess of 30 papers were quoted and linked to. In the debate, at least two were quoted and linked to, the peanut gallery contains another ten.
I'm talking about "Inventing the dynamo machine: the evolution of the F-type and V-type ATPases" though and, so it seems, is everyone else. For that one you didn't provide the full text, as you acknowledged. I provided the paper both in a PM and here, as did fightofthejellyfish.
AronRa said:I don't what you guys are confused about when you say that I didn't cite the same thing as last time.
I believe you did. Let me explain:
You constantly link to the first paper, Mulkidjanian, A.Y., M.Y. Galperin. 2010. Evolutionary origins of membrane proteins In: Structural Bioinformatics of Membrane Proteins (D. Frishman, Ed.), Springer, Wien
However, the illustration you provided stems from the sixth paper, Mulkidjanian, A.Y., K.S. Makarova, M.Y. Galperin and E.V. Koonin. 2007. Inventing the dynamo machine: On the origin of the F-type and V-type membrane ATPases from membrane RNA/protein translocases, Nature Reviews Microbiology, 5:892-899
I think that's the whole confusion, nothing else.
In any case, we now have all of the papers as open-access versions, so we should be fine.
That being said, I did say that you might have made a mistake and I intend to discuss that.
You stated:
[url=http://www.theleagueofreason.co.uk/viewtopic.php?p=157844#p157844 said:AronRa[/url]"]The fact that it was posted to peer review means that the scientific community recognizes this as an explanation of the evolution of the first ATP motor.
I hope I didn't quote that out of context.
The fact that it was posted to peer review does not yet mean anything at all. Creationists have had their garbage approved in reputable peer-reviewed journals as well, but that doesn't mean anything. If it passes the first round of peer-review and is actually published, it simply means that the paper meets certain criteria (language and other formal criteria top among them).
If the paper doesn't meet too much criticism, that's generally another good criterion.
If the content gets into university grade textbooks, that's usually proof that the content was really good and really valuable.
But I don't need to explain that to you, you know that already. I'm just trying to point out that you could sometimes be more careful in your phrasing. In most cases where I disagree with you, it's not because you are wrong but because you have chosen a wording that makes you seem wrong.