Author opens mouth, exposes wackiness

James Randerson scrapes a little more info on the Han and Warda paper. The editor, Michael Dunn, sounds uncommunicative, but I can’t blame him for wanting to proceed cautiously…I just hope that eventually we get a better accounting.

The interesting revelation is a letter from one of the authors, Warda. I think we’ve found the source of the weird fantasies in the text.

The problem is that we described in very clear and definite way the disciplined nature that takes part inside our cells. We supported our meaning with define proteomics evidences that cry in front of scientists that the mitochondria is not evolved from other prokaryotes. They want to destroy us because we say the truth; only the truth.

Yes, the paper does describe the complexity in mitochondria. However, the paper does not back up their claim to have “disproven” the endosymbiotic hypothesis for the origin of mitochondria at all, nor does it provide any evidence for an alternative…and postulating a “mighty creator” is not a scientific alternative hypothesis. Complexity is not an argument against evolution!

Nobody was interested in destroying them. They wrote some foolish things in a science paper that were completely unwarranted, and people are discussing the sloppy and inappropriate content. There is no fatwa here.

He also denies plagiarizing anything. Sorry, guy, the evidence is there, and stonewalling is not a credible option right now. It just makes me want to reject everything you say, since the smoking gun is right there in your hand, where everyone can see it.

Mr Warda revealed his agenda yet further in comments to the the Times Higher Education supplement:

Co-author Mr Warda told Times Higher Education that to criticise Western science was “taboo”. He said: “It is clear that the fingerprint of (the) mighty creator (is) inside everyone in this Universe.”

After initially claiming that evolution was a “useless, evidence-less” theory, he said the process did take place, but under the control of “complete, disciplined wisdom” and not in a chaotic way. “Even one amino acid, when mutated in any of millions of tiny different cell receptors in their body, can kill or ruin life,” he added. “Is this chaos?”

So I think we can now safely say how the goofiness got into the paper: one of the authors simply and unashamedly put it there. Now the puzzle is to figure out how such blatant garbage got past peer review.


  1. #1 MartinDH
    February 13, 2008

    I wonder if Warda is another “scientist” recruited by Moon’s Unification Church to help deliver the death blow to materialistic science.

  2. #2 David Marjanovi?, OM
    February 14, 2008

    I don’t buy the idea that Han was an innocent dupe. If he was, then his e-mail would have referred to material in the paper that was unfamiliar to him, or some such. He wouldn’t have come up with his feeble confusion of drafts.

    Does anyone here know Confucian politeness firsthand? (Kimpatsu?) I speculate that pointing that out would have been too impolite to Warda or too damaging to the reputation of his lab, not to mention his boss…

    Slightly tangential, but has anybody picked up the Slate piece on a YEC “peer reviewed” journal?

    Was on Pharyngula maybe a week or two ago.

    Hence it would be wrong to alter god’s revealed words.

    Oh no. They did change the word order in places, and things like that.

    Warda claims he didn’t plagiarise anything. Therefore the multiple passages of complex specified information must be chance, not design. A bit of a problem for the ID crowd.


    Good that I’ve practiced how to laugh voicelessly. :-D

  3. #3 David Marjanovi?, OM
    February 14, 2008

    “As a system administrator, I like peanut butter”

    People who make this kind of construction have simply not quite understood that, in English, this doesn’t just mean “I, a sysadmin, like peanut butter”. I really doubt there’s some philosophical thing about relatedness at work here.

    Korean is a topic-and-comment language, right? If so, I can try to reconstruct the original: “Sysadmin-TOPIC I-SUBJECT like peanut butter-ACCUSATIVE.”

  4. #4 David Marjanovi?, OM
    February 14, 2008

    In other words, it’s not the meaning of “is”, it’s the meaning of “as”. :-)

  5. #5 David Marjanovi?, OM
    February 14, 2008

    If the author order in the publication list of his lab is any clue, he IS the boss.

    What about the people who made the decision to hire him? What about the president of the university…?