Posted: Sep 05, 2013 1:53 pm
by CADman2300
With Steve's book a reality now, it looks like some people have taken notice. http://sensuouscurmudgeon.wordpress.com ... e-dentist/
Steve is there also and is trying to defend his book. Unfortunately he's still using the same tactless rhetoric that he always uses. And when user: Tomato Addict proposes a word contest, Steve responds with this.
Can I enter? Here is my application:
Of the phosphomalate pathway, which they had eliminated, they write: “…IT COULD BE ARGUED, however, that the feeder P-malate COULD HAVE PLAYED SOME ROLE in earlier metabolism; and thus it IT COULD HAVE BEEN AVAILABLE. It is, in fact, HIGHLY UNLIKELY that some ancient metabolic pathway involving such a compound has vanished without trace (although the original pathway has been lost, such an intermediate COULD HAVE BEEN to other purposes); however, it CANNOT BE STRICTLY DISCARDED and thus, although UNLIKELY, phosphomalate and the [alternative] Krebs cycle structure…MIGHT BE FOUND IN SOME paleospecies as a case of paleometabolism.
Source at: http://www.evillusion.net. p. 5 I sure hope I win!

It looks like Steve is still refusing to accept the reality that in science it's bad form to make statements of absolute certainty. So when a scientific paper is presented to him, all he's going to do is highlight any word or phrase that points out the uncertainty, falsely assume that to be the paper's Achilles heel, and attack it for all it's worth. It's clear that he does it because it's far easier than proving the paper wrong through physical experiment, because that would take actual effort and Steve is content to just sit at his computer and post his uninformed opinions in blogs and forums.

:think: It really makes me wonder what his college experience was really like. Maybe he had some really bad professors, or in the decades he spent up until the field museum trip he simply forgot everything he was taught about how science works.