About the Authors

  • The Authors and Contributors of "Patent Docs" are patent attorneys and agents, many of whom hold doctorates in a diverse array of disciplines.
2018 Juristant Badge - MBHB_165
Juristat #4 Overall Rank

E-mail Newsletter

  • Enter your e-mail address below to receive the "Patent Docs" e-mail newsletter.

Contact the Docs

Docs on Twitter


Disclaimer

  • "Patent Docs" does not contain any legal advice whatsoever. This weblog is for informational purposes only, and its publication does not create an attorney-client relationship. In addition, nothing on "Patent Docs" constitutes a solicitation for business. This weblog is intended primarily for other attorneys. Moreover, "Patent Docs" is the personal weblog of the Authors; it is not edited by the Authors' employers or clients and, as such, no part of this weblog may be so attributed. All posts on "Patent Docs" should be double-checked for their accuracy and current applicability.
Juristat_165
Juristat #8 Overall Rank

Pharma-50-transparent_216px_red

« IPO Disagrees with Director Dudas | Main | An Analysis of the New Written Description Training Materials – Antibodies to a Single Protein & Antibodies to a Genus of Proteins »

May 12, 2008

Comments

"What is clear is that the relationships of the genes and other genetic elements found in platypus genomic DNA are...inconsistent with "intelligent design" precepts."

While I respect your work on this site, that comment (whether from you or from the authors of the article, it's hard to tell where it originates) is entirely out of place.

Regardless of any merits in the evolution/ID debate, the experiment described in the article was certainly NOT designed to test the hypothesis of whether (or not) it is possible that higher beings are the work of an intelligent designer. Therefore, the stated conclusion is entirely out of place.

The statement appears to be included either as a form of pandering or with the intention of polarizing, but in any event, it is not reflective of any adherence to the scientific method.

Sorry, Sean, but I think it's entirely appropriate. Not on the question of whether there is a Supreme Being; science cannot address, much less answer that question, and if that is how you took the comment then 1) my apologies and 2) I would agree with your assessment.

But the point is that for those who propose to answer the ultimate question using the intelligent design argument (which is just a 20th Century update on the 19th Century's Paley's Watch hypothesis), then my position is that the platypus is a perfect illustration of the problem with their argument. The existence of a creature like the platypus, to me, is the antithesis of the arguments about the perfection of living things and how nature demands an intelligent designer. While religion might, nature does not, and until the intelligent design folks can at least accommodate the platypus into their argument, I think it valid to point that out.

Thanks for the comment.

Kevin,
Perhaps this is the final proof of "intelligent design by committee"?

Kevin, thanks for the follow-up.

In the spirit of discourse, I would say that the statement you initially made would require its own lengthy elaboration on why it follows from the facts presented before it. In that context, it might be appropriate.

I simply think that, standing on its own, it is not appropriate in the context in which it was given. I mean, your follow-up comment only scratches the surface of the issues/arguments, and doesn't provide enough information to assess whether the statement is or is not supported by the facts.

As lawyers, we are comfortable taking a set of facts, making arguments from those facts, and drawing conclusions from the arguments and facts coupled together. I simply felt that your statement took the shortcut from facts to conclusions without providing the necessary level of argument, and was therefore out of place.

Best regards,

Glen:

Isn't that traditionally the definition of a camel?

Thanks for the comment.

what is this called in Japanese?

The comments to this entry are closed.

December 2021

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
      1 2 3 4
5 6 7 8 9 10 11
12 13 14 15 16 17 18
19 20 21 22 23 24 25
26 27 28 29 30 31