Back in 1989 the International Journal of Neuroscience published a paper by Dmitrii Kuznetsov entitled "In vitro studies of interactions between frequent and unique mRNAs and cytoplasmic factors from brain tissue of several species of wild timber voles of Northern Eurasia, Clethrionomys glareolus, Clethrionomys frater and Clethrionomys gapperi: A new criticism to a modern molecular-genetic concept of biological evolution" which claimed that the examination of the Messenger RNA (mRNA) of voles provided evidence that directly contradicted evolutionary theory.
Kuznetsov claimed that these three very closely related species of vole have ribonucleotides that are absolutely incompatible. As he proclaimed in the paper his findings show that
Questions immediately arose concerning the validity of the research at the same time various Creationist groups started citing the paper to support their contentions[1]. Kuznetsov's paper flew directly in the face of what was known about genetics at the time and is known now three decades later. Worse, the claims made in the paper just didn't stand up to scrutiny. Further, a cursory examination of the sources cited by Kuznetsov revealed that they didn't exist and that he simply made them up. Not just the papers he cites but in some cases the publications themself.
As an example of the latter Kuznetsov cited a paper by Holger V. Hydén published in Scandinavian Archives of Molecular Pathology, but when contacted Hydén said he never wrote the paper cited and had never even heard of the journal it was supposedly published in. Likewise, Kuznetsov cited an article by F. L. Solvarssen and B. Hjerten published in Uppsala University Research Reports in 1974. But an investigation revealed that no such publication existed and that neither Solvarssen or Hjerten are listed in Uppsala University directories covering 1971-1976.
In fact, Dan Larhammar, a Professor of Molecular Cell Biology at University of Uppsala and current President of the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, found at least five more non-existent journals cited by Kuznetsov. And, in a rare display of scientific integrity, Creationist Paul Nelson, now a fellow of the Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture, reported that he couldn't find three more journals cited by Kuznetsov. This led to the Creation Science Foundation formerly disassociate themselves from Kuznetsov in 1995.
But even so the paper was still available and regularly referred to by Creationists when discussing genetics.
I should note that since the publication of the paper Kuznetsov has been frequently charged with scientific misconduct including for his analysis of the Shroud of Turin. He also had a habit of telling obvious whoppers during interviews like when he asserted that "in Russia [it] is extremely common" for scientists to "become creationists on scientific grounds and then to become Christians afterwards." Again, a simple check found no examples much less found that it is "extremely common."[2]
During the same interview he also alleged that analysis of the protein "creatinine kinase" [sic][3] has revealed that "the African elephant and the ordinary domestic housefly" are closely related. He simply made this up. A search of nucleic acid sequence databases and protein databases by University of Toronto Biochemist Larry Moran[4] found that there was no record of an elephant or housefly sequence ever being published (that might have changed since then).
As I said in the title better late than never but there really is no excuse for the International Journal of Neuroscience to have waited so long.
Further Reading:
1. There is a popular and obviously erroneous belief among many Creationists that if they can undermine the Theory of Evolution that this somehow, in some way, validates Creationism.
2. This is an assertion often heard from the few scientists who are also Creationists but never stands up to scrutiny. My favorite example is by geologist Steve Austin who regularly proclaims it was the eruption of Mount St. Helens in 1980 that caused him to become a Young Earth Creationist (YEC) but the fact is that he was already writing stuff for the Institute for Creation Research (ICR) under the pseudonym "Stuart E. Nevins" back in the mid 70s.
3. It's creatine kinase not creatinine kinase which is an excusable mistake but odd for one who had just asserted that this was his area of expertise.
4. IIRC, he used to post here on Tweb fairly regularly before the crash
Kuznetsov claimed that these three very closely related species of vole have ribonucleotides that are absolutely incompatible. As he proclaimed in the paper his findings show that
"the general creationist concept on the problems of the origin of boundless multitudes of different and harmonically functioning forms of life"
Questions immediately arose concerning the validity of the research at the same time various Creationist groups started citing the paper to support their contentions[1]. Kuznetsov's paper flew directly in the face of what was known about genetics at the time and is known now three decades later. Worse, the claims made in the paper just didn't stand up to scrutiny. Further, a cursory examination of the sources cited by Kuznetsov revealed that they didn't exist and that he simply made them up. Not just the papers he cites but in some cases the publications themself.
As an example of the latter Kuznetsov cited a paper by Holger V. Hydén published in Scandinavian Archives of Molecular Pathology, but when contacted Hydén said he never wrote the paper cited and had never even heard of the journal it was supposedly published in. Likewise, Kuznetsov cited an article by F. L. Solvarssen and B. Hjerten published in Uppsala University Research Reports in 1974. But an investigation revealed that no such publication existed and that neither Solvarssen or Hjerten are listed in Uppsala University directories covering 1971-1976.
In fact, Dan Larhammar, a Professor of Molecular Cell Biology at University of Uppsala and current President of the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, found at least five more non-existent journals cited by Kuznetsov. And, in a rare display of scientific integrity, Creationist Paul Nelson, now a fellow of the Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture, reported that he couldn't find three more journals cited by Kuznetsov. This led to the Creation Science Foundation formerly disassociate themselves from Kuznetsov in 1995.
But even so the paper was still available and regularly referred to by Creationists when discussing genetics.
I should note that since the publication of the paper Kuznetsov has been frequently charged with scientific misconduct including for his analysis of the Shroud of Turin. He also had a habit of telling obvious whoppers during interviews like when he asserted that "in Russia [it] is extremely common" for scientists to "become creationists on scientific grounds and then to become Christians afterwards." Again, a simple check found no examples much less found that it is "extremely common."[2]
During the same interview he also alleged that analysis of the protein "creatinine kinase" [sic][3] has revealed that "the African elephant and the ordinary domestic housefly" are closely related. He simply made this up. A search of nucleic acid sequence databases and protein databases by University of Toronto Biochemist Larry Moran[4] found that there was no record of an elephant or housefly sequence ever being published (that might have changed since then).
As I said in the title better late than never but there really is no excuse for the International Journal of Neuroscience to have waited so long.
Further Reading:
- RETRACTED ARTICLE: In Vitro Studies of Interactions Between Frequent and Unique Mrnas and Cytoplasmic Factors from Brain Tissue of Several Species of Wild Timber Voles of Northern Eurasia, Clethrionomys Glareolus, Clethrionomys Frater and Clethrionomys Gapperi: a New Criticism to a Modern Molecular-Genetic Concept of Biological Evolution
- Paper Used in Creationist Teaching Retracted After 30 Years
1. There is a popular and obviously erroneous belief among many Creationists that if they can undermine the Theory of Evolution that this somehow, in some way, validates Creationism.
2. This is an assertion often heard from the few scientists who are also Creationists but never stands up to scrutiny. My favorite example is by geologist Steve Austin who regularly proclaims it was the eruption of Mount St. Helens in 1980 that caused him to become a Young Earth Creationist (YEC) but the fact is that he was already writing stuff for the Institute for Creation Research (ICR) under the pseudonym "Stuart E. Nevins" back in the mid 70s.
3. It's creatine kinase not creatinine kinase which is an excusable mistake but odd for one who had just asserted that this was his area of expertise.
4. IIRC, he used to post here on Tweb fairly regularly before the crash
Comment