Even God’s first paper got rejected

All images and texts on this site copyright 2017 by Russ Hodge

 

Editor-in-Chief   

The BIBLE

 

Prof. God
Paradise Avenue
Heavenly Realm

 

Dear Prof. God,

 

Thank you for submitting your paper, “Genesis: A method of generating matter,
space, time, and living species from Nothingness,” for our consideration. We agree
that the creation of the universe might be of interest to our general readership.
However, after considering the reviewers’ comments, we regret that we are unable
to publish the manuscript in its current form. If you feel that you can satisfy their
concerns with further experiments, you are welcome to resubmit a revised version
of your manuscript at a later date.

The following represent only a small selection of the most significant issues,
in our view, but for a resubmission you should address all the reviewers’ comments,
which are in the 5000 GByte attachment appended to this file.

 

Reviewer #1:

Hasn’t this author ever heard of controls? The author should have started
with two samples of Nothingness, applied the method of creation to one
while observing the other to ensure that the various reactions did not occur
spontaneously over time. He provides no quantitative description of this
Nothingness, gives no account of the conditions under which it was produced,
and no proof that Nothing was actually there.   

There are no references to previous literature, so we have no way to judge
the author’s qualifications in the field or the extent to which this work is
innovative vis-a-vis that of other groups.

The indirect, third-person style of the text is old-fashioned and should be
updated. Phrases such as, “In the Beginning God created” should be modernized
to a form like, “In a first step, we produced…” Another example:
“And God found that it was good” should be replaced with,
“The results confirmed our initial hypothesis.”

 

Reviewer #2:

From what I can tell, the physical and biological systems described in the
paper seem to have gone from a very low state of order to high complexity
within a remarkably short period of time. This hints at the use of extremely
powerful catalysts, which are not described anywhere in the text. Are they
commercially available? If so, were the manufacturer’s protocols rigorously
followed?

In fact, the author has failed to offer any model or hypothesis that could
mechanistically explain the results, or justify the claim that His efforts
somehow caused them. The implication is that things happened just because
He willed them to. This is the reason we have double-blind experiments, people!

 

Reviewer #3:

The human cloning experiment was not described in nearly enough detail.
What types of cells were extracted from the male’s rib, and what method was
used to generate induced Pluripotent Stem Cells and then the female? More
significantly, since the cell was derived from a male, where did they get the
second X chromosome? Was it simply a clonal copy of the first? Theoretically
it is possible, I suppose, that the female was actually genetically male but
suffering from some sort of defect in her SRY gene. If that were the case, half
of her gametes would be chromosomally Y. This would lead a quarter of her
offspring to be entirely X-less, i.e., Y-Y, which might explain the violent behavior
of some of her children. Or perhaps radical genetic engineering technologies
were used to create the female, such as CRISPR/Cas9, although I hope not,
because the fight over the patent was already a mess, and getting God
involved certainly wouldn’t make things go any smoother.

In any case, the type of genetic modifications needed to make a female from
a male would have been in direct violation of every ethical standard and
numerous international laws. Not to mention the horrendous, ensuing inbreeding
effects that could be expected in a population descended entirely from a couple
who were not only closely related, but actual clones.

Please note that I did not receive any paperwork indicating that the project
had been submitted to ethical review. Apparently the Author considers
Himself superior to any sort of moral authority; either that, or he paid
someone off. If I am wrong, and an Ethics Commission did in fact approve
the project, please let me know the country. I would consider moving
my laboratory there.

 

More craziness from the molecular universe

Today’s cartoons are all about relationships: another synaptic dialogue, and a look at how germ cells find their partners for life…

In a few days we’ll hear from ol’ Donald again…

1.

2.

All images copyright 2017 by Russ Hodge, http://www.goodsciencewriting.wordpress.com