Side Comments on Gauger and Mercer

@NLENTS Do you have any questions for @Agauger? You’re an expert in the field and she knows you. Be sure to be extra nice to @Agauger as she is extremely sensitive to anyone criticizing her work. We at PS don’t want to be accused of unwarranted criticism of anyone’s work, like DI did to you on your excellent book “Human Errors”.

@Patrick, @Agauger is going to get an immense amount of criticism of her work. We are not protecting her from that.

1 Like


I am willing to apologize (profuselyl).

My only request is thay my apologies regarding him are good for a week at a time… otherwise, I dont believe i can keep up!!!

Nobody deserves his abuse.

Isn’t an 2011 paper extremely dated considering all the subsequent accomplishments in ancient genome sequencing?

1 Like

@nlents Nathan, the Biologos Forum is reviewing your book. So far they are doing a decent job of it unlike the hacket job that DI did to it.

@cwhenderson or @glipsnort or @gbrooks9 or @randy or @T_aquaticus , would you mind linking at BioLogos to these posts on @NLents and the DI? I think this is on topic and would be helpful to BioLogos readers…

Nathan Lents: Bad Design of the Eye?

Nathan Lents: My Experience With Discovery

Who is Right About Sinuses?

Common Ground on Bad Design

1 Like

Amen, Amen, Amen,


And that makes PERFECT sense for Behe to reach that conclusion; even @swamidass anticipates the rational nature of that conclusion.

In fact, its the conclusion I would likely choose as well! If you agree, that would make FOUR (4) on something that BioLogos would most likely not agree upon.

I don’t think so. David Reich’s book describes tons of them.

And so does @NLENTS

I certainly agree. It seems as if Dr. Gauger is unfamiliar with current literature in the field.

1 Like

I think this is a non sequitur. Ancient genome sequencing has little to do with ancestral protein inference. What am I missing?

1 Like

You’re right. I mentally filled in “reconstruction experiments,” such as Thornton’s, after “ancient genome sequencing.” That clearly was what Dr. Gauger was talking about.

Also, there are ones from before 2011!


Hi everyone - I am not ducking out of these conversations. I am on the road this week for some book events and only have time here and there, which is mostly spent catching up on work stuff. Also, we’re now entering the really busy part of the semester which will continue through the holidays. I really do want to engage here again and I hope to get the time soon!


Here we go. Common on. Have a scientific exchange. Seek to be understood as well as to understand.

1 Like

I did. Tell that to him.

1 Like

Was this what you were trying to post?

@Agauger Let me be as nice and gracious to you as possible - this makes no sense.

Sure, let’s ignore scientific research. You ok with that @Agauger?

No, we’re seeing if Dr. Gauger actually reads the literature, as she claims to do. From my perspective, her obsessive dragging everything back to discussing her own papers appears to be a defense mechanism to cover up her failure to read the relevant scientific literature.

As I said, I was challenging her global claims about sequence space. She is clearly ignoring most of the relevant data, of which our paper represents literally only one of thousands.

1 Like

That is a completely different claim than one which suggests that her papers are not relevant to the discussion. I would like to hear whether you think that her papers are not relevant.

And if you agree that they are relevant, I’d like to know how you view their relevance.

What papers published by her in the peer-reviewed primary scientific literature do you consider relevant? Keep in mind that the DI’s self-published Bio-Complexity is not recognized as a legitimate peer-reviewed journal.

1 Like