Further to “Mimivirus discoverer doubts Darwin, banned from publication in France,”here’s an article, also in Science (2 March 2012), by Catherine Mary, about the significance of his work,
“Didier Raoult Profile: Giant Viruses Revive Old Questions About Viral Origins”:
Where did viruses come from? And are they alive? University of Aix-Marseille microbiologist Didier Raoult’s 2004 discovery of Mimivirus—and several other giant viruses identified since then—has brought those questions, debated for a century, back to the scientific fore. The genetic makeup of Mimivirus, which includes many genes encoding the enzymes that repair DNA, correct errors occurring during its replication, produce mRNA transcripts from genes, and translate those mRNAs into proteins, has challenged the view that viruses are not alive.
Darwinism is not only an error, it is a costly error. We need these challenges, and we don’t need Darwinism.
So these Mimiviruses correct errors in their own DNA or the DNA of the organisms they inhabit? I thought that viruses did not have DNA, only RNA.
When and why was Didier Raoult banned from publishing?
He’s had plenty of articles published, including earlier and later than 2006, and in 2006.
Cheers
And he was temporarily banned from publishing in a dozen leading microbiology journals in 2006.
http://www.sciencemag.org/cont.....33.summary
Though it doesn’t give the specific reason why he was temporarily banned,,,, the inference is that it has something to do with this sentence that immediately preceded that sentence:
‘Raoult last year published a popular science book that flat-out declares that Darwin’s theory of evolution is wrong.’
Behind a paywall if you want the rest of the story!
Collin- there are viruses with DNA:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DNA_virus
smallpox is such a virus.
http://users.rcn.com/jkimball......ruses.html
I’ve read the article in Science Magazine. Raoult was temporarily banned from publishing in several journals in 20016 because of alleged misrepresentation of data in a paper he co-authored that was submitted to one of those journals.
Raoult’s defense was that he should not have been punished for an error committed by another member of his team.
Sorry, the year was 2006, not 2016!
Thanks for the info Daniel.
That means, then, that the OP may be seen as doubly misleading:
1. Raoult was not banned from publishing because he doubted Darwin, but for completely unrelated reasons.
2. Raoult does not doubt modern evolutionary science derived from the original work of Darwin. In an article in The Lancet he stated:
Cheers