What is peer review?

[Sherlock Holmes]

Often when debating atheism or questioning the evolution doctrine, the supporters of evolution will reject arguments against it made by scientists because they insist that only "peer reviewed" publications are to be trusted (else it must be pseudo science).

So I want to ask how does one decide whether a journal is or is not peer reviewed? what definition do people use to help them make this decision?

[The Barbarian]

Perhaps a tighter argument is the obvious: "Creationism can't meet those standards." Some creationists can. For example:

Evolution is not a theory in crisis. It is not teetering on the verge of collapse. It has not failed as a scientific explanation. There is evidence for evolution, gobs and gobs of it. It is not just speculation or a faith choice or an assumption or a religion. It is a productive framework for lots of biological research, and it has amazing explanatory power. There is no conspiracy to hide the truth about the failure of evolution. There has really been no failure of evolution as a scientific theory. It works, and it works well.

I say these things not because I'm crazy or because I've "converted" to evolution. I say these things because they are true.
https://toddcwood.blogspot.com/2009/09/ ... ution.html

[Sherlock Holmes]

Perhaps a tighter argument is the obvious: "Creationism can't meet those standards." Some creationists can. For example:

Evolution is not a theory in crisis. It is not teetering on the verge of collapse. It has not failed as a scientific explanation. There is evidence for evolution, gobs and gobs of it. It is not just speculation or a faith choice or an assumption or a religion. It is a productive framework for lots of biological research, and it has amazing explanatory power. There is no conspiracy to hide the truth about the failure of evolution. There has really been no failure of evolution as a scientific theory. It works, and it works well.

I say these things not because I'm crazy or because I've "converted" to evolution. I say these things because they are true.
https://toddcwood.blogspot.com/2009/09/ ... ution.html

Well the fact that far from impartial evolution devotees claim the theory is not in crisis hardly serves to show that it isn't actually in crisis does it? I see that as no more credible than if white people were repeatedly claiming "there is no racism in the United States".

You say "There is evidence for evolution, gobs and gobs of it" which is a huge misrepresentation, as I explained to you in my thread about the difference between evidence for and consistent with.

I've also explained to you in other threads that one does not evaluate the veracity of any theory by dwelling only on observations consistent with it but by actively seeking out and admitting the presence of any observations inconsistent with it, this is the basis of falsification in the sciences, I'd assumed you knew this.

It is an oft heard "argument" from devotees, defend the theory by citing its consistencies with expectations and ignoring inconsistencies, if that's how science worked we'd still be in the dark ages.

Newton's theory of universal gravitation has "gobs and gobs of evidence" Barbarian yet stands falsified - you might want to consider this, its important.

[JoeyKnothead]

Well the fact that far from impartial evolution devotees claim the theory is not in crisis hardly serves to show that it isn't actually in crisis does it? I see that as no more credible than if white people were repeatedly claiming "there is no racism in the United States".

The fact of evolution's only in crisis so much as theists keep fussing about it.

You say "There is evidence for evolution, gobs and gobs of it" which is a huge misrepresentation, as I explained to you in my thread about the difference between evidence for and consistent with.

Now apply that argument to, "He's up there y'all, and has him a better watcher'n Santa Claus himself."

I've also explained to you in other threads that one does not evaluate the veracity of any theory by dwelling only on observations consistent with it but by actively seeking out and admitting the presence of any observations inconsistent with it, this is the basis of falsification in the sciences, I'd assumed you knew this.

When the 'inconsistent observation' is "Naw now, God did it", well there we go.

It is an oft heard "argument" from devotees, defend the theory by citing its consistencies with expectations and ignoring inconsistencies, if that's how science worked we'd still be in the dark ages.

Now we gotta fret what's consistent about a dead guy hopping up strolling into town.

Newton's theory of universal gravitation has "gobs and gobs of evidence" Barbarian yet stands falsified - you might want to consider this, its important.

Gravity, while playing a role, ain't it the only how evolution goes about the being it.

[The Barbarian]

Perhaps a tighter argument is the obvious: "Creationism can't meet those standards." Some creationists can. For example:

Evolution is not a theory in crisis. It is not teetering on the verge of collapse. It has not failed as a scientific explanation. There is evidence for evolution, gobs and gobs of it. It is not just speculation or a faith choice or an assumption or a religion. It is a productive framework for lots of biological research, and it has amazing explanatory power. There is no conspiracy to hide the truth about the failure of evolution. There has really been no failure of evolution as a scientific theory. It works, and it works well.

I say these things not because I'm crazy or because I've "converted" to evolution. I say these things because they are true.
https://toddcwood.blogspot.com/2009/09/ ... ution.html

Well the fact that far from impartial evolution devotees claim the theory is not in crisis hardly serves to show that it isn't actually in crisis does it?

Todd Wood is a YE creationist. He's just an honest and knowledgeable YE creationist. He doesn't believe that common descent is a fact; he just acknowledges that the evidence for it is very strong and that the theory is very useful and a good scientific theory.

You say "There is evidence for evolution, gobs and gobs of it" which is a huge misrepresentation,

In this case, it's a YE creationist, who happens to have a doctorate in the area, admits it. He's not the only one. Dr. Wood goes on to write:
Creationist students, listen to me very carefully: There is evidence for evolution, and evolution is an extremely successful scientific theory. That doesn't make it ultimately true, and it doesn't mean that there could not possibly be viable alternatives. It is my own faith choice to reject evolution, because I believe the Bible reveals true information about the history of the earth that is fundamentally incompatible with evolution. I am motivated to understand God's creation from what I believe to be a biblical, creationist perspective. Evolution itself is not flawed or without evidence. Please don't be duped into thinking that somehow evolution itself is a failure. Please don't idolize your own ability to reason. Faith is enough. If God said it, that should settle it. Maybe that's not enough for your scoffing professor or your non-Christian friends, but it should be enough for you.
https://toddcwood.blogspot.com/2009/09/ ... ution.html

You should listen to him.

as I explained to you in my thread about the difference between evidence for and consistent with.

Dr. Wood is aware of this. He just happens to actually know what the evidence is.

I've also explained to you in other threads that one does not evaluate the veracity of any theory by dwelling only on observations consistent with it but by actively seeking out and admitting the presence of any observations inconsistent with it,

In science, we call that the "null hypothesis", and that's what investigations also do. Mostly, theories make predictions, and we go out to see if the evidence supports those predictions. Hence, when Darwin predicted innumerable transitional forms between modern taxa, it was "very good evidence for macroevolutionary theory" when many, many of those forms were found. Lack of transitional fossils would be a confirmation of the null hypothesis, but even more so would be homologies where there shouldn't be any. Feathered mammals, for example, or mollusks with vertebrae. These would verify the null hypothesis, and thereby falsify the theory. I realize that the way this works is usually not very well understood by laymen. We're back to that thing about not knowing what you're talking about, being an impediment for you.

Here's YE creationist Kurt Wise, on this issue:

Evidences for Darwin’s second expectation - of stratomorphic intermediate species - include such species as Baragwanathia27 (between rhyniophytes and lycopods), Pikaia28 (between echinoderms and chordates), Purgatorius29 (between the tree shrews and the primates), and Proconsul30 (between the non-hominoid primates and the hominoids). Darwin’s third expectation - of higher-taxon stratomorphic intermediates - has been confirmed by such examples as the mammal-like reptile groups31 between the reptiles and the mammals, and the phenacdontids32 between the horses and their presumed ancestors. Darwin’s fourth expectation - of stratomorphic series - has been confirmed by such examples as the early bird series,33 the tetrapod series,34,35 the whale series,36 the various mammal series of the Cenozoic37 (for example, the horse series, the camel series, the elephant series, the pig series, the titanothere series, etc.), the Cantius and Plesiadapus primate series,38 and the hominid series.39 Evidence for not just one but for all three of the species level and above types of stratomorphic intermediates expected by macroevolutionary theory is surely strong evidence for macroevolutionary theory. Creationists therefore need to accept this fact. It certainly CANNOT said that traditional creation theory expected (predicted) any of these fossil finds.
YE creationist Dr. Kurt Wise Toward a Creationist Understanding of Transitional Forms Creation Ex Nihilo Technical Journal, 9(2), 216-222

It is an oft heard "argument" from devotees, defend the theory by citing its consistencies with expectations and ignoring inconsistencies,

So far, you've been unable to present any that are inconsistent with Darwin's four points. Which, as you now realize. are observed to happen constantly. So many creationists have retreated to what we don't yet know about evolution, as if that was any sort of evidence. Much of the massive evidence Dr. Wise cites above, was unknown when I was starting to study biology. And now we have it. There's more to find, but of course, no rational person tries to build an argument on things not yet known.

if that's how science worked we'd still be in the dark ages.

Yep.

Newton's theory of universal gravitation has "gobs and gobs of evidence" Barbarian yet stands falsified

NASA engineers would be surprised to hear that. They still use it to navigate spacecraft around the solar system and to plot the movements of bodies within the solar system. It hasn't been falsified; relativity merely added to it. Much as we've added to Darwin's theory, even though his four points remain observably true. All theories are like this. A science with no corrections left to make is dead.

You might want to consider this, it's important.

[The Barbarian]

In today's language, the law states that every point mass attracts every other point mass by a force acting along the line intersecting the two points. The force is proportional to the product of the two masses, and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them.[5]

The equation for universal gravitation thus takes the form:

F = G m 1 m 2 r 2 , {\displaystyle F=G{\frac {m_{1}m_{2}}{r^{2}}},} {\displaystyle F=G{\frac {m_{1}m_{2}}{r^{2}}},}

where F is the gravitational force acting between two objects, m1 and m2 are the masses of the objects, r is the distance between the centers of their masses, and G is the gravitational constant.

The first test of Newton's theory of gravitation between masses in the laboratory was the Cavendish experiment conducted by the British scientist Henry Cavendish in 1798.[6] It took place 111 years after the publication of Newton's Principia and approximately 71 years after his death.

Newton's law of gravitation resembles Coulomb's law of electrical forces, which is used to calculate the magnitude of the electrical force arising between two charged bodies. Both are inverse-square laws, where force is inversely proportional to the square of the distance between the bodies. Coulomb's law has the product of two charges in place of the product of the masses, and the Coulomb constant in place of the gravitational constant.

Newton's law has since been superseded by Albert Einstein's theory of general relativity, but it continues to be used as an excellent approximation of the effects of gravity in most applications. Relativity is required only when there is a need for extreme accuracy, or when dealing with very strong gravitational fields, such as those found near extremely massive and dense objects, or at small distances (such as Mercury's orbit around the Sun).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton%27 ... ravitation

This is why, for most issues in space travel and planetary astronomy, Newton's theory of gravitation is still the king.

[Sherlock Holmes]

In today's language, the law states that every point mass attracts every other point mass by a force acting along the line intersecting the two points. The force is proportional to the product of the two masses, and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them.[5]

The equation for universal gravitation thus takes the form:

F = G m 1 m 2 r 2 , {\displaystyle F=G{\frac {m_{1}m_{2}}{r^{2}}},} {\displaystyle F=G{\frac {m_{1}m_{2}}{r^{2}}},}

where F is the gravitational force acting between two objects, m1 and m2 are the masses of the objects, r is the distance between the centers of their masses, and G is the gravitational constant.

The first test of Newton's theory of gravitation between masses in the laboratory was the Cavendish experiment conducted by the British scientist Henry Cavendish in 1798.[6] It took place 111 years after the publication of Newton's Principia and approximately 71 years after his death.

Newton's law of gravitation resembles Coulomb's law of electrical forces, which is used to calculate the magnitude of the electrical force arising between two charged bodies. Both are inverse-square laws, where force is inversely proportional to the square of the distance between the bodies. Coulomb's law has the product of two charges in place of the product of the masses, and the Coulomb constant in place of the gravitational constant.

Newton's law has since been superseded by Albert Einstein's theory of general relativity, but it continues to be used as an excellent approximation of the effects of gravity in most applications. Relativity is required only when there is a need for extreme accuracy, or when dealing with very strong gravitational fields, such as those found near extremely massive and dense objects, or at small distances (such as Mercury's orbit around the Sun).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton%27 ... ravitation

This is why, for most issues in space travel and planetary astronomy, Newton's theory of gravitation is still the king.

This is all absolutely true and undisputed by me, but the theory has been falsified do you dispute that? would you like me to explain this to you? I never said that falsified theories have no utility did I? Perhaps you are not familiar with what falsification means? a great many evolution advocates are not.

[Sherlock Holmes]

Well the fact that far from impartial evolution devotees claim the theory is not in crisis hardly serves to show that it isn't actually in crisis does it? I see that as no more credible than if white people were repeatedly claiming "there is no racism in the United States".

The fact of evolution's only in crisis so much as theists keep fussing about it.

You say "There is evidence for evolution, gobs and gobs of it" which is a huge misrepresentation, as I explained to you in my thread about the difference between evidence for and consistent with.

Now apply that argument to, "He's up there y'all, and has him a better watcher'n Santa Claus himself."

I've also explained to you in other threads that one does not evaluate the veracity of any theory by dwelling only on observations consistent with it but by actively seeking out and admitting the presence of any observations inconsistent with it, this is the basis of falsification in the sciences, I'd assumed you knew this.

When the 'inconsistent observation' is "Naw now, God did it", well there we go.

It is an oft heard "argument" from devotees, defend the theory by citing its consistencies with expectations and ignoring inconsistencies, if that's how science worked we'd still be in the dark ages.

Now we gotta fret what's consistent about a dead guy hopping up strolling into town.

Newton's theory of universal gravitation has "gobs and gobs of evidence" Barbarian yet stands falsified - you might want to consider this, its important.

Gravity, while playing a role, ain't it the only how evolution goes about the being it.

Nope, I tried but your inimitable grammatical style is beyond me, could you try rephrasing what you wrote?

[JoeyKnothead]

Well the fact that far from impartial evolution devotees claim the theory is not in crisis hardly serves to show that it isn't actually in crisis does it? I see that as no more credible than if white people were repeatedly claiming "there is no racism in the United States".

The fact of evolution's only in crisis so much as theists keep fussing about it.

You say "There is evidence for evolution, gobs and gobs of it" which is a huge misrepresentation, as I explained to you in my thread about the difference between evidence for and consistent with.

Now apply that argument to, "He's up there y'all, and has him a better watcher'n Santa Claus himself."

I've also explained to you in other threads that one does not evaluate the veracity of any theory by dwelling only on observations consistent with it but by actively seeking out and admitting the presence of any observations inconsistent with it, this is the basis of falsification in the sciences, I'd assumed you knew this.

When the 'inconsistent observation' is "Naw now, God did it", well there we go.

It is an oft heard "argument" from devotees, defend the theory by citing its consistencies with expectations and ignoring inconsistencies, if that's how science worked we'd still be in the dark ages.

Now we gotta fret what's consistent about a dead guy hopping up strolling into town.

Newton's theory of universal gravitation has "gobs and gobs of evidence" Barbarian yet stands falsified - you might want to consider this, its important.

Gravity, while playing a role, ain't it the only how evolution goes about the being it.

Nope, I tried but your inimitable grammatical style is beyond me, could you try rephrasing what you wrote?

Sure...

"The fact of evolution's only in crisis so much as theists keep fussing about it."

Means ain't nothing wrong with evolution, other'n what it is some Christians don't like about it.

"Now apply that argument to, "He's up there y'all, and has him a better watcher'n Santa Claus himself."

Means your argument there's kinda goofy, considering how God and Santa ain't never both of em seen on stage at the same time.

"When the 'inconsistent observation' is "Naw now, God did it", well there we go."

Means when it comes to 'inconsistent observations', well boy howdy.

"Now we gotta fret what's consistent about a dead guy hopping up strolling into town."

Means now we gotta fret all them inconsistencies in a story of some dead dude hopping up and strolling off to town.

"Gravity, while playing a role, ain't it the only how evolution goes about the being it."

Means gravity ain't it the only thing that has it an impact on the evolution.

[The Barbarian]

Newton's law has since been superseded by Albert Einstein's theory of general relativity, but it continues to be used as an excellent approximation of the effects of gravity in most applications. Relativity is required only when there is a need for extreme accuracy, or when dealing with very strong gravitational fields, such as those found near extremely massive and dense objects, or at small distances (such as Mercury's orbit around the Sun).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton%27 ... ravitation

This is why, for most issues in space travel and planetary astronomy, Newton's theory of gravitation is still the king.

This is all absolutely true and undisputed by me,

Of course. As most people know, Newton's theory is still taught in physics programs because it remains a useful and valid explanation for gravity. This is why NASA still uses it for space travel and predicting motion of bodies in the solar system.

but the theory has been falsified do you dispute that?

Perhaps you don't know what "falsified" means in science; many creationists do not. Would you like me to explain this to you?

But the field known as science studies (comprising the history, philosophy and sociology of science) has shown that falsification cannot work even in principle. This is because an experimental result is not a simple fact obtained directly from nature. Identifying and dating Haldane's bone involves using many other theories from diverse fields, including physics, chemistry and geology. Similarly, a theoretical prediction is never the product of a single theory but also requires using many other theories. When a “theoretical” prediction disagrees with “experimental” data, what this tells us is that that there is a disagreement between two sets of theories, so we cannot say that any particular theory is falsified.

Fortunately, falsification—or any other philosophy of science—is not necessary for the actual practice of science. The physicist Paul Dirac was right when he said, "Philosophy will never lead to important discoveries. It is just a way of talking about discoveries which have already been made.” Actual scientific history reveals that scientists break all the rules all the time, including falsification. As philosopher of science Thomas Kuhn noted, Newton's laws were retained despite the fact that they were contradicted for decades by the motions of the perihelion of Mercury and the perigee of the moon.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti ... is-a-myth/

We merely note that Newton's theory of gravitation is valid for conditions we normally encounter, but relativistic affects must be added to the theory to account for speeds that are a large fraction of the speed of light, and for very large masses in some cases.

There really isn't a theory that isn't eventually modified by new information. You have a rather naive idea of what a scientific theory is. In practice, hypotheses are tested by seeing if their predictions can be verified by evidence. If they have been repeatedly verified, the hypothesis is considered a theory and becomes useful in science. That doesn't mean that the theory is true; the Ptolemaic theory was clumsy and required a lot of additions like epicycles, but it worked. Copernicus' theory of heliocentrism wasn't accepted because it was true, but because it better explained the evidence. Copernicus even said that he wasn't asserting that his theory was true, but only that it was easier to use and more accurate than Ptolemy's theory.

I don't mean to disillusion you, but that's how science works.

[JoeyKnothead]

This is all absolutely true and undisputed by me, but the theory has been falsified do you dispute that? would you like me to explain this to you? I never said that falsified theories have no utility did I? Perhaps you are not familiar with what falsification means? a great many evolution advocates are not.

For them unawares, even if one deal becomes falsified, that don't mean an unfalsifiable theory (hypothesis), God done it, is true.

So just cause we can't use us gravity no more, we can't just say it's cause God took it away.