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So I want to ask how does one decide whether a journal is or is not peer reviewed?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?

[Sherlock Holmes]

Nobody can understand a mechanism that is not feasible, claiming to understand evolution is like claiming to understand Star Trek or Dr. Who, sounds lofty, makes some kind of "sense" to the uninformed.

Good grief, are you actually serious? Apparently you still refuse to acknowledge that the process of evolution, and the mechanisms that drive it, are directly observed reality....things we see occur with our own eyes every single day.

I've seen creationists engage in denialism before, but this is a whole different level. You may as well claim that no one can "understand erosion".

That the genome fluctuates over time is not disputed, if you want to insist that "evolution" has a single undisputed definition then you're in trouble.

In a popular textbook, Douglas Futuyma gives a more expansive definition:

[biological evolution] is change in the properties of groups of organisms over the course of generations…it embraces everything from slight changes in the proportions of different forms of a gene within a population to the alterations that led from the earliest organism to dinosaurs, bees, oaks, and humans. (2005: 2)

Note also that Futuyma’s definition, unlike the population genetics’ definition, does not limit itself to changes in alleles; John Endler’s definition is similar in this respect:

Evolution may be defined as any net directional change or any cumulative change in the characteristics of organisms or populations over many generations—in other words, descent with modification… It explicitly includes the origin as well as the spread of alleles, variants, trait values, or character states. (Endler 1986: 5)

When I use the term evolution I use the first definition above as it represents more or less the scope that the majority of people understand by the term evolution. It is the feasibility of nature to what is stated in that first definition that I dispute.

In mathematics there is an abstraction called a "group" which essential is a set together with a rule for combining elements to yield another element.

The claim by evolutionists that the genome is unbounded, that is repeated application of the rule (sexual reproduction) can lead to ever increasing diversity is what I question.

How does one prove that the group represented by any genome is not a finite group under reproduction?

You cannot, I am not aware of any such proof or test or demonstration, it is pure supposition.

[Jose Fly]

Nobody can understand a mechanism that is not feasible, claiming to understand evolution is like claiming to understand Star Trek or Dr. Who, sounds lofty, makes some kind of "sense" to the uninformed.

Good grief, are you actually serious? Apparently you still refuse to acknowledge that the process of evolution, and the mechanisms that drive it, are directly observed reality....things we see occur with our own eyes every single day.

I've seen creationists engage in denialism before, but this is a whole different level. You may as well claim that no one can "understand erosion".

That the genome fluctuates over time is not disputed, if you want to insist that "evolution" has a single undisputed definition then you're in trouble.

In a popular textbook, Douglas Futuyma gives a more expansive definition:

[biological evolution] is change in the properties of groups of organisms over the course of generations…it embraces everything from slight changes in the proportions of different forms of a gene within a population to the alterations that led from the earliest organism to dinosaurs, bees, oaks, and humans. (2005: 2)

Note also that Futuyma’s definition, unlike the population genetics’ definition, does not limit itself to changes in alleles; John Endler’s definition is similar in this respect:

Evolution may be defined as any net directional change or any cumulative change in the characteristics of organisms or populations over many generations—in other words, descent with modification… It explicitly includes the origin as well as the spread of alleles, variants, trait values, or character states. (Endler 1986: 5)

When I use the term evolution I use the first definition above as it represents more or less the scope that the majority of people understand by the term evolution. It is the feasibility of nature to what is stated in that first definition that I dispute.

So you agree that populations evolve, and that evolutionary mechanisms generate new traits, abilities, genetic sequences, and species?

[Sherlock Holmes]

Nobody can understand a mechanism that is not feasible, claiming to understand evolution is like claiming to understand Star Trek or Dr. Who, sounds lofty, makes some kind of "sense" to the uninformed.

Good grief, are you actually serious? Apparently you still refuse to acknowledge that the process of evolution, and the mechanisms that drive it, are directly observed reality....things we see occur with our own eyes every single day.

I've seen creationists engage in denialism before, but this is a whole different level. You may as well claim that no one can "understand erosion".

That the genome fluctuates over time is not disputed, if you want to insist that "evolution" has a single undisputed definition then you're in trouble.

In a popular textbook, Douglas Futuyma gives a more expansive definition:

[biological evolution] is change in the properties of groups of organisms over the course of generations…it embraces everything from slight changes in the proportions of different forms of a gene within a population to the alterations that led from the earliest organism to dinosaurs, bees, oaks, and humans. (2005: 2)

Note also that Futuyma’s definition, unlike the population genetics’ definition, does not limit itself to changes in alleles; John Endler’s definition is similar in this respect:

Evolution may be defined as any net directional change or any cumulative change in the characteristics of organisms or populations over many generations—in other words, descent with modification… It explicitly includes the origin as well as the spread of alleles, variants, trait values, or character states. (Endler 1986: 5)

When I use the term evolution I use the first definition above as it represents more or less the scope that the majority of people understand by the term evolution. It is the feasibility of nature to what is stated in that first definition that I dispute.

So you agree that populations evolve, and that evolutionary mechanisms generate new traits, abilities, genetic sequences, and species?

I consider evolution to be a group operation and I do not know of any proof that the group is not finite, bounded.

Consider a Rubiks cube - that is a (permutation) group, and no matter what moves one make of the surfaces the end results is never outside of a know fixed set and no new element is possible. You can fiddle with one for centuries but you will never get a configuration that is outside of the bounds, the possibilities, of the group.

You and most evolutionists glibly skip over this, the assumption is that there is no bound, worms left to reproduce can in theory eventually lead to fish after millions of generations, whereas it could be the case that we never ever get anything other than a variation of a worm.

This assumption that the operation can lead to arbitrarily rich morphologies is not testable because it (is said to) requires vast periods of time.

So how do you know for certain, 100% that the genome does not behave like a sophisticated Rubik's cube permutation group?

[Jose Fly]

So you agree that populations evolve, and that evolutionary mechanisms generate new traits, abilities, genetic sequences, and species?

I consider evolution to be a group operation and I do not know of any proof that the group is not finite, bounded.

Wow. I've seen creationists dodge questions countless times, but this has to be one of the most egregious and bizarre dodges I've seen. Obviously you really, really don't want to give a straight answer, which begs the question.....why? What is it about that question that has made you so afraid to answer it that you'll do the above?

[Sherlock Holmes]

So you agree that populations evolve, and that evolutionary mechanisms generate new traits, abilities, genetic sequences, and species?

I consider evolution to be a group operation and I do not know of any proof that the group is not finite, bounded.

Wow. I've seen creationists dodge questions countless times, but this has to be one of the most egregious and bizarre dodges I've seen. Obviously you really, really don't want to give a straight answer, which begs the question.....why? What is it about that question that has made you so afraid to answer it that you'll do the above?

I consider the wording of your question deceptive. You want me to agree that the genome changes (it does) and then on that basis feel it is then inevitable that worms can become lizards (they can't) - given "enough" time and suitable conditions.

You believe that because change occurs then everything we see must be due to an accumulation of such changes, this is pitifully illogical.

[Sherlock Holmes]

Read and try to understand.



See? the image on the right is IMPOSSIBLE to reach with a Rubik's cube, no matter how many times and in how many ways, one fiddles with it, it cannot ever lead to that right hand image.

What these evolution preachers do is ignore this reality, they look at that right hand configuration and insist that it could have - nay, that it DID - arise from the left hand configuration under the normal laws of chemistry, mutations and so on.

But those laws of chemistry and mutability and so on, like a Rubik's cube's laws of legal possible manipulations, could also have such behavior that they too make certain outcomes impossible - you merrily assume this cannot happen.

So show me please, show me the proof that the human genome is a molecular configuration that is reachable from a worm genome rather than being impossible to ever reach from a worm genome - just as shown above in the simple case of a Rubik's cube.

You either can offer a proof or you cannot and if you cannot then obviously "evolution is a fact" is an untrue statement.

[Difflugia]

Was it a scientist who was also a creationist or was it a non-scientists creationist? How you can stand by what you wrote is quite baffling, it suggests that - for you - facts are not relevant when it comes advocating the evolution doctrine.

Does it? That's interesting. Do you think "it suggests that" to everyone or just to you? I wonder if that says more about you or me.

Lets just ask a simple question - can a person be both a scientist and a creationist? are you able to answer this question?

In principle, sure. I'm sure it's possible for some people to compartmentalize the ability to evaluate evidence in a way that they apply it to their own scientific specialty, but not biology. I suppose that it's also possible to define "scientist" in a way that doesn't imply being a good scientist.

If you want to argue that a scientist cannot be a creationist then you'll be in trouble as there's no definition I've ever seen of "scientist" that includes such a stipulation, perhaps you can show me one?

If you want to play at dictionary definitions, then the best you're going to get is that my earlier statement wasn't precise enough, like how contrasting a motorcycle with an automobile would be technically incorrect. We could, for example, find someone like Georgia Purdom, who has a PhD in molecular genetics. On the one hand, she has the qualifications of a scientist, but on the other, I've read her stuff and she makes mistakes that no minimally competent scientist should make. Is she a scientist? Maybe technically, but for the purposes of the earlier part of the discussion, I didn't feel the need to qualify either "scientist" or "creationist" to account for her. Since you have now created a straw man out of my statement in which there is "no definition" of scientist that can include creationists, I suppose I could. Let's change "scientists" to "competent scientists." If you think it's important to nail down exactly what constitutes competency, I suppose it's possible that that would be more fun than tedious.

As I said elsewhere too, espousing such a view in a professional science oriented employment setting could amount to religious discrimination, a federal crime nonetheless.

Again, in principle, I suppose, but any scientist that does more than pay lip service to creationism will make the kind of mistakes that would call their professional competency into question independently. In practice, things actually tend to go the other way. People that are creationist rarely compartmentalize fauly reasoning as much as they need to and it appears in other areas as well. Even when giving them the benefit of enough doubt to avoid the very appearance of religious discrimination, it's generally the kind of problem that resolves itself.

[Jose Fly]

I consider the wording of your question deceptive.

Sure you do....or this could just be a defensive mechanism you're employing to avoid having to answer a simple, straightforward question.

You want me to agree that the genome changes (it does) and then on that basis feel it is then inevitable that worms can become lizards (they can't) - given "enough" time and suitable conditions.

I never said anything like that at all. Again, you seem to be utilizing some pretty transparent defenses so that you won't have to answer a simple question.

You believe that because change occurs then everything we see must be due to an accumulation of such changes, this is pitifully illogical.

Wow....all that from being asked if you agree that populations evolve and that evolutionary mechanisms generate new traits, abilities, and genetic sequences.

Obviously you're quite afraid of what will happen if you answered "yes". You're afraid that your answer will be used against you in future debates about universal common ancestry, so it's far safer for you to just dodge the question altogether no matter how ridiculous doing so makes you look. And that leads me to wonder....

Let's say that universal common ancestry via evolution is true...just for the sake of argument. How would that affect you? What effects would it have on your religious beliefs and beliefs about God and the Bible? Would you have to change churches? Would you lose friends? Family members?

[Sherlock Holmes]

Was it a scientist who was also a creationist or was it a non-scientists creationist? How you can stand by what you wrote is quite baffling, it suggests that - for you - facts are not relevant when it comes advocating the evolution doctrine.

Does it? That's interesting. Do you think "it suggests that" to everyone or just to you? I wonder if that says more about you or me.

It is quite interesting I agree, its also an undeniable fact - this is what you said "It's eerily similar to watching a creationist try to argue with a scientist" now unless the blue words are intended to be mutually exclusive the sentence makes no sense whatsoever, so did you mean them to be mutually exclusive or is it true that the statement you made is non sensical?

Lets just ask a simple question - can a person be both a scientist and a creationist? are you able to answer this question?

In principle, sure. I'm sure it's possible for some people to compartmentalize the ability to evaluate evidence in a way that they apply it to their own scientific specialty, but not biology. I suppose that it's also possible to define "scientist" in a way that doesn't imply being a good scientist.

Well I did not ask for your personal opinion on the efficacy of their means of "evaluating evidence" or for a psuedo-psychology assessment that they might "compartmentalize" did I? I asked if a person can be both a scientist and a creationist. A scientist being a person who has satisfied an exam board as to their understanding of some branch of science earning say a degree or doctorate - that a person can and at the same time believe the universe was created is clearly a routine occurrence.

If you want to argue that a scientist cannot be a creationist then you'll be in trouble as there's no definition I've ever seen of "scientist" that includes such a stipulation, perhaps you can show me one?

If you want to play at dictionary definitions, then the best you're going to get is that my earlier statement wasn't precise enough, like how contrasting a motorcycle with an automobile would be technically incorrect. We could, for example, find someone like Georgia Purdom, who has a PhD in molecular genetics. On the one hand, she has the qualifications of a scientist, but on the other, I've read her stuff and she makes mistakes that no minimally competent scientist should make. Is she a scientist? Maybe technically, but for the purposes of the earlier part of the discussion, I didn't feel the need to qualify either "scientist" or "creationist" to account for her. Since you have now created a straw man out of my statement in which there is "no definition" of scientist that can include creationists, I suppose I could. Let's change "scientists" to "competent scientists." If you think it's important to nail down exactly what constitutes competency, I suppose it's possible that that would be more fun than tedious.

Wow! you say of Perdom "she makes mistakes that no minimally competent scientist should make" so to what should I pay heed? your personal opinion of her work or the fact that she received a doctorate from Ohio State University in the subject? How does one get a doctorate if they are not competent in a subject?

Why not just save a lot of typing and argue that a person who is a creationist cannot ever be a very competent scientist, just come out and say it!

This exactly what the discrimination laws are for to avoid people being professionally disadvantaged just because their bosses or managers hold a different set of beliefs, this is why James Damor was rightly fired by Google, he felt that there was evidence that females made worse engineers than males, just as you feel creationists make worse scientists than atheists.

As I said elsewhere too, espousing such a view in a professional science oriented employment setting could amount to religious discrimination, a federal crime nonetheless.

Again, in principle, I suppose, but any scientist that does more than pay lip service to creationism will make the kind of mistakes that would call their professional competency into question independently. In practice, things actually tend to go the other way. People that are creationist rarely compartmentalize fauly reasoning as much as they need to and it appears in other areas as well. Even when giving them the benefit of enough doubt to avoid the very appearance of religious discrimination, it's generally the kind of problem that resolves itself.

There you go again! You didn't even bother to say "might make the kind of mistakes" ! For you it is 100% inevitable that a scientist who believes God created the universe WILL EXHIBIT INCOMPETENCE! Discrimination case CY6705R closed your honor.

[The Barbarian]

Nobody can understand a mechanism that is not feasible, claiming to understand evolution is like claiming to understand Star Trek or Dr. Who, sounds lofty, makes some kind of "sense" to the uninformed.

Think back when I showed you what biological evolution is. Remember? A change in allele frequencies in a population over time. It's observed daily by scientists and others. So it's not hard to understand. Tour, being a layman when it comes to biology, just doesn't even know enough to understand what it is.

Darwin figured out the mechanism a very long time ago. Do you remember when I showed you that? It's repeatedly observed to happen.

As you learned, Tour thought it's about the way life began. Crazy as that sounds, that's what he thought. Because he's uninformed.