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So I want to ask how does one decide whether a journal is or is not peer reviewed?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

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.

No you peddled your preferred definition of what evolution is, there are umpteen to pick from.

Tour doesn't understand in the same sense I'd say:

"I'm sorry, I don't understand how you can say that" if you were to say "5 + 5 = 3".

Do you now understand what don't understand means?

[JoeyKnothead]

That's not what either of those experiments claims to demonstrate. The result of the first is not that peer review is rubbish, but that papers receive less of it than they should. Every response detailing ways that have produced better results described methods of increasing the amount of peer review. The second experiment shows that the lack of rigorous methodological expectations is what renders peer review ineffective.

But you can't make it rigorous. People have biases and robbing the reviewers of their autonomy or placing regulations on how they do things can only hurt the process.

You can, however, balance ideology so that all views have advocates and reviewers won't be able to just agree that this paper's conclusion is good so it must be good.

It's just like nature. Rigorous selection won't happen without selective pressure and at least some heterogeneity. If everyone is doing the same wrong thing, no pressure will stop them from continuing to do it; they'll just all die. You can even get ruts where doing things differently should be an advantage, but due to some form of reinforcement where what is plentiful is rewarded and what is rare is punished simply for being rare, the "better" adaptation dies and the dunces continue to occupy all the niches and thereby kill their species.

[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.

No you peddled your preferred definition of what evolution is, there are umpteen to pick from.

I use the scientific definition. Yes, creationists have all sorts of their own definitions, but in science, you have to use the scientific definition. This is how Tour got himself mixed up. He just used his imagination to invent his own definition. or borrowed one from someone who knew no more than he does. And it's always been that way. Darwin used "descent with modification"; he assumed that God just created the first living things. Those "umpteen" other definitions are pure ignorance. Evolution is just a change in allele frequencies. Descent with modification.

Tour doesn't understand in the same sense I'd say

Of course not. As you have seen, Tour doesn't actually know what biological evolution is. He just invented or borrowed one of the umpteen false definitions used by creationists (who mostly don't know what evolution is, either) So he supposed that it's about the way life began. I have to say, that even for a chemist, that's a rather ignorant supposition.

[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.

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.

No you peddled your preferred definition of what evolution is, there are umpteen to pick from.

I use the scientific definition. Yes, creationists have all sorts of their own definitions, but in science, you have to use the scientific definition. This is how Tour got himself mixed up. He just used his imagination to invent his own definition. or borrowed one from someone who knew no more than he does. And it's always been that way. Darwin used "descent with modification"; he assumed that God just created the first living things. Those "umpteen" other definitions are pure ignorance. Evolution is just a change in allele frequencies. Descent with modification.

Tour doesn't understand in the same sense I'd say

Of course not. As you have seen, Tour doesn't actually know what biological evolution is. He just invented or borrowed one of the umpteen false definitions used by creationists (who mostly don't know what evolution is, either) So he supposed that it's about the way life began. I have to say, that even for a chemist, that's a rather ignorant supposition.

I think you really mean the definition you choose to use is referred to by you as "the scientific definition", there are umpteen definitions by umpteen scientists, go and check, or do you dispute this? would you like me to show you other scientific definitions? it might help you understand what I've been saying, here - Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy

Tell me, can one understand a hypothesis that is untenable? technically without merit? undemonstrated? extrapolation? I'd say no myself. To say one understands something that is untenable seems contradictory; therefore Tour (who, with good reason) claims evolution is untenable is logically justified to say he doesn't understand it, in simple terms that may make this easier for you - there's nothing to understand.

The way the evolution soft science crowd harp on too about their oh so precious little theory, "understanding" evolution, implying only the cleverest people can possibly grasp it and so on, is rather humorous, there's nothing to understand, its a totally over rated belief that carries far too much weight, far too many people attach far too much importance to it.

[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?

There's an old saying among lawyers that the questions you avoid reveal more than the questions you answer.

I think that definitely applies here.

[Difflugia]

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?

I did. What I think of as a creationist is mutually exclusive of what I think of as a scientist. You're the one that tried to qualify that statement with "no definition of." If you want to talk about why creationists don't become scientists or vice versa, we can. If you want to keep playing word games, we can do that, too.

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.

If you asked an open question without providing definitions yourself then you did, because those both factor into my statement. If you want to provide definitions and ask if they work with my earlier statement, you could do that, instead.

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.

That definition isn't one I would use. "Has a PhD" isn't synonymous with "is a scientist."

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?

One possibility is that she's being dishonest now and making claims that she knows aren't valid, but I otherwise have no idea. I haven't read her thesis, for example, and have no other insight into how she navigated grad school. She did switch grad schools at one point, but hasn't publicly said why.

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!

I see that you're still trying to slide in absolutes, but sure, aside from some weird boundary cases, creationists can't be competent scientists. That's not to say that a creationist couldn't become a competent scientist, but then they most likely wouldn't stay a creationist.

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.

I don't think that creationism and atheism are the opposites. Christianity per se doesn't affect the ability to be a scientist and I wouldn't expect an atheist creationist to be any better at being a scientist than a Christian creationist. Since you seem to want to broaden the classes while you keep searching for a statement to hang me with, feel free to expand my argument from just creationists to all forms of science denial, whether they correlate with religious belief or not.

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.

No, that's you trying to equivocate on definitions again. For me it's 100% inevitable that a scientist who believes that evolution didn't happen WILL EXHIBIT INCOMPETENCE whether a god created the universe or not.

[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.

No you peddled your preferred definition of what evolution is, there are umpteen to pick from.

I use the scientific definition. Yes, creationists have all sorts of their own definitions, but in science, you have to use the scientific definition. This is how Tour got himself mixed up. He just used his imagination to invent his own definition. or borrowed one from someone who knew no more than he does. And it's always been that way. Darwin used "descent with modification"; he assumed that God just created the first living things. Those "umpteen" other definitions are pure ignorance. Evolution is just a change in allele frequencies. Descent with modification.

Tour doesn't understand in the same sense I'd say

Of course not. As you have seen, Tour doesn't actually know what biological evolution is. He just invented or borrowed one of the umpteen false definitions used by creationists (who mostly don't know what evolution is, either) So he supposed that it's about the way life began. I have to say, that even for a chemist, that's a rather ignorant supposition.

here - Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy

Um, philosophy isn't science. Thought you knew. Philosophers can have their own definitions, but they aren't science. And yes, Futuyma's examples are all changes in allele frequencies. Your guy just didn't know what that means.

Tell me, can one understand a hypothesis that is untenable?

I don't think changing the subject will help you. As you know, evolutionary theory is a theory because its predictions have been repeatedly verified by evidence. Would you like me to show you some of those again?

The way the evolution soft science crowd harp on too about their oh so precious little theory, "understanding" evolution, implying only the cleverest people can possibly grasp it and so on,

Horsefeathers. You could understand it if you'd be willing to accept what it is. A bright 12 year old readily understands it. C'mon.

Yes, there are parts of evolutionary theory that require more biology and math than most people have. But even there, you could understand the principle involved. Would you like to learn about some of that?

A good introduction would be Alan Hastings' Population Biology: Concepts and Models. Pg. 45, on Hardy-Weinberg equilibria, requires only elementary calculus to do the test for natural selection on selected alleles, and the principle can be grasped even without higher math:

[Sherlock Holmes]

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?

I did. What I think of as a creationist is mutually exclusive of what I think of as a scientist. You're the one that tried to qualify that statement with "no definition of." If you want to talk about why creationists don't become scientists or vice versa, we can. If you want to keep playing word games, we can do that, too.

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.

If you asked an open question without providing definitions yourself then you did, because those both factor into my statement. If you want to provide definitions and ask if they work with my earlier statement, you could do that, instead.

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.

That definition isn't one I would use. "Has a PhD" isn't synonymous with "is a scientist."

I think it is synonymous, to gain a PhD in Molecular Genetics one must possess expert knowledge in one or more of the natural sciences, one common definition of scientist; personal beliefs also do not come into it at all you'll find.

Of course the definition you'd use likely includes the phrase "and does not believe God created the universe" isn't that true?

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?

One possibility is that she's being dishonest now and making claims that she knows aren't valid, but I otherwise have no idea. I haven't read her thesis, for example, and have no other insight into how she navigated grad school. She did switch grad schools at one point, but hasn't publicly said why.

Why must your first option here be that anyone not sharing your beliefs about science must inevitably be dishonest? Are you accusing her of dishonesty? can you prove this accusation?

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!

I see that you're still trying to slide in absolutes, but sure, aside from some weird boundary cases, creationists can't be competent scientists. That's not to say that a creationist couldn't become a competent scientist, but then they most likely wouldn't stay a creationist.

You say "creationists can't be competent scientists" which is frankly blatant religious discrimination. Assessing a person's competence not on job performance but on the basis of your personal disapproval of their religious beliefs, it is because of draconian attitudes like this that we have anti discrimination laws, you'd best be careful too, saying this kind of thing at work might have consequences, don't you ever do compliance training in your job?

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.

I don't think that creationism and atheism are the opposites. Christianity per se doesn't affect the ability to be a scientist and I wouldn't expect an atheist creationist to be any better at being a scientist than a Christian creationist.

Man we are struggling aren't we! You say "Christianity doesn't affect the ability to be a scientist" and right above that you wrote "creationists can't be competent scientists" I can only assume you had no idea that Christianity carries the belief that God created everything, this is the most blatantly absurd contradiction I've seen from you yet.

Since you seem to want to broaden the classes while you keep searching for a statement to hang me with, feel free to expand my argument from just creationists to all forms of science denial, whether they correlate with religious belief or not.

There ya go! "creationism" is "science denial" (whatever that means!). Odd then that most of the seminal scientists before and during and sometime after the scientific revolution, were creationists, these readily verified facts pretty much blows your claim out of the water, and you being a scientist and all!

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.

No, that's you trying to equivocate on definitions again. For me it's 100% inevitable that a scientist who believes that evolution didn't happen WILL EXHIBIT INCOMPETENCE whether a god created the universe or not.

Your words were "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" then you sneak in "who believes that evolution didn't happen" as you struggle to backpedal.

You really do not understand what discrimination is do you? A person's competency is not determined by what you think their beliefs mean, they are determined by objective measures, the same objective measures that everyone else doing that job, is measured against.

Some of what you post here carries sinister overtones, you should think about that.

[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.

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.

No you peddled your preferred definition of what evolution is, there are umpteen to pick from.

I use the scientific definition. Yes, creationists have all sorts of their own definitions, but in science, you have to use the scientific definition. This is how Tour got himself mixed up. He just used his imagination to invent his own definition. or borrowed one from someone who knew no more than he does. And it's always been that way. Darwin used "descent with modification"; he assumed that God just created the first living things. Those "umpteen" other definitions are pure ignorance. Evolution is just a change in allele frequencies. Descent with modification.

Tour doesn't understand in the same sense I'd say

Of course not. As you have seen, Tour doesn't actually know what biological evolution is. He just invented or borrowed one of the umpteen false definitions used by creationists (who mostly don't know what evolution is, either) So he supposed that it's about the way life began. I have to say, that even for a chemist, that's a rather ignorant supposition.

here - Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy

Um, philosophy isn't science. Thought you knew. Philosophers can have their own definitions, but they aren't science. And yes, Futuyma's examples are all changes in allele frequencies. Your guy just didn't know what that means.

Tell me, can one understand a hypothesis that is untenable?

I don't think changing the subject will help you. As you know, evolutionary theory is a theory because its predictions have been repeatedly verified by evidence. Would you like me to show you some of those again?

The way the evolution soft science crowd harp on too about their oh so precious little theory, "understanding" evolution, implying only the cleverest people can possibly grasp it and so on,

Horsefeathers. You could understand it if you'd be willing to accept what it is. A bright 12 year old readily understands it. C'mon.

The people quoted in the Encyclopedia of Philosophy are biologists, not philosophers in case you missed that important detail.

Where is your definition of evolution to be found? why do you think your favorite definition is the "one true definition"? aren't you getting somewhat religious over all this?

Anyone who really gets to understand evolution quickly abandons it for the sham that it is.

Finally I suggest you peruse this post of mine, nobody I've ever asked either in person or in endless debating forums including this one, was ever able to answer it.

[Jose Fly]

"Has a PhD" isn't synonymous with "is a scientist."

I think it is synonymous, to gain a PhD in Molecular Genetics one must possess expert knowledge in one or more of the natural sciences, one common definition of scientist; personal beliefs also do not come into it at all you'll find.

That's positively hilarious (and absurd).

I do not have a PhD. I have a BS and an MS, and my job title is "Senior Biologist". One of my classmates during grad school went on to get his PhD in biochemistry, but soon after earning it he decided he didn't want to that anymore and he's now an executive at a marketing agency.

If "having a PhD" is synonymous with "is a scientist", then I am not a scientist and my former classmate is.

Dude...you really should think things through before posting.