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So I want to ask how does one decide whether a journal is or is not peer reviewed?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

"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.

Good, we're getting somewhere at long last, congratulations.

Oh, you should also check out the definition of "synonymous", here's the one I use:

If you say that one thing is synonymous with another, you mean that the two things are very closely associated with each other so that one suggests the other or one cannot exist without the other.

Paris has always been synonymous with elegance, luxury and style.

See? does that mean elegance, luxury and style exist only in Paris? No. Does that mean that we can that say holding a PhD in Molecular Genetics pretty much makes one a scientist? yes it does.

[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.

Good, we're getting somewhere at long last, congratulations.

Wow. Whatever credibility you had is now gone. Your posts are starting to read like a standard, run of the mill fundamentalist (IOW, like a 5 year old).

Grow up, please.

[Sherlock Holmes]

"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.

Good, we're getting somewhere at long last, congratulations.

Wow. Whatever credibility you had is now gone. Your posts are starting to read like a standard, run of the mill fundamentalist (IOW, like a 5 year old).

Grow up, please.

So serious, where's the levity, this is just a forum Jose, if speaking with me angers you then stop speaking to me, I don't see any reason for all the anger, fury and so on, quite ridiculous.

[The Barbarian]

It seems to me that the idea that getting a PhD is all there is to being a scientist, is faulty thinking. It's even less reasonable to suppose that if one has a PhD in something, that one is thereby an expert in something else.

We have seen here, the example of a PhD biochemist who doesn't even know what evolution is. He might be a great chemist, but he's a pathetically bad biologist.

[The Barbarian]

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

No names? Okay.

Where is your definition of evolution to be found?

Evolution Definition
Evolution is defined as a change in the genetic composition of a population over successive generations.
https://www.biologyonline.com/dictionary/evolution

The "allele-frequency" definition of evolution has survived to become the "standard" definition in textbooks and discussions about the nature of evolution.
https://ncse.ngo/defining-evolution

Evolution can be precisely defined as any change in the frequency of alleles within a gene pool from one generation to the next
Biology; Fifth Edition Curtis and Barnes

why do you think your favorite definition is the "one true definition"?

It's the one that biologists use. 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.

Notice that your biochemist, who admits that he doesn't understand it (and demonstrates the fact by claiming that it's about the origin of life) rejects it. You seem to have it precisely backwards.

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.

I'll take a look at it.

[The Barbarian]

Here's your post, in which you declare that genes are like faces on a Rubik's cube:

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.

Interesting assumption, but a very bad one. Show me one gene that could not possibly have come about by mutation.

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.

Show me one of these preachers who says that these Rubik's cubes could have so changed.

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.

Well, that's a testable assumption. Show me one gene that could not have been produced by mutation of a different gene.

So show me please, show me the proof that the human genome is a molecular configuration that is reachable from a worm genome

Sure. Let's look at an actual example in worms and humans:

The primary structure of cytochrome c from the nematode Caenorhabditis elegans
PMID: 2173902 PMCID: PMC1149606 DOI: 10.1042/bj2710613

Abstract
The complete amino acid sequence of cytochrome c from the nematode Caenorhabditis elegans was determined. The native protein displays the same spectral properties in the oxidized and reduced states as horse heart cytochrome c. The apoprotein consists of 110 amino acid residues and differs from human cytochrome c by 44 substitutions, one internal deletion, five N-terminal additions and two C-terminal additions. One of the substitutions is the replacement of an 'invariant' phenylalanine residue at position 15 by tyrosine. The N-terminal sequence extension contains a short peptide motif, which is highly homologous with a peptide fragment present at the N-terminus of annelid and insect cytochrome c sequences. From the number of amino acid changes and the evolutionary rate of cytochrome c it would appear that nematodes diverged from a line leading to man about 1.4 billion years ago. When similar data based on the amino acid sequences of the histones H1, H2A, H2B and H3 are taken into account, the average estimate is 1.1 +/- 0.1 billion years.

Fifty-two mutations separate the two, meaning that they've diverged by an average of 26 mutations over maybe a billion years. Quite doable.

rather than being impossible to ever reach from a worm genome - just as shown above in the simple case of a Rubik's cube.

Your assumption: "Genomes are perfectly mapable on Rubik cubes" is just wildly faulty thinking.

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

Remember what biological evolution is: "a change in allele frequency in a population over time." This is just one more of those situations. Did you really think this was a problem for biologists? BTW, there's another issue here regarding possible/impossible or at least possible/improbable that makes your Rubik model unrealistic. Can you guess what it is?

[JoeyKnothead]

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.

Take the stickers off and rearrange em.

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.

I'm unaware of any credible biologist who thinks Rubik's cubes're bound to evolutionary processes.

Analogies are a poor way to determine truth.

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.

Now ya mention legal moves.

Please disregard my snarky sticker comment above.

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.

Like most things, reasonable and logical conclusions'll rule the day.

Considering all we know about evolution, there's no need to conclude a god desired him some prime fishing bait, when that god can poof him up a creel full with less than the blink of an eye.

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

If we can't explain a given progression, that doesn't change the fact...

Evolution occurs whether it upsets the gods or not.

[Difflugia]

If you want to keep playing word games, we can do that, too.

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?

Fine. Word games it is.

You're working awfully hard to get me to affirm things that I've already specifically disclaimed. If you think you're making valid arguments, that alone should be enough to give you pause.

Why must your first option here be that anyone not sharing your beliefs about science must inevitably be dishonest?

It's not. My first option is that she's incompetent. You presented as an axiom that a PhD is a priori demonstration of competence as though that contradicts something I've said. Instead, if she's competent, then dishonesty is another possibility.

Are you accusing her of dishonesty? can you prove this accusation?

That went from zero to sixty in nothing flat.

You say "creationists can't be competent scientists" which is frankly blatant religious discrimination.

So you keep asserting. In the first place, you're equivocating on whether creationism is a religious position or a scientific position. I've already said that someone treating creationism as a purely religious dogma that doesn't affect their evaluation of data isn't who I'm talking about. Why don't you take me at my word?

Second, you're equivocating on "discrimination." I'd been ignoring your strange bit of armchair lawyering, but lack of pushback has apparently led you to believe that it's a fruitful avenue of debate. You keep claiming that I'm in some sort of vague legal danger, which is itself a weird argument, but legal definitions of unfair discrimination don't involve me thinking that creationism is evidence of incompetence or telling you that creationism as a scientific opinion is evidence of poor scientific thinking. Even if our corporate lawyers thought that being a creationist conferred protected class status onto someone, me saying that they're incompetent isn't illegal as long as I don't do it in a way that creates a hostile work environment. Indeed, if higher management thought that me saying that made me an unfit employee, they could fire me for it, but only because my expressed opinion isn't protected speech in a corporate setting. They could equally fire me for claiming that my boss is a big doodie head (I DON'T ACTUALLY THINK THAT, CHRIS!). If we give your argument the benefit of the doubt, they might not be able to fire me if I say I'm a creationist, but it also wouldn't be unfair discrimination per se for them to follow up and tell me that I'd better not let my poor thinking skills affect my job performance. If they were then to continue saying it to me without actual evidence of poor performance, that might again be considered a hostile work environment. It's also possible that a court could rule that being a creationist puts someone in a protected class, but in that case, that would just mean that poor performance as a direct result of my being in the class is itself protected and my employers must find a way to accommodate me, even if that means changing my job description. They're still allowed to say that my being a creationist makes me a bad scientist.

tl;dr—Without saying more, I'm at a point in my career where, for various reasons, I have to understand these kinds of distinctions. You haven't given me anything to worry about.

There ya go! "creationism" is "science denial" (whatever that means!).

I guess I assumed that someone with such a storied history of confronting atheists would have crossed paths with the phrase. This Wikipedia entry explains it pretty well.

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!

Only if you think it's odd that there were phlogiston chemists before those things were disproven. Of course, phlogiston chemists would be odd now, but that's not what you're saying, is it? For the record, I wouldn't hire one of those, either.

You really do not understand what discrimination is do you?

CLEARLY NOT

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.

You've got that backwards. Legally, discrimination against a protected class has nothing to do at all with competence. On the other hand, a rock-solid defense against discrimination is a demonstration of incompetence for a reason that isn't protected.

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

I'll pencil it in.

[Jose Fly]

So serious, where's the levity, this is just a forum Jose, if speaking with me angers you then stop speaking to me, I don't see any reason for all the anger, fury and so on, quite ridiculous.

Li'l tip.....next time just admit your mistake. You gain a lot more credibility by doing that than by doubling down.

[Sherlock Holmes]

If you want to keep playing word games, we can do that, too.

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?

Fine. Word games it is.

You're working awfully hard to get me to affirm things that I've already specifically disclaimed. If you think you're making valid arguments, that alone should be enough to give you pause.

Why must your first option here be that anyone not sharing your beliefs about science must inevitably be dishonest?

It's not. My first option is that she's incompetent. You presented as an axiom that a PhD is a priori demonstration of competence as though that contradicts something I've said. Instead, if she's competent, then dishonesty is another possibility.

Are you accusing her of dishonesty? can you prove this accusation?

That went from zero to sixty in nothing flat.

You say "creationists can't be competent scientists" which is frankly blatant religious discrimination.

So you keep asserting. In the first place, you're equivocating on whether creationism is a religious position or a scientific position. I've already said that someone treating creationism as a purely religious dogma that doesn't affect their evaluation of data isn't who I'm talking about. Why don't you take me at my word?

Second, you're equivocating on "discrimination." I'd been ignoring your strange bit of armchair lawyering, but lack of pushback has apparently led you to believe that it's a fruitful avenue of debate. You keep claiming that I'm in some sort of vague legal danger, which is itself a weird argument, but legal definitions of unfair discrimination don't involve me thinking that creationism is evidence of incompetence or telling you that creationism as a scientific opinion is evidence of poor scientific thinking. Even if our corporate lawyers thought that being a creationist conferred protected class status onto someone, me saying that they're incompetent isn't illegal as long as I don't do it in a way that creates a hostile work environment. Indeed, if higher management thought that me saying that made me an unfit employee, they could fire me for it, but only because my expressed opinion isn't protected speech in a corporate setting. They could equally fire me for claiming that my boss is a big doodie head (I DON'T ACTUALLY THINK THAT, CHRIS!). If we give your argument the benefit of the doubt, they might not be able to fire me if I say I'm a creationist, but it also wouldn't be unfair discrimination per se for them to follow up and tell me that I'd better not let my poor thinking skills affect my job performance. If they were then to continue saying it to me without actual evidence of poor performance, that might again be considered a hostile work environment. It's also possible that a court could rule that being a creationist puts someone in a protected class, but in that case, that would just mean that poor performance as a direct result of my being in the class is itself protected and my employers must find a way to accommodate me, even if that means changing my job description. They're still allowed to say that my being a creationist makes me a bad scientist.

tl;dr—Without saying more, I'm at a point in my career where, for various reasons, I have to understand these kinds of distinctions. You haven't given me anything to worry about.

There ya go! "creationism" is "science denial" (whatever that means!).

I guess I assumed that someone with such a storied history of confronting atheists would have crossed paths with the phrase. This Wikipedia entry explains it pretty well.

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!

Only if you think it's odd that there were phlogiston chemists before those things were disproven. Of course, phlogiston chemists would be odd now, but that's not what you're saying, is it? For the record, I wouldn't hire one of those, either.

You really do not understand what discrimination is do you?

CLEARLY NOT

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.

You've got that backwards. Legally, discrimination against a protected class has nothing to do at all with competence. On the other hand, a rock-solid defense against discrimination is a demonstration of incompetence for a reason that isn't protected.

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

I'll pencil it in.

You said "My first option is that she's incompetent", do you have any evidence to support this? how can you show it's nothing more than bias?

Also your first option was indeed that she was dishonest, because you originally wrote:

One possibility is that she's being dishonest now and making claims that she knows aren't valid, but I otherwise have no idea.

So my question - which you evaded - remains unanswered, it was: Why must your first option here be that anyone not sharing your beliefs about science must inevitably be dishonest?