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So I want to ask how does one decide whether a journal is or is not peer reviewed?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

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.

This is a revelation, biology, genetics, DNA, cell replication, protein synthesis etc, etc, etc does not involve chemistry?? and you say he doesn't understand!

I really think its telling that you dismiss an authority on these areas when these areas are the foundation of what actually goes on that makes evolution (supposedly) happen.

[Sherlock Holmes]

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.

That's the very point we don't know if they can or can't, and because we don't know you cannot honestly claim that we absolutely did come from shrews or worms - unless we can show one way or the other we do not know so stop pretending you do.

To support that belief the burden of proof is on YOU to prove that the human genome is reachable naturally from say a mouse genome.

It is YOU the evolution advocates who is effectively claiming the human genome can be reached from a worm genome, yet you have no proof that this is possible or impossible.

The Rubik cube is used as a much simpler example of a digital data store target state that is unreachable from a starting state - unless one tampers with the cube.

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.

The cube is an analogy for the much more complex DNA molecule, so you are insisting that the human genome (a very complex molecular data store) can be reached from a worm genome under the influence of nothing but natural forces.

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.

My dear fellow, I have not asserted that the human genome cannot be reached from a prehistoric worm genome, so I carry no burden of proof.

You assert that it can and so YOU carry a burden of proof.

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?

Describing the difference between two configurations does not prove that one configuration is reachable from the other, just as describing the differences and similarities between the two Rubik cubes does not prove that the latter is reachable from the former (and in the case of the cube we know it is not).

The entire evolution doctrine is based on superficial, naïve extrapolation, just as would be the claim that if we tried for long enough we could change the first cube configuration into the second:

Tell me, can the latter ever be obtained from the former without tampering with the cube?

[Jose Fly]

That's the very point we don't know if they can or can't, and because we don't know you cannot honestly claim that we absolutely did come from shrews or worms - unless we can show one way or the other we do not know so stop pretending you do.

To support that belief the burden of proof is on YOU to prove that the human genome is reachable naturally from say a mouse genome.

Oh brother.....

First of all, we do know that evolutionary mechanisms can produce novel genes. Had you spent any time actually studying the subject you're attempting to debate, you would have known that.

Second, the fact that you think the human genome is a descendant of a mouse genome is further evidence of your fundamental ignorance of the subject matter. You may as well be asking if my genome could have come from my cousin's.

So again I have to wonder.....why are you trying to debate a subject you know so little about? If you're really interested in it, why not take a break from arguing about it and take the time to.....get this.....study it a bit?

The entire evolution doctrine is based on superficial, naïve extrapolation

LOL....how would you know? You literally have less than a high school understanding of biology, never mind evolutionary biology and genetics, yet you feel you're qualified to make this sort of proclamation?

I've always been struck by how fundamentalists, despite all their rhetoric about being humble and not being full of pride are so often the exact opposite of what they preach.

[Sherlock Holmes]

That's the very point we don't know if they can or can't, and because we don't know you cannot honestly claim that we absolutely did come from shrews or worms - unless we can show one way or the other we do not know so stop pretending you do.

To support that belief the burden of proof is on YOU to prove that the human genome is reachable naturally from say a mouse genome.

Oh brother.....

First of all, we do know that evolutionary mechanisms can produce novel genes. Had you spent any time actually studying the subject you're attempting to debate, you would have known that.

Second, the fact that you think the human genome is a descendant of a mouse genome is further evidence of your fundamental ignorance of the subject matter. You may as well be asking if my genome could have come from my cousin's.

So again I have to wonder.....why are you trying to debate a subject you know so little about? If you're really interested in it, why not take a break from arguing about it and take the time to.....get this.....study it a bit?

Lord in heaven!

We know that randomly manipulating the first cube can produce "novel" configurations therefore the latter configuration can definitely be reached by a sufficient number of random manipulations?

Is that your position? yes or no? if this is hard to answer just study it a lot.

[Jose Fly]

That's the very point we don't know if they can or can't, and because we don't know you cannot honestly claim that we absolutely did come from shrews or worms - unless we can show one way or the other we do not know so stop pretending you do.

To support that belief the burden of proof is on YOU to prove that the human genome is reachable naturally from say a mouse genome.

Oh brother.....

First of all, we do know that evolutionary mechanisms can produce novel genes. Had you spent any time actually studying the subject you're attempting to debate, you would have known that.

Second, the fact that you think the human genome is a descendant of a mouse genome is further evidence of your fundamental ignorance of the subject matter. You may as well be asking if my genome could have come from my cousin's.

So again I have to wonder.....why are you trying to debate a subject you know so little about? If you're really interested in it, why not take a break from arguing about it and take the time to.....get this.....study it a bit?

Lord in heaven!

We know that randomly manipulating the first cube can produce "novel" configurations therefore the latter configuration can definitely be reached by a sufficient number of random manipulations?

Is that your position? yes or no? if this is hard to answer just study it a lot.

Let me be clear here....I don't give two craps about squares on cubes. If you want to discuss genetics, then stick to genetics. But then, it's quite likely that you know as little about that subject as you do evolutionary biology.....which I suppose is why you have to employ analogies.

[Sherlock Holmes]

That's the very point we don't know if they can or can't, and because we don't know you cannot honestly claim that we absolutely did come from shrews or worms - unless we can show one way or the other we do not know so stop pretending you do.

To support that belief the burden of proof is on YOU to prove that the human genome is reachable naturally from say a mouse genome.

Oh brother.....

First of all, we do know that evolutionary mechanisms can produce novel genes. Had you spent any time actually studying the subject you're attempting to debate, you would have known that.

Second, the fact that you think the human genome is a descendant of a mouse genome is further evidence of your fundamental ignorance of the subject matter. You may as well be asking if my genome could have come from my cousin's.

So again I have to wonder.....why are you trying to debate a subject you know so little about? If you're really interested in it, why not take a break from arguing about it and take the time to.....get this.....study it a bit?

Lord in heaven!

We know that randomly manipulating the first cube can produce "novel" configurations therefore the latter configuration can definitely be reached by a sufficient number of random manipulations?

Is that your position? yes or no? if this is hard to answer just study it a lot.

Let me be clear here....I don't give two craps about squares on cubes. If you want to discuss genetics, then stick to genetics. But then, it's quite likely that you know as little about that subject as you do evolutionary biology.....which I suppose is why you have to employ analogies.

Was that a "yes" or a "no"?? If the cube upsets you would you prefer I discuss this with you in terms of pure abstract algebra? group theory? category theory?

How about this then?

[Jose Fly]

Was that a "yes" or a "no"??

That's a "I don't care about a ridiculous analogy presented by someone who's only using it because he is completely unqualified to discuss the actual subject on its own".

[Sherlock Holmes]

Was that a "yes" or a "no"??

That's a "I don't care about a ridiculous analogy presented by someone who's only using it because he is completely unqualified to discuss the actual subject on its own".

Of course, you refuse to answer my questions. So, are you claiming that long term genome changes cannot be modelled by group theory?

[Jose Fly]

Of course, you refuse to answer my questions.

Because squares on a cube are irrelevant to genetics. Duh.

So, are you claiming that long term genome changes cannot be modelled by group theory?

Please....for your own sake, take the time to learn a subject before trying to argue about it.

[Sherlock Holmes]

Of course, you refuse to answer my questions.

Because squares on a cube are irrelevant to genetics. Duh.

So, are you claiming that long term genome changes cannot be modelled by group theory?

Please....for your own sake, take the time to learn a subject before trying to argue about it.

Who's arguing? I'm just asking pretty clear questions, expecting honest answers.

Strange how a self described scientist clams up when attempting to discuss science mathematically, most odd.