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So I want to ask how does one decide whether a journal is or is not peer reviewed?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

[Bust Nak]

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.

I know one, we can prove that much because we have observed insertion mutations. Or perhaps you would class that also as "permutation?"

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...

The only people I see skipping over this are creationists. I've see them make challenges along the lines of, "if evolution is true, then why don't we see a crocoduck?" They assume there is no bound to evolution, when evolutionists try in vain to explain that no matter how much time you give evolution, you would only ever get variations of the parent organisms.

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.

These are not mutually exclusive claims. Evolution says we can never get anything other than a variation of a worm AND worms (more accurately worm-like common ancestors) left to reproduce can in theory (and has) eventually lead to fish.

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

Sure it can, we test it with paleontology and genetics.

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

We don't know that for certain at all. If you are looking for 100% certainty, look elsewhere. More to the point the genome is like a very sophisticated Rubik's cube, plus all important insertion mutations. Evolution doesn't need anything more than that to generate the varieties of life on Earth. The reputation of creationists not understanding evolution is well earned.

[Bust Nak]

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.

Obviously you're quite afraid of what will happen if you answered "yes". You're afraid that your answer will be used against you...

Moderator Warning

Please refrain from personal comments.

Please review our Rules.

______________

Moderator warnings count as a strike against users. Additional violations in the future may warrant a final warning. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[JoeyKnothead]

The reputation of creationist not understanding evolution is well earned.

And, like evolution, observed.

[JoeyKnothead]

So you've read books on genetics? Which ones?

I’ve read most of them again with a great appreciation for the press, for the media.

Um, all of them, any of them that have been in front of me over all these years.

[Sherlock Holmes]

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.

I know one, we can prove that much because we have observed insertion mutations. Or perhaps you would class that also as "permutation?"

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...

The only people I see skipping over this are creationists. I've see them make challenges along the lines of, "if evolution is true, then why don't we see a crocoduck?" They assume there is no bound to evolution, when evolutionists try in vain to explain that no matter how much time you give evolution, you would only ever get variations of the parent organisms.

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.

These are not mutually exclusive claims. Evolution says we can never get anything other than a variation of a worm AND worms (more accurately worm-like common ancestors) left to reproduce can in theory (and has) eventually lead to fish.

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

Sure it can, we test it with paleontology and genetics.

No, you interpret paleontology and attempt to fit the pieces together as if we have a vast jigsaw with 99% of the pieces missing. As for genetics again we interpret the presence of common genes or similar genes across differing species as proof of common descent, that is we assume that IF common descent is true THEN it will lead to common genes in descendants (it would) and THEREFORE common descent is true. This is flawed reasoning, it implies (and many people don't notice this "trick") that there is NO OTHER way for these common genes to arise.

I've said many times there is a lot of evidence consistent with what we'd expect to see IF evolution were true, but that does not prove that therefore this really is evidence of evolution.

Consider Newtonian mechanics. There is a lot of evidence that is consistent with Newtonian mechanics - therefore Newtonian mechanics the explanation for that evidence.

But this is flawed, because the same evidence is also consistent with relativity, a completely different explanatory model: RULE -> Consistency with is NOT proof of.

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

We don't know that for certain at all. If you are looking for 100% certainty, look elsewhere. More to the point the genome is like a very sophisticated Rubik's cube, plus all important insertion mutations. Evolution doesn't need anything more than that to generate the varieties of life on Earth. The reputation of creationists not understanding evolution is well earned.

Well we agree, yet Dawkins et-al say over and over "evolution is a fact" they of course mean all life is the result of evolution.

Saying there is not 100% certainty is absolutely fine with me, but that does not allow us to then say it is a fact, because a fact means there is zero uncertainty.

The reputation of creationists not understanding evolution is well earned.

So every biologist, geneticist, molecular biologist and so on - who are also creationists - do not understand this subject? I'd like to know how you established this.

[Sherlock Holmes]

Consider my jigsaw analogy, I like it actually, it gets to the heart of the difference between consistent with and evidence of, something the evolution devotee often glibly conflate:

None of the circles overlap, we can see this when we can see the totality of the jigsaw. But if we already believed that they did overlap and we only had twenty random pieces and never see the rest, we could make up a jigsaw (theory) where we "fill in the blanks" so to speak and "show" that we sometimes have overlapping circles.

We'd be absolutely right too in saying the twenty pieces were consistent with an image that has overlapping circles, but we'd be dead wrong to say the twenty pieces are evidence of overlapping circles, because as we know, none of the circles actually do overlap.

Naturally any skeptical person who looked at the constructed jigsaw (theory) and said "I don't see how we can confidently claim that any of these circles actually ever did overlap based on this evidence" would be ridiculed, and told that they just don't understand the theory, their views would be dismissed out of hand as the rantings of lunatic.

It's worse though, because we could go on finding the odd piece here and there once or twice a year and deciding where to insert these into our jigsaw, telling ourselves our theory is getting stronger and stronger each year as we find more and more "evidence".

Not until much much later, when we'd have almost all the pieces would we begin to see that there is in fact no overlap at all.

I suggest all those who regard the fossil record as compelling evidence for evolution, take a long hard honest look at this and really really think!!

We see what we want to see, we interpret the pieces within the context of our existing beliefs.

[Bust Nak]

No, you interpret paleontology and attempt to fit the pieces together as if we have a vast jigsaw with 99% of the pieces missing. As for genetics again we interpret the presence of common genes or similar genes across differing species as proof of common descent, that is we assume that IF common descent is true THEN it will lead to common genes in descendants (it would) and THEREFORE common descent is true.

Okay, not an entirely charitable characterization, but nothing fundamentally wrong here. Scientist come up with a scenario that would be true if evolution is correct, and false if it isn't, then see if the observation matches the scenario (AKA scientific prediction.) Why don't you think this qualify as a way to test a scientific theory/hypothesis?

This is flawed reasoning, it implies (and many people don't notice this "trick") that there is NO OTHER way for these common genes to arise.

There is no such implication. Instead it implies this is the GOOD way for these common genes to arise; where such ways are to ranked in terms of falsifiability, explanation power, predictive value, parsimony and so on (AKA scientific merit.) After much testing, we can reaffirm that common descent is the BEST way for these common genes to arise.

I've said many times there is a lot of evidence consistent with what we'd expect to see IF evolution were true, but that does not prove that therefore this really is evidence of evolution.

Sure, but will you be willing to go that one step extra and say that there is zero empirical evidence inconsistent with what we'd expect to see IF evolution were true? This goes a long way towards understanding why evolution is accepted as the scientific theory for the varieties of life on Earth.

Well we agree, yet Dawkins et-al say over and over "evolution is a fact" they of course mean all life is the result of evolution.

They could also be referring to the more narrow, direct observation of evolution.

Saying there is not 100% certainty is absolutely fine with me, but that does not allow us to then say it is a fact, because a fact means there is zero uncertainty.

I can't agree with that, why must fact mean zero uncertainty, especially in a scientific context?

So every biologist, geneticist, molecular biologist and so on - who are also creationists - do not understand this subject? I'd like to know how you established this.

I've spoke on this in a previous debate. It's questionable if the theistic evolutionists you are referring to should be labelled "creationists." They don't deny evolution, you are doing them a disservice by associating them with a term loaded with baggage. Let me be very clear, by "creationist" I am referring to those who deny anything from evolution to geology to physics, in favor of a Biblical narrative.

[Sherlock Holmes]

No, you interpret paleontology and attempt to fit the pieces together as if we have a vast jigsaw with 99% of the pieces missing. As for genetics again we interpret the presence of common genes or similar genes across differing species as proof of common descent, that is we assume that IF common descent is true THEN it will lead to common genes in descendants (it would) and THEREFORE common descent is true.

Okay, not an entirely charitable characterization, but nothing fundamentally wrong here. Scientist come up with a scenario that would be true if evolution is correct, and false if it isn't, then see if the observation matches the scenario (AKA scientific prediction.) Why don't you think this qualify as a way to test a scientific theory/hypothesis?

This is flawed reasoning, it implies (and many people don't notice this "trick") that there is NO OTHER way for these common genes to arise.

There is no such implication. Instead it implies this is the GOOD way for these common genes to arise; where such ways are to ranked in terms of falsifiability, explanation power, predictive value, parsimony and so on (AKA scientific merit.) After much testing, we can reaffirm that common descent is the BEST way for these common genes to arise.

I've said many times there is a lot of evidence consistent with what we'd expect to see IF evolution were true, but that does not prove that therefore this really is evidence of evolution.

Sure, but will you be willing to go that one step extra and say that there is zero empirical evidence inconsistent with what we'd expect to see IF evolution were true? This goes a long way towards understanding why evolution is accepted as the scientific theory for the varieties of life on Earth.

Well we agree, yet Dawkins et-al say over and over "evolution is a fact" they of course mean all life is the result of evolution.

They could also be referring to the more narrow, direct observation of evolution.

Saying there is not 100% certainty is absolutely fine with me, but that does not allow us to then say it is a fact, because a fact means there is zero uncertainty.

I can't agree with that, why must fact mean zero uncertainty, especially in a scientific context?

So every biologist, geneticist, molecular biologist and so on - who are also creationists - do not understand this subject? I'd like to know how you established this.

I've spoke on this in a previous debate. It's questionable if the theistic evolutionists you are referring to should be labelled "creationists." They don't deny evolution, you are doing them a disservice by associating them with a term loaded with baggage. Let me be very clear, by "creationist" I am referring to those who deny anything from evolution to geology to physics, in favor of a Biblical narrative.

Fact means cannot be questioned, if a proposition can be questioned, is open to question then it is not befitting to refer to it as a fact.

When people start routinely referring to theories as facts, its all over, the science has stopped and the dogma has begun.

[JoeyKnothead]

No, you interpret paleontology and attempt to fit the pieces together as if we have a vast jigsaw with 99% of the pieces missing. As for genetics again we interpret the presence of common genes or similar genes across differing species as proof of common descent, that is we assume that IF common descent is true THEN it will lead to common genes in descendants (it would) and THEREFORE common descent is true. This is flawed reasoning, it implies (and many people don't notice this "trick") that there is NO OTHER way for these common genes to arise.
...

I share genes with the parents of my parents, who share their genes with the parents of their parents.

None of our genes are identical.

Hence, we share some of our genes with a common ancestor.

Or God did it.

The observer's encouraged to draw sound conclusions.

[Sherlock Holmes]

No, you interpret paleontology and attempt to fit the pieces together as if we have a vast jigsaw with 99% of the pieces missing. As for genetics again we interpret the presence of common genes or similar genes across differing species as proof of common descent, that is we assume that IF common descent is true THEN it will lead to common genes in descendants (it would) and THEREFORE common descent is true. This is flawed reasoning, it implies (and many people don't notice this "trick") that there is NO OTHER way for these common genes to arise.
...

I share genes with the parents of my parents, who share their genes with the parents of their parents.

None of our genes are identical.

Hence, we share some of our genes with a common ancestor.

Or God did it.

The observer's encouraged to draw sound conclusions.

Every prime number is odd, does that mean every odd number is prime?