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So I want to ask how does one decide whether a journal is or is not peer reviewed?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

[Jose Fly]

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.

Thank you Ms. Palin!

Now if SH can just answer the question......

[JoeyKnothead]

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?

Genes're the stuff of biology, not numerology.

[Jose Fly]

Consider my jigsaw analogy

I have my own. It's that creationists treat evidence for universal common ancestry like jigsaw puzzle pieces, but absolutely refuse to ever put them together.

The creationists are given a puzzle that when assembled, is a picture of a lion. They pick up a piece, look at it, say "This isn't a lion", and put it aside. Then they pick up another piece and do the same, and keep doing that with every piece....pick them up, look at them one at a time, declare that each piece isn't a lion, and set them aside. Then when they're all done they declare that there's no lion there.

It never seems to occur to them that you're supposed to put the pieces together and view them as a whole.

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.

First, I'm fairly confident that your knowledge of paleontology is as lacking as it is in other areas of evolutionary biology and science, so your declarations about the subject don't carry any weight.

Second, your pleas only resonate with those who, like you, hold to the view that we can't really investigate the past because maybe everything was magically different. Folks like you would tell geologists that when they encounter specific types of ash layers, they can't conclude they came from volcanic eruptions because that's "assuming uniformitarianism".

So like I said earlier, if you think you have a better way to investigate the past than what's been practiced for the last two centuries, then by all means put it to use and show everyone how superior it is. But I suspect you won't and will just sit at your keyboard, throwing rocks at scientists from such a distance that pretty much none of them will ever be aware that you even exist.

[Sherlock Holmes]

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.

Thank you Ms. Palin!

Now if SH can just answer the question......

No, I won't - you always want to talk about me, you are fixated on discussing people rather than what people say.

[Bust Nak]

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.

Or we allow for the possibility for facts to be questioned; allow for facts to be update over time? Sticking you neck out with factual claims and risk being proven factually wrong later isn't all that scary. Newton's theory was fact for a long time, then it isn't, replaced with a more complete theory, no harm done.

As for your puzzle analogy...

None of the circles overlap, we can see this when we can see the totality of the jigsaw. But if we take 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 have a large number of overlapping circles.

That's a pretty bad analogy: Why would we propose a jigsaw (theory) where there is a large number of overlapping circles, when no matter which twenty pieces you give us, we won't ever see any overlap? That's why we'd be dead wrong to say the twenty pieces are evidence of overlapping circles. But I get your point despite the bad analogy, and propose this alternative:

Supposed all 20 pieces we have are solid color, which is very possible given several large circles. We could make up a theory where we fill in the blanks and say all the pieces are solid color, color vary only between pieces.

Naturally any normal person who looked at my constructed jigsaw (theory) and say "yeah, I see how we can claim color only changes between pieces." We could go on finding the odd piece here and there once or twice a year showing only solid color, so we tell ourselves our theory is getting stronger and stronger each year as we find more and more "evidence."

Those who say otherwise 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.

Not until much much later, when we finally have a piece that shows multiple color, then we can see the theory was wrong all along.

[Sherlock Holmes]

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?

Genes're the stuff of biology, not numerology.

Sorry, I thought you earlier post was using logic to make a point, my mistake.

[Jose Fly]

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.

Thank you Ms. Palin!

Now if SH can just answer the question......

No, I won't - you always want to talk about me, you are fixated on discussing people rather than what people say.

I told ya'.....you won't answer, and now here we are.

I can't tell you how many times I've seen a creationist claim to have studied a scientific subject, only to duck, dodge, and dive the simple follow-up question, "So what specifically have you studied".

The obvious inference there is.....obvious.

[JoeyKnothead]

The creationists are given a puzzle that when assembled, is a picture of a lion. They pick up a piece, look at it, say "This isn't a lion", and put it aside. Then they pick up another piece and do the same, and keep doing that with every piece....pick them up, look at them one at a time, declare that each piece isn't a lion, and set them aside. Then when they're all done they declare that there's no lion there.

It never seems to occur to them that you're supposed to put the pieces together and view them as a whole.

Excellent, spot on analysis.

I think it plenty fair to see problems with the particulars of evolutionary theory. That's a sign of critical thinking and understanding our limitations.

But to dismiss the fact of evolution based on these disagreements or problems is not the way to go.

[Jose Fly]

No, I can't meaningfully estimate the time. I read a lot, often in deep dives, bursts, perhaps three of or four books sometimes. Then I might move to some other subject or not read for months.

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

Yup. Another creationist who thinks themselves an expert in evolutionary biology because they've read a creationist book and watched a couple of YT videos.

[Sherlock Holmes]

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.

Or we allow for the possibility for facts to be questioned; allow for facts to be update over time? Sticking you neck out with factual claims and risk being proven factually wrong later isn't all that scary. Newton's theory was fact for a long time, then it isn't, replaced with a more complete theory, no harm done.

As for your puzzle analogy...

None of the circles overlap, we can see this when we can see the totality of the jigsaw. But if we take 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 have a large number of overlapping circles.

That's a pretty bad analogy: Why would we propose a jigsaw (theory) where there is a large number of overlapping circles, when no matter which twenty pieces you give us, we won't ever see any overlap?

I made that clear, I said we "already believed" there were overlaps, that is had some reasonable reason to expect overlaps.

That's why we'd be dead wrong to say the twenty pieces are evidence of overlapping circles. But I get your point despite the bad analogy, and propose this alternative:

Supposed all 20 pieces we have are solid color, which is very possible given several large circles. We could make up a theory where we fill in the blanks and say all the pieces are solid color, color vary only between pieces.

Naturally any normal person who looked at my constructed jigsaw (theory) and say "yeah, I see how we can claim color only changes between pieces." We could go on finding the odd piece here and there once or twice a year showing only solid color, so we tell ourselves our theory is getting stronger and stronger each year as we find more and more "evidence."

Those who say otherwise 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.

Not until much much later, when we finally have a piece that shows multiple color, then we can see the theory was wrong all along.

Exactly, just as in my example, the artificially constructed jigsaw with missing pieces filled in with some presumed piece, would be wrong, the "theory" would be wrong.