Bounded mutation

Creationism, Evolution, and other science issues

Moderator: Moderators

Sherlock Holmes

Bounded mutation

Post #1

Post by Sherlock Holmes »

I was reading this article earlier, in there we read:
To better understand the impact of this situation, think of it this way: With a genome size of 2.8 × 10^6 and a mutation rate of 1 mutation per 10^10 base pairs, it would take a single bacterium 30 hours to grow into a population in which every single base pair in the genome will have mutated not once, but 30 times! Thus, any individual mutation that could theoretically occur in the bacteria will have occurred somewhere in that population—in just over a day.
This seems to be an admission that even if every possible mutation (from the finite set of possibilities) occurs at some point in the colony, then we still have - bacteria, surely with these rates of reproduction and probabilities of mutation and so on, doesn't this show that the bacteria evolving never leads to anything other than a variant of the bacteria? That the set of all possible mutants is either dead or still more or less the same bacteria.

Given the rate at which bacteria reproduce and their number on earth and in societies, shouldn't we see evidence that the genome has developed more and more novelty? yet it seems all we see is just bacteria...

So is there evidence that bacteria can become something quite different given enough time and if not, why not? are the possible states that the genome can get into simply insufficient to ever lead to escalating novelty?

Sherlock Holmes

Re: Bounded mutation

Post #11

Post by Sherlock Holmes »

DrNoGods wrote: Wed Feb 23, 2022 1:11 pm [Replying to Sherlock Holmes in post #9]
No, I did not make that claim.
You most certainly did in the post I responded to:

"If you cannot assess a scientific paper without putting aside prejudice toward people who do not share your beliefs, then I truly hope you are not in a position to influence hiring or managing others, are you?"
Yes, I wrote it was a "scientific paper" (it is) and said nothing about any peer review until a later post.
DrNoGods wrote: Wed Feb 23, 2022 1:11 pm
The paper was however subject to review by the publisher, the editorial board are all scientists by the usual measure of having earned a degree and doctorate in a scientific discipline.
And this does not qualify as a proper peer review process for a scientific paper.
Yes it does qualify, here's what the law has to say about this in case a Jury or Judge wanted to define it (which would likely come up in a hearing concerned with say, religious discrimination)
Legal Information Institute wrote: Peer review is the evaluation of someone’s work by a group of people in the same profession or field (peers). Peer review is mostly used to maintain the quality of the performance of professionals.
In academia, before a scholarly work, research, or idea is published on a journal or conference, the work, research, or idea will be scrutinized by peers.
The peer review helps the publisher decide whether the work should be accepted, revised, or rejected.
Here is the description of the peer review process for the journal:
If an editor decides the first draft of a paper is worthy of peer-review, the paper will be sent to 2-3 reviewers. Reviewers advise the area editor(s) on whether the paper should be rejected, accepted with revisions, or accepted as is, and what revisions should be made to accepted papers. Peer-reviewers only make recommendations to the ICC editors, they do not make official acceptance or rejection decisions. Area editors will use discretion in deciding which comments from peer-reviewers the author sees. Authors and peer-reviewers are not to have direct contact with one another. Authors’ names will not (purposely) be revealed to the peer-reviewers. Please be forgiving if a name is inadvertently revealed; that will not be our intention.

Sometimes names or initials of names are inadvertently revealed by authors and/or peer-reviews in the reviewer/comments portion of Word. To avoid this, most papers for review will be sent to reviewers as pdf documents. Members of the editorial staff and members of the ICC Board of Directors will undergo the same peer-review process as other authors. The ICC Board of Directors has an in-house document outlining a procedure among this group so favoritism can be avoided. We expect the first draft peer-review process to be completed no later than November 30, 2022. Be understanding that some reviews can be completed quickly, and others may take considerable time depending on the complexity of a paper and the availability of reviewers.
So do you still insist that this particular paper written by scientists and peer reviewed by scientists is not a scientific paper?
DrNoGods wrote: Wed Feb 23, 2022 1:11 pm
If a job applicant had a degree and doctorate in the subject relevant to a job you were hiring for, would you disqualify them on the basis they had a paper published in The Proceedings of the International Conference on Creationism?
No, but I'd probably read the article and see if it conflicted with the job requirements being hired for, ie. if it showed that the person did not understand the subject well enough to do the job.
I see, so you don't really trust peer review at all do you?
DrNoGods wrote: Wed Feb 23, 2022 1:11 pm I'm a spectroscopist by trade, and if their article considered something related to spectroscopy (eg. red shifts, the H2 spectrum characteristics, selection rules, etc.) that conflicted with what we know to be correct (eg. because they argue that the universe is only 6000 years old), then yes ... I'd disqualify them on the basis that they do not understand the subject well enough. But if their article didn't relate to the job being considered, I wouldn't care.
So the specific publication in which it appears is irrelevant isn't it, so long as it has a peer review process even though you don't trust peer reviews?

Is it your opinion that a person who describes themselves as "creationist" cannot really be a scientist? cannot really do science?

User avatar
Jose Fly
Guru
Posts: 1462
Joined: Tue Jan 18, 2022 5:30 pm
Location: Out west somewhere
Has thanked: 337 times
Been thanked: 906 times

Re: Bounded mutation

Post #12

Post by Jose Fly »

[Replying to Sherlock Holmes in post #1]
So another variation on the old "but they're still bacteria" nonsense. Man you creationists need new talking points!

Also, are you even aware that "bacteria" is a taxonomic domain, along with archaea and eukarya? If your standard is "it has to involve evolution beyond the original domain", then I guess you're just fine with human-primate common ancestry, or even human-reptile, or even human-plant, or even human-yeast, because after all, "they're still eukarya". :roll:
Being apathetic is great....or not. I don't really care.

Sherlock Holmes

Re: Bounded mutation

Post #13

Post by Sherlock Holmes »

Jose Fly wrote: Wed Feb 23, 2022 2:32 pm [Replying to Sherlock Holmes in post #1]
So another variation on the old "but they're still bacteria" nonsense. Man you creationists need new talking points!
Why? when the old one's are still so applicable!
Jose Fly wrote: Wed Feb 23, 2022 2:32 pm Also, are you even aware that "bacteria" is a taxonomic domain, along with archaea and eukarya? If your standard is "it has to involve evolution beyond the original domain", then I guess you're just fine with human-primate common ancestry, or even human-reptile, or even human-plant, or even human-yeast, because after all, "they're still eukarya". :roll:
I'm happy to learn from you Jose, I'm not a biologist as you know, so if you want to explain what you're driving at here please do, but there's a preponderance of stuff that comes up when one searches for stuff like "bacterial mutations" so bear that in mind.

User avatar
Difflugia
Prodigy
Posts: 3017
Joined: Wed Jun 12, 2019 10:25 am
Location: Michigan
Has thanked: 3247 times
Been thanked: 1997 times

Re: Bounded mutation

Post #14

Post by Difflugia »

Sherlock Holmes wrote: Wed Feb 23, 2022 10:35 am I was reading this article earlier, in there we read:
To better understand the impact of this situation, think of it this way: With a genome size of 2.8 × 10^6 and a mutation rate of 1 mutation per 10^10 base pairs, it would take a single bacterium 30 hours to grow into a population in which every single base pair in the genome will have mutated not once, but 30 times! Thus, any individual mutation that could theoretically occur in the bacteria will have occurred somewhere in that population—in just over a day.
This seems to be an admission that even if every possible mutation (from the finite set of possibilities) occurs at some point in the colony, then we still have - bacteria, surely with these rates of reproduction and probabilities of mutation and so on, doesn't this show that the bacteria evolving never leads to anything other than a variant of the bacteria? That the set of all possible mutants is either dead or still more or less the same bacteria.
Your analysis of their statement is flawed in two ways.

First, "every base pair will have mutated" is referring to point mutations only. The set of all possible insertions of arbitrary size is necessarily many orders of magnitude larger. Even if we limit it to sequence duplications that preserve the RNA reading frame (which aren't the only type of de novo insertion), the space of all possible, arbitrary-length insertions is larger by many orders of magnitude.

Second, your analysis conflates every single mutation happening somewhere with every combination of those mutations either appearing or collecting somewhere. Even if we were to posit that some collection of point mutations would render the resulting organism as something other than a bacteria, the probability that such a collection would come together in one individual is much, much lower than the probability that they appear independently in separate organisms.
Sherlock Holmes wrote: Wed Feb 23, 2022 10:35 amGiven the rate at which bacteria reproduce and their number on earth and in societies, shouldn't we see evidence that the genome has developed more and more novelty? yet it seems all we see is just bacteria...
Whether it's intentional or not, you've just made a circular argument. We do see much more than bacteria and see all kinds of what would potentially be transitional forms. There are prokaryotes of varying complexity, single-celled eukaryotes, eukaryote colonies of undifferentiated cells (Volvox spp., for example), and true multicellular organisms. Each of those loose categories displays a wide range of complexities.

We also have evidence that the events resulting in eukaryotes are a form of symbiosis. We can identify the closest living relatives of the bacteria that became chloroplasts and mitochondria. An interesting read is this paper in Nature that discusses the genetic similarities between eukaryote mitochondria and the Rickettsia genus of bacterial parasite. The data imply not only that bacteria had already widely radiated at the time that eukaryotes acquired mitochondria, but that the common ancestor of mitochondria and Rickettsia spp. was already an obligate parasite.

We further have evidence that such "organelle capture" events happened multiple times. The chloroplasts in green plants are genetically and physiologically similar to prokaryote cyanobacteria, but there is an interesting group of algae (known as "red algae") with chloroplasts that were originally eukaryotes. Their choloroplasts are nucleated and have their own membrane-bound organelles, the markers of eukaryotic cells.

You may make the counterclaim that this is some sort of "creationist orchard" in which there is some arbitrary category distinction that can't be crossed, but the diversity of life is real and matches what we would expect of evolution beginning with prokaryotes. Instead of evolution having to explain why bacteria only remain bacteria, creationists have to explain apparent events that resulted in ancient examples of archaea and bacteria merging into what is now recognized as a completely different domain of life.
Sherlock Holmes wrote: Wed Feb 23, 2022 10:35 amSo is there evidence that bacteria can become something quite different given enough time
Oh, yes.
Sherlock Holmes wrote: Wed Feb 23, 2022 10:35 amand if not, why not? are the possible states that the genome can get into simply insufficient to ever lead to escalating novelty?
:P
My pronouns are he, him, and his.

User avatar
Jose Fly
Guru
Posts: 1462
Joined: Tue Jan 18, 2022 5:30 pm
Location: Out west somewhere
Has thanked: 337 times
Been thanked: 906 times

Re: Bounded mutation

Post #15

Post by Jose Fly »

Sherlock Holmes wrote: Wed Feb 23, 2022 2:55 pm Why? when the old one's are still so applicable!
Well, if you prefer to repeat stale old talking points that haven't accomplished anything, that's your prerogative. I gotta wonder about your strategy though....are you figuring that even though decades of repeating the talking points haven't done anything, if you just repeat them more things will change?
if you want to explain what you're driving at here please do
It's pretty straightforward. Saying something like "they're still bacteria" is rather odd since "bacteria" are an entire taxonomic domain. For reference, "eukarya" are also a domain and they include every organism that has a nucleus within a nuclear membrane, from humans to plants to yeast.

So saying "they're still bacteria" is like seeing an experiment where yeast eventually give rise to fish and saying "but they're still eukaryotes". IOW, it's a pretty silly and arbitrary thing to point out.
but there's a preponderance of stuff that comes up when one searches for stuff like "bacterial mutations" so bear that in mind.
Um....okay.
Being apathetic is great....or not. I don't really care.

User avatar
DrNoGods
Prodigy
Posts: 2716
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2017 2:18 pm
Location: Nevada
Has thanked: 593 times
Been thanked: 1642 times

Re: Bounded mutation

Post #16

Post by DrNoGods »

[Replying to Sherlock Holmes in post #11]
So do you still insist that this particular paper written by scientists and peer reviewed by scientists is not a scientific paper?
It is not published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal, so no.
I see, so you don't really trust peer review at all do you?
I do ... just not your personal, and wrong, description of what that is.
So the specific publication in which it appears is irrelevant isn't it, so long as it has a peer review process even though you don't trust peer reviews?
I never said I don't trust peer reviews. You concluded that after making a custom definition for it that is wrong. Don't make up stuff and attribute it to me.
Is it your opinion that a person who describes themselves as "creationist" cannot really be a scientist? cannot really do science?
I never said that either. You seem to have a consistent problem putting words into other people's mouths based on your own convoluted opinions. The article you referenced was NOT published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal no matter how you try to twist the definition of what that actually is.
In human affairs the sources of success are ever to be found in the fountains of quick resolve and swift stroke; and it seems to be a law, inflexible and inexorable, that he who will not risk cannot win.
John Paul Jones, 1779

The man who does not read has no advantage over the man who cannot read.
Mark Twain

Sherlock Holmes

Re: Bounded mutation

Post #17

Post by Sherlock Holmes »

DrNoGods wrote: Wed Feb 23, 2022 4:25 pm [Replying to Sherlock Holmes in post #11]
So do you still insist that this particular paper written by scientists and peer reviewed by scientists is not a scientific paper?
It is not published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal, so no.
Why do you feel that The Proceedings of the International Conference on Creationism is not a scientific journal? The editorial board are scientists with doctorates, they have a peer review process, so what is it about the publication that makes you feel it's not a scientific journal?
DrNoGods wrote: Wed Feb 23, 2022 4:25 pm
I see, so you don't really trust peer review at all do you?
I do ... just not your personal, and wrong, description of what that is.
What did I say that you feel is wrong? a pretty standard legal definition? is that it, you don't accept that legal definition?
DrNoGods wrote: Wed Feb 23, 2022 4:25 pm
So the specific publication in which it appears is irrelevant isn't it, so long as it has a peer review process even though you don't trust peer reviews?
I never said I don't trust peer reviews. You concluded that after making a custom definition for it that is wrong. Don't make up stuff and attribute it to me.
Well if you do trust peer reviews why would you feel the need to study a peer reviewed paper to see if the author understood the subject? surely that's not necessary when something has been peer reviewed?
DrNoGods wrote: Wed Feb 23, 2022 4:25 pm
Is it your opinion that a person who describes themselves as "creationist" cannot really be a scientist? cannot really do science?
I never said that either.
No I know you didn't, it was a question not an accusation, care to answer it?
DrNoGods wrote: Wed Feb 23, 2022 4:25 pm You seem to have a consistent problem putting words into other people's mouths based on your own convoluted opinions. The article you referenced was NOT published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal no matter how you try to twist the definition of what that actually is.
Well unless you contest the legal definition I showed you (which would do you no good in a court room by the way) you are in a bit of a pickle here, both writers are unquestionably scientists, the paper was peer reviewed because that's the policy of the journal and those who performed the review are also unquestionably scientists and the same is true of the editorial board.

Do you not regard the authors as scientists? is that it?

You need to tread very very carefully my friend, much of what you've said could land you or your employer in big trouble, much of what you've said strongly suggests that you'd discriminate against a person based purely on their religious beliefs, this is what a prosecutor would strive to prove and I suspect he'd find it quite easy, they are usually very good at this, better even than me.

User avatar
DrNoGods
Prodigy
Posts: 2716
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2017 2:18 pm
Location: Nevada
Has thanked: 593 times
Been thanked: 1642 times

Re: Bounded mutation

Post #18

Post by DrNoGods »

[Replying to Sherlock Holmes in post #17]
Why do you feel that The Proceedings of the International Conference on Creationism is not a scientific journal? The editorial board are scientists with doctorates, they have a peer review process, so what is it about the publication that makes you feel it's not a scientific journal?
How about this from their website's About This Journal page:

"The International Conference on Creationism has been recognized as the world's premier gathering of young earth creation researchers and has, since the first conference in 1986, served to greatly further the creation model of origins. The mission of the ICC is to promote the development and dissemination of positive contributions to a young earth creationist model of origins and models of earth history that recognize the reality of the global Flood described in Genesis."

If that doesn't speak for itself I don't know what does. Peer-reviewed science journal ... you clearly don't know what that even means.
What did I say that you feel is wrong? a pretty standard legal definition? is that it, you don't accept that legal definition?
It's not the definition ... it's thinking The Proceedings of the International Conference on Creationism fits the definition.
Well if you do trust peer reviews why would you feel the need to study a peer reviewed paper to see if the author understood the subject? surely that's not necessary when something has been peer reviewed?
We were talking about an article published in The Proceedings of the International Conference on Creationism, NOT a peer-reviewed scientific journal.
No I know you didn't, it was a question not an accusation, care to answer it?
As I said, I never made any comments about creationists being able to do science or not. Why do you ask? As stated by many others here, no one has argued that religious people, creationists, etc. cannot do science and have not done good science. That is something you keep bringing up all by yourself for no apparent reason.
Well unless you contest the legal definition I showed you (which would do you no good in a court room by the way) you are in a bit of a pickle here, both writers are unquestionably scientists, the paper was peer reviewed because that's the policy of the journal and those who performed the review are also unquestionably scientists and the same is true of the editorial board.
Again (sigh) you're applying the definition to a group who don't fit the definition. They are a group of young earth creationists trying to support Noah's flood and the Genesis creation story as actual, literal fact. Science has shown, conclusively, that neither are valid so this group are no different than AIG, or similar organizations.
You need to tread very very carefully my friend, much of what you've said could land you or your employer in big trouble, much of what you've said strongly suggests that you'd discriminate against a person based purely on their religious beliefs, this is what a prosecutor would strive to prove and I suspect he'd find it quite easy, they are usually very good at this, better even than me.
Now that's hilarious! Do you think the Feds are watching this website to try and catch Sherlock Holmes putting words into other people's mouth (eg. I'd discriminate against someone because of their religious beliefs ... somethng I never said or implied), reinterpreting what they say and twisting it to make a point, etc. in an attempt to find a discrimination event? I've owned my own company since 2010 and don't have an employer (I could fire myself I suppose), and I work with Christians, a couple of Hindus, a Jewish guy, a Muslim couple from Iran, and an atheist who is Indian (his wife is Hindu). But religious talk is off limits at work, and their religious views don't come into play in the work that is done. Makes for some interesting after work discussions though.
In human affairs the sources of success are ever to be found in the fountains of quick resolve and swift stroke; and it seems to be a law, inflexible and inexorable, that he who will not risk cannot win.
John Paul Jones, 1779

The man who does not read has no advantage over the man who cannot read.
Mark Twain

Sherlock Holmes

Re: Bounded mutation

Post #19

Post by Sherlock Holmes »

DrNoGods wrote: Wed Feb 23, 2022 6:41 pm [Replying to Sherlock Holmes in post #17]
Why do you feel that The Proceedings of the International Conference on Creationism is not a scientific journal? The editorial board are scientists with doctorates, they have a peer review process, so what is it about the publication that makes you feel it's not a scientific journal?
How about this from their website's About This Journal page:

"The International Conference on Creationism has been recognized as the world's premier gathering of young earth creation researchers and has, since the first conference in 1986, served to greatly further the creation model of origins. The mission of the ICC is to promote the development and dissemination of positive contributions to a young earth creationist model of origins and models of earth history that recognize the reality of the global Flood described in Genesis."

If that doesn't speak for itself I don't know what does. Peer-reviewed science journal ... you clearly don't know what that even means.
What does it mean in your opinion? and other than the obvious religious connotations what is it about the About page that makes you think it doesn't have a peer review process?
DrNoGods wrote: Wed Feb 23, 2022 6:41 pm
What did I say that you feel is wrong? a pretty standard legal definition? is that it, you don't accept that legal definition?
It's not the definition ... it's thinking The Proceedings of the International Conference on Creationism fits the definition.
But it is a legitimate definition, it's the typical legal definition that would be used by jurors and a Judge in a legal dispute. If an interview candidate claimed discrimination because you told them their paper was not science because the publication did not peer review what they publish, you'd be in a very difficult position here, it would be seen - rightly - that the true reason would be the fact that the journal pursued research focused on creation related scientific inquiry, and that would leave you open to the accusation your rejection was indeed discriminatory, in this case toward a person's religious beliefs which is a federal crime.

DrNoGods wrote: Wed Feb 23, 2022 6:41 pm
Well if you do trust peer reviews why would you feel the need to study a peer reviewed paper to see if the author understood the subject? surely that's not necessary when something has been peer reviewed?
We were talking about an article published in The Proceedings of the International Conference on Creationism, NOT a peer-reviewed scientific journal.
But it is a peer reviewed scientific journal, the editorial board each hold science doctorates and the two authors hold science doctorates, they follow a documented peer review process, what makes you feel that this isn't the case?
DrNoGods wrote: Wed Feb 23, 2022 6:41 pm
No I know you didn't, it was a question not an accusation, care to answer it?
As I said, I never made any comments about creationists being able to do science or not. Why do you ask? As stated by many others here, no one has argued that religious people, creationists, etc. cannot do science and have not done good science. That is something you keep bringing up all by yourself for no apparent reason.
I do have a reason, it is to try and discover if you are harboring religious prejudice, potentially doing material harm to the career of a scientist who happens to be a creationist, that's the reason I'm asking you these questions.

So if creationists make perfectly good scientists and they write a paper that gets peer reviewed by other perfectly good scientists, what's the problem?
DrNoGods wrote: Wed Feb 23, 2022 6:41 pm
Well unless you contest the legal definition I showed you (which would do you no good in a court room by the way) you are in a bit of a pickle here, both writers are unquestionably scientists, the paper was peer reviewed because that's the policy of the journal and those who performed the review are also unquestionably scientists and the same is true of the editorial board.
Again (sigh) you're applying the definition to a group who don't fit the definition. They are a group of young earth creationists trying to support Noah's flood and the Genesis creation story as actual, literal fact. Science has shown, conclusively, that neither are valid so this group are no different than AIG, or similar organizations.
But the religious beliefs of these scientists is irrelevant in law, you also just said they make perfectly good scientists, it's their religious beliefs that you actually disapprove of isn't it?
DrNoGods wrote: Wed Feb 23, 2022 6:41 pm
You need to tread very very carefully my friend, much of what you've said could land you or your employer in big trouble, much of what you've said strongly suggests that you'd discriminate against a person based purely on their religious beliefs, this is what a prosecutor would strive to prove and I suspect he'd find it quite easy, they are usually very good at this, better even than me.
Now that's hilarious! Do you think the Feds are watching this website to try and catch Sherlock Holmes putting words into other people's mouth (eg. I'd discriminate against someone because of their religious beliefs ... somethng I never said or implied), reinterpreting what they say and twisting it to make a point, etc. in an attempt to find a discrimination event? I've owned my own company since 2010 and don't have an employer (I could fire myself I suppose), and I work with Christians, a couple of Hindus, a Jewish guy, a Muslim couple from Iran, and an atheist who is Indian (his wife is Hindu). But religious talk is off limits at work, and their religious views don't come into play in the work that is done. Makes for some interesting after work discussions though.
You agreed that the authors make perfectly good scientists yet you also said earlier
I'm sure the real biologists will chime in here as I suspect there is a lot more work going on in this area. One article suggesting bacteria can only stay bacteria doesn't carry much weight ... especially if it is published in the proceedings of a creationism conference! Of course they will try to discredit evolution and come up with reasons why it could not result in bacteria evolving into multicellular organisms. I wonder what their fatal error was in coming to this conclusion?
Right there - in your own words - we can see that your real motive for rejecting the candidate, it is because in your opinion the author "will try to discredit evolution" and that they would "come up with reasons".

So in your professional opinion any scientist who finds anything that might cause a reevaluation of some presumed biological process that's a factor in evolution theory cannot be trusted as scientists?

User avatar
DrNoGods
Prodigy
Posts: 2716
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2017 2:18 pm
Location: Nevada
Has thanked: 593 times
Been thanked: 1642 times

Re: Bounded mutation

Post #20

Post by DrNoGods »

[Replying to Sherlock Holmes in post #19]
What does it mean in your opinion? and other than the obvious religious connotations what is it about the About page that makes you think it doesn't have a peer review process?
Do they send submitted manuscripts out to qualified experts NOT on their editorial staff for unbiased, independent peer review? Or do they only let the editorial staff do the reviews (or another biased creationist organization)? Their bias is stated right there on their About page ... they support a young earth and a literal interpretation of Noah's flood and its biblical time frame. Try submitting a manuscript showing that a global flood could not possibly have covered the entire earth to above the highest mountains a measly 4400 or so years ago and see if they'll publish it.
... and that would leave you open to the accusation your rejection was indeed discriminatory, in this case toward a person's religious beliefs which is a federal crime.
What's with all the over-the-top comments about discrimination after you've twisted words to create a nonsense scenario? Are you going to send MI5 after me? I imagine if I said I don't like broccoli you would launch into a diatribe about how I don't like all vegetables, and by extension I hate farmers and would not hire one because they might wear overalls, thereby discriminating against them because of their clothing choices.
But it is a peer reviewed scientific journal, the editorial board each hold science doctorates and the two authors hold science doctorates, they follow a documented peer review process, what makes you feel that this isn't the case?
That might be the case, but their About page clearly states that they are biased. Again ... what to you think would happen if a manuscript rolled in showing that Noah's flood could not possibly have happened as described in the bible, and when biblical chronology says it did? Is this educated and professional editorial board going to approve if for publication? Of course not.
So if creationists make perfectly good scientists and they write a paper that gets peer reviewed by other perfectly good scientists, what's the problem?
There is no problem in this case! That is what virtually everyone here has stated multiple times. The problem is when a biased creationist organization is the publisher and the reviews are done by its own editorial board. That isn't peer-reviewed science. The reason these creationist organizations create their own publications is because most (all?) of the stuff they argue or report would never pass peer-review for publication in a legitimate science journal.
But the religious beliefs of these scientists is irrelevant in law, you also just said they make perfectly good scientists, it's their religious beliefs that you actually disapprove of isn't it?
Law? What does any of this have to do with laws? One person here vigoriously defends Russell Humphreys' paper on planetary magnetic field strengths, which was published in one of these creationist journals. It is a typical example of his religious views driving him to try and prove a young creation as per the bible, and making up a "theory" to support it. This "paper" is complete nonsense not because he's religious, but because the contents are demonstrably wrong and utter silliness. He claims that all the planets started out as balls of H2O (just stated as fact), then god swooped in and aligned all of the H atom nuclear spins to create an initial magnetic field (again, just stated as fact), which then decays with a single exponential with an adjustable decay constant. Should I believe this "peer reviewed" science paper because Humphreys has a Ph.D, and because it was reviewed by similar religious scientists? No ... the contents are garbage and this kind of junk has no place in real science journals. If it were submitted to a real science journal it would go straight into the trash can.
Right there - in your own words - we can see that your real motive for rejecting the candidate, it is because in your opinion the author "will try to discredit evolution" and that they would "come up with reasons".
I don't like broccoli.
So in your professional opinion any scientist who finds anything that might cause a reevaluation of some presumed biological process that's a factor in evolution theory cannot be trusted as scientists?
I still don't like broccoli. You sure do like twisting words to create strawmans.
In human affairs the sources of success are ever to be found in the fountains of quick resolve and swift stroke; and it seems to be a law, inflexible and inexorable, that he who will not risk cannot win.
John Paul Jones, 1779

The man who does not read has no advantage over the man who cannot read.
Mark Twain

Post Reply