Evidence for creationism, Part 2.

[magicfan101]

So you're saying that someone who writes an accurate scientific article can't get published, even it passes the peer review process, simply because they don't believe in Darwin as if he was the second coming of Christ? You know that famous phrase - citation needed?

Yup, that's right: citation needed.

The editor of Science journal, Bruce Alberts, was recently interviewed on Australia’s ABC Radio National The Science Show by presenter Robyn Williams:

Robyn Williams: Of course you’ve got a tremendous overview of the published papers, not only in your own journal but in other journals. Out of 1,000 papers on climate change, how many can you remember that go against the trend? Any?

Bruce Alberts: Well, I get lots of complaints from people who want to publish papers saying climate change doesn’t exist, but they have a hard time getting their papers published because they don’t pass peer review. So there are actually very few papers that get published in the peer review literature that seriously challenge in any way the basic hypothesis. As in evolution (we’re at a meeting on evolution right now), there are always things you don’t understand, and the creationists use those things you don’t understand, the ‘missing links’, to challenge the whole idea of evolution. In the same way some people use the few things we don’t understand (we never understand everything) to challenge the whole idea of climate change. It’s not a valid way of talking about science.4

Interesting that against-the-trend papers on anthropogenic global warming are treated with the same disdain as papers critical of evolution. And note that Bruce Alberts’ final sentence above attempts to define against-the trend papers as “unscientific”, thus with one fell swoop removing them from scientific discourse. See “It’s not science”.

http://www.abc.net.au/rn/scienceshow/stories/2009/2629061.htm

 

[carlosMM]

http://www.abc.net.au/rn/scienceshow/stories/2009/2629061.htm

well, thank you for providing the source that shows you wrong: if the papers don't pass peer review, that's because they suck.

 

[magicfan101]

Opinions don't matter in science. Only facts.

facts don't speak for themselves they must be interpreted by the person who is guided by his beliefs and assumptions on life.

 

[Mathilda]

In 1956, a Clean Air Act was passed in Britain. Within about fifteen years, studies were showing that the percentage of light-coloured moths in many populations was increasing again (Berry 308). The original colour change, though attention-grabbing, had been simply a short-term fluctuation, proving nothing about large-scale evolution. As Harvard paleontologist and historian of science Stephen Jay Gould has noted:

". . . biologists have documented a veritable glut of cases for rapid and eminently measurable evolution on timescales of years and decades. . . . but, to be visible at all over so short a span, evolution must be far too rapid (and transient) to serve as the basis for major transformations in geological time. Hence, the 'paradox of the visibly irrelevant'—or, if you can see it at all, it's too fast to matter in the long run. . . . Most cases of rapid microevolution represent the transient and momentary blips and fillips that 'flesh out' the rich history of lineages of stasis. . . . Small local populations and parts of lineages make short and temporary forays of transient adaptation but almost always die out or get reintegrated into the general pool of the species"

he recounted that pepper moths were proof of evolution

I've just read this: The paradox of the visibly irrelevant and that doesn't seem to be what he's saying at all.
As intentional misquoting is as against the rules here, you've got some explaining to do.

From that article:

Nonetheless, the claim that evolution must be too slow to see can only rank as an urban legend -- although not a completely harmless tale in this case, for our creationist incubi can then use the fallacy as an argument against evolution at any scale, and many folks take them seriously because they just "know" that evolution can never be seen in the immediate here and now. In fact, a precisely opposite situation prevails: biologists have documented a veritable glut of cases for rapid and eminently measurable evolution on timescales of years and decades.

 

[Cu Chulainn]

The real people avoiding the subject are those talking about anything other than EVIDENCE FOR CREATIONISM. So far the only thing I've seen is things claiming to be evidence against evolution.

Say you manage to prove that things don't evolve. Good for you. Creationism still has no evidence supporting it.

 

[Arakhor]

Facts do speak for themselves; that's why they're facts.

As is apparently usual with you, Magicfan, your so-called evidence doesn't contain anything remotely like what you suggest it does. The editor was saying that it doesn't matter what the article is about, if it doesn't pass peer review, it doesn't get in. There was nothing about anti-Darwinism in there at all.

 

[El_Machinae]

I will ask for help here from anyone who can answer the ATP origin/what did cells do before ATP question better than I can. I gave my best response but it is outside of my personal knowledge and I was not satisfied with my own response.

I am pretty sure we know more about the origin of ATP than I can recall or find through a google that is weighted toward christian creationist websites on this subject.

Why should a perfect insight into the evolution of a specific molecular chain be required? I mean, yeah, there're always tidbits of information that're not known. Finding an unknown tidbit is easy.

It's god of the gaps.

 

[SuperJay]

facts don't speak for themselves they must be interpreted by the person who is guided by his beliefs and assumptions on life.

Woooooowwwwww.

Just...wow. I think that's the crux of the issue right there: you believe facts must be "interpreted" via the "guidance" of your "beliefs and assumptions."

Thus, in your world, the evidence (facts) accumulated by 150+ years of observation and experimentation (science) doesn't mean anything because it doesn't conform to your own beliefs and assumptions. No wonder you keep ignoring everything tha contradicts your worldview and continually draw wildly incorrect conclusions from the evidence you do accept - because of the "guidance" of your own "beliefs and assumptions."

Incidentally, that is the direct opposite of scientific reasoning. In science, you ignore your own beliefs and assumptions and deal solely in verifiable facts and evidence. What you're doing is clinging to your own assumptions and trying to make us believe they're all true - facts be damned. No wonder this whole thread is like talking to a wall!

 

[Askthepizzaguy]

Why should a perfect insight into the evolution of a specific molecular chain be required? I mean, yeah, there're always tidbits of information that're not known. Finding an unknown tidbit is easy.

It's god of the gaps.

It's not required for the theory to be a good one, but I am interested due to my own lack of knowledge. It would be awesome to be able to respond to questions pertaining to this, and for me to be able to fill the gap in knowledge is a good thing for my own character-building.

Unlike some, I actually am interested to know what I don't already know.

I myself am now genuinely curious about the answers there. Some things are very complex and hard to imagine happening by themselves, but I also know that almost all other examples of the "irreducibly complex" have proved to not be too complex to be reduced and still be sustainable.

Besides, it would directly respond to the 4th of the posters 4 things he finds irreducibly complex about the origins of cellular life via abiogenesis, and for the sake of completeness, I'd like to give a full answer.

 

[sanabas]

And note that Bruce Alberts’ final sentence above attempts to define against-the trend papers as “unscientific”, thus with one fell swoop removing them from scientific discourse. See “It’s not science”.

Except that what he actually says isn't that papers going against the trend are unscientific, but that instead papers which take a small area of doubt, and try to claim that means all of the underlying stuff is wrong, are unscientific. And he says that for the fairly simple reason that it is unscientific. That sort of disingenuous cherry-picking of one particular unknown to claim that all the underlying known stuff is wrong is a favourite tactic of people who don't understand something or willfully misrepresent it, but want to further their own agenda regardless of evidence. It's not scientific at all.

 

[ParkCungHee]

Well, I get lots of complaints from people who want to publish papers saying climate change doesn’t exist, but they have a hard time getting their papers published because they don’t pass peer review.

BAAAAW, respectable journals expect respectable articles!

 

[Brian Shanahan]

every time i post evidence for creation. you guys say its not from peer reviewed journals. Im showing you that the people doing the peer review are biased against any evidence for evolution even when it has solid scientific basis. someone else mentioned that everywhere he goes he is told evolution proven . im trying to show based on real hard evidence that there is extreme bias for any one that challenges darwian evolution. that is why creation or ID scientists are not allowed to publish in peer reviewed articles even though there field of research does not deal with orgins.

No you are not, you are just making biased assertions often using people who have been discreditied by their one actions or by misquoting scientists, once where you were so grevious in your misquote (i.e. making Steven Gould look like he was a creationist) that I felt it was worth my while reporting you.
Ok lets break down your whole message piece by piece:
1) Peer review does not work the way you assert, the reviewers do not know the article writer, maybe they do for creationist publishings, but then creationist publishings are not interested in the truth, only in "proving" creationism.
2) The someone else you mention is Chuchki, who himself (herself) has mentioned that a) the people saying these things are narrow minded fundamentalists, and b) they are often saying these things in such a way as simply to be rude to Chuchki. Believe me you don't want to be associated with such people.
3) What real hard evidence, over 75% of the time you make blind assertions with nothing backing them up, the other 25% of the time, either the stuff you're using says the opposite of what you want, is clearly bad or you are twisting the words of people who have said nothing you would want them to.
4) Bias for evolution is not the reason why creationism (ID being only a buzz phrase for creationism) articles are not being published. It is simply because They do not make any scientific sense or have any proof or evidence to back up their claims. Irreducable complexity was shot down by Darwin in On the Origin of Speices and most of the other stuff has been shown to be deliberately faked, or someone not knowing their stuff pulling "proofs" out of their ass and saying "Creationism is real, look at this" and when found out going "you are all a bunch of lying bigots, I have proof you won't accept." Believe me, if there were proof found for creationism in the morning that was much stronger than the current proofs we have for evolution, I would be the first to hold up my hand and say "I was wrong, please forgive me". But I will bet everything I will ever own (probably not that much) that you (or anyone else) will not be able to find such proof before 10/12/2110.

 

[Brian Shanahan]

I've just read this: The paradox of the visibly irrelevant and that doesn't seem to be what he's saying at all.
As intentional misquoting is as against the rules here, you've got some explaining to do.

From that article:

Thankyou Mathilda I was beginning to wonder if I was the only one to spot that.

 

[El_Machinae]

It's not required for the theory to be a good one, but I am interested due to my own lack of knowledge. It would be awesome to be able to respond to questions pertaining to this, and for me to be able to fill the gap in knowledge is a good thing for my own character-building.

Unlike some, I actually am interested to know what I don't already know.

I myself am now genuinely curious about the answers there. Some things are very complex and hard to imagine happening by themselves, but I also know that almost all other examples of the "irreducibly complex" have proved to not be too complex to be reduced and still be sustainable.

Besides, it would directly respond to the 4th of the posters 4 things he finds irreducibly complex about the origins of cellular life via abiogenesis, and for the sake of completeness, I'd like to give a full answer.

Oh, it's a good question. But, like the flagella and the blood-clotting cascade, it's an intellectual red herring.

I worry when the conversations drift into bacteria, because bacteria evolutions is so fugging obvious and rapid and with a gazillion mechanisms that it's kinda a waste of time. Remember the 'species' discussion upthread? Try doing that with bacteria. Labeling bacterial species is a mess.

 

[magicfan101]

I've just read this: The paradox of the visibly irrelevant and that doesn't seem to be what he's saying at all.
As intentional misquoting is as against the rules here, you've got some explaining to do.

From that article:

i just finished reading it. your right gould does not make that assertion on the moth i didn't check the reliability of my source on that one.i take full responsibility for making a false claim on Gould.

Facts do speak for themselves; that's why they're facts.

As is apparently usual with you, Magicfan, your so-called evidence doesn't contain anything remotely like what you suggest it does. The editor was saying that it doesn't matter what the article is about, if it doesn't pass peer review, it doesn't get in. There was nothing about anti-Darwinism in there at all.

sigh
if papers wont be published if it challenges Darwinism. how can you demand peer reviewed papers for evidence against evolution.

 

[ParkCungHee]

sigh
if papers wont be published if it challenges Darwinism. how can you demand peer reviewed papers for evidence against evolution.

If you can't pass peer review, how can you be published in a peer review paper?

 

[cardgame]

Because there is not a massive conspiracy against creationism. If the peer review fails it's because the article sucks.

 

[sanabas]

sigh
if papers wont be published if it challenges Darwinism. how can you demand peer reviewed papers for evidence against evolution.

Again, a paper will certainly be published if it challenges basic evolutionary theory and has the science to back it up. In fact, actually doing that would probably be a paper that wins all sorts of prizes. Overturning such long-held, broadly accepted views is the sort of thing that makes you very famous.

What won't get published is a paper that takes a particular unknown thing about one small aspect of how evolutionary theory works (and there's plenty of unknown things out there to argue about wrt evolutionary theory, as there are in all fields of science), and uses the argument that because we don't know/can't explain/need to re-examine our explanation of this particular small aspect, that all evolutionary theory right down to the basics must be wrong.

There is certainly a bias against that sort of paper, because that sort of paper is completely unscientific.


And speaking of unscientific and evidence for stuff, what do you (or any of our other creationists) think of 'The Bible Code'?

 

[El_Machinae]

sigh
if papers wont be published if it challenges Darwinism. how can you demand peer reviewed papers for evidence against evolution.

... ???

???

Punctuated Equilibrium?


Importantly, that source that you trusted? It obviously lied. There's a lesson there. That source, the people who typed up the page, the people who maintained the page, etc. They're liars. They fooled you. They deceived you. And the people used to arguing about YECism recognised the lie immediately.

Remember asking why the YEC movement was so despised?

 

[Brian Shanahan]

sigh
if papers wont be published if it challenges Darwinism. how can you demand peer reviewed papers for evidence against evolution.

We can demand peer review for evidence against creation because it is the same standard as evidence for evolution. I keep hammering the point that peer review (when done properly) means that the reviewers no nothing about the writer, therefore they do not have any notion about what the writer wants to do, except for what is in the article.But it is not getting through to you.
Sigh.
While peer review does not always allow the best articles (on a scientific basis, not a literary one) it has a far better success rate than anything else used.

P.S. It took over 3 pages and a warning from a moderator for you to acknowledge something I pointed out to you almost immediately as you posted it. That does not look good on you, and leads me to believe that you knew you were wrong to include it but left it in because you thought it made your case look good.