Any evidence for objective peer review?

[npetreley]

Please present a single work from an evolutionist WHO YOU RESPECT AS EDUCATED AND QUALIFIED IN THE FIELDS YOU CONSIDER TO BE IMPORTANT (paleontology, biology, whatever floats your boat) who examined evidence that was problematic for evolution and publicly proposed in a paper for peer review the possibility that it was problematic because evolution could be wrong.

In other words, show some evidence that people truly do not see the evidence, theories and hypotheses only in ways that confirm their a-priori assumption that evolution is true.

Don't bother pointing to people you have either criticized in the past as being quacks, unqualified, etc., or plan to criticize in such a way in the future. If you don't feel they are qualified, then you are saying that you do not believe they are being truly objective, and have therefore contradicted your argument that this person's work means evidence, theories, and hypotheses get objective peer review.

 

[Jerry Smith]

You won't find many for the obvious reason that there hasn't been any evidence discovered that falsifies evolution, and little that could reasonably called "problematic."

Nevertheless, there are a few respected folks who did publish theories and data to expose flaws in certain evolutionary models. Stephen J. Gould, for instance, published papers that attempted to demonstrate the short-comings of the gradualistic model of darwinian evolution (with fair success).

There are also some who have published evidence that has been misconstrued as problematic for evolution. For instance, J.S. Weiner, Sir Wilford Le Gros Clark, and Kenneth Oakley, published papers exposing Piltdown man as a fraud. Of course, the likes of Fred Hoyle have published papers that seek to demonstrate the "improbability" of evolution, but I guess he would be considered "fringe".

 

[Jerry Smith]

By the way, peer review doesn't exist to make sure that dissenting views are published.. It exists to make sure, to the best of our ability, that whatever is published represents good methodology, and that the evidence is documented. It is the selective pressure on scientific research that keeps science honest. It works in physics (else you would have an abundance of "papers" on perpetual-motion machines, and the substantive stuff, like E=mc2 lost in the mix). It works in biology. It is the ultimate acknowledgement that people make mistakes, corrupt their data with bias in measurement, and sometimes just out & out lie - and it is the tool that minimizes the impact of those unfortunate human traits.

 

[RufusAtticus]

The Origin of Species by Charles Darwin.

Well I guess his and Wallace's paper presented to the Royal Society is more what your looking for.

 

[Jerry Smith]

Nick,
This isn't on topic, strictly speaking, but it bears on the principle you are talking about. Here is a good example of a new technique for judging the relevancy of data and decreasing the chances of misinterpretation.

http://www.temple.edu/news_media/pm731.html

 

[Jerry Smith]

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2002/01/020121090546.htm

This site talks about some contentious new data on mammalian evolution. It doesn't deny the fact of common descent, but it argues for an earlier date of mammal diversification than is accepted, and argues against the accepted idea that marsupials originated in the northern hemisphere.

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by Jerry Smith
You won't find many for the obvious reason that there hasn't been any evidence discovered that falsifies evolution, and little that could reasonably called "problematic."

I've posted quotes by Niles Eldredge and Richard Dawkins, just to name two, that say otherwise. They seem to think that the fossil evidence is quite problematic.

They came up with their just-so Barney stories to explain how the problems could be solved if we all just held hands and used our imagination, but they never claimed the fossil evidence wasn't problematic.

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by Jerry Smith
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2002/01/020121090546.htm

This site talks about some contentious new data on mammalian evolution. It doesn't deny the fact of common descent, but it argues for an earlier date of mammal diversification than is accepted, and argues against the accepted idea that marsupials originated in the northern hemisphere.

Right. So it's nothing like what I was asking for. No evidence. Just as I thought.

 

[Jerry Smith]

Originally posted by npetreley


Right. So it's nothing like what I was asking for. No evidence. Just as I thought.

What were you asking for?? I thought you were looking for instances where people published data that seemed to shed a negative light on evolution!

THERE ISN'T MUCH DATA LIKE THAT
I OFFER GOULD & YOU SAY "NO, MORE LIKE GOULD, BUT NOT HIM"
I OFFER AN EXPLANATION OF PEER REVIEW & YOU IGNORE
I OFFER A COUPLE OF OTHER EXAMPLES THAT DEMONSTRATE THAT CONTROVERSIAL OPINIONS GET PUBLISHED, YOU SAY - NOPE, NOT WHAT I'M LOOKING FOR?

Nick, what are you looking for? Are you looking for peer review journals that publish shoddy Hovindesque non-science just for "balance"? That isn't how it works.

Peer review journals cannot publish research that doesn't exist...

 

[RufusAtticus]

Originally posted by npetreley
I've posted quotes by Niles Eldredge and Richard Dawkins, just to name two, that say otherwise. They seem to think that the fossil evidence is quite problematic.

Sans reference of course. Have you even read the original material or are you lifting them off of some quote-minning website? If it's the latter you need to provide referece too.

They came up with their just-so Barney stories to explain how the problems could be solved if we all just held hands and used our imagination, but they never claimed the fossil evidence wasn't problematic.

Can you point to such "just-so Barney stories" in the scientific literature? And can you demonstrate that such stories are so rampant and problematic that they cast doubt on evolutionary biology?

 

[DonaldW112]

Originally posted by npetreley
Please present a single work from an evolutionist WHO YOU RESPECT AS EDUCATED AND QUALIFIED IN THE FIELDS YOU CONSIDER TO BE IMPORTANT (paleontology, biology, whatever floats your boat) who examined evidence that was problematic for evolution and publicly proposed in a paper for peer review the possibility that it was problematic because evolution could be wrong.

While his work could not be reproduced and is now called into question and his scientific career pretty ended after the 1982 Arkansas trial; Gentry, while working at Oak Ridge National Lab published a couple of articles on Polonium halos. I have most of his papers and the rebuttals to them. Basically, he found decay patterns of Polonium in certain rocks that he could not explain using the classic age of the earth. He presented his evidence and said this was a issue. Later work explained the problem but he has now shifted to selling vidoes and books on the web saying how the earth is young. If you want the references I can dig them up on tuesday.

You see if creation scientists have EVIDENCE that they believe can not be reconciled with evolution or an old earth then all they have to do is publish the data. If the methodology and conclusions are sound they will get published regardless of its affect on evolution or cosmology. Do you know of any creationist manuscripts that have been rejected? I would love to see a copy of one. Perhaps we could discuss why it was not published here? I have had papers rejected from peer-reviewed journals -- it happens all the time.

Donald

 

[Caerbannog]

Originally posted by DonaldW112


...

You see if creation scientists have EVIDENCE that they believe can not be reconciled with evolution or an old earth then all they have to do is publish the data. If the methodology and conclusions are sound they will get published regardless of its affect on evolution or cosmology. Do you know of any creationist manuscripts that have been rejected? I would love to see a copy of one. Perhaps we could discuss why it was not published here? I have had papers rejected from peer-reviewed journals -- it happens all the time.

Donald

What "creation-scientists" need to do to show that the scientific journals' reviewers and editors are engaging in an anti-creationism conspiracy is to submit their best work to the journals, and then when their papers are rejected, post the rejected papers on the web along with the reviewers' comments for all to see.

But they won't do that because they don't need to do so in order to keep selling books and tapes to the credulous.

I recently attend a shin-dig hosted by the ICR at the Costa Mesa Calvary Chapel. Talk about money-changers in the temple... man, the money changers owned this temple! The whole thing reminded me of one of those late-night "no money down" infomercials where the major goal is to sell lots of books and tapes. (John Morris was definitely the consummate pitchman!)

Here's one particular low-light: Duane Gish got into a bit of a tirade about how professional scientific journals unfairly exclude pro-creationism articles, and then offered up his experience with Discover Magazine as an example. Of course the crowd bought it hook, line and sinker...

 

[seebs]

Originally posted by npetreley
Please present a single work from an evolutionist WHO YOU RESPECT AS EDUCATED AND QUALIFIED IN THE FIELDS YOU CONSIDER TO BE IMPORTANT (paleontology, biology, whatever floats your boat) who examined evidence that was problematic for evolution and publicly proposed in a paper for peer review the possibility that it was problematic because evolution could be wrong.

There's an underlying logical problem here (although, in fact, yes, all of the various theories have been challenged on occasion, and some challenges pass peer review).

Imagine, if you will, the difficulty of getting a paper through peer review based on the assertion that the Earth has a finite quantity of gravity, which is gradually being used up, and that tall buildings use it up faster.

The lack of papers arguing for a given hypothesis need not be taken as evidence of *bias*.

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by seebs

The lack of papers arguing for a given hypothesis need not be taken as evidence of *bias*.

Not in the case of something so easy to verify as gravity (which was your example).

But you wouldn't claim evolution is as easy to confirm and test as gravity, would you?

 

[maninastrangeland]

i would

[adding more because i get complaints that my posts are too small to add anything ]

law of gravity
law of evolution

each are so easy to see. we see the obvious mass attraction between us and the earth. and we see obvious evolution of life through changes in species.

once you open your eyes, each laws are easy to see. mind you, gravity wasn't explained until Newton.

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by Jerry Smith


What were you asking for?? I thought you were looking for instances where people published data that seemed to shed a negative light on evolution!

That's not what I was asking for (I was asking for peer review that questioned the premise that macroevolution -- as in single cell to human -- is true). But your link doesn't even question evolution, IMO. It only tries to resolve some biogeographical problems. Or did you actually read the article you linked to?

Peer review journals cannot publish research that doesn't exist...

Absolutely right. You won't discover the truth if you won't look for it.

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by maninastrangeland
i would

Great! Evolve a cell into a man for me.

 

[maninastrangeland]

Originally posted by npetreley


Great! Evolve a cell into a man for me.

i'm sorry, i'm not god.

 

[Jerry Smith]

Originally posted by npetreley

But you wouldn't claim evolution is as easy to confirm and test as gravity, would you?

No, it wasn't easy. It took decades. To attain the status of confirmed fact that it has today took nearly a century. Just because it wasn't easy to confirm doesn't mean we should expect that everyone who did and does go looking for evidence that contradicts evolution will find any. The data hasn't been found. It has been a long time since the scientific community gave up looking for it, but the Duane Gish's of the world still are.

Nothing stops Gish from publishing in peer review publications except the quality of his work. If he has good work that is being censored, he can very easily (as someone here suggested) post the rejected papers along with the reviewers' comments so that we can all see the bias.

 

[DonaldW112]

Originally posted by npetreley


Not in the case of something so easy to verify as gravity (which was your example).

But you wouldn't claim evolution is as easy to confirm and test as gravity, would you?

Nick you have been down this road already on your board. You agreed with the fact of evolution there and it is the same here.
The fact of gravity -- masses attract each other with a force that is related to their masses and distance from each other.
Result of gravity -- solar systems, star physics, etc. The theory of gravity -- how do masses communicate their mass to other masses across distances? gravitons?

The fact of evolution -- the gene frequencies of populations change from one generation to the next
The result of evolution -- all organisms on the earth share a common ancestor
The theory of evolution -- what mechanisms acted upon changing gene frequencies, natural selection, mutations, genetic drift, etc.

Actually, as I write this it occured to me that the theory of evolution is better worked out than the theory of gravity. What do others think?

Nick, I know you would like a complete fossil record showing every creature that ever lived -- not possible so your faith is safe. I also know you would like to see a scientist take a single cell to a human, but of course you would say that because it took place in a lab it has nothing to do with what really happened. Also, if scienists were able to "evolve" a single cell into a person in the lab that would be evidence against the type of evolution we are talking about here. Based on your continued instance on evidence that is impossible and in fact not evidence for evolution at all it would seem that your blind faith is safe.