A fascinating video on the vacuity of Macro Evolution for

[createdtoworship]

Oh my!! An article that gives the impact factor of the "journal" that gradyll linked:

International Journal of Design and Nature and Ecodynamics

I looked through the first 100 journals that they had rated and there was one that was lower than his:

SJR : Scientific Journal Rankings

That is the first 50, once there you are only a click away from the next 50.

appeal to authority. you have people and scientists all going one way, then someone comes the opposite way and they prove them wrong. Likely not to get a lot of follows.

 

[createdtoworship]

I have been on the publishing side and the reviewing side. Peer-review is only as good as that journal's peer-review process.

Also, I did your homework and found an article - you haven't commented.

I agree that some peer reviews are better than others. But unless you have a phd, you should have never been on the board to begin with. Thats what I mean by the peer review process is messed up.

 

[createdtoworship]

Nope, I haven't. Yet I can tell that I am years ahead of you in education in the sciences.

appeal to authority, with a twist of lacking in humility as well.

 

[EpiscipalMe]

I agree that some peer reviews are better than others. But unless you have a phd, you should have never been on the board to begin with. Thats what I mean by the peer review process is messed up.

Actually, I have an MD and have published in / reviewed for medical journals. Is that sufficiently qualified?

Anyway - what about the article I linked for you?

 

[createdtoworship]

Oh my!! An article that gives the impact factor of the "journal" that gradyll linked:

International Journal of Design and Nature and Ecodynamics

I looked through the first 100 journals that they had rated and there was one that was lower than his:

SJR : Scientific Journal Rankings

That is the first 50, once there you are only a click away from the next 50.

that engine works on citations. So you have have a perfect peer review, by a perfect person. But because it was new and was not cited yet, it would be low on the engines. list.

 

[createdtoworship]

Actually, I have an MD and have published in / reviewed for medical journals. Is that sufficiently qualified?

Anyway - what about the article I linked for you?

if you believe that you can go to your auto mechanic and order an ice vanilla late, then maybe your qualified to discuss biological evolution.

 

[EpiscipalMe]

if you believe that you can go to your auto mechanic and order an ice vanilla late, then maybe your qualified to discuss biological evolution.

So, I need a PhD to discuss evolution? That's new information. It was pretty well covered in my pre-med classes.

Regardless, you still haven't commented on the article I posted.

 

[pitabread]

he makes are argument for design.

Not particularly well. For example, take the first section on feathers. The author describes the structures of feathers, claims that the fossil record doesn't have enough transitional evidence, claims that proposed mechanisms of evolutionary development are inadequate... and therefore DesignerDidIt.

That's their argument in a nutshell.

Can you imagine how incredibly disappointed I was the first time I read it? I keep scanning through thinking, "okay, they must have something tangible to back this up".

But they don't.

But seriously you should read it, I believe it has characteristics of specified complexity (not the irreducible complexity of behe) but specified complexity of dembski.

Except the author fails to demonstrate this. At best, they assert it several times, but an assertion is not evidence.

Even if we accept for argument's sake that specified complexity is a valid concept (it's not), specified complexity itself is essentially a probability argument. But where in this article is the author's probability model for detecting specified complexity? Where are the calculations? Where is the data?

At best, they state stuff like this:

By the same logic, when stripping away interpretation and conjecture from the scientific facts, and putting all the evidence on the table, the straightforward implications of the hook and ridge system is that there is functional complexity at the outset, with a purpose in view – an aerodynamic surface.

That's it. Just a bald assertion.

It's just sad.

 

[createdtoworship]

So, I need a PhD to discuss evolution? That's new information. It was pretty well covered in my pre-med classes.

Regardless, you still haven't commented on the article I posted.

to be honest anyone who does not have a phd, in evolutionary biology, or related field, AND that has published in peer review....is not qualified to discuss evolution (in a debate setting). I posted a peer review, so far you have not. Unless you have....in which you would need to repost. I missed it.

 

[EpiscipalMe]

to be honest anyone who does not have a phd, in evolutionary biology, or related field, AND that has published in peer review....is not qualified to discuss evolution (in a debate setting). I posted a peer review, so far you have not. Unless you have....in which you would need to repost. I missed it.

Post 179

I guess you have a PhD in evolutionary biology?

 

[Cearbhall]

I will trust the peer review thank you very much.

...and that's why you're a Creationist?

 

[createdtoworship]

Post 179

I guess you have a PhD in evolutionary biology?

I have not made any positive statements regarding evolution. So my qualifications are not needed. Reversing the burden of proof, it is. Yoda style.

 

[createdtoworship]

...and that's why you're a Creationist?

I am a creationist because I believe that something caused the universe, not nothing. As richard dawkins says. I don't have peer review to back it up but simple common sense. Nothing, can't perform actions, therefore nothing did not cause the universe. But this is really for another thread.

 

[pitabread]

I posted a peer review

You posted an article of dubious origin that fails to demonstrate what the author purports to set out to demonstrate.

I'll ask again: Exactly where in the paper does the author provide evidence of design in birds?

 

[EpiscipalMe]

I have not made any positive statements regarding evolution. So my qualifications are not needed. Reversing the burden of proof, it is. Yoda style.

That really makes no sense.

You can argue against evolution without credentials, but I can't argue for evolution without credentials?

And, for what it's worth, the only pro-evolution argument I made was posting that article (which you still haven't commented on) although I do accept evolution.

 

[createdtoworship]

You posted an article of dubious origin that fails to demonstrate what the author purports to set out to demonstrate.

I'll ask again: Exactly where in the paper does the author provide evidence of design in birds?

I am not qualified to answer that question. Neither are you qualified to discuss evolution.

 

[pitabread]

I am not qualified to answer that question.

s'funny, earlier you claimed it was "great work". And yet now you're suddenly "not qualified" to talk about it?

I mean, really, there is nothing in that particular article more complex than a person having taken high school level Biology should be able to understand (with Google and Wikipedia at their disposal for the stuff they don't).

It sounds to me like you know it doesn't provide evidence for design, you just are trying to save face rather than admit it.

Neither are you qualified to discuss evolution.

We're not talking about evolution. We are (or at least I am) trying to get you to back up an article you seem to think provides evidence for design even though you are unwilling and unable to do so.

 

[Cearbhall]

I am a creationist because I believe that something caused the universe, not nothing. As richard dawkins says. I don't have peer review to back it up but simple common sense. Nothing, can't perform actions, therefore nothing did not cause the universe.

That's not really what Creationism means...that would be theistic evolution or intelligent design.

 

[pitabread]

That's not really what Creationism means...that would be theistic evolution or intelligent design.

Arguably simply believing the universe had a creator wouldn't even necessitate theism. Even basic deist belief covers that.

 

[createdtoworship]

s'funny, earlier you claimed it was "great work". And yet now you're suddenly "not qualified" to talk about it?

I mean, really, there is nothing in that particular article more complex than a person having taken high school level Biology should be able to understand (with Google and Wikipedia at their disposal for the stuff they don't).

It sounds to me like you know it doesn't provide evidence for design, you just are trying to save face rather than admit it.



We're not talking about evolution. We are (or at least I am) trying to get you to back up an article you seem to think provides evidence for design even though you are unwilling and unable to do so.

and you are still not qualified to refute a peer review. no matter how you word it.