Evolution and the myth of "scientific consensus"

[Loudmouth]

The point is to show the reality that a consensus theory can just as easily be maintained and protected for ideological reasons, instead of being based on rigorous scientific merit.

The position of experts counts as nothing?

I only cite the consensus when creationists make silly arguments about there being no evidence, or that the theory of evolution is about to collapse. If someone is completely ignorant of the science and is making claims about 99.9% of the PhD's in a field being wrong, I think it is worthwhile pointing out the 99.9% consensus among the PhD's.

But most evolutionists will hide behind this idea that Evolution can't be false because it's been around for so long and has "overwhelming support of the scientific community".

Ernst Mayr said it best:

"By the end of the 1940s the work of the evolutionists was considered to be largely completed, as indicated by the robustness of the Evolutionary Synthesis. But in the ensuing decades, all sorts of things happened that might have had a major impact on the Darwinian paradigm. First came Avery's demonstration that nucleic acids and not proteins are the genetic material. Then in 1953, the discovery of the double helix by Watson and Crick increased the analytical capacity of the geneticists by at least an order of magnitude. Unexpectedly, however, none of these molecular findings necessitated a revision of the Darwinian paradigm—nor did the even more drastic genomic revolution that has permitted the analysis of genes down to the last base pair."
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/305/5680/46.full

It's not the longevity, but the amount of testing that has happened over that time. Genetics and DNA were the big one, and evolution passed with flying colors. Every month a new transitional fossil is found, and they keep falling into that predicted nested hierarchy. New transitional hominids were found. New bird and tetrapod transitionals were found. New whale intermediates were found. So much evidence has come in over the last 150 years that if evolution were false, we would have figured it out a long time ago.

 

[lifepsyop]

You were the one who said there was a myth of 'impeccable veracity' of peer review. I explained that I don't think anyone is claiming that.

What's your alternative to scientific papers in a field being reviewed by experts in that field?

If you've got such a bee in your bonnet about peer review, I'm sure you have a better system to suggest.

Actually I have no problem with peer-review. Like I said, it's certainly better than not having peer-review.

It's those multitudes who constantly shower adoration on the peer-review process as if it is a bastion of objective truth. They believe that, (besides minor imperfections), peer-review is essentially a very objective and reliable process. But of course that is also not true. These are just myths that get floated out from academic institutions and take on a life of their own.

"scientific consensus" "peer-review" .. these mantras are like little incantations that are used to circumvent dealing with arguments and to shut down debate.

 

[Loudmouth]

I've attacked it scientifically - it's you that avoids the science.

You have made stuff up, like retroviruses shuffling host genes between species.

Show me anywhere where anything has evolved from one thing to another - except as we observe in the real world - breed mating with breed and producing a new breed

That's all you need to produce the biodiversity we see today, the production of new breeds.

Or if you prefer in over 100 years of experiments with plant and animal husbandry, where species become anything but subspecies, breeds, varieties, sub-varieties or formae (infraspecific taxa) of the original Kind?

Chimps and humans are still the same primate kind. Humans and bears are still the same mammal kind. Humans and trout are still the same vertebrate kind.

Do you still not understand that your "kinds" argument is nonsense? We shouldn't see new kinds if evolution is true since you always stay on the same evolutionary branch.

Until you understand the basics, you will continue to embarrass yourself.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

You were the one who said there was a myth of 'impeccable veracity' of peer review. I explained that I don't think anyone is claiming that.

What's your alternative to scientific papers in a field being reviewed by experts in that field?

If you've got such a bee in your bonnet about peer review, I'm sure you have a better system to suggest.

The only way to stop the bias is to make it open source. Peer review publishers make money by selling peer reviewed materials to those looking only to confirm their system of beliefs. They do not make money by publishing papers that go against their client's beliefs.

In medicine you might want to know a particular belief is no longer valid in order to give better care. But evolutionists don't want their belief's challenged, so publisher's do not include dissenting votes, or papers unless they are forced to by publicity and can't get out of it without that bias showing.

You just want to ignore it.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0065128113000020

 

[Loudmouth]

Actually I have no problem with peer-review. Like I said, it's certainly better than not having peer-review.

It's those multitudes who constantly shower adoration on the peer-review process as if it is a bastion of objective truth.

There is an old adage in science: "If it isn't published, it doesn't exist".

Peer review is never viewed as some bastion of objective truth. It is viewed as your job. As a scientist, publishing is what you are supposed to be doing. Adulations are given for publishing a good paper in a good journal.

They believe that, (besides minor imperfections), peer-review is essentially a very objective and reliable process.

It's the first step, and that's the way every scientist I know views it.

 

[Loudmouth]

The only way to stop the bias is to make it open source. Peer review publishers make money by selling peer reviewed materials to those looking only to confirm their system of beliefs. They do not make money by publishing papers that go against their client's beliefs.

Crocodile tears from crackpots who don't have any research that could be published.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Actually I have no problem with peer-review. Like I said, it's certainly better than not having peer-review.

Some people might disagree with you.

http://scitation.aip.org/content/aip/magazine/physicstoday/article/58/9/10.1063/1.2117822

http://michaelnielsen.org/blog/three-myths-about-scientific-peer-review/

"Myth number 1: Scientists have always used peer review
The myth that scientists adopted peer review broadly and early in the history of science is surprisingly widely believed, despite being false. It’s true that peer review has been used for a long time – a process recognizably similar to the modern system was in use as early as 1731, in the Royal Society of Edinburgh’s Medical Essays and Observations (ref). But in most scientific journals, peer review wasn’t routine until the middle of the twentieth century, a fact documented in historical papers by Burnham, Kronick, and Spier....


...How many of Einstein’s 300 plus papers were peer reviewed? According to the physicist and historian of science Daniel Kennefick, it may well be that only a single paper of Einstein’s was ever subject to peer review. That was a paper about gravitational waves, jointly authored with Nathan Rosen, and submitted to the journal Physical Review in 1936. The Physical Review had at that time recently introduced a peer review system. It wasn’t always used, but when the editor wanted a second opinion on a submission, he would send it out for review. The Einstein-Rosen paper was sent out for review, and came back with a (correct, as it turned out) negative report. Einstein’s indignant reply to the editor is amusing to modern scientific sensibilities, and suggests someone quite unfamiliar with peer review:"

So the one paper Einstein actually submitted to the peer review process was rejected because it was flawed.

 

[The Cadet]

This thread is not about promoting ID/creationist papers.

No, but perhaps you can explain where the systematic bias is. It's not in peer-review; these papers do get published, after all. It's not in funding; the Templeton Foundation, Discovery Institute, and numerous other institutions are perfectly willing to fund the research. It's not in religious ideology - even if the trend is shifting, as recently as 10 years ago, over half of biologists believed in god. It's not in financial conflicts of interest - there are no products whose safety is called into question by evolution not being true, and there's no product which depends on belief in evolution to function. So what, exactly, is causing this bias? And how does it show itself? How would you tell the difference between "they're biased for this reason" and "they're biased for the same reason geologists are biased against the flat earth society or doctors are biased against faith healers"?

 

[Loudmouth]

Some people might disagree with you.

http://scitation.aip.org/content/aip/magazine/physicstoday/article/58/9/10.1063/1.2117822

http://michaelnielsen.org/blog/three-myths-about-scientific-peer-review/

"Myth number 1: Scientists have always used peer review
The myth that scientists adopted peer review broadly and early in the history of science is surprisingly widely believed, despite being false. It’s true that peer review has been used for a long time – a process recognizably similar to the modern system was in use as early as 1731, in the Royal Society of Edinburgh’s Medical Essays and Observations (ref). But in most scientific journals, peer review wasn’t routine until the middle of the twentieth century, a fact documented in historical papers by Burnham, Kronick, and Spier....


...How many of Einstein’s 300 plus papers were peer reviewed? According to the physicist and historian of science Daniel Kennefick, it may well be that only a single paper of Einstein’s was ever subject to peer review. That was a paper about gravitational waves, jointly authored with Nathan Rosen, and submitted to the journal Physical Review in 1936. The Physical Review had at that time recently introduced a peer review system. It wasn’t always used, but when the editor wanted a second opinion on a submission, he would send it out for review. The Einstein-Rosen paper was sent out for review, and came back with a (correct, as it turned out) negative report. Einstein’s indignant reply to the editor is amusing to modern scientific sensibilities, and suggests someone quite unfamiliar with peer review:"

So the one paper Einstein actually submitted to the peer review process was rejected because it was flawed.

All a smoke screen to hide the fact that the EU/PC crowd has no research to publish.

 

[lifepsyop]

It's not the longevity, but the amount of testing that has happened over that time. Genetics and DNA were the big one, and evolution passed with flying colors.

Bing. There's another mantra. "evolution passed with flying colors" lol.

If we actually look at what goes on in genetics we find immense plasticity and room for ad-hoc adjusting. The "molecular clock" for example, oft touted for it's robust testing of phylogenetic relationships, can be endlessly adjusted when unexpected data appear (as it often does) by just saying a this or that dna was much more or much less conserved in whatever lineage.

Every month a new transitional fossil is found, and they keep falling into that predicted nested hierarchy. New transitional hominids were found.

Oh yea, that "nested hierarchy" that can be liberally adjusted to fit the data. (Hey maybe this feature convergently evolved, maybe that feature did)

New bird and tetrapod transitionals were found. New whale intermediates were found. So much evidence has come in over the last 150 years that if evolution were false, we would have figured it out a long time ago.

Yea, just like those advanced tetrapod trackways appearing about 20 million years out of sequence. What happened with that again? Oh yea, Evolution accommodated it without missing a beat. What happened with those triassic bird fossils? Oh yea, evolutionists changed the date of the rock formation they were found in by over 100 million years. Flying colors.

 

[Loudmouth]

Bing. There's another mantra. "evolution passed with flying colors" lol.

It's another fact.

If we actually look at what goes on in genetics we find immense plasticity and room for ad-hoc adjusting. The "molecular clock" for example, oft touted for it's robust testing of phylogenetic relationships, can be endlessly adjusted when unexpected data appear (as it often does) by just saying a this or that dna was much more or much less conserved in whatever lineage.

Your mischaracterizations of the science does not refute it.

Oh yea, that "nested hierarchy" that can be liberally adjusted to fit the data. (Hey maybe this feature convergently evolved, maybe that feature did)

Yet another fantasy.

Yea, just like those advanced tetrapod trackways appearing about 20 million years out of sequence. What happened with that again? Oh yea, Evolution accommodated it without missing a beat. What happened with those triassic bird fossils? Oh yea, evolutionists changed the date of the rock formation they were found in by over 100 million years. Flying colors.

How do you determine when a fossil is out of sequence? That would require you to prove that the trackways were the earliest trackways made by any tetrapod transitional. Do you have that evidence? We don't even have a fossil for the species that left the footprints, and you sit here and pretend that our knowledge of those fossil sequences is complete?

 

[lifepsyop]

How do you determine when a fossil is out of sequence? That would require you to prove that the trackways were the earliest trackways made by any tetrapod transitional. Do you have that evidence? We don't even have a fossil for the species that left the footprints, and you sit here and pretend that our knowledge of those fossil sequences is complete?

It's funny that you always reaffirm my point on this... that there was no "sequence" to begin with since Evolution theory was able to accommodate a discovery far out of place of the model of linear stratigraphic progression of tetrapods that had been enthusiastically promoted up until that time. It's a perfect demonstration of how Evolution really isn't passing any rigorous tests with "flying colors". The theory has so much room for fudge-factoring that this can't even happen in principle.

(by the way, it's a bit too late for skepticism on the trackways as the evolutionary community has already demonstrated such a discovery would be accommodated into the theory, even one of your high priests PZ Meyers was perfectly fine with it.)

And as far as the macro order of the fossil record (marine creatures/reptiles/mammals), I've already explained in the other thread that this fossil order was already known prior to the advent of Evolution theory, which could have potentially accommodated major differences.

 

[lifepsyop]

Your mischaracterizations of the science does not refute it.

That sentence does not even make sense.

And it is well known how unreliable the molecular "clock" is. Maybe you should brush up on the literature.

 

[Zosimus]

http://jrs.sagepub.com/content/99/4/178.short?rss=1&ssource=mfr

But does peer review `work' at all? A systematic review of all the available evidence on peer review concluded that `the practice of peer review is based on faith in its effects, rather than on facts'. But the answer to the question on whether peer review works depends on the question `What is peer review for?'.

One answer is that it is a method to select the best grant applications for funding and the best papers to publish in a journal. It is hard to test this aim because there is no agreed definition of what constitutes a good paper or a good research proposal. Plus what is peer review to be tested against? Chance? Or a much simpler process? Stephen Lock when editor of the BMJ conducted a study in which he alone decided which of a consecutive series of papers submitted to the journal he would publish. He then let the papers go through the usual process. There was little difference between the papers he chose and those selected after the full process of peer review. This small study suggests that perhaps you do not need an elaborate process. Maybe a lone editor, thoroughly familiar with what the journal wants and knowledgeable about research methods, would be enough. But it would be a bold journal that stepped aside from the sacred path of peer review.

Another answer to the question of what is peer review for is that it is to improve the quality of papers published or research proposals that are funded. The systematic review found little evidence to support this, but again such studies are hampered by the lack of an agreed definition of a good study or a good research proposal.

Peer review might also be useful for detecting errors or fraud. At the BMJ we did several studies where we inserted major errors into papers that we then sent to many reviewers. Nobody ever spotted all of the errors. Some reviewers did not spot any, and most reviewers spotted only about a quarter. Peer review sometimes picks up fraud by chance, but generally it is not a reliable method for detecting fraud because it works on trust. A major question, which I will return to, is whether peer review and journals should cease to work on trust.

 

[The Cadet]

"scientific consensus" "peer-review" .. these mantras are like little incantations that are used to circumvent dealing with arguments and to shut down debate.

The fact of the matter is, I'm not an evolutionary biologist. Neither are you. Neither is justa. However, when he says something like:

I've attacked it scientifically - it's you that avoids the science. Show me anywhere where anything has evolved from one thing to another - except as we observe in the real world - breed mating with breed and producing a new breed?

I know what he's saying is without merit. How? Because either he's thought of some objection biologists have managed to miss for hundreds of years... Or what he's saying is total nonsense. Justa, have you ever considered getting your idea here brought in for peer-review? It might illuminate the issue. Or take it to a biology forum (maybe it'll go better than the last time you tried to present your ideas to people who actually knew a thing or two about the subject). Or even just "AskABiologist". In this case, you're asking for a demonstration of something that takes place over tens or hundreds of thousands of years while ignoring evidence from fields as diverse as embryology, genetics, and archaeology. The evidence you are demanding is neither required by nor predicted by evolution.

Of course, another way I know what he's saying is nonsense is because he keeps on repeating this:

That those transitional forms are no more missing than they are missing between the Husky and Chinook. They have simply misinterpreted the data because of bias to a preconceived belief.

I am sorry, Justa, but no matter how many times you repeat this crap about dog breeds, it will never suddenly start making any sense. The thing you are holding up as an example of how evolution works in general is a far-flung exception that has no parallel in nature whatsoever. There is no species whose individual breeds are anywhere near as far apart, and the reasons for which I have explained at length. Trying to treat dog breeds as indicative of the variety of morphology present in other animals doesn't even pass the sniff test, and you have made no attempt to back it up with any actual evidence.

I think you are now making stuff up you have only ever seen on blog sites. You can't find the quote because when you do it will only be found on a blog site.

Excuse me for not feeling like digging through god knows how much of this crap then translating it for you.

http://www.martin-neukamm.de/max-planck.html

Hell, Lönnig even wrote a book about how this affair was oppressing him, scientifically. Which was a load of crap. MPI never tried to fire or even censor him; their demands were merely that he not put that crap on their website, and not associate that realm of work with their good name.

So you say, so you say. Claims are a dime a dozen. That's what those same scientists told those that believed in expansion too. That's the same excuse the church used to not look into Galileo's telescope. And here you are - still refusing to look because of religious dogmatic beliefs.

I make no assumption about why you hold your position. I would appreciate the same courtesy.

 

[lifepsyop]

http://jrs.sagepub.com/content/99/4/178.short?rss=1&ssource=mfr

But does peer review `work' at all? A systematic review of all the available evidence on peer review concluded that `the practice of peer review is based on faith in its effects, rather than on facts'. But the answer to the question on whether peer review works depends on the question `What is peer review for?'.

One answer is that it is a method to select the best grant applications for funding and the best papers to publish in a journal. It is hard to test this aim because there is no agreed definition of what constitutes a good paper or a good research proposal. Plus what is peer review to be tested against? Chance? Or a much simpler process? Stephen Lock when editor of the BMJ conducted a study in which he alone decided which of a consecutive series of papers submitted to the journal he would publish. He then let the papers go through the usual process. There was little difference between the papers he chose and those selected after the full process of peer review. This small study suggests that perhaps you do not need an elaborate process. Maybe a lone editor, thoroughly familiar with what the journal wants and knowledgeable about research methods, would be enough. But it would be a bold journal that stepped aside from the sacred path of peer review.

Another answer to the question of what is peer review for is that it is to improve the quality of papers published or research proposals that are funded. The systematic review found little evidence to support this, but again such studies are hampered by the lack of an agreed definition of a good study or a good research proposal.

Peer review might also be useful for detecting errors or fraud. At the BMJ we did several studies where we inserted major errors into papers that we then sent to many reviewers. Nobody ever spotted all of the errors. Some reviewers did not spot any, and most reviewers spotted only about a quarter. Peer review sometimes picks up fraud by chance, but generally it is not a reliable method for detecting fraud because it works on trust. A major question, which I will return to, is whether peer review and journals should cease to work on trust.

Note the conclusion:

"So peer review is a flawed process, full of easily identified defects with little evidence that it works. Nevertheless, it is likely to remain central to science and journals because there is no obvious alternative, and scientists and editors have a continuing belief in peer review. How odd that science should be rooted in belief."

It isn't even reliable for detecting basic errors, much less rigorously testing and establishing the veracity of a metaphysical labyrinth like Evolution theory. What Peer-review is very effective at doing is protecting favored ideologies, regardless of scientific merit.

 

[The Cadet]

Note the conclusion:

"So peer review is a flawed process, full of easily identified defects with little evidence that it works. Nevertheless, it is likely to remain central to science and journals because there is no obvious alternative, and scientists and editors have a continuing belief in peer review. How odd that science should be rooted in belief."

It isn't even reliable for detecting basic errors, much less rigorously testing and establishing the veracity of a metaphysical labyrinth like Evolution theory. What Peer-review is very effective at doing is protecting favored ideologies, regardless of scientific merit.

First of all, is it ironic that that paper was published in a peer-reviewed journal?
Secondly, "protecting favored ideologies"? What part of "The Discovery Institute is publishing papers" is so hard to understand? These guys are not somehow excluded from the process!

 

[Zosimus]

First of all, is it ironic that that paper was published in a peer-reviewed journal?
Secondly, "protecting favored ideologies"? What part of "The Discovery Institute is publishing papers" is so hard to understand? These guys are not somehow excluded from the process!

Why should I find it ironic that it's published in a peer-reviewed journal? You can get almost anything published in a peer-review journal. All you have to do is nominate one of your buddies as the peer to review it.

 

[RickG]

Why should I find it ironic that it's published in a peer-reviewed journal? You can get almost anything published in a peer-review journal. All you have to do is nominate one of your buddies as the peer to review it.

That is simply not true. However, we do see occasionally less than scholarly papers appear in what is known as the outline journals. That is journals that publish papers outside of their and/or reviewers expertise. And that is precisely where peer review gets a bad reputation occasionally, which is the fault of specific journals, not the process.

 

[Zosimus]

That is simply not true. However, we do see occasionally less than scholarly papers appear in what is known as the outline journals. That is journals that publish papers outside of their and/or reviewers expertise. And that is precisely where peer review gets a bad reputation occasionally, which is the fault of specific journals, not the process.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/03/28/us-science-cancer-idUSBRE82R12P20120328


A former researcher at Amgen Inc has found that many basic studies on cancer -- a high proportion of them from university labs -- are unreliable, with grim consequences for producing new medicines in the future.

During a decade as head of global cancer research at Amgen, C. Glenn Begley identified 53 "landmark" publications -- papers in top journals, from reputable labs -- for his team to reproduce. Begley sought to double-check the findings before trying to build on them for drug development.

Result: 47 of the 53 could not be replicated. He described his findings in a commentary piece published on Wednesday in the journal Nature....

Bayer and Amgen found that the prestige of a journal was no guarantee a paper would be solid. "The scientific community assumes that the claims in a preclinical study can be taken at face value," Begley and Lee Ellis of MD Anderson Cancer Center wrote in Nature. It assumes, too, that "the main message of the paper can be relied on ... Unfortunately, this is not always the case."

(emphasis added)