Why creationist can't pass peer review

[sfs]

No offense, sfs, I didn't ask what peer review wasn't designed to do.

I asked: does peer review also keep an evolutionist honest.

No offense AV1611VET, but I wasn't answering your question (which wasn't addressed to me). I was commenting on it.

 

[AV1611VET]

No offense AV1611VET, but I wasn't answering your question (which wasn't addressed to me). I was commenting on it.

Okay --- thanks ---

 

[Biblewriter]

YE creationism is no older than the last century. It was the invention of a Seventh-Day Adventist "prophetess."

Prior to the Adventists' successful transplantation of their ideas to some fundamentalists, most creationists were OE types.

While i am an OEC, I have to mention that this is simply incorrect. I have spent a significant amount of time studying ancient writings, and have noticed YE comments from the first or second centuries of Christianity. As this was some time ago, and had nothing to do with the questions I was researching, I cannot provide a link. I simply remember seeing it somewhere in these ancient documents.

 

[sfs]

Okay --- thanks ---

Everybody's happy.

 

[mark kennedy]

Everybody's happy.

yea

 

[Buho]

The confidence level for reconstructions of immediate human ancestors is quite low. ... The confidence that chimpanzees (with bonobos) are humans' closest living relatives is very high indeed...

Can you tell me how a high confidence result can come from the multiplication of low-confidence intermediates? This is a gigantic problem I see. The intermediates are not driving the larger conclusion: rather the larger (preset) belief is driving the interpretation of the intermediates.

If offered evidence about the resurrection of Jesus, science would indeed try to find an explanation consistent with the normal behavior in nature. If it can't find one, it would have to leave it as "cause unknown".

Good answer. I like it. But that's not what I see. Scientists (evolutionists in particular) don't like to say "cause unknown." Instead, they invent something out of their imagination, and the one that is most plausible (even if the plausibility is next to nil) is selected as the answer. See the human tree above. Criticism of the plausibility is rare in evolutionary literature.

The strength of science is that the physical world usually does behave in an orderly way.

But the creation of the world may not have been through processes we understand today. If this is the case, any explanation using processes today will be wrong.

Space aliens are a natural, material explanation for a video feed. Why should science have any problem with that?

"What was that explosion I just heard outside?"
"Aliens did it."
"Oh. Okay."

By your reasoning, humans are natural, too. If we got a consistent puse from space, we could say a human might have caused it rather than look for a pulsar star?

This is the theory of Intelligent Design: natural causes are sought after first. When none are forthcoming, human action is investigated. If that fails, aliens or God are considered.

Feathered dinosaurs: show me feathers that aren't on birds.

Microraptor.

Microraptor is more bird than dino. Has it been shown conclusively that M. gui's ancestors are dinos or is that merely assumed (circular reasoning)? I brought up the challenge because of the gigantic derth of evidence despite the claims.

Whales with functional legs: show me functional legs on whales.

Ambulocetus.

Ditto.

Fused chromosomes: show me that this actually occurred.

What other explanation is there for human chromosome 2?

Specially-created isn't an option? Like I said, show me it happened. There's more to it than just fusing two chromosomes together. Here's one major problem with your hypothesis: with whom does the mutant mate with to produce offspring that survive and pass on the fusion? Natural selection is much more likely to kill off the mutant.

Homology is not exclusive evidence for ancestry. It is still evidence, however.

Thanks for acknowledging that. Didn't say it wasn't evidence. If it isn't exclusive, then how is homology supposed to make me see evolution when I'm already a creationist? Barbarian didn't pick a good evidence here.

Snakes with legs: loss of features is the opposite of what evolution needs to evidence.

You misunderstand the predictions of evolution.

No I don't. I didn't say evolution does not account for this; it does. I just said this evidence is not the kind that's dressed to impress. Anyone can rip out a page of a book. Putting it back in is the trick. It's easy to lose features; gaining them (without an intelligent designer) is much harder.

Fish with legs: show me fish legs capable of supporting their body weight.

Tiktaalik.

Again I say: show me fish legs capable of supporting their body weight. Fossils don't walk, sfs. The fishapod smells a lot like the coelacanth (the Darwin Fish is modeled after this critter), who was the previous favorite, until living ones were found to not use their fins for any kind of walking whatsoever.

 

[sfs]

Can you tell me how a high confidence result can come from the multiplication of low-confidence intermediates? This is a gigantic problem I see. The intermediates are not driving the larger conclusion: rather the larger (preset) belief is driving the interpretation of the intermediates.

No, that's wrong. Neither the preset belief nor the intermediates are driving the conclusion that humans and chimpanzees are closely related. The intermediates actually have nothing to do with it -- the conclusion would be the same if not a single intermediate had ever been found.

The close relationship between humans and the great apes was proposed because of their similar morphologies (well before any intermediates were found, incidentally). Humans, chimpanzees and gorillas share not just general similarities, but particular traits in the nested hierarchy of traits that characterizes life (the hierarchy which provided much of the original impetus for the theory of evolution). What was not clear was which was more closely related to humans: chimps or gorillas. Different scientists staked claims for one or another position (rather as scientists stake claims about the precise relationship between the different human-chimpanzee intermediates), but there was no conclusive evidence either way. (There were even a few who proposed that orangutans were the closest relative.)

The details of the relationships became clear when large-scale genetic sequencing became feasible, and chimpanzees were established as the closest human relative based on genetics alone.

Good answer. I like it. But that's not what I see. Scientists (evolutionists in particular) don't like to say "cause unknown." Instead, they invent something out of their imagination, and the one that is most plausible (even if the plausibility is next to nil) is selected as the answer. See the human tree above.

Of course they invent causes -- they're called hypotheses. It's how science works. What they don't do (by and large -- there are always exceptions) is conclude that an answer is correct until they have good evidence. At present, exactly which intermediates were actually human ancestors and which were side branches cannot be said with confidence.

Criticism of the plausibility is rare in evolutionary literature.

Be honest here: how much evolutionary literature do you read? Not popular science books, but the scientific literature? How many journal papers do you read a month?

But the creation of the world may not have been through processes we understand today. If this is the case, any explanation using processes today will be wrong.

What does this have to do with the creation of the world? The world (or at least the earth) has been around for more than 4 billion years, while anatomically modern humans have only been around for 200,000 years -- .005% of the time since the beginning of the earth.

"What was that explosion I just heard outside?"
"Aliens did it."
"Oh. Okay."

If you pay any attention at all to popular science accounts, you will know that scientists take the search for extraterrestrial life perfectly seriously. (And if you don't, you really should learn a little something about science before criticizing it.) What scientists are unlikely to do is accept "aliens" as a first explanation for an event that could have many, many simple terrestrial explanations, especially prior to the establishment that aliens exist and are capable of visiting earth.

By your reasoning, humans are natural, too. If we got a consistent puse from space, we could say a human might have caused it rather than look for a pulsar star?

Of course humans are natural. Human activity is considered a reasonable scientific explanation for things like stone tools, right? What makes you think scientists don't consider humans natural? And yes, we would certainly consider that humans might be the source for a pulse from space. In fact, the first thought about any unusual signal from space is that it is actually some kind of leakage of an earth-based signal. And if there were any evidence that humans have been outside the solar system, then we would consider them as a possible source for a distant signal. But since we have no reason to think humans have travelled far into space, and good reason to think they haven't, they can be dismissed as a possible source.

This is the theory of Intelligent Design: natural causes are sought after first. When none are forthcoming, human action is investigated. If that fails, aliens or God are considered.

That sound like no theory of intelligent design I've seen.

Microraptor is more bird than dino. Has it been shown conclusively that M. gui's ancestors are dinos or is that merely assumed (circular reasoning)? I brought up the challenge because of the gigantic derth of evidence despite the claims.

Apart from feathers, what avian characteristics did microraptor have that dinosaurs lack? Please be specific -- you're making a pretty definite claim here, and I assume you have some evidence to back it up.

Ditto.

What "ditto"? Ambulocetus was also a bird? What do you claim Ambulocetus was? I think it is quite striking that evolution predicted there must have been early whales that still possessed functional legs, and then several species were found that had characteristic whale features but still had legs. Ambulocetus is exactly the kind of fossil that evolution predicts we should find, and it was found. Why is this not evidence for evolution? Can you describe what an intermediate would look like that you would find acceptable as evidence for evolution?

Specially-created isn't an option?

Sure, specially-created is an option. More precisely, a chromosome specially created to look exactly like it was the result of the fusion of two earlier chromosomes is an option. Keep in mind that the remains of the telomeres of the earlier chromosomes (special sequence on the ends of chromosomes) are still present in human chromosome two, as is a nonfunctioning second centromere (another special bit of sequence important to chromosome reproduction). Why is this sequence there if not as a result of fusion? What is your hypothesis to explain the data?

Yes, you can decide that God made chromosome 2 look exactly like two fused chromosomes, and you can make the same decision about every other piece of evidence. God made the human genome to look exactly like it evolved from a common ancestor with the chimpanzee genome, and God made what look exactly like whales with legs and placed them at exactly the right place in the fossil record, and so on, through literally millions of pieces of evidence. In this way you can completely evade the evidence for evolution and remain a consistent creationist -- and also lose all contact with reality.

Like I said, show me it happened. There's more to it than just fusing two chromosomes together. Here's one major problem with your hypothesis: with whom does the mutant mate with to produce offspring that survive and pass on the fusion? Natural selection is much more likely to kill off the mutant.

Fused chromosomes (look up Robertsonian fusion) can be observed in a number of species, and they manage to mate and reproduce with individuals with unfused chromosomes. There is usually some reproductive cost, but it can be quite small -- it depends on the chromosomes and the species. Look up "karyotype" and "European shrew" for one well-studied example of a species with many combinations of fused and unfused chromosomes. Fusion happens, and fused chromosomes do survive and spread.

Thanks for acknowledging that. Didn't say it wasn't evidence. If it isn't exclusive, then how is homology supposed to make me see evolution when I'm already a creationist? Barbarian didn't pick a good evidence here.

Well, you could stop and ask yourself the question: "Why does evolution keep making these predictions that turn out to be validated in later data, and why doesn't creationism ever predict anything?" That's how scientists decide between theories. That's probably how you decide between explanations, too, when religious beliefs are on the line.

How would you go about choosing between electricity and light fairies as an explanation for why your lamp turns on when you flip the switch? No observation or experiment will provide exclusive evidence for electricity, because light fairies can behave in any way at all, and so could explain any piece of evidence.

No I don't. I didn't say evolution does not account for this; it does. I just said this evidence is not the kind that's dressed to impress. Anyone can rip out a page of a book. Putting it back in is the trick. It's easy to lose features; gaining them (without an intelligent designer) is much harder.

Does this mean that you do accept that snakes evolved from ancestors that had legs? I'm trying to tell if your response is germane or not. If you do accept that, then great -- you accept a least one piece of the story of common descent. But if you don't accept that, then you're being disingenuous, because snakes with legs really would be evidence for something you don't accept.

Again I say: show me fish legs capable of supporting their body weight. Fossils don't walk, sfs. The fishapod smells a lot like the coelacanth (the Darwin Fish is modeled after this critter), who was the previous favorite, until living ones were found to not use their fins for any kind of walking whatsoever.

You asked for a fish that could support its own weight, which this one evidently could (and if you think it couldn't, you'd better present some evidence). Now you want to dismiss it because it's a fossil. Of course it's a fossil: the transition to land happened a long time ago. (And who ever suggested that the coelacanth could support its own weight? The claim has always been that land animals evolved from lobe-finned fishes, of which the coelacanth is a living example. That's still the claim. Where did you get your information?)

Once again we see the same situation: science predicted that there must have been intermediate forms between fish and land animals that were still aquatic, but that had legs. Some scientists go out and find fossils of just such an organism. Regardless of whether this is the absolutely perfect specimen that meets your very exacting criteria, the question you need to answer is: why is evolution so consistently right in making these predictions if it is fundamentally false?