What is peer review?

[Sherlock Holmes]

Often when debating atheism or questioning the evolution doctrine, the supporters of evolution will reject arguments against it made by scientists because they insist that only "peer reviewed" publications are to be trusted (else it must be pseudo science).

So I want to ask how does one decide whether a journal is or is not peer reviewed? what definition do people use to help them make this decision?

[Jose Fly]

[Replying to Sherlock Holmes in post #174]
Also, I notice you've blown off Barbarian's point about functional redundancy and cytochrome C. You did the same when I posted papers describing observed speciation events and when Barbarian posted papers about pre-Cambrian to Cambrian transitionals.

Morton's Demon seems to be very much alive and active.

http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/postmonth/feb02.html

[JoeyKnothead]

No I agree, but it does reveal the logical reasoning error in your claims about what can be "deduced" from the fact that children inherit genes from their parents.

In terms of symbolic logic:

B => A cannot be deduced from A => B.

I was pointing out the error in your logic I.e. refuting you), nothing to do with evolution.

There's facts, and there's playing games with numbers.

The fact is that we observe descent with modification.

From which we can reasonably and logically deduce common ancestry.

[Sherlock Holmes]

No I agree, but it does reveal the logical reasoning error in your claims about what can be "deduced" from the fact that children inherit genes from their parents.

In terms of symbolic logic:

B => A cannot be deduced from A => B.

I was pointing out the error in your logic I.e. refuting you), nothing to do with evolution.

There's facts, and there's playing games with numbers.

The fact is that we observe descent with modification.

From which we can reasonably and logically deduce common ancestry.

There's also sound and unsound logic, do you agree on this point?

[JoeyKnothead]

No I agree, but it does reveal the logical reasoning error in your claims about what can be "deduced" from the fact that children inherit genes from their parents.

In terms of symbolic logic:

B => A cannot be deduced from A => B.

I was pointing out the error in your logic I.e. refuting you), nothing to do with evolution.

There's facts, and there's playing games with numbers.

The fact is that we observe descent with modification.

From which we can reasonably and logically deduce common ancestry.

There's also sound and unsound logic, do you agree on this point?

My point stands regardless of my position on your question...

We observe descent with modification, so can reasonably and logically deduce common ancestry.

[Sherlock Holmes]

No I agree, but it does reveal the logical reasoning error in your claims about what can be "deduced" from the fact that children inherit genes from their parents.

In terms of symbolic logic:

B => A cannot be deduced from A => B.

I was pointing out the error in your logic I.e. refuting you), nothing to do with evolution.

There's facts, and there's playing games with numbers.

The fact is that we observe descent with modification.

From which we can reasonably and logically deduce common ancestry.

There's also sound and unsound logic, do you agree on this point?

My point stands regardless of my position on your question...

We observe descent with modification, so can reasonably and logically deduce common ancestry.

Fine, have it your way.

[JoeyKnothead]

My point stands regardless of my position on your question...

We observe descent with modification, so can reasonably and logically deduce common ancestry.

Fine, have it your way.

I don't see it in terms of having my way, but in reasonable and logical conclusions.

[Jose Fly]

Fine, have it your way.

I tend to be a "big picture thinker", in that I often notice larger trends and themes (which has both benefits and drawbacks). Lately I've been wondering something.....what exactly are you hoping to accomplish here?

You refuse to discuss actual scientific data, as evidenced by your repeated ignoring of scientific material people post to you. You refuse to back up your declarations, such as your assertion that "evolution is falsified". You refuse to discuss how your religious beliefs intersect with evolution. You refuse to even say what you've read in your alleged study of genetics.

So from a big picture standpoint, it very much looks like you really don't have a goal here except to throw rocks at science and scientists, while shielding yourself from any criticism, correction, learning, or expectations to back up your empty assertions.

Do you have anything beyond that? If not I gotta ask....do you think your approach is persuasive?

[Sherlock Holmes]

Fine, have it your way.

I tend to be a "big picture thinker", in that I often notice larger trends and themes (which has both benefits and drawbacks). Lately I've been wondering something.....what exactly are you hoping to accomplish here?

You refuse to discuss actual scientific data, as evidenced by your repeated ignoring of scientific material people post to you. You refuse to back up your declarations, such as your assertion that "evolution is falsified". You refuse to discuss how your religious beliefs intersect with evolution. You refuse to even say what you've read in your alleged study of genetics.

So from a big picture standpoint, it very much looks like you really don't have a goal here except to throw rocks at science and scientists, while shielding yourself from any criticism, correction, learning, or expectations to back up your empty assertions.

Do you have anything beyond that? If not I gotta ask....do you think your approach is persuasive?

Nope, sorry Jose, I do not intend to dignify your baseless accusations by responding to them, either argue against something I actually said or leave me alone, find someone else to pick on.

[Jose Fly]

Nope, sorry Jose, I do not intend to get into a personal bickering match, either argue against something I actually said or leave me alone, find someone else to pick on.

This is exactly what I'm talking about. You refuse to engage on so many things....scientific data, your own assertions, the role of your religious beliefs, what you've allegedly read, and now you even refuse to engage on what you're trying to accomplish.

I've often wondered why creationists tend to join discussion boards and subsequently refuse to engage in discussion beyond mere assertion. The only thing I can figure is that y'all are so acclimated to the church environment that it affects how you approach online forums. IOW, you're used to settings where one person preaches and everyone else sits and nods, and never questions the preacher. So on some level you expect the same thing here.

Maybe I'm wrong on that, but you've given me absolutely no reason to think so.

So if you don't want to discuss the scientific data, your assertions, the role of your religious beliefs, your alleged reading material, or what your goal is.....what do you want to discuss?

[Sherlock Holmes]

Nope, sorry Jose, I do not intend to get into a personal bickering match, either argue against something I actually said or leave me alone, find someone else to pick on.

This is exactly what I'm talking about. You refuse to engage on so many things....scientific data, your own assertions, the role of your religious beliefs, what you've allegedly read, and now you even refuse to engage on what you're trying to accomplish.

I've often wondered why creationists tend to join discussion boards and subsequently refuse to engage in discussion beyond mere assertion. The only thing I can figure is that y'all are so acclimated to the church environment that it affects how you approach online forums. IOW, you're used to settings where one person preaches and everyone else sits and nods, and never questions the preacher. So on some level you expect the same thing here.

Maybe I'm wrong on that, but you've given me absolutely no reason to think so.

So if you don't want to discuss the scientific data, your assertions, the role of your religious beliefs, your alleged reading material, or what your goal is.....what do you want to discuss?