Hundreds of natural selection studies could be wrong, study shows

Penn State Live ^ | 30 March 2009 | Staff W. Riter

[metmom]

Then maybe you could translate this...

And then another straw word, could, maybe might, meaningless conjectures. A fog maybe could fly if he had wings. LOL

[metmom]

A vibrant area of scientific study that's constantly being examined and revised by the peer review process is being examined and revised by the peer review process.

Answer: Because creationists don't perform peer-reviewed research and creationism isn't science.

So now peer review is the criteria for whether something is *science* now?

Too bad for Newton, Kepler, Copernicus, Curie, Pasteur, Mendel, who didn't get their work peer reviewed.

[tacticalogic]

I though peer review was all a joke anyway, along with all conventional scientific research methodology (including this one).

[org.whodat]

Define: conjectors

  /kənˈdʒɛktʃər/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [kuhn-jek-cher] Show IPA noun, verb, -tured, -tur⋅ing.

Use conjecture in a Sentence

–noun 1. the formation or expression of an opinion or theory without sufficient evidence for proof.

2. an opinion or theory so formed or expressed; guess; speculation.

3. Obsolete. the interpretation of signs or omens.

–verb (used with object)

4. to conclude or suppose from grounds or evidence insufficient to ensure reliability.

–verb (used without object)

5. to form conjectures. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Bosh Flimshaw]

So now peer review is the criteria for whether something is *science* now?

Let's examine my statement to demonstrate where you went wrong. I said "creationists don't perform peer-reviewed research and creationism isn't science." I did not say "creationists don't perform peer-reviewed research, therefore creationism isn't science." See the difference?

Of course peer review is not the definition of science. However, if a modern area of study wholly lacks a peer review process (as does creationism) it is a gigantic red flag that it probably is not producing work that fits any modern notion of "science."

I hope this clears things up for you.

[metmom]

The whole sentence didn’t make sense, not the word *conjecture*.

What’s a *fog* anyway, that if could fly it it had wings?

[goodusername]

“In the first place, the editors of journals like Science or Nature refuse such research because of their a priori bias against it.”

—Can you supply such an article? I’d like to read an article that was refused for that reason.

[tacticalogic]

I think peer review is overblown in its use as an unassailable means of testing and approving, but it’s not worthless.

Is there some other method you think would be better?

Either you accept all published research, or none of it, or you view it all with a wary eye. Me, I view it with a wary eye. I believe things can be known in this universe, but I don’t accept the first thing that gets spit out by some PhD somewhere.

I don't see either accepting or rejecting all of it out of hand as being practical. If it's all being treated the same, then this research is just as questionable as the natural selection studies it says may be wrong.

[Bosh Flimshaw]

Peer review is peer review.

Yeah, a scientific paper reviewed in Nature is the same as a creationist paper "reviewed" by the staff scientician at the creationist museum.

[tacticalogic]

there is no equivalent review process whatsoever when it comes to creationism.

Actually, you can get a good debate going on the conclusions of creation science research, as long as you base any objections to their conclusions on scripture.

[Bosh Flimshaw]

I also believe its true that Nature does not accept research papers studying the effect of evil spirits on the body’s four humours.

[Jaime2099]

Look at this quote from the article:

" Nei said that many scientists who examine human evolution have used faulty statistical methods in their studies and, as a result, their conclusions could be wrong. For example, in one published study the scientists used a statistical method to demonstrate pervasive natural selection during human evolution.

"This group documented adaptive evolution in many genes expressed in the brain, thyroid and placenta, which are assumed to be important for human evolution," said Masafumi Nozawa, a postdoctoral fellow at Penn State and one of the paper's authors. "But if the statistical method that they used is not reliable, then their results also might not be reliable," added Nei. "Of course, we would never say that natural selection is not happening, but we are saying that these statistical methods can lead scientists to make erroneous inferences," he said."

What more proof is needed of their bias, why would they never say natural selection isn't happening? Has it been scientifically proven beyond a doubt, I wasn't aware of that. Show me the study that proves it beyond any doubt! How can someone be so unscientific as to say Human Evolutionists used statistical methods that are faulty, and yet say that natural selection is still absolutely certain that it cannot even be questioned. The arrogance of these so-called scientists goes beyond words. Disgusting!

[Buck W.]

Thousands of articles touting creation rationalization on AiG, etc., consist of laughable tripe. Where’s that post?

Evolution and Christianity are perfectly compatible.

[taxesareforever]

Wonder if the illegitimate president will be calling all those past scientists “stupid”.

[Ira_Louvin]

“Perhaps you should explain to the believers in evolution that there are no “Darwinists’ or “Darwinism” since they use those terms to refer to themselves.”

Could you please be so kind as to provide an example?

[Ira_Louvin]

Again with the misdirection, I was pointing out by overlooking that part of the article the poster was setting up a straw man.

“Description of Straw Man

The Straw Man fallacy is committed when a person simply ignores a person’s actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position. This sort of “reasoning” has the following pattern:

1. Person A has position X.
2. Person B presents position Y (which is a distorted version of X).
3. Person B attacks position Y.
4. Therefore X is false/incorrect/flawed.

This sort of “reasoning” is fallacious because attacking a distorted version of a position simply does not constitute an attack on the position itself. One might as well expect an attack on a poor drawing of a person to hurt the person.”

As of today you have yet to provide a direct answer to any question that I have asked, other than to fall back on your Temple of Darwin fallacy.

So the avoidance of questions you cannot answer, misdirection, straw men, and ridicule are the only things I see creationist use. But then when that is the best that you have I guess you have to go with it.