Evolution My ToE

[shunyadragon]

Okay. That's covered. Now get on with it please. I'm waiting.

Responded to and covered. You consider the science of evolution Satanic, which disqualifies your selective biased citations to justify a religious agenda as a complete failure to objectively consider science.

You cannot hide from everybody in this forum with your statement that the science of evolution is Satanic, and you have not responded to the problem.

 

[nPeace]

@shunyadragon are you finished?
The post I am waiting for you to respond to is here.

 

[YoursTrue]

And what claim of mine does that contradict, exactly? Where have I ever claimed anything specifically reliable about peer review?


Science is a reliable source. It's demonstrably the most reliable source of information and facts in the world.

Name one more reliable, please.


I haven't. I've made a very clear argument which you have yet to address, instead you go off on tangents about peer review and using arguments from authority.

Again, YOU ARE USING A COMPUTER RIGHT NOW. You are single-handedly demonstrating the reliability of science.

If science is not reliable, then why are you using a computer to communicate right now?


No, because you're wrong. Not only are you wrong, you're demonstrating that you are wrong by claiming that you are right through a device developed by the scientific method.

Computers do not verify evolution. Period.

 

[YoursTrue]

Responded to and covered. You consider the science of evolution Satanic, which disqualifies your selective biased citations to justify a religious agenda as a complete failure to objectively consider science.

You cannot hide from everybody in this forum with your statement that the science of evolution is Satanic, and you have not responded to the problem.

It is based on assumptions. And constantly those theories are being revised, sometimes big-time. Peer review is out, the greatest journals can be shoddy and prejudiced. Now that you bring it up. Thank you for that.

 

[shunyadragon]

It is based on assumptions. And constantly those theories are being revised, sometimes big-time.

True and false, and your approach to science is a minefield of misleading religious agenda .

No claiming science is based on assumptions is very misleading. It is true all of scientific theories and hypothesis are based on fundamental assumptions of the nature of our physical existence. The most important assumption is that our physical existence is uniform in time and place, which is tested with every proposed theory and hypothesis. At present the Methodological Naturalism that is the standard theories and hypothesis are falsified have confirmed that tour physical existence is uniform.

The fact that the theories, hypothesis, and knowledge of science are revised and corrected over time, and yes sometimes big time, is an advantage in science reinforcing the increased knowledge of science. It also a fact of science is that the foundation knowledge of science increasing is subject to less and less change when the fundamentals are confirmed. For this reason airplanes fly and computers work, as well as the science of evolution has a firmer foundation still acknowledging that ALL science is subject to change with new research and discoveries..

Peer review is out, the greatest journals can be shoddy and prejudiced. Now that you bring it up. Thank you for that.

Can be?!?!?! This needs to clarified. When found shoddy and prejudiced this found out and and corrected. The 30% accurate successful peer reviewed research is the way over time the foundation of science grows over time weeding out the shoddy and prejudiced research.

Still not responded to???? Can you cite which disciplines of science have different records concerning the quality of peer review.

 

[shunyadragon]

@shunyadragon are you finished?
The post I am waiting for you to respond to is here.

Responded to and covered. You consider the science of evolution Satanic, which disqualifies your selective biased citations to justify a religious agenda as a complete failure to objectively consider science.

You cannot hide from everybody in this forum with your statement that the science of evolution is Satanic, and you have not responded to the problem.

 

[shunyadragon]

Computers do not verify evolution. Period.

Who ever said computers verify evolution? though they are great tools for evaluating the evidence? Though the same scientific methods of Methodological Naturalism are used to research and engineer flight as used to demonstrate the scientific basis for the science of evolution.

We still have a problem with @nPeace and your religious agenda selectively against evolution.

Do you have a reference demonstrating the problems with peer review concerning evolution?

 

[shunyadragon]

A more positive view of the peer review process as to how it is changing:

The Evolution and Critical Role of Peer Review in Academic Publishing

The Evolution and Critical Role of Peer Review in Academic Publishing

September 12, 2018Marilyn Pollett, Senior Marketing Manager, Wiley
Did you know that the number of peer-reviewed journals has steadily grown by 3.5% per year for over the past three centuries? In fact, a rigorous peer review process is considered to be an indication of a journal’s quality, and most journals rely on peer review to ensure that only the best research gets accepted for publication. This often results in journals having high rejection rates, for example, as high as 90% in the case of many Wiley journals.

Peer review is considered the pillar that upholds the credibility and integrity of the scientific record. However, in its conventional form, peer review has drawn some criticism for issues like lack of transparency and inconsistency in output. To address these issues, several innovations in peer review have been introduced (new models, reviewer recognition, and more). Let’s take a look at the evolution of peer review and how industry experts see it shaping up in the future.

Challenges Associated With Peer Review
Despite its merits, peer review has some limitations that threaten to weaken the entire scholarly publishing system:

• Lack of transparency: Anonymity forms the basis of traditional single-blind or double-blind peer review. This lack of transparency can make the system vulnerable to manipulation, as seen in recent cases of fake peer review and mass retractions, and can lead to a general lack of trust in the process.
• Lack of recognition: Peer review is a voluntary task, and reviewers typically do not stand to gain any recognition or monetary compensation for the time and effort they spend in evaluating research papers. Therefore, journal editors often find it difficult to find and appoint suitable reviewers.
• Lack of training and standardization: The peer review process varies from journal to journal due the lack of standardization. Moreover, the absence of systematic training or onboarding process for reviewers leads to inconsistencies in reviewer evaluations.

How Peer Review Has Evolved in Response to Challenges
To overcome some of these limitations, and in response to global movements in publishing (e.g., the open science movement), various new models of peer review have emerged, for example:

• open peer review (where the reviewers’ identities are disclosed to editors, authors, and readers),
• collaborative peer review (where peer reviewers and authors are able to interact and discuss recommended changes to the manuscript),
• post-publication peer review (where readers can offer feedback and comments on a paper after it is published),
• and transferable or cascading peer review (where a rejected manuscript may be transferred to another journal, usually under the same publisher, along with the original peer review reports).

Each of these models attempts to refine the peer review process for greater transparency and efficiency. In parallel, efforts are also being made toward recognizing and rewarding peer reviewers. To address the lack of formal training for new reviewers, some publishers and organizations have begun to offer peer review training to groom reviewers.

Where Is Peer Review headed?
Despite the challenges involved, industry leaders believe that peer review will continue to play a crucial role in the scholarly publishing process and that technology will revolutionize the future of peer review. “If you look at the underlying reason for peer review, it’s to validate quality. The need for validation is now stronger than ever due to the proliferation of published research,” opines Deborah Wyatt, VP APAC Society Services at Wiley.

She continues, “Machine learning and artificial intelligence might also play a role in reviewer selection in the next decade as journal editors and publishers push for further process efficiencies to keep up with demand.” Indeed, some companies are taking initiatives in this direction, for example, by supporting peer review with technologies like blockchain.

Addressing one of the major problems of peer review—the lack of a standardization—Richard Donnelly, Professor in Medicine at the University of Nottingham, and Editor-in-Chief of Diabetes, Obesity, and Metabolism, says, “At present most peer review is based on free text comments and global assessments. I do think that developing a more quantitative scoring system to be used by reviewers and feeding back these aggregated scores to authors would be helpful.”

On the issue of building trust through transparency, Chris Graf, Director, Research Integrity and Publication Ethics at Wiley, and Co-Chair of COPE, states that, “The future lies in ensuring the integrity of the publishing process through embracing transparency without breaching confidentiality.”

To sum up, peer review has been and remains the backbone of scholarly publishing. The entire academic community – including healthcare practitioners, authors, publishers, and reviewers themselves – is embracing and looking forward to innovations that address issues of reliability, transparency, and standardization in peer review.

 

[nPeace]

What part of your position am I not getting right?


Oh I think there's lots more we could possibly discuss, but as I noted earlier I get the strong sense that there's certain avenues of discussion you just don't want to pursue. What's really stood out to me lately is how when we were discussing evolution, you were quite verbose, asked a lot of questions, and were more than happy to explore specifics in lengthy detail. But as soon as the conversation turned towards your view ("design"), everything seemed to slow waaaaaaaaaaay down, and as before, once I broached the topic of your religious beliefs playing a role in all this, you ended it.

But I suppose that's understandable in two ways. First, it's consistent with what I've seen from creationists before. It's quite easy to go on an internet forum and throw rocks at scientists and their work; it's something else entirely to have to defend one's own viewpoint. That's why pretty much every time someone starts a thread trying to get creationists to defend the creationist version of history, it inevitably turns into creationists attacking evolution.

Second, I understand that one's religious beliefs are very, very personal. With many folks it's perhaps the most important aspect of who they are, and Jehovah's Witnesses are certainly no exception. So it's not surprising that some people just don't want to "go there".


Sounds good.


You just said "design", and when I've tried to get you to explain that in the context of the experiment I conducted (the bacteria we started with didn't have resistance and the ones we ended up with did), you've not really done so. Compare that to the papers we've discussed, where scientists go into excruciating detail on how resistance arises.


Nope.

No. You have it all wrong my friend.
Allow me to trrrrrrrrrrrrrrrry to clarify.
There are a lot of questions you are asking. I try to answer them as clear as possible, but you seem not to get it,even when I break it down... and why is that?
I think it's your mindset. If you are telling me something and in my mind I have 1) a presumption about you, and 2) a plan to act on that presumption, I'll miss what you are saying... every time.

In my mind, whatever you say has no bearing on what I think.
The other thing I am going to be doing, is trying to lead you to where I want to get you - to what I have presumed. Also, I will not be paying attention. That will cause me to miss things too.

My questions will be formed in such a way as to bring out from you, what is in my mind.
For example... questions like what I think about a hypothetical, or idea - that I don't even believe is true.

I'm not going to give yo what you want.
If you want an answer you will get one, but not what you are drawing me to say.
I'm not going to support what you believe either, just because you believe it so strongly, and want me to believe it.

I asked you if you played dominoes, because a domino player needs to be able to "read the hand" of his opponents. You would hear someone say, "I read you like a book".
Well, I think I read you fairly well, and when you change, it will effect a change in me.
When you shut down, I will shut down, and I can tell. I know when you are not paying attention... at least even more so than before, and I don't think I should be repeating myself for no reason.

Do you want an example?
I believe the cell was purposefully designed with the mechanisms for repairing, resisting, and removing or eliminating foreign invaders or problems to the genome. If that's what you are asking, it's a yes.
Does that answer your question Also, do you believe God deliberately designed bacteria to have the ability to resist antibiotics?
That answer was not too long ago given to you, here.
Yet, you asked again.

I know you believe no layman has the right, the knowledge, or he expertise to question a scientist or the work of scientists, and I know when you are acting on that mindset.
I also know that you have not removed the mindset that Creationists who don't belief as you do, do so because of religion. You know the funny thing about that, which I keep trying to point out, religious people believe as you do, so why do they, if it's a religious thing?
Another thing, Atheist who once believed like you do, stopped believing. Why? Because of their religious agenda? LOL
They had no religion... except Darwinism. So ask yourself, why would a person, knowing that "religious people are so ignorant" leave the creme de la creme, where the experts reside in the luxury of intelligence, to join a group of backward people? Did he become stupid overnight?
Ah. He was brainwashed.

He stuck his head in that book of myths, and he lost his mind, and all reason, or ability to think.
Maybe Jehovah's Witnesses did telepathy on him from a distance, so he got stupiditus, and joined some religious group.
So technically, all religious people are really under the Jehovah's Witness spell... when they oppose Darwinism. Crackpots.

I can't change your mindset, and I told you at the outset of talking to you again, that you can keep singing your Jehovah's Witness song. If it brings you peace, that's cool. I already set that in my mind that it's set in your mind, so I don't expect it to dislodge any time soon. It may be there till you die.
I'm not thinking about that, but if you think you will get me to agree with you, I am really sorry for you.
You really want me to believe everything you do? Come on Fly.
It's one thing to want me to believe the Darwinian concept, but to believe that I have lost my mind and can't think for myself...

Do I avoid talking about design, and the intelligent designer? Seriously? Ha. That's the furthest thing from the truth. Ha ha ha.
That's all I can do - laugh.
I find there are people who demand stuff from Creationists, and when they post it, those people are nowhere to be seen, and if they take a peek, they can only make a disparaging comment and then disappear, only to turn up again, when they think the "course is clear".

So, Mr. Fly, you have it all wrong.
Oh. The thread is opened. The OP hasn't changed, and I am not done. So if you feel there is lots more to discuss, be my guess.
We touched on natural selection, mutations, although I don't think we came to a clear understanding... not on my part. . I explained above. Personally, I think you try to avoid admitting to assumptions.
That would be a good path to trek.

 

[nPeace]

Who ever said computers verify evolution? though they are great tools for evaluating the evidence? Though the same scientific methods of Methodological Naturalism are used to research and engineer flight as used to demonstrate the scientific basis for the science of evolution.

We still have a problem with @nPeace and your religious agenda selectively against evolution.

Do you have a reference demonstrating the problems with peer review concerning evolution?

Please explain what you mean by evolution. We don't deny evolution. Please be specific with the terminologies. That helps. See the OP for clarity please.

 

[nPeace]

Responded to and covered. You consider the science of evolution Satanic, which disqualifies your selective biased citations to justify a religious agenda as a complete failure to objectively consider science.

You cannot hide from everybody in this forum with your statement that the science of evolution is Satanic, and you have not responded to the problem.

Science of evolution Satanic?
Those are your words not mine.
What is the science of evolution anyway?
This is typical of you though, so I am not surprised. You either run away when you false assertions are called out, or you go in circles.
All I need to know is that you make false statements (lies) because you can, so I don't mind being disqualified from talking to such a person. Thank you.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Please explain what you mean by evolution. We don't deny evolution. Please be specific with the terminologies. That helps. See the OP for clarity please.

The problem with the OP is that it fails in the first paragraph. We know that you do not like the fact of evolution and tried to redefine it in your OP. One person does not get to redefine a term. Like it or not evolution includes common descent.

 

[nPeace]

The problem with the OP is that it fails in the first paragraph. We know that you do not like the fact of evolution and tried to redefine it in your OP. One person does not get to redefine a term. Like it or not evolution includes common descent.

You could have mentioned that you disagreed with the video, so I was not aware someone had a problem with it.
I specifically said... Please state if you disagree with any of the videos.
Did you read the post carefully?
Do you disagree with Stated Clearly videos?

 

[shunyadragon]

Please explain what you mean by evolution. We don't deny evolution. Please be specific with the terminologies. That helps. See the OP for clarity please.

Evolution is the history of life from single cell organisms billions of years ago that evolved to the great diversity of life through the millennia sense.

 

[shunyadragon]

Science of evolution Satanic?
Those are your words not mine.

No not my words. You said, '(The science of) evolution is from Satan.'

Post #1102

Is it one of Satan's designs?
What is a design of Satan?
It is designed to confuse, and lead people away from their creator, and his right standards. It promotes an independent way of thinking, and lifestyle... and materialism.

The idea of UCA and Darwin's idea of evolution is both a doctrine of men, and a design of Satan... in my view.
It is not the case that people necessarily set out to do Satan's will. It is simply a case of being misled because of their own desires. They choose to believe.

Not my false statements they are yours. Own up to them.

 

[YoursTrue]

As Shunya said, airplanes fly, computers work. This very post you made is a testament to the reliability of science.

Something being imperfect doesn't mean it isn't reliable. I'm sure your front door occasionally breaks, but that doesn't mean that when you open your front door it is reasonable to expect it to instantly fly of its hinges. No - you expect it to work because it has demonstrated reliability over and over and over again, and the number of times it works makes the number of times it doesn't appear completely insignificant. In the exact same way, science is demonstrably and irrefutably reliable.

That planes fly is mechanical science, it's not guesswork or assumptions. Except when they have windstorm problems or a bird goes through the engine or propeller. They hope bad things won't happen.

 

[YoursTrue]

I've always exclusively been talking about the reliability of science. Peer review can be part of that process, but they cannot be equated entirely.


I was very clear from my first post that I was talking about science, not specifically peer review. You brought peer review in afterwards, hence you caused the confusion.


This is just nonsensical, and nothing to do with what I actually wrote.


You are using a computer.

Computers were developed using science.

You are using science right now to demonstrate the reliability of science.

Now that some talk about the fabulousness of peer review as if it's so reliable, and I researched it, I see peer review is not only not reliable, and prejudiced, but...cannot be relied upon.

 

[Subduction Zone]

That planes fly is mechanical science, it's not guesswork or assumptions. Except when they have windstorm problems or a bird goes through the engine or propeller. They hope bad things won't happen.

Neither is evolution. So glad that you see that now.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Now that some talk about the fabulousness of peer review as if it's so reliable, and I researched it, I see peer review is not only not reliable, and prejudiced, but...cannot be relied upon.

I see that you did not understand the articles that you read since they neither said that nor implied that.

 

[shunyadragon]

That planes fly is mechanical science, . . .

The foundation of flight is NOT just mechanical science. It involves a history of research involving physics of flight and propulsions and numerous peer reviewed research,

it's not guesswork or assumptions.

No more, and no less than any other science including evolution, and both rely on the assumption of the uniformity of nature.

Except when they have windstorm problems or a bird goes through the engine or propeller. They hope bad things won't happen.

. . . and sometimes faulty. peer reviewed literature and airplanes fall out of the sky.