What does the fossil record say?

[jarofthoughts]

What are you talking about?
Who trashed science?

(\__/)
( ‘ .‘ )
>(^)<

Wilson

You expressed distrust of the method that has essentially given birth to modern society with all its perks.

But hey, you can have your moment in the sun.
Prey tell, what do you propose we replace it with?

 

[wilsoncole]

No faith involved at all. Not everyone in the world do things the way you do it;

How do I do things?

some people use logic, not blind faith. I use the peer-review system to ensure that research was done following the scientific method.

Those are just empty words. Look - before something can evolve, it has to have a beginning - right? When it comes to evolution and the origin of life, the "scientific method" has never been followed!
This is how I understand it:
“Observe what happens; based on those observations, form a theory as to what may be true; test the theory by further observations and by experiments; and watch to see if the predictions based on the theory are fulfilled. (Do I have that right?)

In an attempt to apply the scientific method, it has not been possible to observe the spontaneous generation of life. There is no evidence that it is happening now, and of course no human observer was around when evolutionists say it was happening. No theory concerning it has been verified by observation. Laboratory experiments have failed to repeat it. Predictions based on the theory have not been fulfilled. With such an inability to apply the scientific method, is it honest science to elevate such a theory to the level of fact?” (Creation chap. 4 p. 50)

So much for your “scientific method!”

No faith involved in that. Furthermore the peer-review system ensures that all kinds of subjectivities can be eliminated by peer-review, as it is performed at different institutions and other regions, states or countries. It is done by people with no personal involvement and not knowing the researchers. That's a great way of eliminating subjectivity.

Faith is deeply involved! You really don’t know what’s going on!
Check this out:
"There has been a rash of revelations about hyped and falsified scientific research. A study published last month accused 47 scientists at the Harvard and Emory University medical schools of producing misleading papers."

A case has also come to light of a researcher who fabricated data in 109 medical publications, and another researcher who, to simulate a skin graft, darkened skin on a white mouse with a pen. How crude!

In academia, academic prestige and the length of one's publication list appears to play the same role as money on Wall Street. Perfectly well respected, tenured members of renowned faculties cross the moral line because they want more respect, bigger grants, more citations, and greater acclaim.”
Be sure to check out the rest of this paper:
(sec.gov/news/speech/1987/050787grundfest.pdf)
"The mistake, of course, is to have thought that peer review was any more than a crude means of discovering the acceptability -- not the validity -- of a new finding. Editors and scientists alike insist on the pivotal importance of peer review.

We portray peer review to the public as a quasi-sacred process that helps to make science our most objective truth teller. But we know that the system of peer review is biased, unjust, unaccountable, incomplete, easily fixed, often insulting, usually ignorant, occasionally foolish, and frequently wrong."
(Richard Horton, editor of the British medical journal The Lancet)

It's way better than listening to one person's interpretation of a bronze-age book written by goat-herders.

Is it? You trust men - that’s a serious mistake! And what would be the goat-herders’ motives? How could, or did, they ensure that their writings would endure down to these days, thousands of years later?
“Sure, other nations too produced written works that reflected their religion and their national values. For example, the Akkadian legend of Gilgamesh from Mesopotamia and the Ras Shamra epics, written in Ugaritic (a language spoken in what is now northern Syria), were doubtless very popular. The vast literature of that era also included works such as The Admonitions of Ipu-wer and The Prophecy of Nefer-rohu in the Egyptian language, hymns to different divinities in Sumerian, and prophetic works in Akkadian.
All these Middle Eastern works, however, met a common fate. They were forgotten, and even the languages they were written in became extinct. It was only in recent years that archaeologists and philologists learned of their existence and discovered how to read them. On the other hand, the first written books of the Hebrew Bible have survived right up to our own time and are still widely read. Sometimes scholars claim that the Hebrew books in the Bible were derived in some way from those ancient literary works. But the fact that so much of that literature was forgotten while the Hebrew Bible survived marks the Bible as significantly different.“ (God’s Word pp. 13-14)

It has provided a lot of valuable discoveries and has made my life a lot easier, ensuring enough food on the table, ensuring that I live longer and healthier, whilst providing a lot of great necessities and conveniences, like the computer I'm using now.

The benefits of science are many and varied, bringing convenience, healing and comfort to many. It has also brought many woes which no one can deny.

Frauds are discovered very quickly by people using this method.

According to Richard Horton (quoted above) this is not true.
“For high-octane gall in proclaiming its ethical purity, the scientific community has long been the runaway winner,” said New Scientist magazine. The highly vaunted peer-review system that theoretically screens out all the cheats is felt by many to be a farce. “The reality,” New Scientist said, “is that few scientific scoundrels are caught, but, when they are, they frequently turn out to have been running wild for years, publishing faked data in respectable journals, with no questions asked.”(AW g90 1/22 p. 7)

That can't be said about the goddidit method.

You’re so right! I don’t know of any frauds writing Bibles these days - do you?
The peer-review system has been oversold and you have bought into it.
Crooked men will remain crooked.
So I ask you again - why do you trust the peer-review system?
Faith?

 

[wilsoncole]

Because it has been proved time and again to be the best way to verify the results of findings and experiments.
Often? Please give me some examples where the SYSTEM has proven to be fraudulent.

You want examples? I can do that! The fraud involved in the system has been known for decades.
Hold on to something!
1. “Panel says researcher took data from paper he peer-reviewed and used it for his own work; .&#12288;.&#12288;. NIH [National Institutes of Health] recommends debarment proceedings.”—Science, July 14, 1989.

2. “Biomedical scientists in America are performing sloppy and sometimes fraudulent research in an effort to publish more papers and make more money.”—New Scientist, February 25, 1989.

3. “Scientific fraud and carelessness among researchers could be widespread,&#12288;warns a study in last week’s issue of Nature.”—New Scientist, January 22, 1987.


4. “A biochemist accused of plagiarizing a National Academy of Sciences report for a book on nutrition and cancer resigned from his position at the Cleveland Clinic Foundation.”—Science, September 4, 1987.

5. “His deception puts a question mark over safety checks on pills being taken by up to 2 m[illion] women in Britain and 10 m[illion] worldwide.”—The Sunday Times, September 28, 1986.

6. “He resigned last week after an independent committee of inquiry found him guilty of scientific fraud.”—New Scientist, November 12, 1988.

7. “A surprisingly long-running, flagrant and deliberate case of scientific fraud according to a draft report of an investigation conducted for the National Institute of Mental Health.”—Science, March 27, 1987.

8. “A prominent Bostonian psychiatrist resigned as head of a mental hospital affiliated to Harvard University, following charges of plagiarism.”—New Scientist, December 10, 1988.

9. “A prominent Australian scientist has examined two decades of work on ancient Himalayan geology and alleges it may be the greatest paleontological fraud of all time.”—Science, April 21, 1989.

10. “[He was speaking] specifically about how poorly many [science] journals have handled scientific fraud. .&#12288;.&#12288;. The same message previously dispatched to other members of the scientific community has now been addressed to the journals: clean up your act or you may find legislators getting into it.”—The AAAS Observer, July 7, 1989.

On the NOVA program entitled “Do Scientists Cheat?” telecast on October 25, 1988, one scientist commented on this practice: “People are trying to get their names attached to as many publications as they possibly can, so that very commonly now you find huge teams where 16 people all sign their name to a particular publication, which probably wasn’t worth publishing in the first place. But this is part of a kind of rat race, a competitiveness, a vulgar quantitative counting mentality that is absolutely encouraged by the structure of science in the United States today.”
Some listed as coauthors may have had very little to do with the article, may not even have read it, yet add the article to their list of publications. Such bloated lists influence the granting of research requests involving hundreds of thousands of dollars of public funds.

Peer review is “a lousy way to detect fraud,” said previously quoted Dr.&#12288;Drummond Rennie. The American Medical News said: “Peer-reviewed journals, once regarded as almost infallible, have had to admit that they are incapable of eradicating fraud.” “Peer review has been oversold,” said a medical writer and columnist for The New York Times.

The journal Science reports that one researcher assigned to review another researcher’s paper was charged with plagiarism. He “took data from paper he peer-reviewed and used it for his own work,” according to the NIH (National Institutes of Health). Such conduct is a “violation of trust that is supposed to lie at the heart of the peer-review system,” and in this particular case, the reviewer has been declared “ineligible for future federal funding.”

Previously, an official of the NIH said, as reported in The New York Times: “I think an age of innocence has ended. In the past people assumed that scientists didn’t do this kind of thing. But people are beginning to realize that scientists are not morally superior to anybody else.”

The Times report added: “Although a few years ago it was rare for the National Institutes of Health to receive one complaint a year of alleged fraud, she said, there are now at least two serious allegations a month.” Science magazine observed: “Scientists have repeatedly assured the public that fraud and misconduct in research are rare .&#12288;.&#12288;. And yet, significant cases seem to keep cropping up.”

The chairman of one of the congressional investigating committees, John Dingell, at one time said to scientists: “I will tell you that I find your enforcement mechanisms are hopelessly inadequate and that rascality seems to be triumphing over virtue in many incidences in a fashion that I find totally unacceptable. I hope you do too.”

The NOVA program on “Do Scientists Cheat?” concluded with this acknowledgment by one of the scientists present: “Skeletons have to come out of the closets, bureaucrats’ careers have to be impaired if that’s what it takes, and there’s no alternative. This is ethically required, this is legally required, and it’s certainly morally required.” (AW 90 1/22 pp. 6-7)

Individuals have from time to time been able to fool the system but in these cases (like with the former dr. Wakefield) these errors have been discovered quickly and dealt with appropriately (for instance Wakefield lost his license to practice medicine).

I have met your request for examples of fraud and I have many, many more.
Do you have reason to believe that this practice of cheating has ended?

So - why do you trust the peer-review system?

 

[outhouse]

How do I do things?

we knew this was coming LOL your a plagiarist. at this site your required to paste a link from where you steal material

47 scientists at the Harvard and Emory University medical schools of producing misleading papers

are you joking dude???? is this POE


this was from 1987 and this was medical students and has nothing to do with evolution. Your big news is laughable at best as there was one or two medical students I believe that cheated on there test the other studenst were cleared.

This is laughable for you to base creation as a viable conclusion. they were probably christian! lol

When it comes to evolution and the origin of life, the "scientific method" has never been followed!

flase information, sources please for your accusations

In an attempt to apply the scientific method, it has not been possible to observe the spontaneous generation of life

you are confusing abiogenesis and evolution that are two seperate departments

Crooked men will remain crooked.
So I ask you again - why do you trust the peer-review system?
Faith?

I explained this to you already, your only alive because of science, you owe your life to science

by the way i'll let you in a news flash. the debate over evolution was over a long long time ago. there is no debate.

no if you want to start talking about abigenesis you might find something that could be debated

 

[outhouse]

New Scientist

your plagiarist stolen words are based off of blatent lies.


theres a passage there that states that the scientist today are in two camps.

that a big lie and not true. Theres hundreds of thousands of scientist that back evolution. and theres not a handfull of real scientist that back creation. better reseacrh that "real" part before you try and post back here.

The debate is over on evolution even the pope says theres merit in its science

theres a reason creation is OUTLAWED in public schools LOL

 

[outhouse]

I have met your request for examples of fraud and I have many, many more.

come on you can do better then that

MEDICAL STUDENTS cheated OMG evolution is false your hillarious

 

[Krok]

How do I do things?

You trust blind faith. Other people don’t do it that way. They look at evidence.

Those are just empty words. Look - before something can evolve, it has to have a beginning - right?

Life had a beginning. That’s why there is a whole scientific field trying to discover how it started. It’s called abiogenesis. Nothing to do with the Theory of Evolution.

When it comes to evolution and the origin of life,....

Two completely different sciences. The science on how life originated is called abiogenes (chemistry) and the science on how life diversified is called the Theory of Evolution (biology).

.... the "scientific method" has never been followed!

The scientific method is being followed to the letter in both these sciences.

This is how I understand it:
“Observe what happens; based on those observations, form a theory as to what may be true; test the theory by further observations and by experiments; and watch to see if the predictions based on the theory are fulfilled. (Do I have that right?)

No. The scientific method involves getting observable, empirical and measurable evidence, then formulating and testing hypotheses. The results of the experiments will either prove or disprove the hypothesis. Hypotheses that are consistent with available data are conditionally accepted. Further experiments and tests are performed, if only one of them gives inconstant results, the hypothesis is abandoned or adjusted. The hypothesis that can explain all the available data can then be accepted as a scientific theory. For any hypothesis to be accepted as a theory, it has to fulfill a number of criteria, of which predictability is an important one. You left the hypothesis part out. It’s very important.

In an attempt to apply the scientific method, it has not been possible to observe the spontaneous generation of life.

Yes it has. It is observed that we only had rocks with no fossils for hundreds of millions of years, then it is observed that fossils appeared in rocks slightly older than the first ones. It is thus observed that life started somehow. It happened. That’s what we know. Now we have thousands of different hypotheses on how it happened as we don’t know the exact conditions on earth when life appeared. These hypotheses are being tested.

There is no evidence that it is happening now,......

Lots of evidence that it did happen in the past. Just look at those rocks.

.... and of course no human observer was around when evolutionists say it was happening.

Everyone, be it creationist or “evolutionist”, is sure life started somehow. We’re here. These rocks were there when it happened and can be studied to try and find out how. The first life left evidence in those rocks. And of course, lots of humans are around today to observe the measurable and empirical evidence in those rocks.

No theory concerning it has been verified by observation.

There’s no scientific theory on abiogenesis, yet. We’ve only got hypotheses. I also hope that you don’t think the word “observation” means “directly see”? It does not. Have a look in the dictionary what it means.

Laboratory experiments have failed to repeat it.

We’ve hardly started testing those thousands of hypotheses.

Predictions based on the theory have not been fulfilled.

There’s no theory on abiogenesis yet. They’re still testing the hypotheses. it hasn't made any prediction yet.

With such an inability to apply the scientific method, is it honest science to elevate such a theory to the level of fact?” (Creation chap. 4 p. 50). So much for your “scientific method!”

It seems as if your source is a bit confused on what the scientific method is, what abiogenesis is, what the Theory of Evolution is and what the word “observe” means. You should think about getting other more reliable scientific sources.

Faith is deeply involved! You really don’t know what’s going on!

No faith involved. There was no life and then there was life. We have evidence for life simpler than prokaryotes in the oldest rocks around the time life appeared. All observed in those rocks.Observed, empirical, measurable evidence.

Check this out:
"There has been a rash of revelations about hyped and falsified scientific research. A study published last month accused 47 scientists at the Harvard and Emory University medical schools of producing misleading papers."

Were these papers peer-reviewed and published? How were they found out? Hope you didn’t get this from the same source you get your information on “abiogenesis”, the Theory of Evolution” and the word “observe” from.

A case has also come to light of a researcher who fabricated data in 109 medical publications,....

Were these peer-reviewed papers?

.... and another researcher who, to simulate a skin graft, darkened skin on a white mouse with a pen. How crude!

Was he published in peer-reviewed papers? How was he was caught?

In academia, academic prestige and the length of one's publication list appears to play the same role as money on Wall Street. Perfectly well respected, tenured members of renowned faculties cross the moral line because they want more respect, bigger grants, more citations, and greater acclaim.”

Oh, does this include scientists? I see it is lecture given on Wall Street Morality. Can't see what this has to do with abiogenesis.

Be sure to check out the rest of this paper:
(sec.gov/news/speech/1987/050787grundfest.pdf)
"The mistake, of course, is to have thought that peer review was any more than a crude means of discovering the acceptability -- not the validity -- of a new finding.

I see this was a lecture given by Commissioner Joseph A. Grundfest of the US Securities and Exchange Commission. Nothing to do with the natural sciences and titled “Morality on Wall Street”.

Editors and scientists alike insist on the pivotal importance of peer review.

Of course editors and scientists do insist on it. Peer-review is a very important part of weeding out bad science.

We portray peer review to the public as a quasi-sacred process that helps to make science our most objective truth teller. But we know that the system of peer review is biased, unjust, unaccountable, incomplete, easily fixed, often insulting, usually ignorant, occasionally foolish, and frequently wrong." (Richard Horton, editor of the British medical journal The Lancet)

Of course it can be all the things listed above. Remember, these articles are then read and accepted or rejected by the scientific community. That’s how we know it can be “ biased, unjust, unaccountable, incomplete, easily fixed, often insulting, usually ignorant, occasionally foolish, and frequently wrong.” They are found out, by, guess what, scientists!

Is it? You trust men - that’s a serious mistake!

No, I trust the scientific method, because it has got an excellent track record and has been shown to be very dependable on getting us closer to the truth..

 

[Krok]

And what would be the goat-herders&#8217; motives?

Probably very scared of lightning and also needed comfort for what happens to them after death. Everybody dreams of living forever.

How could, or did, they ensure that their writings would endure down to these days, thousands of years later?

Probably the same way as all those Hindu, Buddhist and Islamitic writings endure. Got lucky to be accepted by some kind of empire that made it the state religion.

&#8220;Sure, other nations too produced written works that reflected their religion and their national values. For example, the Akkadian legend of Gilgamesh from Mesopotamia and the Ras Shamra epics, written in Ugaritic (a language spoken in what is now northern Syria), were doubtless very popular. The vast literature of that era also included works such as The Admonitions of Ipu-wer and The Prophecy of Nefer-rohu in the Egyptian language, hymns to different divinities in Sumerian, and prophetic works in Akkadian.

All these Middle Eastern works, however, met a common fate. They were forgotten, and even the languages they were written in became extinct. It was only in recent years that archaeologists and philologists learned of their existence and discovered how to read them. On the other hand, the first written books of the Hebrew Bible have survived right up to our own time and are still widely read.

You don&#8217;t even have the originals. How do you know what was written in those originals?

Sometimes scholars claim that the Hebrew books in the Bible were derived in some way from those ancient literary works. But the fact that so much of that literature was forgotten while the Hebrew Bible survived marks the Bible as significantly different.&#8220; (God&#8217;s Word pp. 13-14)

You&#8217;d have to thank the Roman Empire for that.

The benefits of science are many and varied, bringing convenience, healing and comfort to many. It has also brought many woes which no one can deny.

Science is not responsible for what men do with the knowledge obtained. Humans are. Science is only responsible for obtaining knowledge.

According to Richard Horton (quoted above) this is not true.

What&#8217;s not true according to him? Do you always try these arguments from authority? Don&#8217;t you have anything else?

&#8220;For high-octane gall in proclaiming its ethical purity, the scientific community has long been the runaway winner,&#8221; said New Scientist magazine.

New Scientist is not a peer-reviewed publication. Falsehoods are easily published, because it is not peer-reviewed. Any reference to the original article, anyway? You know the edition number, date and page number? I know that creationist &#8220;quote-mines&#8221; are nearly always completely misleading and very often outright lies.

The highly vaunted peer-review system that theoretically screens out all the cheats is felt by many to be a farce. &#8220;The reality,&#8221; New Scientist said, &#8220;is that few scientific scoundrels are caught, but, when they are, they frequently turn out to have been running wild for years, publishing faked data in respectable journals, with no questions asked.&#8221;(AW g90 1/22 p. 7)

New scientist is not peer-reviewed. Better take anything they say with a pinch of salt. Any reference to the original article? You know the number, date and page number? I know that creationist &#8220;quote-mines&#8221; are nearly always completely misleading and very often outright lies.

You&#8217;re so right! I don&#8217;t know of any frauds writing Bibles these days - do you?

What was that guy from the Mormons called again? I also do know a lot of frauds &#8220;interpreting&#8221; the Bible the way they want to and also lie about things like what the Theory of Evolution actually is and what abiogenesis is.

The peer-review system has been oversold and you have bought into it.

Crooked men will remain crooked.
So I ask you again - why do you trust the peer-review system?

Every time I turn on my computer I&#8217;m very grateful for the peer-review system.

Faith?

Again, not everyone in the world do things the way you do it. Some people value evidence, not faith.

 

[jarofthoughts]

You want examples? I can do that! The fraud involved in the system has been known for decades.
<snipped stuff copypasted from creationist websites>
I have met your request for examples of fraud and I have many, many more.
Do you have reason to believe that this practice of cheating has ended?

First off, this forum requires that you provide links to the pages you "lend" stuff from, so I would look to doing that if I were you.
Secondly, in post #37 you claimed that the SYSTEM was fraudulent, which you have yet to show. I'll quote it for you:

You have not answered the question, so I'll ask it again:
Why do you trust the peer-review system?
It has often been proven to be fraudulent.

See?

As previously mentioned individuals try from time to time to cheat the system because individuals are human and like all humans they can be both honest and dishonest. No-one is contesting that. But that's not what you claimed.

So - why do you trust the peer-review system?

I told you earlier. What I said still stands.

But since you apparently do not trust it, what do you suggest we replace it with?

 

[Krok]

First off, this forum requires that you provide links to the pages you "lend" stuff from, so I would look to doing that if I were you.
Secondly, in post #37 you claimed that the SYSTEM was fraudulent, which you have yet to show. I'll quote it for you:
See?
As previously mentioned individuals try from time to time to cheat the system because individuals are human and like all humans they can be both honest and dishonest. No-one is contesting that. But that's not what you claimed.
I told you earlier. What I said still stands.
But since you apparently do not trust it, what do you suggest we replace it with?

Oh, I know, the JW version of the Bible. :cover:Nobody has to do any research. Only read the Bible. If you're ill, pray. That's all you need to do.

 

[Krok]

You want examples? I can do that! The fraud involved in the system has been known for decades.
Hold on to something!

Ok, we’re holding on.

1. “Panel says researcher took data from paper he peer-reviewed and used it for his own work; .&#12288;.&#12288;. NIH [National Institutes of Health] recommends debarment proceedings.”—Science, July 14, 1989.

Guess what. He was caught before he published his own “work”. Caught by the peer-review system. Peer-review worked in this instance.

2. “Biomedical scientists in America are performing sloppy and sometimes fraudulent research in an effort to publish more papers and make more money.”—New Scientist, February 25, 1989.

An effort doesn’t mean it is published. They catch them before it is published. Peer-review works in this instance. Again, I hope you realized that New-scientist is not peer-reviewed and can say anything?

3. “Scientific fraud and carelessness among researchers could be widespread,&#12288;warns a study in last week’s issue of Nature.”—New Scientist, January 22, 1987.

And how do they know about and catch this fraud and carelessness? Peer-review. Peer-review works in this instance.

4. “A biochemist accused of plagiarizing a National Academy of Sciences report for a book on nutrition and cancer resigned from his position at the Cleveland Clinic Foundation.”—Science, September 4, 1987.

He plagiarized. He wrote a non-peer-reviewed book with that. He didn’t publish in any peer-review journal. Nothing to do with peer-review. Peer-review won again.

5. “His deception puts a question mark over safety checks on pills being taken by up to 2 m[illion] women in Britain and 10 m[illion] worldwide.”—The Sunday Times, September 28, 1986.

His “deception” doesn’t have anything to do with peer-review. He wrote a non-peer-reviewed book! If he had his book peer-reviewed, he would have been stopped.

6. “He resigned last week after an independent committee of inquiry found him guilty of scientific fraud.”—New Scientist, November 12, 1988.

What does this have to do with peer-review? He wrote a book. Anyone can write a book. Nothing to do with peer-review.

7. “A surprisingly long-running, flagrant and deliberate case of scientific fraud according to a draft report of an investigation conducted for the National Institute of Mental Health.”—Science, March 27, 1987.

Nothing about peer-review. It was uncovered when peer-review was attempted. Peer-review wins.

8. “A prominent Bostonian psychiatrist resigned as head of a mental hospital affiliated to Harvard University, following charges of plagiarism.”—New Scientist, December 10, 1988.

Guess how he was caught? He tried to get published, but peer-review stopped him. Peer-review wins.

9. “A prominent Australian scientist has examined two decades of work on ancient Himalayan geology and alleges it may be the greatest paleontological fraud of all time.”—Science, April 21, 1989.

I notice that the “two decades of work” was not done by a scientist, that the work was not published anywhere, and never made it to get peer-reviewed. It was discovered when peer-review publication was attempted. Peer-review wins again.

10. “[He was speaking] specifically about how poorly many [science] journals have handled scientific fraud.

What does this have to do with peer-review? When it is peer-reviewed and found as fraud, it is not published. This was criticized, because the journals don’t publish the fraudulent articles at all, but also don’t charge the authors. He wants scientific journals to go to courts. The scientific journals don’t want to go. Nothing to do with the peer-review system.

 

[Krok]

The same message previously dispatched to other members of the scientific community has now been addressed to the journals: clean up your act or you may find legislators getting into it.”—The AAAS Observer, July 7, 1989.

Who wrote this? Was it a creationist?

On the NOVA program.....

I hope you don’t think that Nova programs are peer-reviewed?

..... entitled “Do Scientists Cheat?” telecast on October 25, 1988, one scientist......

Hope this “scientist” was not a creationist. Creationists tend to pretend to be scientists, while most of them are not.

.... commented on this practice: “People are trying to get their names attached to as many publications as they possibly can, so that very commonly now you find huge teams where 16 people all sign their name to a particular publication, which probably wasn’t worth publishing in the first place.

So, there’s nothing wrong with the research itself, people just want to be co-authors? Nothing to do with peer-review.

But this is part of a kind of rat race, a competitiveness, a vulgar quantitative counting mentality that is absolutely encouraged by the structure of science in the United States today.”

This sounds way too much like a creationist who doesn’t really know what science is. This doesn’t say anything about peer-review.

Some listed as coauthors may have had very little to do with the article, may not even have read it, yet add the article to their list of publications.

I hope you realize that people who do the peer-review have no idea of who conducted the research or who the authors are? They don’t know whether it is one researcher or a million researchers. They look at the science, not the authors. This doesn’t question peer-review, it questions the number of authors.

Such bloated lists influence the granting of research requests involving hundreds of thousands of dollars of public funds.

How does this influence peer-review?

Peer review is “a lousy way to detect fraud,” said previously quoted Dr.

&#12288;Drummond Rennie. The American Medical News said: “Peer-reviewed journals, once regarded as almost infallible,....

I’ve never heard that any scientist ever has regarded peer-review as infallible. Science is not like religion. They don’t work the way churches work at all!

..... have had to admit that they are incapable of eradicating fraud.”

They’ve never claimed that they can eliminate fraud. They have claimed that they will try their utmost to minimilize it.

“Peer review has been oversold,” said a medical writer and columnist for The New York Times.

A medical writer. Great. Why do you believe him? He’s not a scientist and has never been subjected to peer-review, you know.

The journal Science reports that one researcher assigned to review another researcher’s paper was charged with plagiarism.

How did they know it was plagiarism? He tried to get it peer-reviewed under his own name. He was caught. Guess what, peer-review worked again.

He “took data from paper he peer-reviewed and used it for his own work,” according to the NIH (National Institutes of Health).

When he tried that, peer-review caught him. Peer-review works!

Such conduct is a “violation of trust that is supposed to lie at the heart of the peer-review system,” and in this particular case, the reviewer has been declared “ineligible for future federal funding.”

Peer-review worked very well in this case. He was caught and can’t do any research anymore.

Previously, an official of the NIH said, as reported in The New York Times: “I think an age of innocence has ended. In the past people assumed that scientists didn’t do this kind of thing.

Those people were really naive (nearly said stupid). Scientists are human too. Ever heard of temptation?

But people are beginning to realize that scientists are not morally superior to anybody else.”

They still are morally superior to Kent Hovind! They don't lie as much.

The Times report added: “Although a few years ago it was rare for the National Institutes of Health to receive one complaint a year of alleged fraud, she said, there are now at least two serious allegations a month.”

It’s because the peer-review system works very well and is getting better. More frauds get caught. They can’t publish anymore due to the peer-review system.

Science magazine observed: “Scientists have repeatedly assured the public that fraud and misconduct in research are rare. And yet, significant cases seem to keep cropping up.”

Fraud will always happen. It has to be minimalized. Maybe the churches should start learning from science. I hope you do realize that "fraud" is not the same as "peer-review"?

The chairman of one of the congressional investigating committees, John Dingell, at one time said to scientists: “I will tell you that I find your enforcement mechanisms are hopelessly inadequate and that rascality seems to be triumphing over virtue in many incidences in a fashion that I find totally unacceptable. I hope you do too.”

What does this has to do with peer-review?

The NOVA program on “Do Scientists Cheat?” concluded with this acknowledgment by one of the scientists present: “Skeletons have to come out of the closets, bureaucrats’ careers have to be impaired if that’s what it takes, and there’s no alternative. This is ethically required, this is legally required, and it’s certainly morally required.” (AW 90 1/22 pp. 6-7)

And what does this have to do with the peer-review system?

I have met your request for examples of fraud and I have many, many more.

Oh no, you haven’t. You haven’t mentioned even one case where peer-review was to blame. In all your cases, peer-review actually did it’s job very well. It stopped the fraud. You seem to tend to think that, even if any scientist does anything wrong, you blame it on peer-review, even if his/her work has not even been submitted for peer-review. You don’t realize that some scientists commit fraud, when it is discovered by peer-review, peer-review works.

Do you have reason to believe that this practice of cheating has ended?

Has Kent Hovind stopped cheating the IRS?

So - why do you trust the peer-review system?

It works. very well. More often than religion.

 

[newhope101]

WilsonCole...I agree with the line you're towing here. Researchers say that they have convincing evidence in the fossil records and genomics. However, I agree with you that the evidence is not convincing at all.

This is what a leading researcher, Lovejoy, recently said:
Man Did Not Evolve From Apes Says Leading Anthropologist
Kent State University Professor C. Owen Lovejoy Helps Unveil Oldest Hominid Skeleton That Revises How We Think of Human Evolution
Published on Oct 1, 2009

Lovejoy suggests chimps and humans share a common ancestor and homo sapiens did not evolve from chimps.

I say if the fossil record was that fantastic there would be no need for leading researchers to put forward other hypothesis so contrary to &#8216;known&#8216; facts. If the current fossil and genetic evidence was sooo convincing then this guy Lovejoy, must have had nothing better to do with his time, than challenge an already established scenario of human evolution. This Lovejoy is not a goose. He is a leading, very well credentialed researcher and many support his work.

Really WilsonCole I think these fossils they have found could be anything from mutant cretin non human primates, adaptations to environment or variations from genetic drift, birth defects etc in non human primates. One only has to look through Wiki to see the amount of debate around fossil evidence.

Evolutionary research is about the only science where anything goes and validates Toe. Even lack of clarity is purported as supportive of toe. For example, there is good research to back up LUCA and more recently there is good evidence to validate there is no LUCA, both stories are worked to support toe. Evolution was expected to be smooth transisitions and that would further support Toe but indeed there is no smooth about it. Rather staged evolution now supports Toe. Researchers did not expect to find the huge genetic similarity and shared genes they have found between very different organisms. However when that fact was elucidated that also supported Toe&#8230;.and on it goes. This does not smack of science to me. Look to Wiki &#8220;gene&#8221; &#8220;clades&#8221; for a snip of what researchers have to deal with to separate facts from best guesses. I won&#8217;t bring up how Probabilities are used as that is a whole other conversation. Wiki also summarises on Probability also.
&#12288;
Indeed to a creationist it can appear that researchers are grabbing at any straw they can turn into an evolutionary support. The result being a theory, accepted as fact, built on a foundation of straw&#8230;hence the controversy.

Either we evolved here on earth or life evolved somewhere else and came to earth somehow. Then they have to explain all the variety in life with no God to create it. Evos have a huge task. I can truly understand why, in particular, atheists, need to accept the dilemmas and shortfalls of Toe.

Creationists see the evidence of God&#8217;s creation with the &#8216;eye of understanding&#8217;. It is not an eye open to all, but I hope it soon will be.

 

[jarofthoughts]

WilsonCole...I agree with the line you're towing here.

<snipped nonsense>

Creationists see the evidence of God’s creation with the ‘eye of understanding’. It is not an eye open to all, but I hope it soon will be.

What a bunch of hogwash.

 

[outhouse]

This is what a leading researcher, Lovejoy, recently said:
Man Did Not Evolve From Apes Says Leading Anthropologist
Kent State University Professor C. Owen Lovejoy Helps Unveil Oldest Hominid Skeleton That Revises How We Think of Human Evolution
Published on Oct 1, 2009

Lovejoy suggests chimps and humans share a common ancestor and homo sapiens did not evolve from chimps.

this is the second time you have posted this and he has said nothing that we dont already know.

We know we never evolved from chimps

its common knowledge we share the same ancestor but never came from a chimp

 

[outhouse]

This Lovejoy is not a goose. He is a leading, very well credentialed researcher and many support his work.

We know

he beleives and backs evolution %110

Evolutionary research is about the only science where anything goes and validates Toe

Thats is not true in any sense. Please provide real proof that has merit, and please provide sources. You cant.

Creationists see the evidence of God&#8217;s creation with the &#8216;eye of understanding&#8217;. It is not an eye open to all, but I hope it soon will be.

False they do not have any understanding at all. The creation myth is outlawed in public schools for a reason.

even the pope says evolution has merit.

The debate for evolution is over, get used to it. creation will be extinct soon.

 

[David M]

On the other hand, the first written books of the Hebrew Bible have survived right up to our own time and are still widely read. Sometimes scholars claim that the Hebrew books in the Bible were derived in some way from those ancient literary works. But the fact that so much of that literature was forgotten while the Hebrew Bible survived marks the Bible as significantly different.“ (God’s Word pp. 13-14)

Which would make the Vedas spectacularly different as they have survived much, much longer than the Torah.

 

[David M]

WilsonCole...I agree with the line you're towing here. Researchers say that they have convincing evidence in the fossil records and genomics. However, I agree with you that the evidence is not convincing at all.

This is what a leading researcher, Lovejoy, recently said:
Man Did Not Evolve From Apes Says Leading Anthropologist
Kent State University Professor C. Owen Lovejoy Helps Unveil Oldest Hominid Skeleton That Revises How We Think of Human Evolution
Published on Oct 1, 2009

Lovejoy suggests chimps and humans share a common ancestor and homo sapiens did not evolve from chimps.

Even Darwin said that humans did not evolve from chimps. Science has been saying this for 150 years, its creationists who keep saying we evolved from chimps.

And you are lying about what Lovejoy said.

 

[tumbleweed41]

You have not answered the question, so I'll ask it again:
Why do you trust the peer-review system?
It has often been proven to be fraudulent.

1. It has been shown to be overwhelmingly accurate.
2. Please provide your evidence that fraud has tainted the peer review system.
3. Please provide objective evidence in support of Young Earth Creationism

 

[wilsoncole]

Because it has been proved time and again to be the best way to verify the results of findings and experiments.
Often? Please give me some examples where the SYSTEM has proven to be fraudulent.

You want examples? I can do that! Check the words and phrases in red - OK?
The fraud involved in the system has been known for decades.
Hold on to something!
1. “Panel says researcher took data from paper he peer-reviewed and used it for his own work; .&#12288;.&#12288;. NIH [National Institutes of Health] recommends debarment proceedings.”—Science, July 14, 1989.

2. “Biomedical scientists in America are performing sloppy and sometimes fraudulent research in an effort to publish more papers and make more money.”—New Scientist, February 25, 1989.

3. “Scientific fraud and carelessness among researchers could be widespread,&#12288;warns a study in last week’s issue of Nature.”—New Scientist, January 22, 1987.


4. “A biochemist accused of plagiarizing a National Academy of Sciences report for a book on nutrition and cancer resigned from his position at the Cleveland Clinic Foundation.”—Science, September 4, 1987.

5. “His deception puts a question mark over safety checks on pills being taken by up to 2 m[illion] women in Britain and 10 m[illion] worldwide.”—The Sunday Times, September 28, 1986.

6. “He resigned last week after an independent committee of inquiry found him guilty of scientific fraud.”—New Scientist, November 12, 1988.

7. “A surprisingly long-running, flagrant and deliberate case of scientific fraud according to a draft report of an investigation conducted for the National Institute of Mental Health.”—Science, March 27, 1987.

8. “A prominent Bostonian psychiatrist resigned as head of a mental hospital affiliated to Harvard University, following charges of plagiarism.”—New Scientist, December 10, 1988.

9. “A prominent Australian scientist has examined two decades of work on ancient Himalayan geology and alleges it may be the greatest paleontological fraud of all time.”—Science, April 21, 1989.

10. “[He was speaking] specifically about how poorly many [science] journals have handled scientific fraud. .&#12288;.&#12288;. The same message previously dispatched to other members of the scientific community has now been addressed to the journals: clean up your act or you may find legislators getting into it.”—The AAAS Observer, July 7, 1989.

On the NOVA program entitled “Do Scientists Cheat?” telecast on October 25, 1988, one scientist commented on this practice: “People are trying to get their names attached to as many publications as they possibly can, so that very commonly now you find huge teams where 16 people all sign their name to a particular publication, which probably wasn’t worth publishing in the first place. But this is part of a kind of rat race, a competitiveness, a vulgar quantitative counting mentality that is absolutely encouraged by the structure of science in the United States today.” Some listed as coauthors may have had very little to do with the article, may not even have read it, yet add the article to their list of publications. Such bloated lists influence the granting of research requests involving hundreds of thousands of dollars of public funds.

Peer review is “a lousy way to detect fraud,” said previously quoted Dr.&#12288;Drummond Rennie. The American Medical News said: “Peer-reviewed journals, once regarded as almost infallible, have had to admit that they are incapable of eradicating fraud.” “Peer review has been oversold,” said a medical writer and columnist for The New York Times.

The journal Science reports that one researcher assigned to review another researcher’s paper was charged with plagiarism.
He “took data from paper he peer-reviewed and used it for his own work,” according to the NIH (National Institutes of Health).
Such conduct is a “violation of trust that is supposed to lie at the heart of the peer-review system,” and in this particular case, the reviewer has been declared “ineligible for future federal funding.”

Previously, an official of the NIH said, as reported in The New York Times: “I think an age of innocence has ended. In the past people assumed that scientists didn’t do this kind of thing. But people are beginning to realize that scientists are not morally superior to anybody else.”

The Times report added: “Although a few years ago it was rare for the National Institutes of Health to receive one complaint a year of alleged fraud, she said, there are now at least two serious allegations a month.” Science magazine observed: “Scientists have repeatedly assured the public that fraud and misconduct in research are rare .&#12288;.&#12288;. And yet, significant cases seem to keep cropping up.”

The chairman of one of the congressional investigating committees, John Dingell, at one time said to scientists: “I will tell you that I find your enforcement mechanisms are hopelessly inadequate and that rascality seems to be triumphing over virtue in many incidences in a fashion that I find totally unacceptable. I hope you do too.”

The NOVA program on “Do Scientists Cheat?” concluded with this acknowledgment by one of the scientists present: “Skeletons have to come out of the closets, bureaucrats’ careers have to be impaired if that’s what it takes, and there’s no alternative. This is ethically required, this is legally required, and it’s certainly morally required.” (AW 90 1/22 pp. 6-7)

I repeat:
I have met your request for examples of fraud and I have many, many more.
Do you have reason to believe that this practice of cheating has ended?

Why do you continue to trust the peer-review system?