Does Embryo Development Require God's Guidance?

Yes, Bio-Complexity is a peer reviewed legitimate journal.

Evidence please.

Neither is your way of doing or accepting “science” … Peer review done by people who peer review based on their preconceived ideology… Laughable
But whom am l talking to? Someone who accepts speculative science over experimental evidence…
No wonder you are an atheist…:wink:
Double good-bye!

BTW: I wrote this post 2 days ago. Due to some unexplainable rules, one is allowed to post an OP, but, unfortunately, he has a set number of comments he can use to defend it.
I have also edited the Group Theory to Category Theory, but it wasn’t saved.

Dan,
Please see my BTW comment to Patrick
My kids were playing around with this stuff and argued about set, category and group theories…
Windows surface preserves the input and changes it according to the usage…

1 Like

Peer reviewed science does have more value than an opinion.

The purpose of publishing in peer reviewed journals is two fold. First, scientists need to communicate their findings to other scientists. Second, peer review should catch any major errors in the paper, be it methodological errors or misinterpretation of results.

Very rarely do peer reviewers repeat the experiments in the paper, nor does peer review guarantee that the results are repeatable. The whole point is that you can’t know if results are repeatable if no one knows what experiments you have done or the data that the experiments produced. The primary purpose of peer review is communication of results so that others can determine if your findings are repeatable and reliable.

Science is absolutely susceptible to those things. This is why there is oversight and peer review. Most importantly, career advancement is based on reputation. If you are caught fudging data or cheating then you could seriously damage your career. Even honest mistakes can sometimes damage careers.

2 Likes

6 posts were split to a new topic: What is Scientific Reputation?

I think it is fairer to say that the peer review at Bio-Complexity is poor. There is also pressure to publish quantity instead of quality.

However, I do think it is important for the journal to exist for no other reason than to get the work of ID supporters out into the light of day. Sunshine is always the best disinfectant.

2 Likes

I largley agree. A single solid paper in an unknown journal can change a field and even win a nobel prize. The appeal to authority implicit in insisting on certain journals misses how science progressed. ID undeniably faces bias against them, though there will be disagreement about how much is diserved or not. Rather than relying on a genetic fallacy, it is wiser to engage their ideas on merits, even if that takes us into philosophy and theology instead of a striclty scientific inquiry.

2 Likes

How does this apply to the origins of life scientists? Or the experimental evolutionary scientists?
It’s nonsense that has been preserved as science…Don’t ask me why…

Easy to explain. Most of them do great work. So their work is widely accepted by other scientists.

2 Likes

They only publish 3 to 4 paper a YEAR. That’s not quantity nor quality!

Do you realize how hard it is to be a successful scientist? First the training, a doctorate is a must, then get a job in your field, publishing is a must, making a credible name for one’s self takes decades. Then you got to get funding for whatever you do or you will literally starve. It is not an easy career path. If you go into industry, it is much more lucrative but you then must make money for your company with your research results.

1 Like

There aren’t that many of them. Experiments take time. I worked on the same fossil
For over a year. You can’t expect an institution with a handful of scientists to publish a lot of papers per year.

No. I don’t. It’s actually easy. All you do is you come up with a theory and then you test it experimentally. If the tests prove your theory, and others replicate them, you become a successful scientists…
It’s harder to convince others of the validity of your theory if all you have is your imaginary speculations…

@J_Mac I thought you left? Are you sure you want to come back to tell all the scientist here that what we do is easy.

So many expert mathematicians here and nobody even commented on the category theory mentioned in the video and the paper by Dr. Wells. Quite frankly, I’m disappointed…

Do you want me to?
You don’t know me but I’m too lazy to hold a grudge…:wink:

Maybe you are not doing it right? Look at Dr. Lonnig. He performed hundreds if not thousands of mutagenesis experiments and not even one of his experiments evolved a new kind of plant…
That’s how he became a successful scientists by following the results of his experiments and not some imaginary, preconceived ideas…

www.weloennig.de/Loennig-Long-Version-of-Law-of-Recurrent-Variation.pdf

It’s 50 years since I last studied anything in Category Theory. And it isn’t at all clear whether Wells is referring to that Category Theory or something totally different.

It’s painfully obvious that Wells referring to category theory is not clear to you…
This is the third time I’m telling you to watch the video at 40min mark… My kids are in high school and got it… Please don’t be an embarrassment to mathematicians…