debosky:


The differences are not to 'prove' evolution as you fear but for taxonomic classification.

That to me is the impact of this "Ida" publication. Just purely for classification; you cant make more out of it than that. Unfortunately, the way and manner this article has been hyped  would make this finding remembered more for its failure to provide a missing link than for its description of a new taxonomic class; which is what the paper was all about in the first place.

@ Debosky

I understand ur point,,,,, and honestly I really found that curious. U hardly see statements like that in research publications where in one sentence U tell us U think something is possible and then in the next line U tell us then that u are not advocating that    To me thats bad scientific writing.
However, it tells me one thing tho' ,,,,, this article was written not solely from a scientific perspective but there was also a huge commercial interest too. The link that David provided kinda suggests that too.

I had wanted to bring this up,,, but I decided it might be too petty or a little bit technical,,,, if the Scientific community believes that Ida is really what it is hyped up to be this pubication would have landed as the cover page of Science or Nature. PLoS is a very respectable journal with a respectable impact factor but if I had " evidence for a missing link" on ma hands , I would not be going to PLoS.


I wonder what huxley thinks about all this I would like to see his views

Uche2nna:


@ Debosky

I understand ur point,,,,, and honestly I really found that curious. U hardly see statements like that in research publications where in one sentence U tell us U think something is possible and then in the next line U tell us then that u are not advocating that To me thats bad scientific writing.
However, it tells me one thing tho' ,,,,, this article was written not solely from a scientific perspective but there was also a huge commercial interest too. The link that David provided kinda suggests that too.

I think they want to put the possibility out there (i.e for others to investigate and confirm or disprove) without falling prey to the mistake of pigeon holing themselves to one idea or possibility. It is possible, but clearly there isn't sufficient proof to verify the possibility in this article and they would be crucified if they started advocating based on this fossil alone without corroborating evidence.

I had wanted to bring this up,,, but I decided it might be too petty or a little bit technical,,,, if the Scientific community believes that Ida is really what it is hyped up to be this pubication would have landed as the cover page of Science or Nature. PLoS is a very respectable journal with a respectable impact factor but if I had " evidence for a missing link" in ma hands , I would not be going to PLoS.

I feel there was some pressure to get the paper out there before the movies and the rest so there is some firm basis for the commercial side of things. That said, I don't think it materially detracts from the detailed work done. Maybe more could have been done in terms of discussing the findings, but I still believe the article is factually correct.

debosky:

For the sake of argument I'll go through this again:
They did not consider it so, but they clearly believed it was a possibility - yes or no? If a possibility exists, that is all that is sufficient at this stage.

the paper itself does not take such a strong stand . . . and i believe i did post the relevant portion to buttress that.

debosky:

They cannot categorically say it is NOT the missing link, all they say is that they are not advocating this at the moment, but the possibility exists, hence the use of the phrase 'could represent'. You on the other hand have concluded that it is NOT the missing link. Do you get the distinction now?

Simply because it is NOT the missing link. There is plenty of misgivings as regards this even within the scientific community, all you need do is google "Ida" + "hype". One of such problems raised is that rather than the scientific standard of considering between 200 - 400 anatomical features that would tie Ida to man, the authors considered only 30.

debosky:

All primates have that - humans are believed to have evolved alongside other primates, hence there is a possible link. Does that answer your question? [size=14pt]This has never been about a direct link to man per se, but more of a link to the evolutionary 'tree' that man emerged from.[/size]

That is too tenous an argument. Why is it not a possibility that the fossil is a descendant of apes or monkeys? why going as far as man?
Both Jorn Hurum and Artenborough have claimed this is the missing transition link to man not merely part of the evolutionary "tree".

debosky:

You and me know what Dr. Hurum said
Once again, this isn't about making links to man - it is linking this creature to the anthropoidal evolutionary tree from where man is believed to have emerged so I don't see the point of this question. It could be a forebearer of anthropoids. On that basis, it does not have to be in man's exact image, considering it is believed that man could have evolved from this creature. In any case, the comparison was not with man, but with lemurs to differentiate it.
What is clear is this - it was not 'just a lemur' as you opined, as it has differentiating physical characteristics when compared in totality with other lemurs, indicative of a separate species with a different evolutionary path.
The differences are not to 'prove' evolution as you fear but for taxonomic classification.

Whether this "lemur" is a missing link to man or not, it will have to contend with so many questions:

1. If this is the link, then man is less than 47 million yrs old . . . an age where fishes, dragon flies, turtles, boas had ALL FULLY EVOLVED into the organisms we see around us today. How did we evolve so slowly?

2. Man is said to have evolved from the rift valley region of Africa . . . how did Ida get to Germany?

Uche2nna:

That to me is the impact of this "Ida" publication. Just purely for classification; you cant make more out of it than that. Unfortunately, the way and manner this article has been hyped  would make this finding remembered more for its failure to provide a missing link than for its description of a new taxonomic class; which is what the paper was all about in the first place.

@ Debosky

I understand ur point,,,,, and honestly I really found that curious. U hardly see statements like that in research publications where in one sentence U tell us U think something is possible and then in the next line U tell us then that u are not advocating that    To me thats bad scientific writing.
However, it tells me one thing tho' ,,,,, this article was written not solely from a scientific perspective but there was also a huge commercial interest too. The link that David provided kinda suggests that too.

I had wanted to bring this up,,, but I decided it might be too petty or a little bit technical,,,, if the Scientific community believes that Ida is really what it is hyped up to be this pubication would have landed as the cover page of Science or Nature. PLoS is a very respectable journal with a respectable impact factor but if I had " evidence for a missing link" on ma hands , I would not be going to PLoS.


I wonder what huxley thinks about all this I would like to see his views

Exactly my first thought when i saw the paper in PLoS.

debosky:

I think they want to put the possibility out there (i.e for others to investigate and confirm or disprove) without falling prey to the mistake of pigeon holing themselves to one idea or possibility. It is possible, but clearly there isn't sufficient proof to verify the possibility in this article and they would be crucified if they started

I know thats what they were trying to do and thats why I call it bad scientific writing. U dont do that when writing a manuscript. U acknowledge that ur hypothesis might be wrong by providing ALTERNATIVES to ur hypothesis. U dont just state a hypothesis and then say U dont advocate it; then why state it in the first place
We know 80 percent of all hypothesis put foward by scientist(s) turns out to be wrong. U dont need to tell us that; we know that already. What we want to know is why U think ur hypothesis is right. Thats more important and if there is no evidence backing up ur hypothesis, then U should not be stating that as a hypothesis in the first place.

However, these guys are already established in their fields so they know all this. Which even makes me think that this might not be a case of bad scientific writing but a case of deceit,,,,,, which is even worse than bad scientific writing.

Uche2nna:


I know thats what they were trying to do and thats why I call it bad scientific writing. U dont do that when writing a manuscript. U acknowledge that ur hypothesis might be wrong by providing ALTERNATIVES to ur hypothesis. U dont just state a hypothesis and then say U dont advocate it; then why state it in the first place
We know 80 percent of all hypothesis put foward by scientist(s) turns out to be wrong. U dont need to tell us that; we know that already. What we want to know is why U think ur hypothesis is right. Thats more important and if there is no evidence backing up ur hypothesis, then U should not be stating that as a hypothesis in the first place.

However, these guys are already established in their fields so they know all this. Which even makes me think that this might not be a case of bad scientific writing but a case of deceit,,,,,, which is even worse than bad scientific writing.

You seem to be peeping into my mind. Excellent point.

considering the fossil cost Dr. hurum and his team about $1m . . . the money just had to be recouped with profit.

1.

Uche2nna:

That to me is the impact of this "Ida" publication. Just purely for classification; you cant make more out of it than that. Unfortunately, the way and manner this article has been hyped  would make this finding remembered more for its failure to provide a missing link than for its description of a new taxonomic class; which is what the paper was all about in the first place.

Gbam!


2.

Uche2nna:

@ Debosky

I understand ur point,,,,, and honestly I really found that curious. U hardly see statements like that in research publications where in one sentence U tell us U think something is possible and then in the next line U tell us then that u are not advocating that    To me thats bad scientific writing.

Gbam again!  You actually have a gift in stating my persuasions aptly with a punch!

That said, some of us understand debosky's point - he certainly is not pushing his own ideas to the fore, nor is he extrapolating what the paper did not argue for. He's cautious and genial enough to call our attention to what the paper does state, leaving it open for other observers to draw their own inferences from there. At least, this is how I sense his point, though I may be wrong afterall.

However, it seems we're all concerned about one thing: the problem of a lack of 'scientific integrity' (if there's anything like that) that the paper evinces. Like you, Uche2nna, stated: 'thats bad scientific writing', and so it is.

Ida is not the missing link. The idea of a missing link is a misnomer. It is unfortunate that one of the authors is talking about it as a missing link, but they fact that he did not include his thoughts in the paper suggest that even him is convinced that the claim of missing link based on the evidence he has cannot pass the rigor of a peer review. Had he included what he is saying on television and newspapers, the article would have been rejected. I do not know what his motivation is but it is not good for science when investigators leave the test tubes and pipettes and take to microphones and television camera.

m_nwankwo:

Ida is not the missing link. The idea of a missing link is a misnomer. It is unfortunate that one of the authors is talking about it as a missing link, but they fact that he did not include his thoughts in the paper suggest that even him is convinced that the claim of missing link based on the evidence he has cannot pass the rigor of a peer review. Had he included what he is saying on television and newspapers, the article would have been rejected. I do not know what his motivation is but it is not good for science when investigators leave the test tubes and pipettes and take to microphones and television camera.

Good points.

However, we just cannot say at this point what exactly Ida is or is not - so, it may not be actually making a 'scientific' observation to state it in quite a conclusive tone as that "Ida is NOT the missing link". Since no conclusions have been drawn as yet as to what exactly Ida is, we may not need at present to be hasty to say what it is NOT. This, I think, is yet again one of the concerns borne out in debosky's replies (again I may be wrong).

davidylan:

Simply because it is NOT the missing link. There is plenty of misgivings as regards this even within the scientific community, all you need do is google "Ida" + "hype". One of such problems raised is that rather than the scientific standard of considering between 200 - 400 anatomical features that would tie Ida to man, the authors considered only 30.

Again with the categorical statement. Let's even say the work was not thorough - what do YOU know to assert it is definitely NOT the missing link?  

That is too tenous an argument. Why is it not a possibility that the fossil is a descendant of apes or monkeys? why going as far as man?
Both Jorn Hurum and Artenborough have claimed this is the missing transition link to man not merely part of the evolutionary "tree".

There is nothing tenuous about it - the article mentions darwinius as a possible ancestor of anthropoids. SIMPLE. My argument is based on you trying to rubbish the scientific work. Separate people's non-scientific opinion from peer-reviewed comments in a published article.

Whether this "lemur" is a missing link to man or not, it will have to contend with so many questions:

1. If this is the link, then man is less than 47 million yrs old . . . an age where fishes, dragon flies, turtles, boas had ALL FULLY EVOLVED into the organisms we see around us today. How did we evolve so slowly?

2. Man is said to have evolved from the rift valley region of Africa . . . how did Ida get to Germany?

There is no doubt that further questions will be asked. However, the existence of those questions (unless proven to negate the possibility of Ida being a link) takes nothing away from this work. It would be good to note that a previously held theory (based on half the fossil) was disproved by the complete analysis of this fossil.

Don't be hasty to make close ended conclusive statements - you are doing essentially the same thing (but on the opposing end of the spectrum) you have accused Attenborough (maybe it's the David effect  ) and others of doing.

pilgrim.1:

That said, some of us understand debosky's point - he certainly is not pushing his own ideas to the fore, nor is he extrapolating what the paper did not argue for. [b]He's cautious and genial enough to call our attention to what the paper does state, leaving it open for other observers to draw their own inferences from there. [/b]At least, this is how I sense his point, though I may be wrong afterall.

GBAM!  

debosky:

but I still believe the article is factually correct.

I believe the facts provided in the article too and going by those facts it makes me conclude that we now have a new taxonomic class. Thats my conclusion. Any other claims made on TV or anywhere else is just sensationalization.

Debosky, i have no problems with the paper. I only have problems with the media hype.

davidylan:

Debosky, i have no problems with the paper. I only have problems with the media hype.

Then we are in agreement bro

pilgrim.1:

Good points.

However, we just cannot say at this point what exactly Ida is or is not - so, it may not be actually making a 'scientific' observation to state it in quite a conclusive tone as that "Ida is NOT the missing link". Since no conclusions have been drawn as yet as to what exactly Ida is, we may not need at present to be hasty to say what it is NOT. This, I think, is yet again one of the concerns borne out in debosky's replies (again I may be wrong).

I am sorry if my statement appear conclusive. Missing link says nothing. One may ask missing link to what, to lemurs, monkeys, chimps etc. One can make classification of organisms and show that they are genetically or anatomically related but it will be a leap of faith to jump from there to a missing link. That in my view harms science. I do not know the authors personally so I do not know what their motivation is. But in scientific articles, authors can suggest and speculate. Scientists can easily differentiate the evidence from the suggestions but the general public and the press cannot. Ida is a exciting to scientists because it is a near complete fossil and will provide a lot of data about Eocene primates but not as missing link. There is no evidence in the PLoS article in support of the mising link. So why all the noise?

debosky:

Then we are in agreement bro

I figured that out already.

m_nwankwo:

I am sorry if my statement appear conclusive. Missing link says nothing. One may ask missing link to what, to lemurs, monkeys, chimps etc. One can make classification of organisms and show that they are genetically or anatomically related but it will be a leap of faith to jump from there to a missing link. That in my view harms science. I do not know the authors personally so I do not know what their motivation is. But in scientific articles, authors can suggest and speculate. Scientists can easily differentiate the evidence from the suggestions but the general public and the press cannot. Ida is a exciting to scientists because it is a near complete fossil and will provide a lot of data about Eocene primates but not as missing link. There is no evidence in the PLoS article in support of the mising link. So why all the noise?

Precisely.

@ Debo and David
 I am glad U guys have cleared that up,,,,,,,, now I can dilly dally a little bit without really diverting the thread.

pilgrim.1:

1.


However, it seems we're all concerned about one thing: the problem of a lack of 'scientific integrity' (if there's anything like that) .

Unfortunately, I am beginning to think that standards are being compromised. I might be wrong but there are some articles that U read and U begin to wonder how in the hell did this get published If as a student, I can pick out some huge issues with some articles, then there is no way the reviewers wouldnt pick up on that  

I just finished reading an article and I could not just believe my eyes!!!! The hypothesis was weak in terms of evidence, the experimental strategy was crappy to say the least, some glaring controls were missing but the conclusions they made,,,, phew!!!! Huge conclusions!!! . I talked to my PI and she laughed and said thats what U get if U are a big shot in a field.   The guy that put out this paper is well - known in that field.

Another event just happened where one Professor was fuming cos a paper got published. He reviewed the paper , rejected it apparently but it still got put out without addressing the issues he raised. Once again, the paper was from a well-known lab.

That really makes one wonder about scientific integrity

Uche are you surprised? What about papers where you repeat the EXACT SAME EXPERIMENT and get totally different results? Papers where figures are glaringly patched together especially western blots?

That is 21st century "science" for you. I think the pressures of grants and publications has pushed integrity aside.

davidylan:

Uche are you surprised? What about papers where you repeat the EXACT SAME EXPERIMENT and get totally different results? Papers where figures are glaringly patched together especially western blots?

That is 21st century "science" for you. I think the pressures of grants and publications has pushed integrity aside.

Tell them.

Most people fall for this science stuff. Experiments are usually repeated multiple times to get the best result (the one you "hypothesized". And once that is gotten it is published as if. No one publishes results that don't work or what actually happened or how many times it failed or the patch work that had to be done.

davidylan:

Uche are you surprised? What about papers where you repeat the EXACT SAME EXPERIMENT and get totally different results? Papers where figures are glaringly patched together especially western blots?

That is 21st century "science" for you. I think the pressures of grants and publications has pushed integrity aside.

  Very true 


LOL @ Western blots I see that alot U can always tell when U look carefully at the intensity and shape of the bands that those things werent run on the same gel

Uche2nna:

@ Debo and David
 I am glad U guys have cleared that up,,,,,,,, now I can dilly dally a little bit without really diverting the thread.




Unfortunately, I am beginning to think that standards are being compromised. I might be wrong but there are some articles that U read and U begin to wonder how in the hell did this get published If as a student, I can pick out some huge issues with some articles, then there is no way the reviewers wouldnt pick up on that  

I just finished reading an article and I could not just believe my eyes!!!! The hypothesis was weak in terms of evidence, the experimental strategy was crappy to say the least, some glaring controls were missing but the conclusions they made,,,, phew!!!! Huge conclusions!!! . I talked to my PI and she laughed and said thats what U get if U are a big shot in a field.   The guy that put out this paper is well - known in that field.

Another event just happened where one Professor was fuming cos a paper got published. He reviewed the paper , rejected it apparently but it still got put out without addressing the issues he raised. Once again, the paper was from a well-known lab.

That really makes one wonder about scientific integrity

Uchenna. Scientists are human beings and they have their bais. But in the long run, even if it takes decades the claims of such biased scientists will be exposed by their peers. Even in top class journals like Science and Nature, look at the number of retractions. I have had my manuscripts rejected by these top journals simply because my finding will pose a serious scientific problem to multibillion vaccine industry. I  also have reviewed manuscripts and recommended them for publication based on scientific merit and yet the editor rejects the recommendation because the paper dig holes in what he has established over 30 years of research. So therir is politics, bias etc in peer review but in the end these papers published for reasons other than scientific merit will soon or later get discredited. So that should not be a worry in the long run. What is probably a greater problem is when an original idea that will make significant contribution to humanity is killed simply because the investigator is not one of the godfathers in his area.

m_nwankwo:

Uchenna. Scientists are human beings and they have their bais. But in the long run, even if it takes decades the claims of such biased scientists will be exposed by their peers. Even in top class journals like Science and Nature, look at the number of retractions. I have had my manuscripts rejected by these top journals simply because my finding will pose a serious scientific problem to multibillion vaccine industry. I  also have reviewed manuscripts and recommended them for publication based on scientific merit and yet the editor rejects the recommendation because the paper dig holes in what he has established over 30 years of research. So therir is politics, bias etc in peer review but in the end these papers published for reasons other than scientific merit will soon or later get discredited. So that should not be a worry in the long run. What is probably a greater problem is when an original idea that will make significant contribution to humanity is killed simply because the investigator is not one of the godfathers in his area.

I am loving this!!

@Uche2nna,

Lol, read my lips: 'the first commandment in science: thou shalt not hype to compromise the integrity of science'. Source? Em. . . em. . . em.  

You get my quip? Good. Now that I have your attention, let's review what you published:  

Uche2nna:

Unfortunately, I am beginning to think that standards are being compromised.

What meanest thou by you're beginning to think. . .? Of course, we all know this has been happening for eons!

Uche2nna:

I might be wrong but there are some articles that U read and U begin to wonder how in the hell did this get published If as a student, I can pick out some huge issues with some articles, then there is no way the reviewers wouldnt pick up on that  

You're not wrong, and our colleagues (pardon the unscientific pun) are of the same observation:

davidylan:

Uche are you surprised? What about papers where you repeat the EXACT SAME EXPERIMENT and get totally different results? Papers where figures are glaringly patched together especially western blots?

That is 21st century "science" for you. I think the pressures of grants and publications has pushed integrity aside.

So, there you are!

On the other hand, though, this our 'dilly-dally' must not be stretched too far as to ignore that the practice of science with integrity still holds in many quarters. However, we need to always bear in mind that not everything that survives escapes rigorous scrutiny and appears in so-called 'peer-review journals/publications' can stand as 'science'. As they say: let the buyer beware.

m_nwankwo:

I  also have reviewed manuscripts and recommended them for publication based on scientific merit and yet the editor rejects the recommendation because the paper dig holes in what he has established over 30 years of research.

I think that both sides of the coin (which is rejecting a new idea and publishing false claims) are equally dangerous. Either one can set off and maintain the other. Keep on publishing false claims and future scientists will keep on citing those false claims and basing future experiments on those claims. In the end, we would just be building a house on a pack of cards.
I have an example where an observation has been made and fully proven in chicks, same experiments were done in mouse and the results were very inconclusive,,, however, the finding in chick studies have been extrapolated to mouse and ALL the experiments done now in mouse are based on this theory. That has been a huge talking point in the field right now but no-one wants to take out the time and money to actually examine what the hell is going on in mice before moving foward. Everybody is just in a haste to move foward  

Uche2nna:

That has been a huge talking point in the field right now but no-one wants to take out the time and money to actually examine what the hell is going on in mice before moving foward. Everybody is just in a haste to move foward

Methinks it's rather because no one wants to be made a scapegoat by being ostracised and rejected in the scientific community for 'daring' to be brave.

Uche2nna:


I think that both sides of the coin (which is rejecting a new idea and publishing false claims) are equally dangerous. Either one can set off and maintain the other. Keep on publishing false claims and future scientists will keep on citing those false claims and basing future experiments on those claims. In the end, we would just be building a house on a pack of cards.
I have an example where an observation has been made and fully proven in chicks, same experiments were done in mouse and the results were very inconclusive,,, however, the finding in chick studies have been extrapolated to mouse and ALL the experiments done now in mouse are based on this theory. That has been a huge talking point in the field right now but no-one wants to take out the time and money to actually examine what the hell is going on in mice before moving foward. Everybody is just in a haste to move foward  

I agree both are dangerous. But false data will always be exposed no matter how long even if the investigator is a nobel prize winner. Ofcourse it can lead scientists on false chase as happened with the stem cell scandal but in the end the scientific truth will always triumph. Thus peer-review works inspite of the limitations.

Many scientists are in haste or driven by ambition. But in the end they will continue to be exposed. No wrong or falsified data can stand for all time, sooner or later it will be discredited. Thus one should be concerned but not worried for the truth will always triumph. Stay blessed.

pilgrim.1:

Methinks it's rather because no one wants to be made a scapegoat by being ostracised and rejected in the scientific community for 'daring' to be brave.

LOL!!!!
If I had data that say otherwise, I am prepared to go to a less popular journal if the first rate papers wont publish. And I will keep on publishing in those less popular Journal until someone pays attention. Or at least gives me a grant

m_nwankwo:

Thus peer-review works inspite of the limitations.

.

Oh, yeah,,,, I agree!!!! Dont think I would want it any other way.

pilgrim.1:

Methinks it's rather because no one wants to be made a scapegoat by being ostracised and rejected in the scientific community for 'daring' to be brave.

Hi pilgrim.1,

You hit the bull's eye there.  Here is an article to buttress your point as to the political correctness and peer pressure that is involved in the scientific community.

Columnist George Caylor once interviewed a molecular biologist for an article entitled "The Biologist," that ran on February 17, 2000, in The Ledger (Lynchburg, VA), and is in part reprinted here as a conversation between "G" (Caylor) and "J" (the scientist). We joined the piece in the middle of a discussion about the complexity of human code.

G: "Do you believe that the information evolved?"

J: "George, nobody I know in my profession believes it evolved. It was engineered by genius beyond genius, and such information could not have been written any other way. The paper and ink did not write the book! Knowing what we know, it is ridiculous to think otherwise."

G: "Have you ever stated that in a public lecture, or in any public writings?"

J: "No, I just say it evolved. To be a molecular biologist requires one to hold onto two insanities at all times. One, it would be insane to believe in evolution when you can see the truth for yourself. Two, it would be insane to say you don't believe evolution. All government work, research grants, papers, big college lectures—everything would stop. I'd be out of a job, or relegated to the outer fringes where I couldn't earn a decent living.

G: I hate to say it, but that sounds intellectually dishonest.

J: The work I do in genetic research is honorable. We will find the cures to many of mankind's worst diseases. But in the meantime, we have to live with the elephant in the living room.

G: What elephant?

G: Creation design. It's like an elephant in the living room.  It moves around, takes up space, loudly trumpets, bumps into us, knocks things over, eats a ton of hay, and smells like an elephant. And yet we have to swear it isn't there! 

Dr. John Morris, president of the Institute for Creation Research says:

[Scientists] see the evidence for creation, and they see it clearly, but peer pressure, financial considerations, political correctness, and a religious commitment to naturalism force them to look the other way and insist they see nothing.  And so, the illogical origins myth of modern society perpetuates itself.

Author: Daryl E. Witmer of AIIA Institute .

You can now see what some scientitists have to put up with to be able to survive in this day and age and why they will refuse to publish any scientific article of creationists or about creation design.  May the Lord have mercy.

Most people fall for this science stuff. Experiments are usually repeated multiple times to get the best result (the one you "hypothesized". And once that is gotten it is published as if. No one publishes results that don't work or what actually happened or how many times it failed or the patch work that had to be done.

FALSE, there is a thing called standard deviation.  You can't fool anyone with the "best result" if the deviation from the other results are too high.  You have to explain why their is a huge difference with the other.  whether it be calibration issues or an outside phenomena.

Editors can easily point such anomaly.  It's funny how people bash scientific journals when findings don't go their way. 

Methinks it's rather because no one wants to be made a scapegoat by being ostracised and rejected in the scientific community for 'daring' to be brave.

The proponents of Quantum Theory weren't punks.

heck even the guy who proposed string theory was initially rejected but his perseverance have paid results.

No one is stopping scientists against evolution from coming out.  They would eventually be accepted if they are right.

However, we need to always bear in mind that not everything that survives escapes rigorous scrutiny and appears in so-called 'peer-review journals/publications' can stand as 'science'. As they say: let the buyer beware.

And what should be considered science. the finding that confirm your beliefs or the one that challenges it?

i can sniff bias from the posts here.

bawomolo:

FALSE, there is a thing called standard deviation. You can't fool anyone with the "best result" if the deviation from the other results are too high. You have to explain why their is a huge difference with the other. whether it be calibration issues or an outside phenomena.

Editors can easily point such anomaly. It's funny how people bash scientific journals when findings don't go their way.

Um you do know you don't have to publish every single result, even if you write down every single experiment meticulously, you still don't have to show everything in a published paper.

savanaha:

Um you do know you don't have to publish every single result, even if you write down every single experiment meticulously, you still don't have to show everything in a published paper.

Umm you have to submit averages and deviations. You don't have to submit every result but you have to present your findings in a way anyone who conducts the same experiment would have a similar result.

example if i say the mass of an atom is 1000KG(add or subtract 100KG). If someone does the same experiment and gets 700KG then something is wrong. Yes they have biases but the editors of this journals aren't dummies.

bawomolo:

Umm you have to submit averages and deviations. You don't have to submit every result but you have to present your findings in a way anyone who conducts the same experiment would have a similar result.

example if i say the mass of an atom is 1000KG(add or subtract 100KG). If someone does the same experiment and gets 700KG then something is wrong. Yes they have biases but the editors of this journals aren't dummies.

Ummm, so what about the experiments that don't come close to the expected results that are completed rejected during the publication of the paper?

bawomolo:

FALSE, there is a thing called standard deviation.  You can't fool anyone with the "best result" if the deviation from the other results are too high.  You have to explain why their is a huge difference with the other.  whether it be calibration issues or an outside phenomena.

Inspite of the standard deviation, the same point is being made: not everything that is published in peer-review or other science journals can pass as 'science' - and these things happen so many times.

bawomolo:

Editors can easily point such anomaly.  It's funny how people bash scientific journals when findings don't go their way.

 

On the contrary, people are concerned about these wide berths that deviate from scientific integrity. The people doing the bashing actually include celebrated names within the scientific community that feel new research will send them packing.

bawomolo:

The proponents of Quantum Theory weren't punks.

heck even the guy who proposed string theory was initially rejected but his perseverance have paid results.

No one is stopping scientists against evolution from coming out.  They would eventually be accepted if they are right.

You're terribly missing the point. No one has described scientists as punks or whatever. The concern rather is that there are so many irregularities within the scientific community today that are at variance with principled science.

bawomolo:

And what should be considered science. the finding that confirm your beliefs or the one that challenges it?

i can sniff bias from the posts here.

The bias is coming from you, not from mine or others who have been making these observations. No one has argued beliefs here hietherto - if you paid attention.