Talk:Intelligent design/Yqbd's peer-review arguments

message: In reference to
No articles supporting intelligent design have been published in peer-reviewed scientific journals, nor has intelligent design been the subject of scientific research or testing. 4: whether ID is science However, there are peer-reviewed and peer-edited scientific publications supporting the theory of intelligent design. 
the following
No articles supporting intelligent design have been published in peer-reviewed scientific journals
should be changed to:
Professor Behe admitted that: “There
are no peer reviewed articles by anyone advocating for intelligent design supported
by pertinent experiments or calculations which provide detailed rigorous accounts
of how intelligent design of any biological system occurred.” 
according to
===Page 88 of 139===
disclosed no studies supporting a biological concept of ID. (17:42-43 (Padian);
11:32-33 (Forrest)). On cross-examination, Professor Behe admitted that: “There
are no peer reviewed articles by anyone advocating for intelligent design supported
by pertinent experiments or calculations which provide detailed rigorous accounts
of how intelligent design of any biological system occurred.” (22:22-23 (Behe)).
Additionally, Professor Behe conceded that there are no peer-reviewed papers
supporting his claims that complex molecular systems, like the bacterial flagellum,
the blood-clotting cascade, and the immune system, were intelligently designed.
(21:61-62 (complex molecular systems), 23:4-5 (immune system), and 22:124-25
(blood-clotting cascade) (Behe)). In that regard, there are no peer-reviewed
articles supporting Professor Behe’s argument that certain complex molecular
structures are “irreducibly complex.”17 (21:62, 22:124-25 (Behe)). In addition to
failing to produce papers in peer-reviewed journals, ID also features no scientific
research or testing. (28:114-15 (Fuller); 18:22-23, 105-06 (Behe)).
After this searching and careful review of ID as espoused by its proponents,
::17 The one article referenced by both Professors Behe and Minnich as supporting ID is an article written by Behe and Snoke entitled “Simulating evolution by gene duplication of protein features that require multiple amino acid residues.” (P-721). A review of the article indicates that it does not mention either irreducible complexity or ID. In fact, Professor Behe admitted that the study which forms the basis for the article did not rule out many known evolutionary mechanisms and that the research actually might support evolutionary pathways if a biologically realistic population size were used. (22:41-45 (Behe); P-756).
because
articles by anyone advocating for intelligent design supported
by pertinent experiments or calculations which provide detailed rigorous accounts
of how intelligent design of any biological system occurred.
is missing.--Yqbd 04:09, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What point are you trying to make.  Also, stop edit warring. •Jim62sch• 10:00, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Wow, that was such a pain to read, and I still can't understand what exactly do you want. Reinistalk 10:31, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Here is a suggestion: Try one edit suggestion at a time. And try to explain yourself. In English.--Filll 13:22, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peer-reviewed journals, publications 

message: disclosed no studies supporting a biological concept of ID. (17:42-43 (Padian);
11:32-33 (Forrest)). On cross-examination, Professor Behe admitted that: “There
are no peer reviewed articles by anyone advocating for intelligent design supported
by pertinent experiments or calculations which provide detailed rigorous accounts
of how intelligent design of any biological system occurred.” (22:22-23 (Behe)).
Additionally, Professor Behe conceded that there are no peer-reviewed papers
supporting his claims that complex molecular systems, like the bacterial flagellum,
the blood-clotting cascade, and the immune system, were intelligently designed.
(21:61-62 (complex molecular systems), 23:4-5 (immune system), and 22:124-25
(blood-clotting cascade) (Behe)). In that regard, there are no peer-reviewed
articles supporting Professor Behe’s argument that certain complex molecular
structures are “irreducibly complex.”17 (21:62, 22:124-25 (Behe)). In addition to
failing to produce papers in peer-reviewed journals, ID also features no scientific
research or testing. (28:114-15 (Fuller); 18:22-23, 105-06 (Behe)).
After this searching and careful review of ID as espoused by its proponents,
::17 The one article referenced by both Professors Behe and Minnich as supporting ID is an article written by Behe and Snoke entitled “Simulating evolution by gene duplication of protein features that require multiple amino acid residues.” (P-721). A review of the article indicates that it does not mention either irreducible complexity or ID. In fact, Professor Behe admitted that the study which forms the basis for the article did not rule out many known evolutionary mechanisms and that the research actually might support evolutionary pathways if a biologically realistic population size were used. (22:41-45 (Behe); P-756).
</blockquote>
because
articles by anyone advocating for intelligent design supported
by pertinent experiments or calculations which provide detailed rigorous accounts
of how intelligent design of any biological system occurred.
is missing.--Yqbd 04:09, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What point are you trying to make.  Also, stop edit warring. •Jim62sch• 10:00, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Wow, that was such a pain to read, and I still can't understand what exactly do you want. Reinistalk 10:31, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Here is a suggestion: Try one edit suggestion at a time. And try to explain yourself. In English.--Filll 13:22, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Page 88 of 139

message: * The source that lists the peer-reviewed and peer-edited scientific publications supporting the theory of intelligent design was presented.
* Assertions were made about the source and the primary source.
* The assertions were challenged and questioned.
* Kenosis moved the discussion to another page.
* The discussion was moved back.
* We are waiting for support of assertions against the source.
:You are waiting. ornis (t) 03:57, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: For your response. --Yqbd 03:59, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  History 

message: * The source lists the peer-reviewed and peer-edited scientific publications supporting the theory of intelligent design. --Yqbd 18:49, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  For 

message: Unreliable primary source, completely unacceptable nonsense. See WP:POINT and WP:DE, and stop what looks remarkably like trolling on your part. ... dave souza, talk 17:59, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What is unreliable about the primary source? --Yqbd 18:45, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: DI has a track record for lies and misinformation. As such they are a reliable source, for nothing but their beliefs and statements. ornis (t) 22:34, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please, answer yes or no. Does the source list peer-reviewed and peer-edited scientific publications supporting the theory of intelligent design? --Yqbd 01:35, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Why is it completely unacceptable nonsense? --Yqbd 18:45, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

text: See WP:POINT and WP:DE, and stop what looks remarkably like trolling on your part. --Yqbd 18:52, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Are there any reasons against the addition?

message: :Please, sign your answer under Yes or No. Does the source list peer-reviewed and peer-edited scientific publications supporting the theory of intelligent design? --Yqbd 03:00, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Does the source list peer-reviewed and peer-edited scientific publications supporting the theory of intelligent design? 

message: * Ø. A. Voie, "Biological function and the genetic code are interdependent," Chaos, Solitons and Fractals, Vol 28(4) (2006): 1000-1004.
* John A. Davison, “A Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis,” Rivista di Biologia/Biology Forum 98 (2005): 155-166.
* S.C. Meyer, “The Origin of Biological Information and the Higher Taxonomic Categories,” Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington, 117(2) (2004): 213-239.
* M.J. Behe and D.W. Snoke, “Simulating Evolution by Gene Duplication of Protein Features That Require Multiple Amino Acid Residues,” Protein Science, 13 (2004): 2651-2664.
* D. A. Axe, “Estimating the Prevalence of Protein Sequences Adopting Functional Enzyme Folds,” Journal of Molecular Biology, Vol. 341 (2004): 1295–1315. 
* W.-E. Lönnig & H. Saedler, “Chromosome Rearrangements and Transposable Elements,” Annual Review of Genetics, 36 (2002): 389-410.
* D.K.Y. Chiu & T.H. Lui, “Integrated Use of Multiple Interdependent Patterns for Biomolecular Sequence Analysis,” International Journal of Fuzzy Systems, 4(3) (September 2002): 766-775.
* M.J. Denton, J.C. Marshall & M. Legge, (2002) “The Protein Folds as Platonic Forms: New Support for the pre-Darwinian Conception of Evolution by Natural Law,” Journal of Theoretical Biology 219 (2002): 325-342.
* D. A. Axe, “Extreme Functional Sensitivity to Conservative Amino Acid Changes on Enzyme Exteriors,” Journal of Molecular Biology, Vol. 301 (2000): 585-595.
:For why Meyer (2004), Behe and Snoke (2004), Lönnig and Saedler (2002), Chiu and Lui (2002) & Axe (2000) don't count, see Talk Origins Archive. John A. Davison is a notorious crank, and Rivista di Biologia is a notorious publisher of fringe and pseudo-science. Hrafn42 07:12, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: For the remainder (i.e. Voie (2006), Axe (2004), Denton et al (2002)), I would suggest that Yqbd explain why they are supportive of ID. The Discovery Institute's say-so isn't good enough, as the Discovery Institute are known liars, and nothing even close to resembling WP:RS.Hrafn42 07:29, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: He can't, he's been blocked for 72 hours. There's already a subpage for the rest of his screed, this should probably go there as well. ornis (t) 07:41, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Articles 

message: No articles supporting intelligent design have been  published in peer-reviewed scientific journals, nor has intelligent design been the subject of scientific research or testing. 4: whether ID is science
Does anyone have a list of all peer-reviewed scientific journals? --Yqbd 23:47, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please stay on topic. --Yqbd 00:23, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And please quit trying to make a point.  It's not going to happen.  OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 00:30, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please stop disrupting this discussion. --Yqbd 02:44, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Eh. I'm getting flashbacks to ProtoCat. Sheffield Steeltalkersstalkers 03:39, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please stop disrupting this discussion. --Yqbd 03:50, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Do you know of any examples of anyone demonstrating those about any journals supporting anything? --Yqbd 03:31, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Do you want those demonstrations because of something else written about the journals you haven't objected to? --Yqbd 03:31, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

text: What kind of "competent evidence and arguments on the above points" would be acceptable to you without having to convince you of something you disagree with in the first place? --Yqbd 05:09, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yqbd: what part of "I have no interest in getting into a lengthy discussion on minutiae with you" did you fail to comprehend? If you cannot work out the meaning of "competent evidence and arguments on the above points" for yourself, then I have no interest in further discussion with you. This is a wikipedia talk-(sub)page, not a remedial philosophy tutorial. Hrafn42 05:40, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If working out the meaning of "competent evidence and arguments on the above points" isn't so difficult, you shouldn't have a problem giving examples of "competent evidence and arguments on the above points" that you would accept, so I don't have to find out later that you don't accept certain "competent evidence and arguments on the above points" because of x, y, and z.  --Yqbd 06:09, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

text: So, which of the above journals are you already OK with? Do you know anything about the journals you haven't objected to or do we have to show "competent evidence and arguments on the above points" for all of them because DI happened to add them to their list? --Yqbd 06:09, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Unless and until you are prepared to provide competent evidence and arguments on the above points, for specific articles, I have nothing further to say to you on this issue." Hrafn42 06:44, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  List of peer-reviewed scientific journals 

message: We already have literally dozens of reliable notable and neutral sources, starting with a federal court ruling, that say there are no peer reviewed articles supporting or arguing for ID published in any of the notable, mainstream scientific journals. A fact backed up by anyone who takes the time to search the academic databases. On the other hand, Yqbd has only the Discovery Institute's bogus public relations list of allegedly "peer reviewed" ID articles as a source. A source which: 1) Is a wholly partisan source that has no credibility or even a pretense of being neutral. 2) Found to be verifiably false by a federal court and sources such as the New York Times, Salon, etc. 3) Already has these issues with it covered in this Wikipedia article.
I'll caution Yqbd that there are literally dozens of similar specious objections just like his in the talk page archives, each raised the same tired old source and claims, and each found absolutely zero traction because the source is partisan and makes a verifiably false claim and cannot overcome the more notable, neutral, and accurate sources provided. By ignoring these past discussions and the consensus that resulted from each and edit warring over the same Yqbd is flogging a dead horse and becoming disruptive. Having been blocked once already, Yqbd shows no sign of letting up. If this disruption here of the article proper continues, I'll be taking the steps set out at WP:DE to seek a topic ban for Yqbd. FeloniousMonk 17:25, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Feel free to cut and paste or point us to these "literally dozens of similar specious objections". --Yqbd 04:04, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yqbd: "Feel free" to actually do some leg-work for yourself for a change instead of simply expecting those you are arguing with to hand everything to you on a platter. Your unwillingness or inability to actually do any of your own research is part of what makes the consensus regard you as an unambiguous liability. You quite simply bring nothing new. Hrafn42 06:33, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "You could also remind the user in question of Wikipedia's policy of no personal attacks in such a situation. Wikipedia is not an anti-leech community. Users should not criticize others on not devoting time to edit." WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_a_battleground --Yqbd 18:21, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would be perfectly happy if you became a "leech" who did "not devot[e] time to edit[ing]" -- it is the fact that you insist on editing without bothering to find reliable sources to back up your changes that annoys. Hrafn42 18:32, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Also feel free to say there are "literally dozens of similar specious objections" and not show examples and expect others to know what you are talking about. --Yqbd 18:28, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why should we? For each question of yours that we answer, we simply get more specious questions. So why bother? Hrafn42 18:32, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Sources, flogging a dead horse, and disruption