Cold Foreign Object writes:
As I said in Message 51 of the Dr. Schwartz' "MIssing Links" thread, "He is an example of the worst kind of scientist one can imagine, one who just like creationists lets his ideas about the way the world must be govern his acceptance and interpretation of evidence."
So evolutionists have the magical ability to leave their bias, worldviews and preconceptions at the lab door and everyone else does not?
Surely that is not your point?
Yes, you are correct, that is not my point. Schwartz is continuing to argue a point that genetic analysis settled a while ago, and he arguing it not from evidence but just because he won't give up his pet view that brought him professional fame back in the 1990's. What he's doing is like continuing to argue for a flat earth in an era of moon landings. Not quite so dramatic, perhaps, but you get the idea.
I was under the belief that anyone can contribute to mainstream journals as long as they have credentials.
No, of course not. There's peer review. After a paper has been accepted for consideration by editors, legitimate technical journals send it out to as few as 2 and as many as 5 peer reviewers (scientists from the same field), who remain anonymous to the paper's authors. Based upon the results of the peer review the paper is either accepted, accepted provisionally based upon whether requested changes are made in a satisfactory manner, or rejected.
Are you saying that in addition to credentials a person must promote the majority view?
No, of course not. A paper must meet certain standards and criteria, which is why I stated that Schwartz's paper doesn't meet the normal standards for a professional technical paper. Foremost among these standards is that the paper must be based upon sound evidence and reasoning. Schwartz has only circumstantial evidence for his views in the form of phenotypal observations, while the rather conclusive genetic evidence says he's dead wrong, and he tries to overcome this through transparently bad reasoning and mischaracterization of the nature of existing evidence. Legitimate journals will not consider papers that combine poor evidence with poor reasoning and outright misrepresentations. That's why he has to carry out his attacks on molecular clocks in obscure journals.
Are you saying that Schwartz has become a crackpot? Is John Davison a crackpot?
Yes and yes. Of course! Indubitably! Without a doubt! Count on it! For sure! You betcha!
--Percy