I thought this would go along with your original post, and particularly your quote,
"Peer review.Ã‚Â Isn't that one requirement I keep hearing ID needs to be legitimized.Ã‚Â We are constantly told that no reputable scientist or scientific organization would stoop so low that prejudism of any sort could foul the peer review system. "
The reality is we, who are on the perimeter of mainstream science--the teachers, no-name professors, doctors, the industrial science people like chemical engineers, the amateur enthusiasts, and science readers (like me), do not see the dynamics and politics of what goes on in peer review theses.
Here is an excerpt from people who do:
" Tattersall and Schwartz add that it is common for this monograph publication period to take decades or longer, and may never be completed. Examples they provide is Louis LeakeyÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s Homo habilis finds, which were finally written up in the form of a detailed technical monograph by Professor Phillip V. Tobias Ã¢â‚¬Å“some 30 years after their discovery, while the important fossil crania from ForbesÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ Quarry and SteinheimÃ¢â‚¬Â site are yet to be written up in any detail 150 and 69 years respectively since their recoveries. More recently
Ã‚Â several new hominid species legally published as early as 1994 still remain off-limits to researchers not belonging to the describing cliques. This has potentially harmful consequences, for, if not rapidly subjected to informed scrutiny, the initial describersÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ interpretation of the specimensÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ significance tends automatically to become established wisdom in the field. In this way, untested notions readily become incorporated into textbooks, the secondary literature, and the vast reaches of the popular media, without any consideration of alternative interpretations. As things too often are, alternative interpretations are difficult or impossible to formulate, because even casts (poor substitutes for the originals in any event) are rarely available and . . . photographs of specimens published in Nature or Science tend to be so small and lacking in contrast that much useful information is obscured(Tattersall and Schwartz 2002, p. 240). '" Ã‚Â (Fraud and Forgery in Paleoanthropology, Jerry Bergman, Northwest State College; Answers Research Journal 2 (2009): 201-210.)
In a nutshell, the actual evidence is not being scrutinized--only the interpretations of the discoverers.Ã‚Â The information is being publicized, written about, and mentioned in textbooks--before the evidence can be scrutinized by "other camps" among the evolutionists, let alone creationists!
Good observation. It sounds like good science but you have to check the assumptions.
The following would be a great research paper if the had not left out the word evolution. Let me illustrate: link
The flow of genetic information from DNA to RNA to protein constitutes the basis for cellular life. DNA replication, transcription and translation, the processes through which information transfer occurs, are the result of millions of years of evolution during which they have achieved levels of accuracy and speed that make modern life possible. All three processes have base complementarity at the core of their mechanisms. DNA replication and transcription both depend on complementarity of the incoming nucleotide to the DNA template, whereas translation depends on the complementarity of the anticodon of the incoming transfer RNA (tRNA) to the codon in the template messenger RNA (mRNA). Fidelity of genetic information transfer thus relies heavily on discrimination between complementary, Watson-Crick (and in a few cases wobble) base pairs and non-complementary ones.
Notice how evolution is assumed and inserted evolution randomly. No proof needed. After you read enough research papers it becomes starts to look silly IMHO.
While the accuracy of DNA replication and transcription depend only on cognate base pair selection, translation depends on an additional, base-pairing-independent reaction that must be carried out with high specificity.Ã‚Â Each tRNA must be covalently attached to a specific amino acid Ã¢â‚¬â€œ aminoacylated Ã¢â‚¬â€œ preserving an unambiguous codon-amino acid correspondence known as the genetic code.Ã‚Â This reaction is carried out by aminoacyl-tRNA synthetases specific for each amino acid and a corresponding group of tRNAs (isoacceptors).Ã‚Â These enzymes must therefore recognize two substrates: first, a group of tRNAs which share a collection of Ã¢â‚¬Ëœidentity elementsÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ and second, an amino acid that may be distinguished by small differences in side-chain properties.
They are discussing how these molecular machines can distinguish between very similar amino acids. Evolution created this somehow but nobody knows how. Evolution is only true because they assumed it to be true. Evolution doesn't need to be proven, it is just assumed. The peer reviewed article was reviewed and rubber stamped by someone who believed the same assumptions.
How do synthetases deal with this?Ã‚Â The aminoacylation reaction, which takes place at a site of the enzyme called the synthetic site, occurs in two steps.Ã‚Â First the amino acid is activated by adenylation (consuming ATP) and then it is transferred to the tRNA (releasing AMP).Ã‚Â Steric exclusion of amino acids with larger side-chains and recognition of specific properties of each amino acid generally make this synthetic site specific enough so that only the correct amino acid can be activated and transferred.Ã‚Â But amino acids having similar properties to and a smaller size than the cognate amino acid can be misactivated at frequencies that are too high to maintain an unambiguous code.Ã‚Â As a consequence, enzymes facing this problem have evolved a second active site, distinct from the synthetic site, called the editing site, where misactivated amino acids or misacylated tRNAs are hydrolyzed.
Did you catch that? Hocus Pocus. Here we have extremely accurate machines, but since there was a Ã¢â‚¬Å“needÃ¢â‚¬Â for an Ã¢â‚¬Å“unambiguous code,Ã¢â‚¬Â and some amino acids were so similar that mistakes leaked through, well Ã¢â‚¬â€œ we are told, no problemÃ¢â‚¬â€œ evolution to the rescue: they just Ã¢â‚¬Å“evolvedÃ¢â‚¬Â an editing site with the ability not only to distinguish threonine from valine and serine, but to send the imposters to the recycle bin. LOL, This article only makes sense if you insert the words intelligent design everywhere you see the words evolution. Once you get that evolution isn't proven but assumed it becomes very funny. I laughed with tears running down my cheek reading this article.link
You see, evolution explains more complexity, and more simplicity. It explains why flight arose in some birds, but was lost in others. With evolution, organs and genomes can become more complicated, or more streamlined. Eyes emerge through evolution, but eyes are also lost by evolution. Evolution makes the cheetah fast but the sloth slow. By evolution, dinosaurs grow to skyscraper size, and hummingbirds grow tiny. With evolution, peacocks grow more flashy and crows more black, giraffes tall and flatworms flat. Evolution explains predator and prey, loner and herder, light and dark, high and low, fast and slow, profligacy and stinginess, terrorism and altruism, religion and atheism, virtue and selfishness, psychosis and reason, extinction and fecundity, war and peace. Evolution explains everything.
Now you understand why nothing in biology makes sense except in the Ã¢â‚¬Å“lightÃ¢â‚¬Â of evolution. By stating at the outset that Ã¢â‚¬Å“whatever happens, evolution did it,Ã¢â‚¬Â evolution canÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t be falsified. ItÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s a completely vacuous theory that is true by definition. It explains opposite things. It canÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t possibly be wrong, if you can mold enough skulls full of mush to accept the premise. The only hard part is making up the just-so story to explain the de jure fact. We think people should go for de facto facts.