As a scientist, you should know that we are not arguing species, but kinds, which is different. Species are pretty much a joke anyway. They depend on breeding cues, not morphology or genetics. All the domestic dogs are one species because they are all willing to breed with each other. Why? Because their breeding cues are by scent. But birds? The can speciate like mad because most of them use sight cues so slight changes in color patterns are enough for one to refuse to breed with another who nevertheless has identical genetics!
Let's talk families if you do not understand the idea of kind. There is no variation which will take any organism from any population outside of its taxonomic family grouping.
Oh, and Barry used 163 measurements in his original research. I told you that you were parroting.
Regarding peer review, the following might interest you:
http://www.the-scientist.com/yr2004/sep/opinion_040927.html
“We don't need a revolution to put things right, but we must find ways of releasing the few Einsteinian scientists from the mind-numbing bureaucracy of recent times. The most important of these is peer review, that highly dispersed, latter-day inquisition for the defense of orthodoxy to which every scientist today must submit before a step can be taken.”
Peer review, once a way to weed out poorly done research and poorly written papers (I have been a peer reviewer, by the way) is now used in the secular journals as well primarily as a way to make sure the paradigm boat is not rocked. There is some excellent work by both secular and creation scientists which could never make it into Nature or Science for that reason. However those journals will make themselves look ridiculous with some of what they will publish! And yes, we take Nature. We discontinued Science. We also discontinued National Geographic when it was up for renewal this time because it has gotten rather poor. But then, so has Readers Digest!
Just looked at our recent issue of Discover (vol. 26 no. 2) which is not peer reviewed. Nevertheless, it declares on the cover: Testing Darwin, Scientists at Michigan State PROVE EVOLUTION WORKS." I looked at the article and before I had even started -- it was while we were in the car and Barry was driving -- he stated "It will be a computer program."
It was. And three lovely full color pages show on the first all kinds of dogs and on the second all kinds of orchids, and then on the third a lot of finches. Sigh....
The only evolution that was not simple variation -- which no one is arguing -- was due to a computer program. Which, of course, was programmed by a programmer!
I think I'd rather have Barry's material in something a little more honest than what Nature or some of the others are. However, just to make you happy, you will find three of his articles on the website were published by Journal of Theoretics on the web. He is also ready to submit one to a physics journal which he thinks might make it through. We'll see.
However, if you are really serious about science, sir, you will not spend your time mocking people you don't agree with. You will get to the raw data and take a look at it for yourself.