Why weren't there any peer-reviewed publications supporting the evolutionary equality of...?

Peer review does have a lot of problems. I read an article about how Einstein's theories would not have passed the peer-review process. It often keeps the reigning paradigm in place, and has little consideration for new ideas. This is why evolution seems to be so strong. It's actually falling apart, but being held up by force and intimidation.

YEC's are the only people who aren't following what someone tells them to believe.

"Since there weren't any, can we conclude that Jews were not evolutionarily equal to German Arians?

Or should we instead conclude that the whole peer-review system is politically driven to encourage consensus against independent inquiry, and that it's useless for real science?"

Fallacy of the excluded middle much?

And what the hell does "evoluntionarily equal" mean anyway?

Hitler did not allow either freedom of speech or freedom of the press. Nazi Germany was a country at war; run by a madman. Those who dared to disagree with Hitler's views openly had a bad habit of disappearing (even during peacetime).

But consider this: your so-called "God" could have freely chosen to change all of that without allowing tens of millions of people to die in concentration camps and on the battlefield, right? If "He" could not freely choose otherwise, then your "God" would be either impotent, or non-existent. If "He" could freely choose otherwise, then "He" would be ultimately responsible for everything that happened during the war. You cannot have it both ways Monica, no matter what you believe.

Lastly - neither of your conclusions logically follows your question. The non-existence of peer-supported publications supporting the evolutionary equality of Jews with Aryans in Nazi Germany has absolutely nothing to do with either of your conclusions. You've committed a basic logical fallacy called a non-sequitur). You can learn all about logical fallacies by taking a course in Basic Logic. However, based on the tone of your post, it doesn't sound like you really want to learn anything that might expose the flaws in your beliefs anyway.

In a totalitarian state everything is driven by central authority. It is not peer review in such states, it is political review to align with the government objectives. Your logic in your attempt to make peer-review appear to be useless is specious and wrong.

Peer review can be politcized ( and ceases to be honest peer review) but is not inherently political or corrupt. Just because somethings can be corrupted like peer review, policing, judicial systems, etc. doesn't mean they are useless when used correctly.

While the "Jews and Arians" example is rather specific, you have a very good point.

How many people could just "pat their friends on the back" and have the rest of the world accept whatever they put forward as if it were fact?

How many times has this happened? A disturbingly large amount of times.

It has allowed imagination, agenda-driven desire, and selective interpretation of selective facts to act as our most popularized set of world-views.

How brain-washingly scary is that?

Gee, perhaps because there's no scientific concept of "evolutionary equality...?"

See, things you make up aren't automatically "scientific."

And there's not even a concept of "equality" in the biological science of evolution.

Yes, Hitler and his pals made up their own "science" and pretended to use "evolution," when they actually were making statements contrary to it. Kinda like what you just did.

"kissthepilot" wrote: " I read an article about how Einstein's theories would not have passed the peer-review process."

Psst...Einstein's papers (on special and general relativity, on the photoelectric effect -- all of them) were published in peer-reviewed journals, and WERE peer-reviewed. Oops. Next time try some facts.

I don't know what you mean by 'evolutionary equality', but I do know that it's not a scientific term.

If you think that peer review is useless, then you don't understand anything about science.

No.

Lack of information is not a good reason to conclude much of anything... other than that you should seek more information.

That response goes for your second conclusion equally as well. And your third.

Arians are a medieval Christian heresy. I think you meant Aryans.

I think we can conclude that your spelling isn't equal to everyone else's.

Meanwhile, the writings of Martin Luther, the father of all Protestant religions today, were very popular in the same time and place... even being quoted in Mein Kampf.

Interesting, to say the least.