What, you don't like the fact that I approve of Reiner Protsch's dismissal for committing fraud? You don't like the fact that he was thoroughly exposed by scientists who investigated his findings and then dismissed in disgrace? That makes me and others (inexplicably) "apologists"? Sheesh.
And no, I haven't conducted an examination of Mr. Protsch. Why should I? Sounds like others accomplished that task rather thoroughly, and I'll take your word regarding his fraudulent behavior and dismissal.
Now, do you have any evidence that Mr. Protsch's fraud was known about sometime earlier but condoned? You seem to be making the accusation that, for thirty years, Mr. Protsch was a known fraudulator (a term of art), but that scientists kept it a secret and snickered about it in their monthly "darwin central" meetings. It'd be nice if you would back that up. Otherwise, I'll presume that, as soon as his fabrications were unearthed, he was dealt with. Harshly.
It's rather self-evident to me that Mr. Harrub's falsifications (or at the least, gross negligence) are well known. Right now. Today. But of course, nothing will be done about it. That's "creation science" in a nutshell.
You keep trying to avoid the root of the question: How is it that the evo community can create a 'peer review' structure that has holes in it big enough to drive a 30-year career through?
Trying to create some sort of straw man argument like "What, you don't like the fact that I approve of Reiner Protsch's dismissal for committing fraud? You don't like the fact that he was thoroughly exposed by scientists who investigated his findings and then dismissed in disgrace?"
These are things I never said, and never intimated. If you infer these things, it is because you need an easier target at which to shoot, other than the one I have clearly provided.
But, my question about 'peer-review' still stands, and it has not one sentence of explanation from you regarding it, thus far.
You incorrectly insinuate that I'm some sort of a conspiracy theorist by snidely positing that: "You seem to be making the accusation that, for thirty years, Mr. Protsch was a known fraudulator (a term of art), but that scientists kept it a secret and snickered about it in their monthly "darwin central" meetings. It'd be nice if you would back that up." You should be above putting words into people's mouths.
Again, to bring you back on to point, what is it about the evo scientific community, structurally, that would fail so spectacularly for so long in it's peer-review process? What about duplication of results? What about the careers of the peer-reviewers who tacitly put their stamps on his 30 year work?
Should they suffer recrimination too?