Randman's analysis of scholarly papers

In another thread, Randman claimed that all science related to Evolution was poor science.I then challenged him to show, from a couple of papers of his choosing (or that I would provide), exactly where the statistical analysis, or the experimental methodology, or whatever, was lacking so much in these papers that he felt comfortable damning the entire enterprise as "poor science".I would remind randman that this would include hundreds of thousands of researchers and probably millions of published papers.So, I'd like to put out a call to the folks on this board to contribute links to online versions of appropriate evolution-oriented papers that are not so crunchy and jargon-filled that non scientists cannot follow them.I came up with these to get us started: Mutation Rates in Mammalian GenomesMolecular Evidence for the Origin of BirdsNot sure where...Misc Topics?Edited by schrafinator, : No reason given.Edited by schrafinator, : No reason given.

I figured I wasn't the one to promote this but nobody else is jumping to the task, so I'll do it unless somebody has some suggestions about improving the OP. It looks OK to me.

---

Lith has a PNT that will be similar and I would like us to look at both before deciding. I think they will be two different approaches but wait to see the actual PNT.

There is no connection between this and the other thread that I can figure out.I'm going to promote this one.

Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

I doubt you will generate a good thread relying on misrepresentation, but at least don't just throw out bare links.State what crucial part of evolutionary theory the paper is trying to establish. For example, is the paper arguing that mutations are random and does it offer a definition of random? And then explain in your own words the evidence within the paper.Bare links is not what you are suppossed to do here at this forum.

You were asked to show scientific papers that were biased and wrong in the way you suggest.You said to bring them on as I recall.In this case, "bare links" is all you need. You suggested by your responses in the other thread that you would show what is wrong.There is no need for anyone else to comment on the papers; by linking to them they are putting them forward as what they think of as "good" examples for you to show where the errors are.

quote:

---

I doubt you will generate a good thread relying on misrepresentation, but at least don't just throw out bare links.

​

State what crucial part of evolutionary theory the paper is trying to establish. For example, is the paper arguing that mutations are random and does it offer a definition of random? And then explain in your own words the evidence within the paper.

​

Bare links is not what you are suppossed to do here at this forum.

---

Er, randman, you said that you wanted me to provide you with some scientific papers related to evolution for you to critique so that you could show that they were "poor science".Specifically, you agreed to show how their experimental methodology or their statistical analysis, or some other aspect of the techniques or methodology they used were so poorly done that you would reject it as "poor science".Well, those two links in the OP are links to the full texts of published peer-reviewed scientific papers.All you have to do is read them, and then pick out all of the mistakes in methodology or statistical analysis, or whatever, and report back here.I find it odd that you don't know what to do with these scientific papers, considering that you have frequently made the very bold claim that such research is "poor science".How would you have ever been able to determine such a thing if you haven't read any research papers? Edited by schrafinator, : No reason given.

But you don't seem to be bright enough to comprehend what I did say so I am not sure discussing it with you is helpful. Why not reread the sections you think I said such and such and respond to my actual claims?Is that something too difficult for you?

Uh, nope. That's not what I said or wrote at all. But you don't seem to be bright enough to comprehend what I did say so I am not sure discussing it with you is helpful. Why not reread the sections you think I said such and such and respond to my actual claims?Is that something too difficult for you?

You recall?Please provide specific quotes of what I stated. Both you and shraf have made false claims about what I have said.Please substantiate those claims or retract your statements.Edited by randman, : No reason given.

in Message 58You have been provided with the papers. Now we await your critique.

---

Here is what I wrote: It's a consistent claim on my part. The basic claims of evolution are not usually what most papers I have read seek to prove. if you guys can produce the peer-reviewed papers that established the veracity of ToE, I will be glad to review them.Certainly, Darwin's "books" are not peer-reviewed papers.My contention is what has been used as evidence for evolution has often been false or unsubstantiated. Some examples:Haeckel's forgeries and the Biogenetic law
the peppered moths
claims the fossil record shows gradualistic evolution (it does not)
claims mutations are random
etc, etc,...If shraf or anyone wants to produce the seminal papers establishing the basics of evolution, such as defining random and quantifying mutations are random rather than assuming it, I will be glad to look at them.The idea I have ever claimed any paper merely RELATED to evolution is false is a lie, and if anyone thinks that I have claimed anything MERELY RELATED TO evolution as far as papers is bunk, then they have either misunderstood me or deliberately misrepresent my stance.Clearly, the idea that any paper at all merely related to evolution which arguably could include any paper in the fields of biology, genetics, physics or chemistry is not part of my argument.On the specific subject of the assumptions required to accept ToE, I stand by my stance that they are unproven.

I'm so glad you cleared that up and that is so true, they do assume it in all their work, and I've never seen anything either that attempts to prove any aspect of it.By the way I realized too late I should have required Schraf to put the link into her own words before saying I'd promote the OP.Carry on. It will be fascinating if someone can produce a paper that attempts to prove the ToE.

Since you are backing out on your offer for reasons of potential non-relevance.How about you try posting (here) your critique on some of the papers featured at the 'landmark' thread. Some online papers are available. Its been done a lot. Here for example - take it over there if you wish to discuss it further.