Randman's analysis of scholarly papers

Huh? Backing out?Shraf starts this thread with: I challenge anyone to show where I ever claimed "all science related to Evolution was poor science." All shraf is trying to do is move the goalposts. To be honest, shraf's posts and discussions, imo, have never been fruitful and this is no exception. Wading through a lot of meaningless chatter designed to do nothing but avoid substantive debate, which is how it comes across to me, is not something I prefer to do, although I wind up sinking to that level sometimes here at EvC.But regardless, the simple fact is I claimed evolutionism is bad science not "all science related to evolution", and it is, because the basic assumptions are not or cannot be established by science.Now, within evolutionary sciences, is there is some valid and good research?Sure. But it doesn't really prove the assumptions of evolutionists usually. Learning about mutations in disease, for example, is important research for medicine. it doesn't validate ToE, imo, but it is still important as are many papers and research topics "related to" evolution.But the science used to argue for ToE's veracity, imo, is bad science. That's my consistent claim and I don't shirk from debating it either (as you erroneously suggest).In fact, I would really like to see shraf or some others here produce the peer-reviewed papers that substantiate the assumptions within ToE.Can any of you do that? Edited by randman, : No reason given.Edited by randman, : No reason given.

Someone this clueless about science shouldn't be posting in the science forums.Edited by AdminJar, : No reason given.

Off topic do not respond means DO NOT RESPOND
Edited by randman, : No reason given.Edited by AdminJar, : No reason given.

I don't believe any peer reviewed research paper will cover the entire basis for the ToE. I also doubt that any paper will satisfy you because you can simply say it dosen't satisfy my criteria or it is too difficult to follow.However, I can link to scholarly peer-reviewed articles concerning research in evolution in an honest attempt to provide you with what you are asking at a faster rate than you or anyone else will be able to read them for the next several months, if not years.This one IMHO is one good candidate under my understanding of your criteria.NCBIHave fun, it's not short but does cover a lot and is not too filled with jargon in comparison to other scholarly peer-reviewed articles.

Perhaps you would help this process by stating exactly what basic tenet of evolution the paper seeks to establish of verify?From looking at part of the introduction, it appears to deal with bacteria. Keep in mind that bacteria evolving to variations of bacteria is not necessarily relevant for establishing macro-evolution.What aspects of ToE, specifically the areas that we all descended from a single common ancestor via random mutations and natural selection does the paper deal with?

Please read the paper for yourself before critiqing.

anglagard, as you know, the paper posits a progenote for the universal common ancestor or in between that such that it was the common ancestor, of us all. Now, it's interesting that you hold this paper as verifying evolutionary theory, when imo, it tends to discredit it though that's not the intent of the authors. This is a clip of some criticism on the web on some forum, which I think describes some of the dilemnas posed by this hypothesis. http://www.bio.net/...ar-evolution/1993-November/001214.htmlWoese concludes mind you, that "it is hard to avoid concluding that the universal ancestor was a very different entity than it's descendants" due to the fact of the very large differences within the 3 primary kingdoms. Woese is correct to identify the problem, a major one for evolutionary theory, and so introduces his proposed solution.But identifying the problem, though a good thing, does not undergird or substantiate evolutionary theory. Evolutionary theory is still THE ASSUMPTION within the paper, not the topic the paper seeks to substantiate.Edited by randman, : No reason given.Edited by randman, : No reason given.

You asked for a peer reviewed paper, I gave you a link. Instead of reading the paper, you went to the web to attempt to refute it without reading the entire text.What does this show?

No, I read parts of the paper first, specifically the conclusions and some other parts, to see if the paper does address the topic you claim it does. Since you didn't specify that topic, I am just taking the paper at face value, and as usual, the facts in the paper support the anti-evolutionist position.In fact, it amazes me that the more facts I learn about evolutionary theory, the more they contradict evolutionary theory. I am thankful you shared this paper as amazingly it verifies in much more detail creationist and ID criticisms which I had only read general references of.The reason, by the way, I did not quote a larger section of the paper is, for some reason, I cannot copy sections of the paper. I tried to do that, but could not, and so looked for something else on the web that might quote the paper and found the comment I linked to.Read the concluding pages, anglehard, of the paper again, and comment on how these conclusions do not support my view here, and establish a serious dilemna for evolutionists.Specifically, how does natural selection work here (with a progenote)?Edited by randman, : No reason given.

Critiques of misrepresentations, if you're any evidence.

Why not just read the paper that was posted? You've simply misrepresented a portion of this post in order to "dubunk" evolution! The ToE is more than an "assumption" due to vast amounts of evidence. Any gaps in our knowledge of evolution do not constitute refutations.Can you not see the poverty of your position? You are reduced to the misrepresentation of quotations drawn from a 13 year-old post on a science forum! You have no positive evidence for creation or ID.Edited by RickJB, : No reason given.Edited by RickJB, : No reason given.

Have you read the paper? Before you ignorantly blast me, read the paper and you will see that my point here is accurate. Besides your post being devoid of content, it is offensive and indicative of someone not willing to engage the substance of the debate. One of the clues that show the utter emptiness of your position is the absurd comment on creation and ID.Edited by randman, : No reason given.Edited by randman, : No reason given.

I guess if you cannot offer a factual and substantive response, but feel you have to say something to defend your side, then a post like your's is understandable.

I'm not defending -- I'm pointing out that you haven't managed to mount an attack.Edited by DominionSeraph, : No reason given.

Yes, you said 'Show me the papers then, and I will look at them and critique them.'. Now you are backing citing potential non-relevance as a reason. It's not shameful to do so, but let's not beat around the bush. Fine, so basically you are saying axioms in science render something not scientific? This came from your comment that 'it's not just science, and imo, it's not good science.' You made an assertion, you were asked to back it up. What 'science' that is used to argue the veracity. I don't suggest you are shirking debating it - I'm suggesting you are backing out from your offer to critique papers posted by someone because you were not specific enough when you made your offer. Which is totally fine.Now - why don't you bring some papers that are used to argue for ToE's veracity. I could bring the Kumar/Hedges paper forward dealing with the molecular clock. Or we could discuss some aspect of the 29+ evidences if you like, a paper that that uses maybe. I think you are using the concept of ToE differently than biologists so you'll have to define it for us, then tell us what the assumptions are so we can see if we can comply.