Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Evolutionary science is fraudulent and/or inaccurate?
nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 1 of 27 (231669)
08-09-2005 9:40 PM


I thought it would be useful to create a thread for any Creationist to list and link to specific Evolutionary Biology, Genetics, Biochemistry, Zoology, Palontology, etc., papers from the professional literature which show evidence of containing false, inaccurate data, or poor methodology.
Such examples should be explained in some detail as to why the papers' conclusions or findings should be considered untrustworthy and the result of fraud.
Likewise, it would be very useful for there to be an accompanying discussion of how this rather widespread fraud and/or imcompetence and sloppy science has impacted the application of Biology to medicine, agriculture, ecology, and other fields.
ABE--I also want to stress what this thread is NOT about.
It is specifically NOT meant as a place to discuss the portrayal of scientific findings in textbooks, popular press books or magazines, newspapers, television shows, cartoons, advertising, or films.
Examples should come ONLY from the professional scientific literature.
Released from PNT. --Admin
This message has been edited by Admin, 08-09-2005 09:41 PM
This message has been edited by schrafinator, 08-10-2005 10:13 AM

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by MangyTiger, posted 08-09-2005 10:10 PM nator has not replied
 Message 3 by jar, posted 08-09-2005 10:18 PM nator has not replied
 Message 8 by mike the wiz, posted 08-10-2005 10:37 AM nator has replied
 Message 18 by jar, posted 08-10-2005 4:27 PM nator has not replied

  
MangyTiger
Member (Idle past 6354 days)
Posts: 989
From: Leicester, UK
Joined: 07-30-2004


Message 2 of 27 (231673)
08-09-2005 10:10 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by nator
08-09-2005 9:40 PM


While we're waiting
Despite you specifying "professional literature" I suspect two of the first three responses will be Piltdown man and Nebraska man. The third will be the 1999 National Geographic story about the Archaeoraptor fossil that eventually turned out to be a fake (albeit made from parts of two previously unknown dinosaurs).
Oh and when randman is unsuspended he'll tell you that Pakicetus isn't a cetacean.

Oops! Wrong Planet

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by nator, posted 08-09-2005 9:40 PM nator has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by CK, posted 08-10-2005 7:39 AM MangyTiger has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 3 of 27 (231675)
08-09-2005 10:18 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by nator
08-09-2005 9:40 PM


I would like to see a list of Ethics oversite groups in Creationism comparable to what is common in science.
One source
Another place to begin
And another

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by nator, posted 08-09-2005 9:40 PM nator has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by robinrohan, posted 08-09-2005 11:19 PM jar has not replied

  
robinrohan
Inactive Member


Message 4 of 27 (231684)
08-09-2005 11:19 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by jar
08-09-2005 10:18 PM


Somehow I don't think there will be too many posts here.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by jar, posted 08-09-2005 10:18 PM jar has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by nator, posted 08-10-2005 10:16 AM robinrohan has not replied

  
CK
Member (Idle past 4128 days)
Posts: 3221
Joined: 07-04-2004


Message 5 of 27 (231734)
08-10-2005 7:39 AM
Reply to: Message 2 by MangyTiger
08-09-2005 10:10 PM


Re: While we're waiting
Bloody hell - are we in for another 1000 posts about diagrams?
The topic should be very very strictly limited to the Peer-reviewed material that has been mentioned in the OT.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by MangyTiger, posted 08-09-2005 10:10 PM MangyTiger has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by nator, posted 08-10-2005 10:15 AM CK has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 6 of 27 (231792)
08-10-2005 10:15 AM
Reply to: Message 5 by CK
08-10-2005 7:39 AM


Re: While we're waiting
quote:
The topic should be very very strictly limited to the Peer-reviewed material that has been mentioned in the OT.
Quite right.
I have added a clarification to the OP to that effect.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by CK, posted 08-10-2005 7:39 AM CK has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 7 of 27 (231793)
08-10-2005 10:16 AM
Reply to: Message 4 by robinrohan
08-09-2005 11:19 PM


quote:
Somehow I don't think there will be too many posts here.
Exactly.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by robinrohan, posted 08-09-2005 11:19 PM robinrohan has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by Silent H, posted 08-10-2005 2:14 PM nator has not replied

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4752
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 8 of 27 (231804)
08-10-2005 10:37 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by nator
08-09-2005 9:40 PM


Shraffy writes:
I thought it would be useful to create a thread for any Creationist to list and link to specific Evolutionary Biology, Genetics, Biochemistry, Zoology, Palontology, etc., papers from the professional literature which show evidence of containing false, inaccurate data, or poor methodology
Who says because I am a creationist, I think scientists are liars? Isn't this a harsh assumption? I might not find fault or innacurate data, but this doesn't mean assumptions and conclusions are correct, pertaining to the philosophy of the evolution story.
This itself doesn't prove much for you, unfortunately Shraff.
Your point seems to be, that because there are no errors in methodology, or the facts are straight then evolution is true and creationists are found wanting, therefore our data is accurate, which means creationists can't offer another conclusion. Am I right?
But you can only conclude that the fault doesn't reside within the methodology, but infact it can still be at fault pertaining to how one concludes as to what is meant by one's findings.
For example, if I find a stuck-in-a-rut species, like a dragonfly, whom has a fossil identical to it's present day morphology, Do I conclude that this fits with the creationist explanation, or do I stick with my evolutionistic paradigm, and let the philosophy never be shaken by creating my own ideologically comforting falisification structure? Thus guaranteeing that I have biasedly confirmed evolution in my mind, where there is no confirmation.
Think about it. We don't argue with your findings, just your conclusions and think that the fallaccy of exlusion is prevailent amongst the mainstream.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by nator, posted 08-09-2005 9:40 PM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by FliesOnly, posted 08-10-2005 11:35 AM mike the wiz has replied
 Message 22 by nator, posted 08-10-2005 9:29 PM mike the wiz has replied

  
Yaro
Member (Idle past 6496 days)
Posts: 1797
Joined: 07-12-2003


Message 9 of 27 (231814)
08-10-2005 10:54 AM


Archaeoraptor
I never heard this story before. But when I Googled it, all the top links were creationist sites
LOL.
From the wiki:
The Archaeoraptor specimen was returned by the Czerkases to China, where Xu Xing, a member of Beijing's Institute of Vertebrate Paleontology and Paleoanthropology noticed that the tail of Archaeoraptor strongly resembled an unnamed Maniraptoran dinosaur later to be named Microraptor zhaoianus that he was studying, but the front half did not match. He returned to China and traveled to Liaoning Province where he inspected the fossil site. His suspicions that the dinosaur-like tail of the fossil did not belong to the animal were confirmed. In December he contacted a number of fossil dealers and eventually found the fossilized body that corresponded to the tail on the archaeraptor. He informed the National Geographic Society, and CT scans funded by the society confirmed his suspicions. The society still believed the fossil to be important, however.
By January 2000 the fossil had proven to be fraudulent and National Geographic retracted their article and promised an investigation. In the October 2000 issue, the magazine published a retraction and an article about the case. A Chinese farmer had created the archaeoraptor fossil by gluing two fossils together, one of which was a Microraptor. The magazine had been too hasty to publish the find.
I love the fact that this is used as evidence against the ToE when it took methods developed by scientists working in the field of evolution to expose it. Not only that, but all the publications involved retracted their articles, revised them, and made amends.
If anything, this is yet another testament to the self correcting nature of the scientific method.

  
FliesOnly
Member (Idle past 4145 days)
Posts: 797
From: Michigan
Joined: 12-01-2003


Message 10 of 27 (231831)
08-10-2005 11:35 AM
Reply to: Message 8 by mike the wiz
08-10-2005 10:37 AM


mike the wiz writes:
or do I stick with my evolutionistic paradigm, and let the philosophy never be shaken by creating my own ideologically comforting falisification structure?
But this is the sort of thing (I think) that Scrafinator is talking about. You are accusing evolutionary biologists of making stuff up to fit their desired results. Find the paper that does this Mike, and then you may have a case.
By simply claiming that scientists reach faulty conclusions due to a misinterpretation of the data is a rather bold thing to say and is the crux of schrafinators challenged. Prove it mikeexplain to us how thousands of scientists have reached the same mistaken conclusion(s). Otherwise, all you have done is spout more gutless accusations.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by mike the wiz, posted 08-10-2005 10:37 AM mike the wiz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by mike the wiz, posted 08-10-2005 1:08 PM FliesOnly has replied

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4752
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 11 of 27 (231890)
08-10-2005 1:08 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by FliesOnly
08-10-2005 11:35 AM


Please, no replies, this is off-topic. --Admin
This isn't an accusation. It's an independent observation of logical endeavour. I thought criticism was most welcomed in science? Well then, I'm sure the big guy can take it.
Look at it logically.
Apparently the theory says, If evolution happened then we should see many transitional forms.
In that logical form, If you get none-transitional forms = no evolution. because falsification is necessary.
But isn't it infact an illogical endeavour that happens? Don't the mainstream say, "oh well, let's see how evolution explains none-transitionals".
OFCOURSE you won't get mention of none-transitionals, As the evolutionary assumption is that they're not there. Hence evolution answering to the falsification overides the falsification. So instead the evo says, "evolution made these none-transitionals aswell, we'll call it normalised selection".
The fact that a none-transitional species, which has not evovled, (proven by the evidence of fossils from hundreds of millions of years), should be enough to make you conclude that this falsifies the evolution claim, and is the denial of the consequent. But this doesn't happen because evolution is your baby that you love too much.
So please tell me what would falsify evolution Shraff. Thanks. Because apparently any evidence against it is simply explained away rather than adressed, IMHO. This isn't an accusation, it's simply people getting comfortable because they treat evolution as a given. That's why you'll only find evidence against the ToE at AIG.
You could find ten thousand so believed "transitionals" but only if the theory says they should be transitional, do you say they are. The fallacy of exclusion shows that if you take the evidence against evolution into account, then that should tell you that these aren't infact transitional species.
With great claims must come great evidence. Since a none-transitional genuinely falsifies evolution.
PS> If I am mistaken about the logical form of the Theory, show me a simple logical form, and how it could be falsified. Since I speak the language of logic, I submitt that I would be instantly convinced if there was a logical form that made sense. I've just never seen one.
This message has been edited by mike the wiz, 08-10-2005 01:24 PM
This message has been edited by Admin, 08-10-2005 02:28 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by FliesOnly, posted 08-10-2005 11:35 AM FliesOnly has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by Admin, posted 08-10-2005 1:48 PM mike the wiz has not replied
 Message 14 by FliesOnly, posted 08-10-2005 2:27 PM mike the wiz has not replied

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12998
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 12 of 27 (231904)
08-10-2005 1:48 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by mike the wiz
08-10-2005 1:08 PM


You raise an interesting point. If you'd really like to discuss it then propose it in [forum=-25]. Continuing to try to draw this thread off-topic will bring 24-hour suspensions.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by mike the wiz, posted 08-10-2005 1:08 PM mike the wiz has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by Silent H, posted 08-10-2005 2:30 PM Admin has replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5820 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 13 of 27 (231924)
08-10-2005 2:14 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by nator
08-10-2005 10:16 AM


Please, no replies, this is off-topic. --Admin
Fliesonly suggested this was the crux of your challenge to creos...
By simply claiming that scientists reach faulty conclusions due to a misinterpretation of the data is a rather bold thing to say and is the crux of schrafinators challenged.
Is this true? If so, how do you handle the hypocrisy of making such a challenge when you yourself opened a thread in the Coffee House suggesting that no one can be unbiased in appraising research, which one can only logically assume stretches to creating research as well?
Indeed, you have twice insinuated I must be lying when I said I (or anyone else) can stick to appropriate methodology even if I don't like the conclusion of the research.
It appears that if your coffee house topic is honest, then you should agree that evolutionists will likely create and the reviewers errantly support evolutionary theory driven research due to less than 100% nonbias.
Or are you drawing a distinction between research in social sciences versus theoretical physical sciences? If so, please explain what that distinction is. As far as I understand, methodology is methodology.
This message has been edited by Admin, 08-10-2005 02:26 PM

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by nator, posted 08-10-2005 10:16 AM nator has not replied

  
FliesOnly
Member (Idle past 4145 days)
Posts: 797
From: Michigan
Joined: 12-01-2003


Message 14 of 27 (231931)
08-10-2005 2:27 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by mike the wiz
08-10-2005 1:08 PM


Please, no replies, this is off-topic. --Admin
mike the wiz writes:
But isn't it infact an illogical endeavour that happens? Don't the mainstream say, "oh well, let's see how evolution explains none-transitionals".
Since, as far as I know, evolution does not attempt to explain none-transitionals (because they do not exist); this seems like a moot point.
mike the wiz writes:
The fact that a none-transitional species, which has not evovled, (proven by the evidence of fossils from hundreds of millions of years), should be enough to make you conclude that this falsifies the evolution claim, and is the denial of the consequent.
What is a none-transitional species? What do you mean by "which has not evolved". Give me an example of a species that you feel fits your idea.
Here's the problem as I see it. You claim that whenever you find something that would disprove evolution, then evolutionary biologists make something up that explains away your potential falsification of the theory.
But the challenge Mike, that Schrafinator has put forth, is for you to explain the scientific error of their conclusions. You seem to be saying that evolutionary biologists incorrectly explain away all you falsifications, but you have yet to demonstrate how they have erred in doing so. Do you get it yet? Show us where the science has gone wrong...that's the challenge.
mike the wiz writes:
So please tell me what would falsify evolution Shraff. Thanks. Because apparently any evidence against it is simply explained away rather than adressed, IMHO.
Ahhh...notice how you end this statement with "IMHO". That's the problem Mike; it's merely YOUR OPINION. Schrafinator has asked you (or any other creationist) to find error in the science that debunks you falsification(s). Science could care less about you opinions.
mike the wiz writes:
You could find ten thousand so believed "transitionals" but only if the theory says they should be transitional, do you say they are.
You got me here, Mike. What the hell are you talking about?
mike the wiz writes:
The fallacy of exclusion shows that if you take the evidence against evolution into account, then that should tell you that these aren't infact transitional species.
What evidence? And I don't want your opinion Mike...I want hard data that demonstrates how the fossil evidence falsifies evolution. Scientific data.
Scrafinators challenge should be easy for you, Mike. It's really quite simple. If evolutionary biologists draw conclusions that you say are false...that they have misinterpreted their data, then it should be easy for you to demonstrate in what way they are wrong.
This message has been edited by Admin, 08-10-2005 02:56 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by mike the wiz, posted 08-10-2005 1:08 PM mike the wiz has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by FliesOnly, posted 08-11-2005 8:44 AM FliesOnly has not replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5820 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 15 of 27 (231934)
08-10-2005 2:30 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by Admin
08-10-2005 1:48 PM


Please, no replies, this is off-topic. --Admin
Excuse me, but why is my post off topic? She creates one thread insinuating science cannot possibly be handled without bias, and then this thread which says if creos say the same thing they need evidence or they are wrong.
Should I not place a question on this apparent inconsistency in one of those two threads? I don't see what the point would be on opening a whole new thread to address an issue found within both.
Or let me put it another way, would it be "on topic" to ask why she feels creos need to show such evidence to make such claims, if she also believes science cannot be done in an unbiased fashion. It does seem the latter position absolves creos of having to prove anything.
This message has been edited by holmes, 08-10-2005 02:36 PM
This message has been edited by Admin, 08-10-2005 02:57 PM

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by Admin, posted 08-10-2005 1:48 PM Admin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by Admin, posted 08-10-2005 2:55 PM Silent H has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024