most scientific papers are wrong?

Page has gone | New ScientistTrue or not?

Why is the following allowed on this forum, from a mod no less? Obviously I hit a nerve, but that rant is totally off-topic, unsubstiated BS.One particular relevance of the study, imo, as far as relating to evolutionists, is that we often see with the result of even one finding and study by evos a major rush to publicize the finding as accurate.We saw this recently with the study linking a gene expressed in gills and the parathyroid, and we saw that with the initial discovery of the skull of pakecitus.Off that one skull, we had a full-page spread in national geographic, countless references in educational material, etc,...and frequently with the wrong information attributed by showing webbed feet and stuff like that.Within evolutionism, this rush to judgment can result in false ideas stubbornly clung to, since they initially were accepted in such a widespread manner. It may be that the situation is better today, especially considering the public pressure put on evolutionists through their critics, but nonetheless, the saga of Haeckel's ideas and drawings are a good historical example of how something incorrect, and in Haeckel's case, fraudulent, are passed off as true and not easily dismissed with once embedded within ToE proponents.I think we saw a similar pattern with the peppered moth experiments and their use as evidence of evolution. We now know that the moths don't typically rest on trees and that the moths shown were glued to the trees, but it takes awhile for some data so embedded in the consciousness of evos to be dismissed.Same thing with Neanderthals. The initial claims were based on an old man with arthritis, and since the 50s, we knew the initial claims of Neanderthals being subhuman was incorrect, but it's only been in the past few years that Neanderthals have been presented as people instead of subhumans.Recently, someone posited here very assuredly in an arrogant tone on transitionals and listed Cro-Magnon man as a transitional. This, imo, is borne out of the same faulty approach of evos of rushing to judgment. Cro-magnon man is not a separate or transitional species at all to modern man, but because he was presented at one time as transitional, the myth has stuck in the minds of evolutionists.It would be funny if it was not so sad, but the evo making that claim was disparaging me, as if I was ignorant, as if don't you know Cro-Magnon man is one of the "missing links", a transitional. In fact, I am not even sure if I posted a mountain of data that I could convince the guy that Cro-Magnon man is nothing more than an ancient tribe of modern humans, that he had the same anatomical features and is identical to people today, except the Cro-Magnons were taller on average, just as by the way some ethnic groups are taller than others today.So imo, this rush to judgment is a systemic problem and erroneous use of data within the evo community, and it creates problems not easily solved where false concepts are stubbornly clung to by evo proponents.So I would argue this idea of most scientific papers being wrong is an important principle to consider before making claims within evos of how things are. I have argued consistently that many claims of evos need much more detailed and comprehensive studies before giving the merit they are generally within evolutionist.Some of those areas are to properly understand the mechanisms involved in mutations before declaring the mutations are random. In fact, it is hard to tell sometimes what evos mean by random mutations, and to what degree mutations are random and non-random. I think understanding this has somewhat extreme ramifications for specific analysis.For example, if it can be seen that certain genetic combinations tend to produce similar mutations, then we might see in a creature like Pakicetus, a feature emerging that is whale-like but which did not lead to whales evolving from them. This also gets into the nature and limits of convergent evolution.As I stated on another thread, another example is that I think more studies and research need to be done on fossil rarity before we can safely state the fossil record is not strong evidence against ToE.This message has been edited by randman, 09-02-2005 02:32 PMThis message has been edited by randman, 09-02-2005 02:35 PM

It's not dishonest. That's the distinct impression I remember when taught of the peppered moths as evidence for evolution.Can you prove what I stated is false?Before you mouth off claims of dishonesty, I suggest you take the time to be willing to prove it.

"Cro-Magnon is a transitional. Yes, it's features are virtually the same as modern humans, that's why I chose it for my list. "Your statement above is one of the best examples of Orwellian thought I have heard in a long time.Cro-Magnon is the same species as us. He's not transitional.

I can believe it. When it comes to evolution, there is no objectivity, nor integrity, in the evo community as far as I can tell.

Sorry, but your post is unsubstantiated nonsense. If I could find something worth responding to, I might.One of the funnier things you wrote is that my ideas on evolution and Haeckel come from Hovind. Sorry, but my ideas come from evos themselves, and when looking at what they teach and bothering to check to see if their facts are really facts, I found they were not. Hence, my extremely disparaging view of evos.

Lithod, I was challenged by a friend to look into what I was taught for myself to see if it was accurate. Over the years, that has included listening to creationists and evolutionists and looking at the data. Hovind had nothing to do with any of it.The first creationist I listened to, that was helpful, was a Botany professor at NC State. He was the first person that pointed out that Haeckel's drawings were fraudulent. This was back in the 80s, and despite evos over the years insisting to me, over and over again, that the drawings and claims were correct, evos began to admit to the truth in the late 90s, although of late they seem to be trying to resurrect the myth.Back in the 80s too, some other areas that I researched from various sources came to light as well. For example, a more clearer picture of what the fossil record showed; the abuse of science advanced with the peppered-moth story, etc,...Basically, all the icons of evolution were laid bare and found wanting, and it's been the same since.The only area of evidence, imo, that has some validity for evolution is genetics. I cannot say I properly or fully understand genetics and am not sure anyone knows to the degree that mutations are random, but pretty much all of the other evo claims are based on overstatements, exagerrations, false claims, and fallacious logic.

One problem appears to be the severe unwillingness of the evo community to admit to error if in doing so it creates a negative impression of evolution in general. For example, evos continued to maintain the false claim of the Biogenetic law for decades after it was known to be wrong, and then kept using the same term, recapitulation, to further describe false, watered-down versions of the same myth, sometimes with the same faked data.There is a reason evos kept using Haeckel's data 130 years after being exposed as fraudulent. Imo, I will not be surprised if evos start using it again. It is effective, as one evo said in a paper, as "teaching aide." Never mind it is fraudulent.

As we can see with the extreme reluctance of evos here to admit to error, we really cannot expect science to be properly self-correcting when arrogance and stupidity is advanced. Science is suppossed to be open-minded, but it doesn't really appear to be that way in some fields. What we need in the area of evolution/biology at least is for evos to quit defending evolution at all costs and start acknowledging the problems and not rely on overstatements.

Are you serious? Sorry, but evo papers are generally not based on anything that can be replicated. Take Gingrich's depiction of Pakicetus as very whale-like based on part of a skull. There was no way to replicate or substantiate that claim at that time. If no more fossils were found, evos would still falsely present as fact the false claim and depiction of Pakicetus as diving with a large, blubbery body, webbed feet, and very whale-like.As it turns out, the claim was false, and subsequent depictions have consistently moved to depict Pakicetus as more and more terrestrial, with the latest showing Pakicetus as wholly terrestrial.But think about it. That didn't stop evos from overstating their case, and in general, that's the approach of evos. Overstate, exaggerate, and even adopt false data to make their case. it's not real science.

I have supported all of my contentions. You are just too dishonest to admit it, imo.

1868-1998 equals 130 years. Isn't it strange how long evos passed fakes off as fact.Are they still doing it in papers today?I am not sure frankly. Maybe you can answer. I would hope with all the attention this has gotten in the past 30 years that evos have quit passing off these fakes and the false ideas associated with them as true, but then again, you'd have thought they would have stopped doing it in the 1800s, and it didn't stop'em.

No, I did not make that claim. I claimed evos used Haeckel for 130 years after being exposed as fraudulent, 1868-1998.You guys have yet come up with either an appropiate acknowledgement for such incredible error and fraud on the part of the evo community, nor an appropiate excuse for perpetuating such a fraud on the world.

How is it off-topic, percy? I suppose when you don't have a good answer, it's OT?I was asked the relevance of the OP, and one relevant point is that evos have tended to keep false data around, as Haeckel's forgeries illustrate. There is a tendency to rush to accept something that is published and print it widely and claim it is factual. We saw this with Pakicetus. We saw it with Neanderthals. Once in the textbooks and course curriculums, put there by evos, it tends to stay, and so myths are created.Most of the "icons" of evolution are myths created in this manner.This message has been edited by randman, 02-07-2006 02:25 PM

jar, is this a trick by you and percy. You ask for something, and then percy says it's off-topic if I respond.Kind of like Catch22?Evos tend to widely publicize initial findings and are very, very slow, if ever, to correct those findings. It took over 130 years with Haeckel. That's 130 years, hard fought, to get evos to back off false claims, and even then, plenty of evos as some around here refuse to admit to the full extent of the fraud. The Pakicetus errors are still around to a degree. It took 50 years, maybe more, with Neanderthals.It's called myth-making, and a large reason evolutionism should be considered as much a quasi-religious ideology or philosophy as real science.