Top ten works in the Theory of Evolution

One of the troubling issues with the "science" behind evolution, as far as when it was accepted 100 or so years ago, is that the incredibly poor quality of genuine review of the basic facts. I am not saying it has gotten better today, but certainly considering blatant frauds such as Haeckel's drawings were uncritically accepted and taught as part of mainstream evolutionism attests to the basic reality that the idea was accepted not because it was shown to be true factually, since it wasn't, but for other reasons.

There is a basic list of evidence used consistently for decades that was used as evidence for evolution, things such as Darwin's finches, the peppered moths later on, the Biogenetic law and then later the watered-down version of Recapitulation, etc, etc,.....These have been called the icons of evolution, and they were largely bogus for one reason or another. It was a big smoke and mirrors game as far as I am concerned.

Seems like most of the 1st half of these works are not peer-reviewed articles.Edited by AdminJar, : No reason given.

Except that we don't "get the results" since the facts keep piling up against the predictions of ToE. Furthermore, you are wrong to think a false system cannot work. The Egyptians had a system that worked perfectly well. Every year, this god or that god went through something, brining on spring, the rains, etc,....and by your logic, they had to be right because if there explanations were wrong, they would have no predictive power.

Funny how there is no peer-review works to verify evolutionary theory, and yet you demand peer-review articles to discount it.The fossil record is one glaring example, and imo the final arbiter, that shows the predictions of evolutionary theory have not borne out.

Off topic! However if someone wants to start two new threads on these assertions that is a good idea.

I guess you cannot read. The simple facts do indeed show evolutionary theory to be bogus. Here are 2 of them:1. The fossil record does not show gradualistic evolution, period. It shows the opposite. Time for you guys to deal with reality here.2. Living biota likewise does not show evidence of gradualism (all evo mainstream theories including PE are gradualistic though PE seeks to try to address the facts in the fossil record). We don't see the common ancestors, the intermediates, etc, etc,....in living biota. That's reality.Edited by AdminNosy, : Topic warning

It is off-topic, but if you want to review some of the Haeckel threads and my debate on this topic, you can see some of what you want addressed. Considering the numbers of hours presented, I think duplicating those efforts is unreasonable. Take the time to read those threads.Now, the Biogenetic Law was used as evidence for evolution and was indeed false and is false, but nevertheless, disproving the Biogenetic law does not disprove evolutionary theory. I think it does show how evolutionists have clung to and perpetuated false information even when it was reasonable to expect evos to know the information was false considering the numbers of people showing that the information was false.

Haeckel's papers were peer reviewed and the Biogenetic law shown to be false right off the bat, but that didn't stop the evos from perpetuating that fraud, did it?Frankly, I am not sure if peer review means squat when it comes to evo science, but regardless, I haven't seen anyone here produce the papers you are referring to.

Well, you guys have threatened me about debating Haeckel's stuff in detail on threads not devoted to that.My point is if the level of scholarship, at the time the Theory of Evolution was established, accepted uncritically Haeckel's forgeries, even after being exposed as forgeries, then that raises doubts about the thinking and veracity of the scholarship in general associated with evolutionary theory back then.