Randman's analysis of scholarly papers

ON the other hand, Randman has not shown that any of the papers dealing with evolution are 'shoddy science' either. It also is a strawman that any paper is written that "proves the veracity" of (name your theory here).

Indeed. However, remember that the challenge wasn't "papers related to evolution" in general. He's clarified that "some" of them are good science. It's the foundational work that he is challenging - a challenge that simply can't be met under the criteria and clarifications provided. Randman wins. Agreed, of course. Which is why those who accepted the challenge may be playing a fool's game.

I think you're quite mistaken. All papers in biology, taken in aggregate, substantiate evolution, and that's the reason that any paper in biology is a fair candidate for Randman to do what he says he can do.Evolution is like a bridge held by many pillars, like all scientific theory. Randman and Faith wonder why we can't show them the single pillar that holds up the bridge, and when we show them a pillar, they're response is that the pillar we've shown them only holds up a small portion of the bridge.Well, of course it does. The bridge is held up by many equal pillars. Randman has asserted that the bridge is held by faulty pillars, and he's been given an opportunity to show the faults in any pillar of his choosing, and now he refuses to do so.Sorry, Randman loses. The pillars of evolution are not faulty. And just because we can't show Faith or Randman a single pillar that holds up the bridge, doesn't mean the bridge isn't being held up at all.

Yup. After 4800 posts, the best he can do is use "proof" equivocally.

Randman is looking for absolute proof, though. Even if we had a tape that showed the entire lifespan of every cell in existence over the last 5 billion years, it wouldn't be sufficient. That would just give us the God of the 1/24 second Gaps. (it being "bad science" to assume a steady progression between frames.)Edited by DominionSeraph, : No reason given.

I obviously disagree , although I'm certainly willing to be corrected. IF you can show a single paper - which is what randman is requesting - that seeks to validate a foundational principle of the ToE or any major aspect thereof that meets his somewhat exacting requirements (i.e., peer-reviewed, not a book, etc). I strongly doubt anyone can. OF COURSE the aggregate of thousands of peer-reviewed papers, books, and before-the-existence-of-peer-review papers and articles that have been published on the subject MORE than validate the theory. To believe otherwise is willfull ignorance.However, amigo, that was not randman's challenge. He's not asking for pillers (plural). He's demanding ONE, single, solitary paper that "proves" some foundational aspect of the ToE, under the constraints he's elucidated. Since the ONE, single, solitary paper he's demanding doesn't exist, he wins by default.Of course, IMO, the challenge itself is spurious. Nonetheless once you've accepted it, you also by extension accept the strictures of the challenge. So this once: because of the way the challenge was presented and then accepted, randman wins. Of course, he doesn't actually establish any validity to his contention beyond the boundaries he's set. Think of Hovind's completely rigged "challenge". Same mindset. And everyone who's bothered to respond has fallen right into it.

Who cares what his challege is? He's not in a position to level challenges in a thread that is about him being challenged to do what he says he can do.That's what I think you're mistaken about - the challenge in play. Obviously Randman would like to challenge us to something that is inherently impossible. But this thread is about the challenge that has been leveled at him, which he has agreed to meet, and has obviously failed to do so.Randman loses. The fact that his ridiculous counterchallenge is inherently bogus doesn't change that. I guess I haven't read every single post so far, but has anyone actually done that? Presented a paper as though it were the fundamental pilllar of evolution?

Crash, you are now deliberately misrepresenting me, which is not surprising I suppose.....This thread seems to be about perpetuating a lie. I stated and have stated before that I do not think the basic assumptions that make up evolutionary theory have been substantiated with peer-reviewed papers, and challenged you guys to show those papers, and I would review them.Neither you nor any other evo has provided those papers. Why?Instead there is the false claim that I claim any paper merely related to evolution is false, and that's never been one of my claims, ever, and you know it; shraf knows it, and everyone knows it, and yet you and some others continue to perpetuate a fraud.Edited by randman, : No reason given.

Thanks for your refreshing honesty here, quetzal. I don't know why others just don't admit it. It's a known historical fact on how evolutionary theory came to be accepted.

quote:

---

I'm sorry, but I'm afraid I'm going to have to give randman the "win" on this topic. That's right: he wins. There are simply NO peer-reviewed papers in existence (AFAIK) which seek to "prove" the ToE. No scientist writes those.

---

If that was what randman originally agreed to, then I'd have never begun this topic.He often asserts that the science that supports the ToE is poor science, as he did in the other thread.It was only when he came over here to this thread that he moved the goalposts and backed far away from his unqualified assertion. He also didn't use the word "prove" in the other thread, either. That is new in this thread from him as well.

quote:

---

Moreover, although numerous articles have been published providing evidence for aspects of the ToE, most of those take the existence of evolution as a given, and discuss particulars of mechanism, mode and tempo.

---

Yes I know.That's why I said that it didn't matter if the papers he or I chose for him to critique assumed that the ToE was correct or not.He was asserting that the science in support of the ToE was "not good science".I want him to show this or stop making the claim.

quote:

---

I stated and have stated before that I do not think the basic assumptions that make up evolutionary theory have been substantiated with peer-reviewed papers, and challenged you guys to show those papers, and I would review them.

---

Do you consider the idea of common descent of all life to be a basic assumption of Evolution?Alternatively, since you claim to have reviewed the evidence for evolution and found it lacking, do you have any of the peer-reviewed papers YOU have read and have found them to have methodologiaal flaws or errors in their statistical analysis?If so, please link to them or cite the titles and authors here.Edited by schrafinator, : No reason given.

Its funny, but you are resorting to the old bait and switch, using different definitions of "evolution." Clearly, evolutionary theory does include common descent. To say, hey, all we are taking about is heritable change, then under that definition, Young Earth Creationism, is also the Theory of Evolution, but you know full well that evolutionary models maintain the claim that all organisms are genetically related, descended from a common ancestor.

schraf, so you cannot produce any peer-review papers that seek to establish the evolutionary hypothesis as true?

quote:

---

It's a known historical fact on how evolutionary theory came to be accepted.

---

So, why are the predictions made by scientists in the studies I cited, and many thousands of other papers over the last 100 years or so borne out in the research results?I mean, why do the experiments confirm the theory if they originate in unfounded assumption?

quote:

---

schraf, so you cannot produce any peer-review papers that seek to establish the evolutionary hypothesis as true?

---

Do you consider the idea of the common descent of all life to be a basic assumption of evolution?Alternatively, since you claim to have reviewed the evidence for evolution and found it lacking, do you have any of the peer-reviewed papers YOU have read and have found them to have methodologiaal flaws or errors in their statistical analysis?If so, please link to them or cite the titles and authors here.Edited by schrafinator, : No reason given.