Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 66 (9164 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,475 Year: 3,732/9,624 Month: 603/974 Week: 216/276 Day: 56/34 Hour: 2/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Randman's analysis of scholarly papers
Admin
Director
Posts: 13023
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 61 of 62 (336675)
07-30-2006 4:41 PM


Moving this thread forward
Schraf claims that Randman has said many scientific papers about evolution are of poor quality. I don't think Randman ever said that. He has called evolution bad science, and I think Schraf has interpreted this as claiming that scientific papers about evolution are bad science. I'm sending this thread back to PNT so that Schraf can point to where Randman has made the specific claims Schraf says he made.
Randman makes his actual position clear in Message 13, but this has nothing to do with the topic of this thread:
randman writes:
Here is what I wrote:
First, why don't you bring some papers that seek to prove evolutionary theory is true rather than assume it is true.
Can you do that please?
The simple truth is evolutionary theory was accepted, based on false evidence, long before legitimate scientific publication in journals (by today's standards). What was published was often false (such as Haeckel's drawings and the whole Biogenetic theory), but that didn't stop evos from insisting such false things were true, even for over 100 years, and perhaps still today.
The fossil record over the years is ample evidence gradualistic evolution never occurred, but evos still cling to the myth despite all the evidence against it.
It's a consistent claim on my part. The basic claims of evolution are not usually what most papers I have read seek to prove. if you guys can produce the peer-reviewed papers that established the veracity of ToE, I will be glad to review them.
Certainly, Darwin's "books" are not peer-reviewed papers.
My contention is what has been used as evidence for evolution has often been false or unsubstantiated. Some examples:
Haeckel's forgeries and the Biogenetic law
the peppered moths
claims the fossil record shows gradualistic evolution (it does not)
claims mutations are random
etc, etc,...
If shraf or anyone wants to produce the seminal papers establishing the basics of evolution, such as defining random and quantifying mutations are random rather than assuming it, I will be glad to look at them.
So it sounds like Randman wants to discuss something very different than the topic of this thread.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 13023
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 62 of 62 (336678)
07-30-2006 4:41 PM


Thread moved here from the Is It Science? forum.

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024