|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Evolutionary science is fraudulent and/or inaccurate? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2190 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
MangyTiger Member (Idle past 6373 days) Posts: 989 From: Leicester, UK Joined: |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 414 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
robinrohan Inactive Member |
Somehow I don't think there will be too many posts here.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
CK Member (Idle past 4148 days) Posts: 3221 Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2190 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: Quite right. I have added a clarification to the OP to that effect.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2190 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: Exactly.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
mike the wiz Member Posts: 4755 From: u.k Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
Yaro Member (Idle past 6516 days) Posts: 1797 Joined: |
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 4165 days) Posts: 797 From: Michigan Joined: |
mike the wiz writes: 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. or do I stick with my evolutionistic paradigm, and let the philosophy never be shaken by creating my own ideologically comforting falisification structure?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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
mike the wiz Member Posts: 4755 From: u.k Joined: |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 13014 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 1.9 |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
Silent H Member (Idle past 5839 days) Posts: 7405 From: satellite of love Joined: |
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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
FliesOnly Member (Idle past 4165 days) Posts: 797 From: Michigan Joined: |
Please, no replies, this is off-topic. --Admin
mike the wiz writes: 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.
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". mike the wiz writes: 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. 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. 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: 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.
So please tell me what would falsify evolution Shraff. Thanks. Because apparently any evidence against it is simply explained away rather than adressed, IMHO. mike the wiz writes: You got me here, Mike. What the hell are you talking about?
You could find ten thousand so believed "transitionals" but only if the theory says they should be transitional, do you say they are. mike the wiz writes: What evidence? And I don't want your opinion Mike...I want hard data that demonstrates how the fossil evidence falsifies evolution. Scientific data. 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. 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
Silent H Member (Idle past 5839 days) Posts: 7405 From: satellite of love Joined: |
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)
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024