Top ten works in the Theory of Evolution

I'm afraid I'm going to have to come out in complete support of Randman's assertion in your quote. The first theory of evolution I am aware of was propounded by Empedocles of Agrigentum around 450BCE and was broadly accepted by his students and many other philosophers. His theory included the elements of random variation, natural selection, and survival of the fittest. There is no indication that his writings on his theory were accepted by any peer reviewed, legitimate (by todays standards), scientific journals, or that they were based on anything more than speculation, let alone evidence, true or false.He is also the first to have put forth an elemental theory of all matter. While he had the right idea, his selection of the four basic elements was incorrect. He included water, which we now know to be a compound, and he left off chocolate, which we now know to be the most basic of all elements.

So, you're saying that you would not be inclined to include Haeckel's drawings in your list of the Top Ten Works in the Theory of Evolution? Also, it is my understanding that several scholars have independently established that Haeckel's fraud was egregious, not blatant, but we might be getting a little off topic.

Perhaps you should start a new counter-thread on the Ten Worst (or Bottom) Works on the Theory of Evolution, along with your exegeses of why they deserve that position.

Of course. I think you are repeating what I said. I was really just trying to point out the vacuity of Randman's statement, as quoted by Lithodid-Man. It is like saying that Archimedes' theorems are very poor mathematics because archimedes never published in an English language journal. Atomic theory, sphericity of the earth, and the heliocentricity of the solar system were all established and well accepted in some circles long before the concept of a 'modern' peer reviewed journal (or scroll) was created.There is something that I wanted to say in schrafinator's 'Randman's analysis of scholarly papers' thread, but that thread appears to be shut down while schraf hunts up some references, so I will say it here because it is very nearly on topic. Darwin's two major books on evolution were written primarily for public consumption ( and the public consumed them voraciously). But these were not his first publications. He had previously presented his theory, along with a wealth of supporting evidence, in papers delivered (verbally) to the Royal Society, which papers were then published in the Proceedings of the Royal Society. Presenting a paper to the Society and publishing in its Proceedings required approval from the governing board made up of some of the most illustrious scientists in England at the time, i. e., those papers were peer reviewed. These papers and subsequent ones by Darwin and others certainly qualify as focused on presenting the foundation and veracity of the Darwinian theory. If Randman wishes to challenge the scientific quality of those papers, then he is in opposition to the Royal Society membership which, though many of them were in disagreement with Darwin's conclusions, considered Darwin's work of the highest standard and quality. Randman may insist that this should not be given too much weight since not a single member of the RS at that time had been awarded a Noble Prize, and he would be correct on that point.Regards, AnInGe