Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,819 Year: 3,076/9,624 Month: 921/1,588 Week: 104/223 Day: 2/13 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Top ten works in the Theory of Evolution
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 16 of 34 (336715)
07-30-2006 6:10 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by crashfrog
07-30-2006 6:01 PM


Re: Randman is right!
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by crashfrog, posted 07-30-2006 6:01 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by ramoss, posted 07-30-2006 6:41 PM randman has replied
 Message 19 by crashfrog, posted 07-31-2006 1:34 AM randman has replied

  
ramoss
Member (Idle past 612 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 08-11-2004


Message 17 of 34 (336721)
07-30-2006 6:41 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by randman
07-30-2006 6:10 PM


Re: Randman is right!
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.
That is a fine asserstion. Care to back it up with what those facts are? What are the predictions of TOE that are falsified, and what are the facts that falsify those predictions? Do you have a peer reviewed scientific article about it, or are you taking it from a 'creationist' web site?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by randman, posted 07-30-2006 6:10 PM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by randman, posted 07-31-2006 2:19 AM ramoss has replied

  
AnswersInGenitals
Member (Idle past 151 days)
Posts: 673
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 18 of 34 (336799)
07-31-2006 12:40 AM
Reply to: Message 15 by crashfrog
07-30-2006 6:01 PM


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by crashfrog, posted 07-30-2006 6:01 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by crashfrog, posted 07-31-2006 1:36 AM AnswersInGenitals has not replied
 Message 25 by randman, posted 07-31-2006 2:30 AM AnswersInGenitals has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 19 of 34 (336801)
07-31-2006 1:34 AM
Reply to: Message 16 by randman
07-30-2006 6:10 PM


Re: Randman is right!
Except that we don't "get the results" since the facts keep piling up against the predictions of ToE.
Oh, come on. You know that's absolutely, 100% untrue. And I know just as well as you that, despite being asked repeatedly to tell us what those "facts" actually are you never will, because you never do.
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,...
Never mind, of course, that their faulty calendar kept meandering all around the year, making it all but impossible for them to accurately predict the annual flooding of the Nile.
In other words, you're completely wrong, and your example actually proves my point - the faulty assumptions underpinning the Egyptian calendar didn't work, and were pretty rapidly exposed as false when the predictions based on them simply didn't come true.
Face it, Randman, you're arguing against a point that should be immediately obvious as true. If you could get results from false models, what would be the use in having correct ones? If lies work just as well as truth, then what value does truth have?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by randman, posted 07-30-2006 6:10 PM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by randman, posted 07-31-2006 2:22 AM crashfrog has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 20 of 34 (336802)
07-31-2006 1:36 AM
Reply to: Message 18 by AnswersInGenitals
07-31-2006 12:40 AM


Thank you for expanding on your thoughts. I think you're absolutely right.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by AnswersInGenitals, posted 07-31-2006 12:40 AM AnswersInGenitals has not replied

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 21 of 34 (336804)
07-31-2006 2:19 AM
Reply to: Message 17 by ramoss
07-30-2006 6:41 PM


Re: Randman is right!
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by ramoss, posted 07-30-2006 6:41 PM ramoss has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by ramoss, posted 07-31-2006 10:32 AM randman has not replied
 Message 29 by crashfrog, posted 07-31-2006 1:06 PM randman has not replied

  
Lithodid-Man
Member (Idle past 2931 days)
Posts: 504
From: Juneau, Alaska, USA
Joined: 03-22-2004


Message 22 of 34 (336805)
07-31-2006 2:21 AM
Reply to: Message 12 by randman
07-29-2006 5:43 PM


One trick pony
Rand,
I presented a list of what I believe to be the top ten most important works in evolution. These are what I believe to be the ten works everyone concerned on any side of the debate should read and understand. Other people suggested other refs they feel should be on the list. This is a list that if I were, for example, having to choose 10 refs that I would preserve for a distant future to prove that we humans understood the theory. I believe that if society were blasted back to the stone age the survivors, with those ten refs, quickly get back up to speed about the ToE. Do you get that?
That being said, how many of those depend on Darwin's finches, pepper moths, the biogenetic law, and recapitulation (the later two are exactly the same thing btw, you might have known that if you looked at actual sources rather than creo websites)? Who called the above "Icons of evolution"? Was it evolutionary biologists? Or was it creationist Jonathan Wells? Since pretty much all you ever cite is from the latter book I would suspect this is your source.
Wells book is interesting, but badly flawed. I actually found myself in partial agreement but not about creation. What I found it to be is a reflection of how miserable the state of our science education and textbooks. Where he goes horribly offtrack is in assuming that something claimed in a textbook is somehow foundational to the theory. Textbook authors look for simple, easy examples. They often oversimplify or repeat outdated information. This is a legitimate problem and one that needs to be stopped. By more funding for science education, higher standards for teachers and texts, etc.
So here is a challenge in good faith. Pick one of your icons, I am partial to your Biogenetic Law. Show me how this law being true or untrue is in any way foundational to the ToE. Show how any evolutionary biologist since Haeckel depended upon this concept to understand or expand upon the ToE. This shouldn't be considered OT because I am asking you take that icon and show how it cripples or undermines the theory based upon the refs I cited or those others have suggested.

Doctor Bashir: "Of all the stories you told me, which were true and which weren't?"
Elim Garak: "My dear Doctor, they're all true"
Doctor Bashir: "Even the lies?"
Elim Garak: "Especially the lies"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by randman, posted 07-29-2006 5:43 PM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by randman, posted 07-31-2006 2:27 AM Lithodid-Man has replied

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 23 of 34 (336806)
07-31-2006 2:22 AM
Reply to: Message 19 by crashfrog
07-31-2006 1:34 AM


Re: Randman is right!

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by crashfrog, posted 07-31-2006 1:34 AM crashfrog has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by AdminNosy, posted 07-31-2006 3:10 AM randman has not replied

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 24 of 34 (336808)
07-31-2006 2:27 AM
Reply to: Message 22 by Lithodid-Man
07-31-2006 2:21 AM


Re: One trick pony
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by Lithodid-Man, posted 07-31-2006 2:21 AM Lithodid-Man has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by Lithodid-Man, posted 07-31-2006 3:10 AM randman has not replied
 Message 31 by Admin, posted 07-31-2006 2:49 PM randman has replied

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 25 of 34 (336810)
07-31-2006 2:30 AM
Reply to: Message 18 by AnswersInGenitals
07-31-2006 12:40 AM


Haeckel's papers were peer reviewed
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by AnswersInGenitals, posted 07-31-2006 12:40 AM AnswersInGenitals has not replied

  
AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4754
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 26 of 34 (336817)
07-31-2006 3:10 AM
Reply to: Message 23 by randman
07-31-2006 2:22 AM


TOPIC
Please note: Correcting randman's errors in post 23 is off topic here.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by randman, posted 07-31-2006 2:22 AM randman has not replied

  
Lithodid-Man
Member (Idle past 2931 days)
Posts: 504
From: Juneau, Alaska, USA
Joined: 03-22-2004


Message 27 of 34 (336818)
07-31-2006 3:10 AM
Reply to: Message 24 by randman
07-31-2006 2:27 AM


Take the time to read those threads
I did read those threads, Rand, remember, I even replied to them as did others and we showed you how that was a non-issue. The importance of Haeckel's drawings and his Biogenetic Law to 20th Century evolutionary thought is just about zero. As I stated way back then, BIOGENETIC LAW IS NOT SAME AS EMBRYOLOGY. BIOGENETIC LAW IS NOT SAME AS EMBRYOLOGY. And, btw, I absolutely resent your implication that it is I who doesn't read what is presented. You don't have a good track record there, Rand.
Wells interprets every drawing of embryo similarity to a perpetuation of this so-called fraud. It is not. Embryology provides a great deal of evidence to support evolution. Haeckel was wrong about there being a generalized tetrapod stage. That doesn't mean that we cannot infer evolutionary relationships based upon embryology. We can and we do. What is wonderful is that those relationships as inferred by embryology are completely supported by genetics.
So now, show how the Biogenetic law was used as evidence for evolution after being falsified (or even since Haeckel). I gave you my top ten works, that should be a good starting point. When and where did evos perpetuate this claim? Can you show that? Or doesn't the Wells book tell you what to think about that? One trick pony indeed.
Edited by AdminJar, : No reason given.

Doctor Bashir: "Of all the stories you told me, which were true and which weren't?"
Elim Garak: "My dear Doctor, they're all true"
Doctor Bashir: "Even the lies?"
Elim Garak: "Especially the lies"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by randman, posted 07-31-2006 2:27 AM randman has not replied

  
ramoss
Member (Idle past 612 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 08-11-2004


Message 28 of 34 (336885)
07-31-2006 10:32 AM
Reply to: Message 21 by randman
07-31-2006 2:19 AM


Re: Randman is right!
And now is that?? Repeating an assersion doesn't make it any more true.
Give examples. Just repeating a phrase 'Its wrong' is meaningless. You make a claim. Show evidence of this.
Claiming somethign without any evidence is just showing a level of ignorance about the subject. In what way does the fossil record disprove evolutions predictions? Are you sure it isn't you that is mistaken, and not the biologists and palentologists?
Edited by AdminModulous, : No reason given.
Edited by AdminModulous, : 'evolution is wrong' drivebys are common place, and have a tendency to throw topics off. We're just talking about landmark evolution papers here - let's keep things tight.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by randman, posted 07-31-2006 2:19 AM randman has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 29 of 34 (336929)
07-31-2006 1:06 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by randman
07-31-2006 2:19 AM


Re: Randman is right!
Funny how there is no peer-review works to verify evolutionary theory
None? There's millions. Every paper verifies a millionth-part of the theory, and taken in aggregate, the theory is the best-supported theory in science, bar none.
Now, there's not a single paper that verifies the entire theory. How could there be? How can one paper verify an entire scientific theory? It's nonsense to even suggest it, and you should know better.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by randman, posted 07-31-2006 2:19 AM randman has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by robinrohan, posted 07-31-2006 1:31 PM crashfrog has replied

  
robinrohan
Inactive Member


Message 30 of 34 (336931)
07-31-2006 1:31 PM
Reply to: Message 29 by crashfrog
07-31-2006 1:06 PM


Re: Randman is right!
the theory is the best-supported theory in science, bar none.
I've heard that before, but have never understood how that could be.
Edited by robinrohan, : No reason given.
Edited by robinrohan, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by crashfrog, posted 07-31-2006 1:06 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by crashfrog, posted 08-02-2006 12:39 AM robinrohan has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024