|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 2931 days) Posts: 504 From: Juneau, Alaska, USA Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Top ten works in the Theory of Evolution | |||||||||||||||||||||||
randman  Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ramoss Member (Idle past 612 days) Posts: 3228 Joined: |
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?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
AnswersInGenitals Member (Idle past 151 days) Posts: 673 Joined: |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1467 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
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?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1467 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
Thank you for expanding on your thoughts. I think you're absolutely right.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
randman  Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Lithodid-Man Member (Idle past 2931 days) Posts: 504 From: Juneau, Alaska, USA Joined: |
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"
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
randman  Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
randman  Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
randman  Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminNosy Administrator Posts: 4754 From: Vancouver, BC, Canada Joined: |
Please note: Correcting randman's errors in post 23 is off topic here.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Lithodid-Man Member (Idle past 2931 days) Posts: 504 From: Juneau, Alaska, USA Joined: |
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"
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ramoss Member (Idle past 612 days) Posts: 3228 Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1467 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
robinrohan Inactive Member |
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.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024