Science Disproves Evolution

[Sideroxylon]

Quite. As important a contribution to the understanding of the mechanisms of heredity, as clever as his experiments, his work on this subject was but the first small step on a long journey to our current understanding of genetics. Mendel's experiments demonstrated that there were dominant and recessive phenotypes rather than the blending of traits that had previously been thought to exist. But to suggest that his work somehow invalidates the theory of evolution by natural selection is ludicrous.

Yep, the blending idea presented a big problem for evolution early on, as in line with this thinking any advantageous new characteristics would be diluted away after a few generations. However, as it was, the new piece of the puzzle provided by Mendel fit with the evolution story, as indeed has been the case with other discoveries to this day.

 

[tsig]

I thought you called yourselves Groundhog Day Adventists.

I got you babe.

 

[tsig]

That just means you need a better imagination.

There's the problem. Since everything is the product of my brain then there's really no 'better' to be had because it would also be a product of the same brain...I think I'll stop 'cause I'm feeling a little cyclic.

 

[Elizabeth I]

I have a request, Pahu. When you make a post like this one, would you please say in your own words, what we should take away from each quote and how each quote supports the initial proposition?

I already tried that one. The answer I got from Pahu was, "In my own words: read the book."

He (she? FSM, I hope it's not a woman...) is simply not going to commit to anything in his (her? its?) own words. If he (she? it?) has his (her? its?) own words to begin with and isn't just some kind of cut-and-paste machine.

 

[Craig4]

Pahu,

Prove creationism to me. Show me a pre Cambrian bunny rabbit. Prove there is a god and then prove to me what he did. You want supplant the obvious (evolution) prove creationism. Even if you were to falsify evolution you still need to prove creationism. Come on, step up here.

 

[Sideroxylon]

I already tried that one. The answer I got from Pahu was, "In my own words: read the book."

He (she? FSM, I hope it's not a woman...) is simply not going to commit to anything in his (her? its?) own words. If he (she? it?) has his (her? its?) own words to begin with and isn't just some kind of cut-and-paste machine.

Putting something in your own words requires a thorough understanding of the argument being made. Perhaps any perceived authority saying evolution is impossible is enough to warm their cockles.

 

[DC]

I already tried that one. The answer I got from Pahu was, "In my own words: read the book."

He (she? FSM, I hope it's not a woman...) is simply not going to commit to anything in his (her? its?) own words. If he (she? it?) has his (her? its?) own words to begin with and isn't just some kind of cut-and-paste machine.

women don't have noodles.

 

[catsmate]

I'm a computer assisted design proponent. That's right, I'm a CAD and proud of it.

That explains a lot of the bugs.

 

[catsmate]

Mendel’s laws of genetics and their modern-day refinements explain almost all physical variations occurring within species. Mendel discovered that genes (units of heredity) are merely reshuffled from one generation to another. Different combinations are formed, not different genes. The different combinations produce many variations within each kind of life, such as in the dog family. A logical consequence of Mendel’s laws is that there are limits to such variation (a). Breeding experiments (b) and common observations (c) have also confirmed these boundaries.

Bill Anderson's nonsense, straight off the standard creationist list. Go and study some modern genetics before you make even more of a fool of yourself than you already have.

Alfred Russel Wallace, who independently proposed the theory of organic evolution slightly before Charles Darwin, was opposed to Mendel’s laws of genetics. Wallace knew Mendel’s experiments showed that the general characteristics of an organism remained within distinct boundaries. In a letter to Dr. Archdall Reid on 28 December 1909, Wallace wrote:
“But on the general relation of Mendelism to Evolution I have come to a very definite conclusion. This is, that it has no relation whatever to the evolution of species or higher groups, but is really antagonistic to such evolution! The essential basis of evolution, involving as it does the most minute and all-pervading adaptation to the whole environment, is extreme and ever-present plasticity, as a condition of survival and adaptation. But the essence of Mendelian characters is their rigidity. They are transmitted without variation, and therefore, except by the rarest of accidents, can never become adapted to ever varying conditions.” James Marchant, Letters and Reminiscences (New York: Harper & Brothers, 1916), p. 340.

A hundred year old "quote" found only in creationist literature. Hmmmmmm.
I would also remind you that evolution was fairly widely accepted before Darwin, the issue was the lack of a plausible theory to show how it might have taken place, which Darwin supplied. Perhaps you've heard of Dr. Darwin?

“Every series of breeding experiments that has ever taken place has established a finite limit to breeding possibilities.” Francis Hitching, The Neck of the Giraffe: Where Darwin Went Wrong (New Haven, Connecticut: Ticknor and Fields, 1982), p. 55.

You do know thet Hitching believes in evolution don't you? He believes it's directed externally, though not by a god. His book ridicules fundie creationists as well; he also believes in Atlantis, pyramid power, dowsing, ESP and astrology, do you agree with him about them too?
Of course he has no background or credentials in science either.

“All competent biologists acknowledge the limited nature of the variation breeders can produce, although they do not like to discuss it much when grinding the evolutionary ax.” William R. Fix, The Bone Peddlers: Selling Evolution (New York: Macmillan Publishing Co., 1984), pp. 184–185.

Wow. You do know Fix isn't a creationist? He has his own crazy theory, psychogenesis. His book is rather dated rubbish from a complete crackpot.

“A rule that all breeders recognize, is that there are fixed limits to the amount of change that can be produced.” Lane P. Lester and Raymond G. Bohlin, The Natural Limits to Biological Change (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1984), p. 96.

Please try for real scientists not shills for the Institute for Creation Research.

c. “...the distinctions of specific forms and their not being blended together by innumerable transitional links, is a very obvious difficulty.” Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species, 6th edition (New York: Macmillan Publishing Co., 1927), p. 322.

Oddly enough posting a quote mined from Origin, published 150 years ago, aren't helping your case; in those subsequent year many transitional fossils have been found. You just refuse to accept them because that reality contradicts your worldview.

“Indeed, the isolation and distinctness of different types of organisms and the existence of clear discontinuities in nature have been self-evident for centuries, even to non-biologists.” Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (London: Burnett Books, 1985), p. 105.

Denton's silly book is eviscerated here. Of course you won't dare read this because it might cause you to think for yourself....

Wow argument by random creationist quotemine, very effective.
OK I'll leave Mendel and his pea plants to others.

 

[Drewbot]

Ah. Is that why students consider Thursday a day of recreation?

THAT is why quarter-beer-night was always on Thursdays!

 

[JonathanQuick]

In 1868, Ernst Haeckel presented a series of pictures which he claimed represented the development of embryos of various widely different classifications of animals. Their similarities were as stunning as they were fraudulent.

Haeckel's hoax has been repeated from 1868 to at least 1997, over 129 years.

Such is the pristine, efficient, and extraordinarily "intellectual" majesterium of science, always ALWAYS claimed to be "self-policing.

129 years, to expose this fraud.

Now the hoax itself is not the point of focus.

No, the real problem is that self-aggrandizing scientists ON THE LEFT always bray their credentialism, their intellectual superiority, their cocksure, absolute certainty of Darwinism, or atheism, or climate change.

There is NEVER the slightest doubt on your side of the aisle. Any commentary not approved by your committee is laughed into the pit of flat-earth ridicule.

Why, pray tell, didn't all the world's esteemed leftist scientists "self-police" Haeckel's drawings in something less than 129 years?

Please, don't answer. Not one of you would possibly answer that question fairly and honestly.

 

[Simon39759]

By the way, this statement:

Alfred Russel Wallace, who independently proposed the theory of organic evolution slightly before Charles Darwin

Is also factually incorrect.

Wallace started developing his own version of the theory of evolution long after Darwin did. But, because Darwin was such a careful scientist, he was working very, very slowly, accumulating evidence for more than 25 years... So Wallace caught up.
Having heard about it from a mutual friend, Darwin contacted him and they proposed the theory together (and so at the same time).
I will give Pahu the benefit of the doubt, although, considering his track record of posting dishonest quote mine, it is always possible that this statement constitute a subtle lie aimed at implying that Darwin stole the theory from him...

 

[RecoveringYuppy]

Why, pray tell, didn't all the world's esteemed leftist scientists "self-police" Haeckel's drawings in something less than 129 years?

If you'll type Haeckel in to wikipedia you'll find out it's you who are out of date and fraudulent.

 

[Shalamar]

In 1868, Ernst Haeckel presented a series of pictures which he claimed represented the development of embryos of various widely different classifications of animals. Their similarities were as stunning as they were fraudulent.

Haeckel's hoax has been repeated from 1868 to at least 1997, over 129 years.

Such is the pristine, efficient, and extraordinarily "intellectual" majesterium of science, always ALWAYS claimed to be "self-policing.

129 years, to expose this fraud.

Now the hoax itself is not the point of focus.

No, the real problem is that self-aggrandizing scientists ON THE LEFT always bray their credentialism, their intellectual superiority, their cocksure, absolute certainty of Darwinism, or atheism, or climate change.

There is NEVER the slightest doubt on your side of the aisle. Any commentary not approved by your committee is laughed into the pit of flat-earth ridicule.

Why, pray tell, didn't all the world's esteemed leftist scientists "self-police" Haeckel's drawings in something less than 129 years?

Please, don't answer. Not one of you would possibly answer that question fairly and honestly.

The politics forum is over that-a-way. Feel free to rage, rage against the evils of the left over there.

It should also be noted that Haeckel's drawings really are not used as evidence for the Theory of Evolution. The wikipedia article (OMG! EVIL LEFTISTS!) states that while some of his drawings are inaccurate, some are not. He may well have been convicted of fraud, but, for the most part, scientists police themselves, mainly because laypeople (who use a religious text to discount anything not in it) do not really understand what they are talking about. So yes. Some of the criticisms of Haeckel are founded. Some are not. People are often wrong, and it does not matter if one is a scientist or a preist, on the left, or the right.

Now, science does not really disprove anything. if you have an alternate Theory to that of Evolution, please, present it.

 

[JonathanQuick]

Bill Anderson's nonsense, straight off the standard creationist list. Go and study some modern genetics before you make even more of a fool of yourself than you already have.

I just posted the facts on Darwinists the world over making FOOLS of YOURSELVES for 129 years, courtesy of Ernst Haeckel.

Why don't you explain the modern genetic mechanism for the ultimate synthesis of hemoglobin, containing 528 amino acids. Please show, or name, just 100 of the intermediaries so necessary in ultimately deriving such a complex polypeptide.

The number of possible arrangements for hemoglobin is roughly 10 to the 343rd power.

A hundred year old "quote" found only in creationist literature. Hmmmmmm.
I would also remind you that evolution was fairly widely accepted before Darwin, the issue was the lack of a plausible theory to show how it might have taken place, which Darwin supplied. Perhaps you've heard of Dr. Darwin?

Perhaps you've heard of Richard Dawkins? I exchanged e-mails with Dickie after sending critiques of his books to his publisher.

Dickie doesn't take criticism well. Poor fellow was so very sloppy he couldn't even properly quote Sir Fredrick Hoyle.

You do know thet Hitching believes in evolution don't you? He believes it's directed externally, though not by a god. His book ridicules fundie creationists as well; he also believes in Atlantis, pyramid power, dowsing, ESP and astrology, do you agree with him about them too?
Of course he has no background or credentials in science either.

You DO know that Richard Dawkins couldn't even properly draw the leaving angle in a prism he showed as an illustration, don't you? NO? You didn't catch it either?

Then there is the absurd claim Dawkins made that an "elephant is a trillion cells, all colonies of bacteria."

Present tense: "IS". This isn't evolutionary hopefulness, it is presented as, in Dawkins' memorable words, "fact, fact, fact."

Nota bene: A colony of bacteria is an infection, not a "cell."

You DID know that, didn't you?

How do you like condescension, sir? You dish it out as eagerly and as maliciously as any atheist/Darwinist/AlGorian.

It's really terribly anti-intellectual. But two can play your game.

Please try for real scientists not shills for the Institute for Creation Research.

Why is it that you Darwinists are always bring up groups or books, such as the Holy Bible, and putting YOUR words into MY mouth?

Most unscientific and anti-intellectual of you.

You must put forth some effort. Real effort.

Oddly enough posting a quote mined from Origin, published 150 years ago, aren't helping your case; in those subsequent year many transitional fossils have been found. You just refuse to accept them because that reality contradicts your worldview.

In fact, you Darwinists use the File Drawer Effect to suit your own narrow purposes. Anything not comporting to YOUR worldview is squirreled away.
The shams continue, in global warming, as in neo-Darwinism.

I quite understand the compelling evidence of the hominid line. I do not dispute that neo-Darwinism is the best theory we have now. I have never said otherwise. I have not once suggested throwing it out. Just because you fear others may wish to do so, or you misinterpret their and my points of view as advocating far more than we do, is no reason for you to go ballistic, as Darwinists always do go ballistic.

Dawkins played a cutesy game of claiming that "with something like the same probability, a cow CAN jump over the moon. It really can."

This is from memory. So naturally one of your friends will accuse me of misquoting, even though it is a Dawkins equivalent.

Likewise, Dickie claimed that a marble statue CAN wave its arm at you.

Uh huh.

Grand science, that.

Denton's silly book is eviscerated here. Of course you won't dare read this because it might cause you to think for yourself....

Quite so. Only YOU can "think for yourself." Certainly not me.

Since you're so incredibly brilliant, why don't you give this esteemed audience a taste of your wonderfulness. Tell us of your many awards, and accolades, and wealth, and fame. Your books, and papers, and travels all over the world. Don't merely feign greatness by badmouthing me.
I'm not the subject. Or didn't you realize that.

Wow argument by random creationist quotemine, very effective.
OK I'll leave Mendel and his pea plants to others.

Not remotely as effective as quote mining passages from the Holy Bible, as Leftists and atheists like you do all the time, the better to mock and ridicule THEM.

Quote mining the Bible is simply grand, isn't it.
But citing a passage, or several, from a science book is simply verboten IF done by a hated pariah. When YOU lovelies do the same thing, why it's utterly brilliant. I think you call it "proof" or "evidence" or some such.

 

[Simon39759]

In 1868, Ernst Haeckel presented a series of pictures which he claimed represented the development of embryos of various widely different classifications of animals. Their similarities were as stunning as they were fraudulent.

Haeckel's hoax has been repeated from 1868 to at least 1997, over 129 years.
Such is the pristine, efficient, and extraordinarily "intellectual" majesterium of science, always ALWAYS claimed to be "self-policing.
129 years, to expose this fraud.
Now the hoax itself is not the point of focus.
No, the real problem is that self-aggrandizing scientists ON THE LEFT always bray their credentialism, their intellectual superiority, their cocksure, absolute certainty of Darwinism, or atheism, or climate change.
There is NEVER the slightest doubt on your side of the aisle. Any commentary not approved by your committee is laughed into the pit of flat-earth ridicule
Why, pray tell, didn't all the world's esteemed leftist scientists "self-police" Haeckel's drawings in something less than 129 years?
Please, don't answer. Not one of you would possibly answer that question fairly and honestly.

Thank God for the creationists that finally proved the theory wrong then... Wait a minute, actually, it is scientists that actually did the correction!

There is more errors (let's call them that way) in this statement. For example, while the quote gives the impression that the recapitulation theory was universally accepted until almost 97, Adam Sedgwick was opposing the theory as early as 1894, about one hundred years earlier than that.

There is also a problem with calling it an 'Hoax'. It probably was not. Haeckel was working with the limited optical means of his time, which left a lot to subjective impression. Most likely, he got himself fooled. A honest mistak;e
Indeed, the term 'hoax' does suggest the idea that the whole theory is without value. It is not. To some extent, ontogeny DOES recapitulate phylogeny.
It is not perfect and universal, certainly not to the extent that Haeckel believed, and, certainly, there is no reason within the evolution theory why it would be so. But it has a grain of truth. Haeckel was only guilty of overselling it... Indeed, and creationist Wells was particularly incensed at this, some textbook did replace the illustrations by actual photograph and made a similar point...


Anyway, Talk origin has more detail on the misrepresentation of this story by creationists...

 

[Simon39759]

By the way, Ernst Haeckel was not really an adept of the Darwinian theory of evolution, as he also believed in Lamarckism.

And, while this is not the subject, associating to 'the leftists' is just very silly. Monism was a very right wing movement...

 

[joobz]

I just posted the facts on Darwinists the world over making FOOLS of YOURSELVES for 129 years, courtesy of Ernst Haeckel.

How do you explain the evidence of Human chromosome 2 fusion?

 

[Foster Zygote]

In 1868, Ernst Haeckel presented a series of pictures which he claimed represented the development of embryos of various widely different classifications of animals. Their similarities were as stunning as they were fraudulent.

Haeckel's hoax has been repeated from 1868 to at least 1997, over 129 years.

Such is the pristine, efficient, and extraordinarily "intellectual" majesterium of science, always ALWAYS claimed to be "self-policing.

129 years, to expose this fraud.

Your source, likely Jonathan Wells, is incorrect. Errors in Haeckel's drawings were pointed out by a number of biologists in the nineteenth century. Modern embryology, which does not rely on Haeckel's drawings at all, still provides evidence of common ancestry by showing that shared features constructed in early embryological development grow to become very different organs in various classes. For example: All chordate embryos develop pharyngeal gill pouches. But these simple, primal structures grow into a great variety of final forms. In fish they will form gill arches, in humans they will form various structures in the jaw, neck and ears.

Why, pray tell, didn't all the world's esteemed leftist scientists "self-police" Haeckel's drawings in something less than 129 years?

Please, don't answer. Not one of you would possibly answer that question fairly and honestly.

Well it isn't a fair and honest question, is it? As has been stated already, it is simply false. It did not take 129 years for biologists to realize that there were problems with Haeckel's drawings. Other biologists disputed his interpretations during his own lifetime.

 

[JonathanQuick]

How do you explain the evidence of Human chromosome 2 fusion?

Your point is well taken. Ernst Haeckel must not have created these hoaxes after all.

Science overlooked and neglected them for 129 years, but now with a single sentence from you, all is made clear. Ontogeny once again recapitulates phylogeny.

Thank YOU, Scientist.