Stupid Christian Article on Evolution

[A'isha]

Much as I admire your tenacity I think its wasted. Randman seems to not realise science is progressive it changes over time as new discoveries are added and methods refined, all creationists and IDists seem to view science data with woo tinted goggles like its religious dogma.

I think that's actually the key to why randman is so doggedly clinging to his ideas about Haeckel in evolution. To a religious literalist, finding out they're wrong about something is devastating, since it causes their whole dogmatic worldview to collapse like a house of cards (or a Jenga tower with one of the blocks yanked away). As a result, they think every worldview is like that too, so if they can just prove something is wrong about what scientists think regarding evolution, the entire concept of evolution and the Synthetic Model will likewise come crashing down.

Unfortunately for randman and his cohorts, science actually doesn't work that way. Scientists pointing out things that are wrong in our overall theory of evolution (causing a re-evaluation and revision of those ideas) is the way the process is supposed to work.

That's why the reaction in the phylogenetic community to Richardson's 1997 paper was "Huh. How about that. Well, on to the genomic evidence we've uncovered!", and not, as randman wants so desperately to believe, "NOOO! Evolution is ruined! Ruuuuuuined!!!"

 

[dlorde]

...
Unfortunately for randman and his cohorts, science actually doesn't work that way. Scientists pointing out things that are wrong in our overall theory of evolution (causing a re-evaluation and revision of those ideas) is the way the process is supposed to work.

Well, if a few patient and persistent people like yourself can somehow get that across to otherwise intelligent people like randman, you will be doing everyone a great service - many thanks for the effort.

However, I'm not holding my breath...

 

[dasmiller]

Much as I admire your tenacity I think its wasted. Randman seems to not realise science is progressive it changes over time as new discoveries are added and methods refined, all creationists and IDists seem to view science data with woo tinted goggles like its religious dogma. Even should you prove the point he'll be throwing the same tired arguments at someone else next week if not before. Reading comprehension seems to be beyond their remit. I've looked at dozens of these discussions and realised as others have noted people who cling to this mantra seem incapable of learning or simply do not wish to.

I, too, am not optimistic that randman would change his reviews regardless of what evidence was presented, but the thread is still very educational for a lot of lurkers and near-lurkers such as myself. So in that regard, I don't think that ANT's efforts are entirely wasted.

ETA: though I can't say I'd blame ANT for deciding to find less frustrating uses for his/her time.

 

[A'isha]

ETA: though I can't say I'd blame ANT for deciding to find less frustrating uses for his/her time.

I keep my promises, so I will go down to the library again today, like I told randman I would, and take as many pictures of the 1968 BSCS Blue book as I can, and as many other old high school textbooks that I can dig up from the shelves there.

After that, since it likely won't change a single thing in randman's mind, I'll probably shake my head sadly and give up.

 

[Dinwar]

I posted a very careful explination of why randman's views of evolution were wrong, outlining how evolutionary theory had changed through the years and why his statements were a gross mischaracterization of actual thought, as well as referencing a book by a well-respected paleontologist outlining what current (well, honestly about 10 years old now) evolutionary thought was. I was accused of hand-waving by another poster and told by randman that his views shouldn't be an issue, that he'd presented what evolution said.

He doesn't want to learn. He wants to spout out his nonsense, insult the nonbelievers, and demand that we take his pet woo seriously. I'd advise against waisting any more of your time on it.

 

[Mister Agenda]

ANTPogo, you are amazing!

 

[A'isha]

Oh, and I've also ordered a copy of the 1963 edition, since it'll be good to have my own copy to refer to when some other Creationist inevitably tries to spout the same claims here as randman. Eight bucks including shipping, which isn't bad for an invaluable resource for poking holes in fraudulent Creationist claims.

UAB is right smack in the middle of downtown, which makes parking while using the library really really annoying, and I don't want to go through that any more times than I absolutely have to.

EDIT:And the seller just emailed me back to confirm that the edition I'm purchasing is indeed the 1963 original edition of the Blue book. Should be here in a week or two.

 

[Bad vibe]

I, too, am not optimistic that randman would change his reviews regardless of what evidence was presented, but the thread is still very educational for a lot of lurkers and near-lurkers such as myself. So in that regard, I don't think that ANT's efforts are entirely wasted.

ETA: though I can't say I'd blame ANT for deciding to find less frustrating uses for his/her time.

My apologies I should have worded my post better I think you did it more succinctly than I managed but I did thank others for their contributions earlier in the thread. I admit my own knowledge of evolution and genome research is woeful but have learnt something and read a number of very interesting papers because of the posts here. I think it was more the frustration of seeing the amount of effort being applied to responses only to be met by semantics and outright denial despite his original and now totally dubious claim for honest debate.

 

[tsig]

This is beginning to grow tiresome. Typical troll pattern of avoiding the meat of the discussion and focusing on some unimportant peripheral issue because it has little semantic loopholes that allow the argument to continue ad nauseum.

Wake me if randman has something of substance to contribute.

You're gonna make Rip Van Winkle look like and early riser.

 

[A'isha]

All right, I just spent two hours taking over 120 pictures of five biology textbooks, ranging in publication date from 1966 to 2002 (counting from actual publication date of the edition I used, not the original date the original edition was published).

I'm definitely not going to post all the images, just enough to make my point. However, in case I do need those additional images, I didn't want to hve to go make yet another trip.

And, of course, I won't have to worry about that once my copy of the original edition of the BSCS Blue book arrives. At least, not for referencing that book.

So, gimmie a sec to get things organized and sorted, and I'll start.

 

[A'isha]

First up:

Bological Science: Molecules to Man (aka the BSCS Blue Book).

(Sorry about the blurriness...I was holding the book with one hand and my cell phone camera in the other. Don't worry, as we go along, my pictures get better)

Revised 2nd edition from 1968, originally published 1963.

Here's the index. No entry for Haeckel at all.

Here's the diagram. This is why I said that the text of the 1963 book differs, since the Textbook History database (the one that randman posted) entry for the 1963 Blue Book chart says it doesn't mention that the embryos are not to scale in the diagram, while the caption above clearly states that.

Here's what else is on the same page.

Here's what's on the page before the one with the diagram on it (the first picture is actually from the page before that one, to show the complete text of the section).

Here's what's on the page after the one with the diagram on it (you can see the bit of the diagram in the top picture)

I apologize for the slightly disjointed nature...I wanted to make sure I got readable text. All photos have adjacent overlaps, so it should be clear that I've taken pictures of the entire pages from context.

 

[Bad vibe]

I think you could just take a pic of the full page at the resolution you used anyone can easily grab the image and magnify it with most pic software and read the text, might save cries of foul or accusations of such.

 

[ehcks]

So I saw the image with the needle killing half of a two-celled embryo. I had to google that.

I ended up here:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK9968/
Figure 3.14 specifically. Then I read the rest.

Science is amazing! I would have never imagined doing any of this.

 

[dasmiller]

<pictures and supporting text snipped>

Let me be the first to say that I am shocked - shocked, I tell you! - to see that neither Haeckel nor his diagrams are featured in that book.

 

[A'isha]

Next up: High School Biology (aka the BSCS Green Book)

Also originally published in 1963, with a revised 2nd edition coming out in 1968.

Here's the index. Hey, look! It's Haeckel!

So we turn to page 191, and...huh. It's talking about microorganisms and the phyla of protists. Nothing to do with vertebrates, much less their embryos. Why is Haeckel mentioned here, if he's most famous in science for his vertebrate embryo drawings?

Turns out he also came up with the idea of the protista kingdom under which to group microorganisms. In an amusing mirroring of how Haeckel re-entered textbooks once comparative embryology resurged in the 90's, he's apparently mentioned here because the textbook talks about how his idea of a phylum called protista had been revived in "recent years". Still, as with comparative embryology, science is a fickle mistress, and the kingdom of protista is once again disputed in science.

Remember, that was the one and only mention of Haeckel in the book, per the index. Here's the same diagram from the Blue Book (though turned on its side), waaaaaaay over on page 679.

Sorry about the blurriness again, but the caption is fortunately still legible. Note how it doesn't mention Haeckel, only Darwin.

Here's the text of the previous page (you can see the diagram and its caption off to the right).

And the page after. No Haeckel anywhere to be seen.

 

[A'isha]

I think you could just take a pic of the full page at the resolution you used anyone can easily grab the image and magnify it with most pic software and read the text, might save cries of foul or accusations of such.

I wasn't sure how well the resolution would be readable with a full-page picture. Especially since my hands kept shaking and blurring things (as you can see from the images). Though I tried very, VERY hard to ensure that pictures of the same page overlapped in text, so while randman might try that weasel argument, it should be pretty obvious from the images themselves that he won't even have straws to grasp at if he does. But I suppose we'll see.

When I get my copy of the 1963 original, I won't be as pressured for time and stuff as I was today, and can take better full-size pictures then.

Anyway, I'm tired now. I'll continue tomorrow with a 1966 book, a 1981 book, and a 2002 book.

Any questions so far, randman?

 

[I Am The Scum]

Any questions so far, randman?

Why do you hate Jesus?

 

[A'isha]

Why do you hate Jesus?

He still relies on Haeckel in all his papers.

 

[A'isha]

So I saw the image with the needle killing half of a two-celled embryo. I had to google that.

I ended up here:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK9968/
Figure 3.14 specifically.

Hmmm. It appears the Blue Book diagram is totally redrawn, but is otherwise identical to Roux's original depiction of his own experiment.

Anyway, that does highlight the particular use of the embryo diagram in the Blue Book: not only is it not Haeckel's drawing, it's not even used in the chapter on evolution!

Instead, it's used to illustrate general embryo development, in a chapter describing how any individual fertilized egg grows into the full individual organism.

On the other hand, the diagram does appear in the section on evolution in the Green Book, and the text mentions that the similarities between the embryos in vertebrates indicates a common ancestor. However, it doesn't mention Haeckel's role in the development of that idea, instead heavily implying that it was all Darwin's idea. It even credits Darwin for the creation of the science of comparative embryology! Haeckel's own role in the foundations of that field are completely ignored!

Haeckel himself is reduced to a single offhand mention that he came up with the idea of classifying protists as their own phylum, rather than with the plants or with the animals.

Pretty ignominious, for a guy that randman thinks came up with the data which underpins evolution.

 

[dasmiller]

ANTPogo, I have to give you credit for actually spending time to get the books, get the pictures, and post them here. It's always nice to see real data rather than assertions about what the data would show if we could see it.

Thanks!