Stupid Christian Article on Evolution

[quixotecoyote]

just stating a fact......every conscious decision you make is based on faith, on what you believe is true and you have no proof it is true....science itself doesn't claim to prove anything

Of course. When you use the word "faith" it means exactly what you want it to mean. No more, and no less.

Careful on that wall though. Looks slippery.

 

[quixotecoyote]

Not really....as a general pattern, evos predict an increase in genetic complexity, yes

So close. You almost had it.

When you can post "Genetic change can mean the addition or deletion of genes" and NOT retract it, you'll get that progress back.

 

[Simon39759]

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.

ANTPogo; I wanted to congratulate you in your pugnacity in fighting the windmill of Randman willfull ignorance.
Obviously, there never was any chance for you to penetrate such a thick armour, but still, you vaillantly soldiered on and did the research nonetheless.

For that, I salute you and, if I still was in Mississippi, would probably drive down to UAB to offer you a beer you so richly deserve...

Anyway, thanks for your efforts and, if I may suggest, maybe you could work further on this subject and try to get a publication in the Skeptic inquirer or someplace else? That way, it would not be in vain...

 

[randman]

So close. You almost had it.

When you can post "Genetic change can mean the addition or deletion of genes" and NOT retract it, you'll get that progress back.

Genetic change by itself means nothing in the context of what we are debating

 

[quixotecoyote]

Genetic change by itself means nothing in the context of what we are debating

You had an article that said that genetic changes increase. You tried to spin that as evidence for a "prediction" by the "evos" that "complexity increases" meaning "the number of genes increase."

Since changes doesn't just mean additional genes, it's quite contextually relevant to point out you're misusing terms again.

 

[randman]

You had an article that said that genetic changes increase. You tried to spin that as evidence for a "prediction" by the "evos" that "complexity increases" meaning "the number of genes increase."

Since changes doesn't just mean additional genes, it's quite contextually relevant to point out you're misusing terms again.

What article specifically?

Evos typically think in a simplistic fashion that leads to confusion. It's like someone saying, hey, people walk. We have evidence someone went to the moon. See, that proves people walk to the moon.

Then, when you try show them their idea of people walking to the moon doesn't work, they point to the fact people walk as definitive proof of they walked there.

On this point, it's also like saying, hey, they'd have to walk in the sky eventually, and the evos say, no, someone can sometimes turn around and walk the other way, and you keep saying, yea but the moon is in space and they'd have to walk in the air first and then space, etc,....and they say you just don't understand the trip. The definition of the trip is walking, and we can demonstrate people walking and sometimes they turn around and walk the other way....you are just an ignorant denialist, etc, etc,...

 

[quixotecoyote]

What article specifically?

Evos typically think in a simplistic fashion that leads to confusion. It's like someone saying, hey, people walk. We have evidence someone went to the moon. See, that proves people walk to the moon.

Then, when you try show them their idea of people walking to the moon doesn't work, they point to the fact people walk as definitive proof of they walked there.

On this point, it's also like saying, hey, they'd have to walk in the sky eventually, and the evos say, no, someone can sometimes turn around and walk the other way, and you keep saying, yea but the moon is in space and they'd have to walk in the air first and then space, etc,....and they say you just don't understand the trip. The definition of the trip is walking, and we can demonstrate people walking and sometimes they turn around and walk the other way....you are just an ignorant denialist, etc, etc,...

I already linked to that conversation once. Instead of addressing the problem with your position, you pretend to not know what I'm talking about and make vague, pointless, and insulting smears against people who have an evidence-based worldview.

I think I'm done with you for tonight.

eta:

Evos typically think in a simplistic fashion that leads to confusion. It's like someone saying, hey, people walk. We have evidence someone went to the moon. See, that proves people walk to the moon.

This was especially rich, since your argument was "Hey, this article by the evil evos say genetic changes accumulate. I really want to believe those evil evos predicted ever increasing complexity, so I'll pretend genetic changes accumulating means genes accumulating."

It's always fun to see a fundy project the behavior he is in the midst of enacting.

 

[randman]

Evos typically think in a simplistic fashion that leads to confusion. It's like someone saying, hey, people walk. We have evidence someone went to the moon. See, that proves people walk to the moon.

Then, when you try show them their idea of people walking to the moon doesn't work, they point to the fact people walk as definitive proof of they walked there.

On this point, it's also like saying, hey, they'd have to walk in the sky eventually, and the evos say, no, someone can sometimes turn around and walk the other way, and you keep saying, yea but the moon is in space and they'd have to walk in the air first and then space, etc,....and they say you just don't understand the trip. The definition of the trip is walking, and we can demonstrate people walking and sometimes they turn around and walk the other way....you are just an ignorant denialist, etc, etc,...

 

[Aitch]

Re: Haeckel

By coincidence I happen to have a copy of Grove and Newell's Animal Biology - 2nd edition from 1944 - a souvenir of my late uncle.

It mentions Haeckel - with the caveat that 'Although it is unwise to accept completely all the implications of Haeckel's hypothesis...", suggesting that even then he was not considered the last word.

I do not understand the subject enough to contribute more that scans of the relevant pages. Others may find them useful.

 

[quixotecoyote]

By coincidence I happen to have a copy of Grove and Newell's Animal Biology - 2nd edition from 1944 - a souvenir of my late uncle.

It mentions Haeckel - with the caveat that 'Although it is unwise to accept completely all the implications of Haeckel's hypothesis...", suggesting that even then he was not considered the last word.

I do not understand the subject enough to contribute more that scans of the relevant pages. Others may find them useful.

That source seems to say that the "Recapitulationists" were a bit dodgy, but they did provide evidence for common origins through embryo analysis.

 

[Halfcentaur]

The most damning aspect to Randman's assertion that his position is one based on evidence and reason alone is that there are only religious creationists.

This exposes it for denialism. If it were truly evident and logical, then there would be a significantly notable number of reasonable people without a Christian or fundamentalist Muslim agenda being compelled to see it and convert to what is only evident.

The only way to explain that is in creating a massive persecution complex and a vast global system of intellectual persecution and dogma that only fails to delude the small percentage of insightful religious people who happen to be open to the truth based on their religion. Based on something founded on dogma and faith alone.

We would have to conclude that just being reasonable and open minded is not enough to see what according to Randman is logical and reasonable.

We would have to conclude that barely anyone is able to understand evolution to the level of satisfaction Randman claims his opponents lack, in the entire world.

This of course makes sense to a religious mind that cannot fathom there are people who are not religious that are also not dogmatically opposed to religion. An atheist or agnostic cannot simply be unconvinced, in this denialist's mind the non religious have to actively oppose religion.

Is that really a reasonable idea? That the international educated world cannot see what is reasonable and logical, the whole entire modern world? The whole world can be made to agree on something merely because of a system of intellectual dogma?

If only this were true, the power of an idea like evolution could unite the world and end the petty conflicts we are subjected to. More than any religion or political philosophy.

This house of cards Randman has constructed to believe such a thing is possible is stunning really.

 

[randman]

This exposes it for denialism. If it were truly evident and logical, then there would be reasonable people without a Christian or fundamentalist Muslim agenda being compelled to see it and convert to what is only evident.

There are. You are the denialist here.

 

[quixotecoyote]

There are.

True, but do you really want to throw in with the Raelians?

 

[Halfcentaur]

There are. You are the denialist here.

Oh, every once in a while you hear about them. But to believe what you're saying, you'd have to believe the vast majority of people are not reasonable and logical and are subject to intellectual persecution. There should be more than the small percentage of fundamentalist Christians, that you cannot see this is quite revealing as a demonstration for your denialism.

Or do you claim to be in the majority here?

 

[randman]

Robert Bloome, Goldschmidt, Otto Schindenwolf, Pierre Grasse, and more recently, Davison, Denton, etc,.....are you guys honestly unaware of the history of evo theory and how so many scientists reject NeoDarwinism?

 

[Bad vibe]

Yawn. You guys seem incapable of addressing data.

Let me put it this way: yea I think you should drop Darwinism but if you are just going to be the same way, not grasping and understanding data and theory, with something else, then no, that's not what I am talking about.

It's about understanding, not belief.

There are areas of life where faith and belief are critical. That's not what we're talking about here.

I would beg to differ, if an individual with little formal education like myself can read an article about coral genes and understand the coral had a brick it used to build a hut and vertibrates later used that same brick to build a town and comprehend the difference after a couple of hours reading and you've been at this 20 years and don't seem to understand such a simple concept then its not a question of discussing data. Your arguements are more 9/11 conspiracy than science. If I had such a poor grasp of a concept after such a period I'd take the hint and find another hobby.

 

[Halfcentaur]

Of course I am aware there are a few creationists who claim to have been converted, but you'd be hearing this all the time were your position truly one based on just being reasonable and correct. I predict you will act as if I am unaware of anyone claiming this conversion has happened to them, and even try to show someone beside yourself. But this ignores the fact you're still part of a small fringe group most of the world mocks for being so deluded.

 

[randman]

I would beg to differ, if an individual with little formal education like myself can read an article about coral genes and understand the coral had a brick it used to build a hut and vertibrates later used that same brick to build a town and comprehend the difference after a couple of hours reading and you've been at this 20 years and don't seem to understand such a simple concept then its not a question of discussing data. Your arguements are more 9/11 conspiracy than science. If I had such a poor grasp of a concept after such a period I'd take the hint and find another hobby.

Doesn't sound like you understood the article, nor the fact it's not the only research making the same discovery.

 

[Halfcentaur]

Robert Bloome, Goldschmidt, Otto Schindenwolf, Pierre Grasse, and more recently, Davison, Denton, etc,.....are you guys honestly unaware of the history of evo theory and how so many scientists reject NeoDarwinism?

My post wasn't about rejecting "NeoDarwinism", it was about accepting Creationsim and IntelligentDesign. And you're the one who yawns?

 

[randman]

Of course I am aware there are a few creationists who claim to have been converted, but you'd be hearing this all the time were your position truly one based on just being reasonable and correct. I predict you will act as if I am unaware of anyone claiming this conversion has happened to them, and even try to show someone beside yourself. But this ignores the fact you're still part of a small fringe group most of the world mocks for being so deluded.

Well, I don't see why creationists or IDer should be converted to evolutionism but it certainly happens a lot. Probably some evos here used to be creationists. In fact, it's happened a whole lot.

But let's apply the same standard to evos. You are saying if evolution is objective, there should be evos becoming creationists?