"Natural selection is the only mechanism of adaptive evolution"

randman said:
ANT has never shown I or creationists lied on Haeckel. She erroneously, even after being repeatedly told, that I never claimed disproving Haeckel was the death knell for evolution. But it does illustrate the way evos handle data.
Click to expand...
Just to emphasis what ANTPogo posted:
Haeckel's drawings were never part of Darwin's theory for the really basic reason that they were published after Darwin published.

His theory was never part of evolutionary theory.

His theory was dismissed in several papers starting with
Adam Sedgwick, 1894. "On the Law of Development commonly known as von Baer’s Law; and on the Significance of Ancestral Rudiments in Embryonic Development," Quart. J. Microscopy , 36, p. 35

As you can see, randman - evos handle data the same way that all scientists handle data. They evaluate it and when it is wrong, say that it is wrong.
I think that you can agree that the discarding of Haeckel's theory is a prime example of the scientific method being applied to evolutionary theory.
 
iknownothing said:
You got an example of a false smear? Or do you just mean, people who point out the dishonesty of what you've been saying?



Is it possible to ignore yourself?
Click to expand...
Name one single dishonest thing I have posted.

And think carefully about it before you respond. You are making a specific charge here. Prove it or retract the statement.
 
randman said:
Name some then. You excluded sharks and fish. So what other predators are you talking about?
Click to expand...

What animals "ruled the Earth" before the K-T Event?

What other apex predators were there besides sharks and fish?
Click to expand...

If you really don't know what I'm talking about, then your education and knowledge are severely deficient. Even a brief visit to your local natural history museum would give you the answer.
 
randman said:
I heard it from a Botany Professor at NC State that went around to college campuses with a slide-show presentation. Actually, I heard it before that but he went into more detail.
Click to expand...

Does this anonymous botany prof have more than a slide show presentation? Perhaps a power point, or maybe, you know, something published somewhere?
 
Last edited:
Reality Check said:
Just to emphasis what ANTPogo posted:
Haeckel's drawings were never part of Darwin's theory for the really basic reason that they were published after Darwin published.

His theory was never part of evolutionary theory.

His theory was dismissed in several papers starting with
Adam Sedgwick, 1894. "On the Law of Development commonly known as von Baer’s Law; and on the Significance of Ancestral Rudiments in Embryonic Development," Quart. J. Microscopy , 36, p. 35

As you can see, randman - evos handle data the same way that all scientists handle data. They evaluate it and when it is wrong, say that it is wrong.
I think that you can agree that the discarding of Haeckel's theory is a prime example of the scientific method being applied to evolutionary theory.
Click to expand...

Wrong. Darwin even included the more extreme adult form recapitulation as evidence in a later edition of The Origin of the Species. It was very much part of evo theory. Evos have had a hard time letting it go.

Took 130 years of sustained criticism to get evos to even admit the drawings were faked.

Also, that paper just shows even back then, scientists were disproving the claims of evos. It also addresses Von Baer's ideas principally, not Haeckel's, and though Von Baer was not an evolutionists, evos have always tried to and still try to use his claims as evidence for evolution, even today, despite papers going back to the 1800s indicating the idea of a phylotypic stage were incorrect.
 
Last edited:
randman said:
Name one single dishonest thing I have posted.

And think carefully about it before you respond. You are making a specific charge here. Prove it or retract the statement.
Click to expand...

Well, RealityCheck gave you one just above (your claim that Darwin relied on Haeckel's drawings). I'd suggest your misquoting of Gould and saying it sounded like the words of an IDer myself.

EDIT: Or, you know, the entirety of the post you just made right above mine.
 
randman said:
Name one single dishonest thing I have posted.

And think carefully about it before you respond. You are making a specific charge here. Prove it or retract the statement.
Click to expand...

And I am making it carefully. I said the "dishonesty of what you've been saying," because I can't know whether you actually believe what you say or not. But you are continuously repeating dishonest claims made by creationists.
 
randman said:
Name some then. You excluded sharks and fish. So what other predators are you talking about?

What other apex predators were there besides sharks and fish?
Click to expand...
This is something that you should know. It is taught to high school students. The K-T event killed off the large aquatic repiles Some of these were the largest marine predators that we have ever discovered.
That of course left niches for other species to fill.

This is really basic stuff, randman. A minute of Googling gives Plesiosaurs and Pliosaurs - The "Sea Serpents"
 
Resume said:
Does this anonymous botany prof have more than a slide show presentation? Perhaps a power point, or maybe, you know, something published somewhere?
Click to expand...
He has of course published. Gerald Van Dyke or something close to that is his name. It was very informative and included admissions from evos to the same factual claims he was talking of. You have to remember scientists like him have pointed out things like haeckel's data were faked for over 130 YEARS before evos would even budge a little.

They are still trying to use the terms, the biogenetic law and recapitulation. The myth of it has stuck in their mindset.
 
Resume said:
Honestly?
Click to expand...
Yea, asking for specifics so we can actually look at the data, compare times of extinction, you know, do what real science says we should do.

Whales didn't occupy niches of fish and sharks.

So let's look at the claims they occupied other niches.
 
randman said:
Name one single dishonest thing I have posted.

And think carefully about it before you respond. You are making a specific charge here. Prove it or retract the statement.
Click to expand...

And by the way, that's ludicrous coming from you, since so much of your argument rests on accusing "evos" of dishonesty.
 
Aww, I was enjoying watching him flail around in his sheer ignorance. I was even gonna give him a hint ("Some cryptozoologists say one is still in Loch Ness!").
 
iknownothing said:
And I am making it carefully. I said the "dishonesty of what you've been saying," because I can't know whether you actually believe what you say or not. But you are continuously repeating dishonest claims made by creationists.
Click to expand...

Name on dishonest, non-factual claim then. Most of the facts I have presented are claims by evos actually. I just ask to look at them further and see if the conclusions are correct.

For example, I started this thread quoting talkorigins, not creationists, and how natural selection reduces genetic variation.

Is TO a lying creationist site in your worldview?
 
Reality Check said:
This is something that you should know. It is taught to high school students. The K-T event killed off the large aquatic repiles Some of these were the largest marine predators that we have ever discovered.
That of course left niches for other species to fill.

This is really basic stuff, randman. A minute of Googling gives Plesiosaurs and Pliosaurs - The "Sea Serpents"
Click to expand...
I am fully aware of it. I am also aware you guys haven't really thought it out that well. Specifically, how would existing sharks and fish be less fit to occupy those niches than mammals?

A land mammal is more able to occupy an aquatic niche than existing aquatic creatures?

That's your argument.

And you call that science.
 
Last edited:
randman said:
You have to remember scientists like him have pointed out things like haeckel's data were faked for over 130 YEARS before evos would even budge a little.
Click to expand...

Wrong!

They are still trying to use the terms, the biogenetic law and recapitulation. The myth of it has stuck in their mindset.
Click to expand...

They aren't the same terms, and don't mean anywhere near the same things. Gould even wrote an entire book about this, randman.

randman said:
Yea, asking for specifics so we can actually look at the data, compare times of extinction, you know, do what real science says we should do.
Click to expand...

Are you saying you don't know when the K-T Event happened?

Whales didn't occupy niches of fish and sharks.
Click to expand...

Hey, finally you got something right.
 
ANTPogo said:
Well, RealityCheck gave you one just above (your claim that Darwin relied on Haeckel's drawings). I'd suggest your misquoting of Gould and saying it sounded like the words of an IDer myself.

EDIT: Or, you know, the entirety of the post you just made right above mine.
Click to expand...
I suggest you didn't read later editions of The Origin of the Species.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom