"Natural selection is the only mechanism of adaptive evolution"

As I told you in the other thread, you don't understand recapitulation and how it's used today vs. how it was used by Haeckel.

Gould (who was extremely anti-Haeckel) wrote an entire book about this: Ontogeny and Phylogeny.

Read it, and you'll understand why Miller wrote that in his textbook, and why it has nothing to do with relying on Haeckel.
 
That's... not the recapitulation theory.

The recapitulation theory is that embryo pass through developmental stages of adults of ancestral species.

The current theory is that because of evolution, the more recently evolved structures tend to develop after the older ones. That's because evolution is an unguided process and it is less likely to screw up something by adding on top rather than constructing from the ground up...
So the more primitive traits appear first and sometime regress in the development.

That might seem like a nit pick, but there is an important difference: The original theory was wrong, the new one actually is right.


*Yeah; like ANT says*
 
Last edited:
Simon39759 said:
That might seem like a nit pick, but there is an important difference: The original theory was wrong, the new one actually is right.


*Yeah; like ANT says*
Click to expand...

So one might say that science modifies theories as new data becomes available. Hmmm.
 
truethat said:
:eek:


randman is a trooper but these kinds of discussions educate people who are lurking and not participating in the discussion. So it is important to address randman's misconceptions.

By doing this we educate.
Click to expand...

Very true.
 
Something that strikes me as odd about a young Earth creationist model of the universe would be that the stars are so far away from the Earth, yet their light is able to travel these distances and be visible in a period of time they claim is not possible to have existed.

Randman claims he isn't exactly a young earther, but he feels the Earth is still vastly younger than popular science claims. He also recently got in an argument over the speed of light.

I wonder if he feels the stars are not as far as astronomy posits, and if this is yet another field of science he is forced to reconcile with his religion.
 
Simon39759 said:
That's... not the recapitulation theory.

The recapitulation theory is that embryo pass through developmental stages of adults of ancestral species.

The current theory is that because of evolution, the more recently evolved structures tend to develop after the older ones. That's because evolution is an unguided process and it is less likely to screw up something by adding on top rather than constructing from the ground up...
So the more primitive traits appear first and sometime regress in the development.

That might seem like a nit pick, but there is an important difference: The original theory was wrong, the new one actually is right.


*Yeah; like ANT says*
Click to expand...
Then why do evos still use the term "recapitulation"?

Richardson even tries to apply the Biogenetic law in 2002 after blasting haeckel as a fraud in 1997.

The Biogenetic Law is supported by several recent studies - if applied to single characters only.
Click to expand...

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1017/S1464793102005948/abstrac

Evos just can't give up the myth. The paper goes on to say what he formerly described as "one of the biggest fakes in all biology" as good for "teaching aides" and amazingly even "evidence" for evolution.

Haeckel's much-criticized embryo drawings are important as phylogenetic hypotheses, teaching aids, and evidence for evolution.
Click to expand...

So in just 5 years, evos were back to claiming the faked drawings were actual evidence. Even a guy that at times somewhat angrily denounced them as fakes is brought back into the fold.....now they are "evidence for evolution" and "important as" "teaching aides."

Unbelievable!
 
Last edited:
randman said:
Your comment:



But the Brown Biology professor is a scientist. Scientists included the faked data too.

How do you explain that?



Then why did they use them? And why wouldn't professors in college point out the drawings were faked all these decades they were being used?
Click to expand...

THEY DO.Which is why it is abundantly obvious you've never seen the inside of a science classroom outside of some "CORE" requirement for a degree, IF THAT.

LOL

This is why you seem so nonsensical. Are you seriously suggesting that attention is given to the drawings OUTSIDE the idea of describing them to the students.

I mean think about what you are saying. :confused:

also it would be helpful if you could find sources that are not almost two DECADES old. It is now 2011.


I really wonder what the creationists are going to do once all these "claims" of bias are fixed. What will you use? You are now using documents from the 70s and 90s. Tisk tisk tisk.

Are you aware of the difference that computer technology has made in the last twenty years? Many of these "books" are using old templates. To change them was a great expense. But now this is minimized incredibly. Thanks to the hard work of the Creationists and IDers the "typos" will be corrected and then what?

Also for the fourth time. What kind of education do you have?

In addition the other question I've asked which you have ignored


Who BUSTED the guy? Who turned over the drawings as frauduelent? Who is the one who catches the fakes and the mistakes?


Since you won't answer I will for you. OTHER SCIENTISTS

Yes those dastardly evo scientists are ratting out their big conspiracy as we speak.

Not the IDers. The only reason the IDers even know about it is because the Evo Scientists figured it out.

Wow imagine that. :D
 
Last edited:
truethat said:
THEY DO.Which is why it is abundantly obvious you've never seen the inside of a science classroom outside of some "CORE" requirement for a degree, IF THAT.

LOL

This is why you seem so nonsensical. Are you seriously suggesting that attention is given to the drawings OUTSIDE the idea of describing them to the students.

I mean think about what you are saying. :confused:
Click to expand...
They didn't. Not until Richardson did his study in 1997 did they even show an awareness the drawings were faked.

Of course, even Richardson has not continued to resist the allure of the myth of the Biogenetic Law.

Richardson even tries to apply the Biogenetic law in 2002 after blasting haeckel as a fraud in 1997.

The Biogenetic Law is supported by several recent studies - if applied to single characters only.
Click to expand...

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1017/S1464793102005948/abstrac

Evos just can't give up the myth. The paper goes on to say what he formerly described as "one of the biggest fakes in all biology" as "important" for "teaching aides" and amazingly even "evidence" for evolution".

Haeckel's much-criticized embryo drawings are important as phylogenetic hypotheses, teaching aids, and evidence for evolution.
Click to expand...

So in just 5 years, evos were back to claiming the faked drawings were actual evidence. Even a guy that at times somewhat angrily denounced them as fakes is brought back into the fold.....now they are "evidence for evolution" and "important as" "teaching aides."

Please note he makes these comments in a peer-reviewed paper, not just a textbook.

Unbelievable!
 
Last edited:
randman said:
They didn't. Not until Richardson did his study in 1997 did they even show an awareness the drawings were faked.
Click to expand...
Bull. My professors discussed flaws in the ideas when THEY were grad students. That was a bit before 1997. Yet another lie....
 
One wonders how evos, not just internet posters but evolutionists writing in a respected peer-reviewed journal (and was accepted!) could say faked data was "evidence" and not only that but "important" evidence or it's important to use as evidence, "teaching aides"?

But that's the state of evo science.
 
randman said:
One wonders how evos, not just internet posters but evolutionists writing in a respected peer-reviewed journal (and was accepted!) could say faked data was "evidence" and not only that but "important" evidence or it's important to use as evidence, "teaching aides"?

But that's the state of evo science.
Click to expand...

Apparently you've never taken a History class in which Hitler's Mien Kampf was discussed.

Apparently you've never taken a Exegesis course where the Pentateuch was discussed by Jews and Buddhists.

Apparently you've never taken a science course which discussed the theory of a geocentric solar system and the ways in which it hindered scientific discovery.


Etc.

It's called "critical thinking" and it means looking at all the ideas that led to the current ideas. It also means considering new ideas and shifts in the paradigm.


Also known as Meta cognition


As opposed to believing what you are told because that's what someone else said was true. But that's the bible for ya. ;)
 
truethat said:
I do agree that science needs to get it's head out of the laboratories and into the public discussion. But any scientist worth his salt knows that the diagrams are wrong, fakes etc.
Click to expand...

The most tragic thing about real science is that it just counter-intuitive and tedious for most people.
 
ANTPogo said:
As I told you in the other thread, you don't understand recapitulation and how it's used today vs. how it was used by Haeckel.

Gould (who was extremely anti-Haeckel) wrote an entire book about this: Ontogeny and Phylogeny.

Read it, and you'll understand why Miller wrote that in his textbook, and why it has nothing to do with relying on Haeckel.
Click to expand...

So you admit evos still use the idea of recapitulation and the biogenetic law?

Ok.

And you defend that?
 
Last edited:
truethat said:
Apparently you've never taken a History class in which Hitler's Mien Kampf was discussed.

Apparently you've never taken a Exegesis course where the Pentateuch was discussed by Jews and Buddhists.

Apparently you've never taken a science course which discussed the theory of a geocentric solar system and the ways in which it hindered scientific discovery.


Etc.

It's called "critical thinking" and it means looking at all the ideas that led to the current ideas. It also means considering new ideas and shifts in the paradigm.


Also known as Meta cognition


As opposed to believing what you are told because that's what someone else said was true. But that's the bible for ya. ;)
Click to expand...
So Richardson says that Haeckel's faked data are "important" as "evidence for evolution", and you consider that a mere historical reflection?

There is a difference between a historian talking about Mein Kempf and a Neo-Nazi saying it has merit.
 
randman said:
They didn't. Not until Richardson did his study in 1997 did they even show an awareness the drawings were faked.

Of course, even Richardson has not continued to resist the allure of the myth of the Biogenetic Law.

Richardson even tries to apply the Biogenetic law in 2002 after blasting haeckel as a fraud in 1997.



http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1017/S1464793102005948/abstrac

Evos just can't give up the myth. The paper goes on to say what he formerly described as "one of the biggest fakes in all biology" as "important" for "teaching aides" and amazingly even "evidence" for evolution".



So in just 5 years, evos were back to claiming the faked drawings were actual evidence. Even a guy that at times somewhat angrily denounced them as fakes is brought back into the fold.....now they are "evidence for evolution" and "important as" "teaching aides."

Please note he makes these comments in a peer-reviewed paper, not just a textbook.

Unbelievable!
Click to expand...

That statement is absolutely not true as has been proven several times in this thread.

If you want to hang on your drawings because you have absolutely no other leg to stand on, I suggest that you keep it in the appropriate thread.

However it should stand to show others that your argument seems to always be reduced to some drawings in a book that were never really used as part of the scientific discovery anyway, just as neato illustrations.


It has happened many times in books. As I mentioned before, the depictions of the T rex as an upright animal with it's tail dragging on the ground. And even Gould makes mention of a flip of snails prints in a book. The title is Left Snails Right Brains


One of my unsent letters was on a subject which Gould said was in his top-three for reader feedback. In his essay Left Snails and Right Minds (published in his book Dinosaur in a Haystack), Gould wondered why old engravings of snails often show their shells spiralling the wrong way (the vast majority of snail shells have right-handed spirals; the old engravings often showed them left-handed).
Click to expand...
http://penelope.uchicago.edu/~grout/encyclopaedia_romana/aconite/symmetry.html

You have reduced your argument to some messed up prints in a book. It happens a lot because the people printing the books are not scientists.

Nowadays we find out these things much faster and correct them much faster.

Anyway I think it is very telling to our lurking readers that if a ID fan has nothing to defend his position but some old pictures from the 1800's that no one uses in the theory anyway, that is QUITE telling.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom