"Natural selection is the only mechanism of adaptive evolution"

Show me one thing I have been factually ignorant of in regard to evolution, just one piece of data? and yes, then show another if you can find one?

I'm pretty sure most readers will be familiar with your posts so far

I don't think you can but perhaps there is something I have misunderstood about the data somewhere on this forum in regard to evolution.

Think its safe to say all of it, I've yet to see anyone agree with your poor comprehension of anything yet discussed.

All you are doing is engaging in character assassination of another human being because he disagrees with your faith.

People have to assume you have any integrity or character to assassinate, I've yet to see any demonstration of either or honesty as your entire position is based on faith ......I can hear your scream of denial now.....not true? then maybe you can show some of this awesome science in support of your vaunted ID that so many have repeatedly asked you for?
 
Last edited:
No, I showed where he still makes incorrect statements which in my opinion is due to Haeckel's legacy.

Also, you just can't stop making stuff up, can you? Historically, Haeckel is a type of backbone, an icon, used to promote evolution, but I have stated a number of times Haeckel being wrong is not the death knell for evo theory, and have stated a number of times I brought up the episode as an example of how evos treat data in an unscientific way.I don't really care if you believe in evolution or not. I am just showing how it's not real science in the way evos have treated data. The reason you and actually so many working evolutionist scientists treat it as a political campaign is because they want people to believe it so badly instead of merely wanting them to understand it and the data.

If you wanted people to think critically of it, you'd welcome criticism and be glad when people bash it, realizing they are then thinking of it and learning more about it. You'd want "the controversy" taught in schools. You'd even insist on it.

Oh, and you have still not shown of one single thing showing I've misunderstood evolution.

Provide a quote and show it.

You cannot.

I'm not culling the thread. Sorry

But you are funny.

First of all if you think Haeckel's drawings are used as a backbone you are bonkers. HE is not the drawings.

I mean seriously think about what you are saying. It's a scam because he drew it wrong???? As if he deliberatly lied.

Science works the way it did. Peer review found the errors and they are identified as errors.

You say you want the controversy taught in school yet you complain when the pictures are in the text books and the controversy istaught in school.

You are one confused little puppy. :p


thing is, it ISN'T a controversy. It's a mistake and an error and it is recognized as such.
 
I mean seriously think about what you are saying. It's a scam because he drew it wrong???? As if he deliberatly lied

Yea, he deliberately lied. That's what the 1997 study, the mountains of other reports and studies including the one by creationists in 1969 and going all the way back to the 1800s showed.

He deliberately faked the data. He didn't just draw it wrong by mistake. He was an incredible illustrator. He deliberately faked it.

It's not the first time he faked data either. He did it in other areas, flat out making stuff up. There was a whole book in 1910 on his forgeries, in fact.
 
Citation please: What Ivy League biology professor was surprised to learn in 1997 that Haeckel's drawings were faked?
It was not Richardson
He may have expressed surprise in the paper itself. So since you obviously have it to assert that he was surprised - can you post it so that we can read it?
Already cited it on the prior page. Go back and read it.
 
Yea, he deliberately lied. That's what the 1997 study, the mountains of other reports and studies including the one by creationists in 1969 and going all the way back to the 1800s showed.

He deliberately faked the data. He didn't just draw it wrong by mistake. He was an incredible illustrator. He deliberately faked it.

It's not the first time he faked data either. He did it in other areas, flat out making stuff up. There was a whole book in 1910 on his forgeries, in fact.


Controversy Later in 1874, Haeckel's simplified embryology textbook Anthropogenie made the subject into a battleground over Darwinism aligned with Bismarck's Kulturkampf ("culture struggle") against the Catholic Church. Haeckel took particular care over the illustrations, changing to the leading zoological publisher Wilhelm Engelmann of Leipzig and obtaining from them use of illustrations from their other textbooks as well as preparing his own drawings including a dramatic double page illustration showing "early", "somewhat later" and "still later" stages of 8 different vertebrates. Though Haeckel's views had attracted continuing controversy, there had been little dispute about the embryos and he had many expert supporters, but Wilhelm His now revived the earlier criticisms and introduced new attacks on the 1874 illustrations.[22] Others joined in, both expert anatomists and Catholic priests and supporters politically opposed to Haeckel's views.[23]
While it has been widely claimed that Haeckel was charged with fraud by five professors and convicted by a university court at Jena, there does not appear to be an independently verifiable source for this claim.[24] Recent analyses (Richardson 1998, Richardson and Keuck 2002) have found that some of the criticisms of Haeckel's embryo drawings were legitimate, but others were unfounded.[25] [26] There were multiple versions of the embryo drawings, and Haeckel rejected the claims of fraud. It was later said that "there is evidence of sleight of hand" on both sides of the feud between Haeckel and Wilhelm His.[27] The controversy involves several different issues (see more details at: recapitulation theory).
Some creationists have claimed that Darwin relied on Haeckel's embryo drawings as proof of evolution[28] to support their anti-evolution arguments while both On the Origin of Species (1859), and The Descent of Man (1871) were published before Haeckel's double-page illustration of eight vertebrate embryos in 1874.[29]



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ernst_Haeckel
 
Anyone else want to see the alternative evidence Randman would like to see in science classes? I assume you mean real science in favour of other mechanisms like ID or creationism? All in favour say "I" maybe a consensus will get results where individual appeals have thus far proved fruitless.
 
These tired old arguments, again. Does he want the controversy over every alternative theory taught? Does he want astrology and numerology and the many other alternative ideas taught? I would guess he doesn't, this is because he arrogantly asserts his alternative theory is legitimate and these other alternatives are not.

Again and again he asserts claims, ignoring that on this forum anecdotes are frowned upon and all claims are supposed to be backed up if you're using these assertions as a response to a debate. But he ignores this and dodges the issue, claiming it would derail the thread for him to back up his assertions, or that he's done it already, where the assertions in other threads are still being debated without his answers.

If he is going to continue to back up his arguments with allusions to this or that theory he agrees with, he needs to once and for all create a thread that makes the foundation of his positions known.

The Theory of Randman:how a tree doesn't fall in the woods unless a God exists to see it IE spooky action at a distance IE fuel from water/911 truth IE loving my children is a magical force science cannot explain IE faith is supported by science and the Christian Judeo War God is revealed by evidence.

He needs to stop arbitrarily attacking this or that theory or topic and using allusions to things he won't expand upon as examples to assert this position, when the foundations he alludes to are so broad and suspect.
 
truethat, I am not about to provide you with personal information of any sort that might enable you to track down my identity, but if you would like to tell us who you are, what universities you went to and your degrees and employer, that's fine.

Fine. Just elucidate your erudition.:)
 
Yea, he deliberately lied. That's what the 1997 study, the mountains of other reports and studies including the one by creationists in 1969 and going all the way back to the 1800s showed.
That is right: He deliberately lied in his 1874 drawings by not adding the details that would make the embryos more distinct and scaling the drawings inappropriately.
See Richardson, M. K. , Hanken, J. , Gooneratne, M. L. , Pieau, C. , Raynaud, A. , Selwood, L. , and Wright, G. M. (1997). There is no highly conserved embryonic stage in the vertebrates: implications for current theories of evolution and development. Anat Embryol. (Berl) 196, 91-106
(PDF)
His drawings are also highly inaccurate, exaggerating the similarities among embryos, while failing to show the differences (Sedgwick 1894; Richardson 1995; Raff 1996).

N.B.
  • They look at his 1874 drawings.
  • They are considering his drawings in the context of the conserved embryonic stage in the vertebrates (not recapitulation theory).
    The conserved embryonic stage is the hypothesis that there is a point in development when there is maximum resemblance among members of a phylum or comparable higher taxon, e.g. vertebrates.
As pointed in another thread by the 1891 edition of his book the drawings have been redone to be more accurate.
 
Anyone else want to see the alternative evidence Randman would like to see in science classes? I assume you mean real science in favour of other mechanisms like ID or creationism? All in favour say "I" maybe a consensus will get results where individual appeals have thus far proved fruitless.

I.
 
I want to know his grand unified theory of everything, and how the conspiracy began to thwart these evident truths.
 
From my experience, most are unaware of critical arguments that stem from outside the evo camp, which is one reason an Ivy League biology professor was surprised to learn in 1997 that Haeckel's drawings were faked. (Most evos were.)

Citation please: What Ivy League biology professor was surprised to learn in 1997 that Haeckel's drawings were faked?
It was not Richardson
He may have expressed surprise in the paper itself. So since you obviously have it to assert that he was surprised - can you post it so that we can read it?
Already cited it on the prior page. Go back and read it.
Okay. On "the prior page" (with the default 40 posts per page), randman mentioned four professors. Two of those (Gould and Miller) were Ivy League professors, but randman cites nothing of theirs from 1997.

Richardson is the only professor that randman mentioned on the previous page in connection with 1997. As Reality Check said, Richardson was not an Ivy League professor.

This is just one more example of randman denying his mistakes even after they have been pointed out to him.
 
Okay. On "the prior page" (with the default 40 posts per page), randman mentioned four professors. Two of those (Gould and Miller) were Ivy League professors, but randman cites nothing of theirs from 1997.

Richardson is the only professor that randman mentioned on the previous page in connection with 1997. As Reality Check said, Richardson was not an Ivy League professor.

This is just one more example of randman denying his mistakes even after they have been pointed out to him.

He didn't give the name, but he was talking about Ken Miller, of Brown University, who corrected the drawings in the textbook he authored to use better drawings in the wake of Richardson's paper. "Surprise" is probably overstating Miller's reaction just a tad (since he acknowledges that Richardson was not the first to point out problems with Haeckel's drawings).

Ironically, Miller is well known as a devout Roman Catholic as well as a biologist, who despite his ardent anti-creationism (he testified in the famous Dover trial), has actually written extensively about how his work on evolution is not in any way incompatible with his belief in God.

Randman could learn an awful lot from Miller.
 
Last edited:
Ironically, Miller is well known as a devout Roman Catholic as well as a biologist, who despite his ardent anti-creationism (he testified in the famous Dover trial), has actually written extensively about how his work on evolution is not in any way incompatible with his belief in God.

Randman could learn an awful lot from Miller.

there is nothing incompatible about a belief in evolution and a belief in a creator god.
i can't see why this a such a problem to most christians.
however, when they cast off rational thought, and demand that the bible is absolute literal truth, great confusion arises.
not a big surprise.:rolleyes:
 
He didn't give the name, but he was talking about Ken Miller, of Brown University, who corrected the drawings in the textbook he authored to use better drawings in the wake of Richardson's paper. "Surprise" is probably overstating Miller's reaction just a tad (since he acknowledges that Richardson was not the first to point out problems with Haeckel's drawings).
I think you're right, but randman has not cited anything Miller said or wrote in 1997. That may seem like a detail, but observe these two claims:

From my experience, most are unaware of critical arguments that stem from outside the evo camp, which is one reason an Ivy League biology professor was surprised to learn in 1997 that Haeckel's drawings were faked. (Most evos were.)

No evidence has been presented in this thread that contradicts anything I have written.
If randman was talking about Miller, then he got the date wrong.

If randman was talking about Richardson, then he got the "Ivy League biology professor" wrong.

If randman was talking about Gould, then he got everything except the "Ivy League biology professor" part wrong.

If randman was talking about LeVine, then he got everything wrong.

The moral of this story is that randman has once again denied making a mistake, even though randman's mistake is easily verified.
 
Last edited:
What professor was surprised to learn in 1997 that Haeckel's drawings were faked

Already cited it on the prior page. Go back and read it.
No citation to a unnamed "Ivy League biology professor" on that page.

So again: What professor was surprised to learn in 1997 that Haeckel's drawings were faked?

or is W.D.Clinger right (you just cannot cite people correctly or admit a mistake)
If randman was talking about Miller, then he got the date wrong.

If randman was talking about Richardson, then he got the "Ivy League biology professor" wrong.

If randman was talking about Gould, then he got everything except the "Ivy League biology professor" part wrong.

If randman was talking about LeVine, then he got everything wrong.

The moral of this story is that randman has once again denied making a mistake, even though randman's mistake is easily verified.
 

Back
Top Bottom