Ernst Haeckel's embryological diagrams and biology textbooks

[randman]

You seem to concede that there is folded tissue in the embryo that are lost "in the course of development". I take that as an admission that embryology still has something to say about evolution. Even if you are not willing to take the next step in accepting that those same folds become gills in other animals. Because, that sure doesn't help your case for specific design.

Lost meaning they develop into organs just as the rest of the embryo develops. You guys are typically grasping at straws, always just taking a superficial of the data, sometimes faking the data and then say how it's real science instead of a corruption of science.

 

[randman]

So neither you, nor PZ, can provide any actual quotes from Wells where he misrepresented anything or was wrong?

Thought so.

Yet you continue to believe....

Still waiting.....

 

[randman]

The second picture makes me angry... just as soon as I saw it it elicited rage from me somehow...

Kind of like how some Muslims are enraged if someone insults the Prophet. Not an uncommon reaction for some when their religion is offended.

 

[RandFan]

Randfan hasn't made an argument. He just falsely accused Wells of error when that clearly is not true.

No, I falsified your lie that evolutionists don't admit mistakes were made or data was ever faked.

 

[RandFan]

Still waiting.....

Did you read the article?

 

[randman]

Tell me something evos: why would the earlier stages of embryonic development differ so sharply if a later stage was some sort of watered down recapitulation?

Wouldn't the earlier stages all be more similar if Darwinism was true?

Since that's not the case, isn't everything we know from embryology evidence against darwinism aka "evolution"?

Or is this where you guys say something is evidence for evolution but if disproven, it's not evidence against evolution?.....

 

[randman]

Let me break it down further. Many evos say the hourglass model aka the phylotypic stage is evidence for common ancestry. The evidence indicates the hourglass model is incorrect but some try to argue for it.

However, evos miss the point that the hourglass model is actually evidence against common descent and ancestry. The reason is they admit embryos start out very different; hence the wide brim of the top of the hourglass, but say they converge into a more similar stage.

Now, let's think about that for a minute and use the illustration of so-called convergent evolution, which is really just evidence for common design. When creatures are considered to have started out on a path markedly different but similar features appear, evos say this is an example of convergent or parallel evolution because since earlier in their proposed evolutionary history, they were different having very different ancestors according to evos.

In other words, the concept of being different at the beginning is used to say the similarities are not the result of common ancestry passing down similar traits but that these traits arose independently.

However, it does not occur to them that since the hourglass model indicates differences early on in development, that indicates a break in evolutionary history such that any later similarities, which is often overblown and non-factual, would be evidence for convergent development not common ancestry.

Otherwise, the earlier stages should be more similar, not less so.

Now evos can shout this is akin to being a Holocaust denier but it's actually just data-driven analysis, something evos ought to try sometimes.

 

[Lowpro]

Let me break it down further. Many evos say the hourglass model aka the phylotypic stage is evidence for common ancestry. The evidence indicates the hourglass model is incorrect but some try to argue for it.

However, evos miss the point that the hourglass model is actually evidence against common descent and ancestry. The reason is they admit embryos start out very different; hence the wide brim of the top of the hourglass, but say they converge into a more similar stage.

Now, let's think about that for a minute and use the illustration of so-called convergent evolution, which is really just evidence for common design. When creatures are considered to have started out on a path markedly different but similar features appear, evos say this is an example of convergent or parallel evolution because since earlier in their proposed evolutionary history, they were different having very different ancestors according to evos.

In other words, the concept of being different at the beginning is used to say the similarities are not the result of common ancestry passing down similar traits but that these traits arose independently.

However, it does not occur to them that since the hourglass model indicates differences early on in development, that indicates a break in evolutionary history such that any later similarities, which is often overblown and non-factual, would be evidence for convergent development not common ancestry.

Otherwise, the earlier stages should be more similar, not less so.

Now evos can shout this is akin to being a Holocaust denier but it's actually just data-driven analysis, something evos ought to try sometimes.

Easily disreputed. We don't advocate the hourglass model of Haeckel (as for similarities I'll wait for randman on that...)

Now what?

 

[randman]

Easily disreputed. We don't advocate the hourglass model of Haeckel (as for similarities I'll wait for randman on that...)

Now what?

Your response is quite humorous but also a bit sad. All this time you guys said the phylotypic stage was real without even understanding what it is.

The hour-glass model and the phylotypic stage are the same thing, bud.

 

[Lowpro]

Your response is quite humorous but also a bit sad. All this time you guys said the phylotypic stage was real without even understanding what it is.

The hour-glass model and the phylotypic stage are the same thing, bud.

No you are quite humorous. If I had led a threat title with "Phylotypic stage exists" you would have gone Haeckel-holocaust on me. Most people are not taught the hourglass model no matter its resemblance to the phylotypic stage you're waiting to pounce on. No matter what, you're relegated to the cherry picking lies.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7403020&postcount=1121

Your misdirection is in the relation that phylotipic stage requires being taught the "hourglass model" but it exists without the model. Stop conflating the two.

 

[randman]

So you didn't even know what the topic of discussion was on the phylotypic stage and yet have such emotions about it.

 

[Lowpro]

So you didn't even know what the topic of discussion was on the phylotypic stage and yet have such emotions about it.

No:

Let me break it down further. Many evos say the hourglass model aka the phylotypic stage is evidence for common ancestry. The evidence indicates the hourglass model is incorrect but some try to argue for it.

I just know this statement is your attempt to entrap people in a misdirection. My emotions do not reflect the knowledge known nor do your emotions reflect your knowledge known. I do know however you coulda hanged all of France with the rope you made for yourself.

It bears repeating:

Most people are not taught the hourglass model no matter its resemblance to the phylotypic stage you're waiting to pounce on. No matter what, you're relegated to the cherry picking lies.

 

[randman]

You just know but you don't know why a picture caused an intense feeling of rage in you either?

 

[Lowpro]

You just know but you don't know why a picture caused an intense feeling of rage in you either?

It's not a matter of "I just know" the hourglass model was not taught to me, it isn't taught as a part of evolution and as far as whether phylotypic stages are taught as hourlass models, they aren;t and you are to be noted for your attempted misdirection(there may be aberrations. Regardless, it's not a part of contemporary theory)

....there's a sauropod right next to a caribou and a fictitious ark meant to symbolize a faerie tale. That causes intense rage because it's so wrong.


Again what do my feelings have to do with validity?

 

[randman]

Lowpro, are you just unaware that the guy trumpeted here as refuting Wells, PZ Myers, named his blog after the claim of the hourglass model, calling it Pharyngula and makes the existence of the phylotypic stage at the Pharyngeal stage a center-piece of his arguments, and how that's what's been under debate along with Haeckel's forged data.

It's like you are clueless as to what's been under discussion here.

 

[Lowpro]

Lowpro, are you just unaware that the guy trumpeted here as refuting Wells, PZ Myers, named his blog after the claim of the hourglass model, calling it Pharyngula and makes the existence of the phylotypic stage at the Pharyngeal stage a center-piece of his arguments, and how that's what's been under debate along with Haeckel's forged data.

It's like you are clueless as to what's been under discussion here.

Are you aware that it's not called the hourglass model and that it's refined?! It doesn't require Haeckels's data?!?!?!

Are you purposely being obtuse?!

does "?!" help you understand how ridiculous you are?!

My main fear is that you're going to attempt to misconstrue current evolution and development theories with Haeckel's theories (yes they involve particulars of phylotypic stages, but they are evidence INDEPENDENT of Haeckel) and these fears are well founded...

To make sure that you don't try this I'll leave it to you and your critical thinking cap, why is it Hox genes are found in embryos?

The observation is not tied to any particular theory, but we still have to explain the existence of this phenomenon in any theory of origins. Haeckel tried. His explanation was a flawed model of heredity that claimed that there were constraints on the properties of genetics, such that only the final phases were easily modified. This meant that new features were usually added only at the end of the program of development, so that the sequence of development was roughly the same as the sequence of evolution. However, this explanation has been falsified. Not only does genetics not work that way, but development does not proceed in a fashion that resembles the evolutionary sequence; as Wells points out (echoing the same criticisms that have been made for over a hundred years), the very earliest stages of development can differ radically. They then converge on a similar appearance at the phylotypic stage, and diverge in morphology again.

Modern theories of development and evolution propose something that fits the observations, and that Wells cannot easily dismiss. Genes can be modified to act at virtually any point in development, so the theoretical constraint imposed by Haeckel is nonexistent. Variations between species at the earliest stages were a problem for Haeckel, but are not incompatible at all with modern developmental biology. There isn't even a requirement for absolute morphological identity at the phylotypic stage. As Wells points out, Michael Richardson has been identifying variation within that stage between species.

seems to me Haeckel's theories of homology are not part of contemporary theories of homology as you demand they are.

 

[randman]

Are you aware that it's not called the hourglass model

I don't have time for deliberate ignorance on your part. PZ Myers, for example, specifically refers to it as the hourglass model. It is called the hourglass model even today.

Take some time to at least learn what your side believes and advocates.

Also, it's unlikely you have any idea what a Hox gene is, much less understand even evo arguments related to it.

Hox genes actually pose a problem for evos based on their conserved nature when they should not be considering the differences in outcomes.

 

[Lowpro]

I don't have time for deliberate ignorance on your part. PZ Myers, for example, specifically refers to it as the hourglass model. It is called the hourglass model even today.

Take some time to at least learn what your side believes and advocates.

Also, it's unlikely you have any idea what a Hox gene is, much less understand even evo arguments related to it.

Hox genes actually pose a problem for evos based on their conserved nature when they should not be considering the differences in outcomes.

... I really can't believe your ignorance it is killing me.

The overall hourglass model isn't part of evolution and development; it's not required. It's a blanket concept where some parts of what is actually tested rings true (IE it's no invalidated) but it's not an accepted "always" rule of evolution. It doesn't need to be. It isn't taught because it's not relevant; evolution doesn't require it, but it's nice to compare it to. Is it correct? probably not but does it reflect contemporary evolutionary theory? Hell no. Perhaps you'd like to consider what reality has to say about how embryonic theory works...

As for the latter part of your statement, remember that time I told you how you had all this rope to hang yourself with? You gave yourself a few more feet...

 

[randman]

So why do evos keep presenting it as evidence for evolution if it isn't true and does not support evolution?

 

[Lowpro]

So why do evos keep presenting it as evidence for evolution if it isn't true and does not support evolution?

What evidence isn't true?! The hourglass model isn't being taught anymore (though similarities exist) why suggest that isn't the case anymore. You don't need the hourglass model when you have the genetics of embryological development to answer the question already.

Why are you so insistent on misdirection randman? Are you trying to win a bit by any lie possible?!