Wholly Natrualistic Alternative To Neo-Darwinism?

It's taken the entirety of human existence and they still haven't given up bronze age myth either, so I share the sentiment. Too bad though that evolutionary theory doesn't use the hourglass model or Ont Recap Phyl but that may be a product of my time (I'm 23) but then again all my biology professors haven't heard the theory and Dr. Cusic is teaches the embryology course. They suggest that you present the strawman that Haeckel's theories are used to indoctrinate. I trust them over you here.

It's like you imply evos are in on some scheme, when they just aren't. Haeckel had a pet theory and it didn't hold up to evidence. He got caught IN HIS OWN TIME but I guess they didn't have the bloodlust you do and they didn't totally crucify him (they did give him a big boy spanking though -.-)

Hey I sympathize with how ID scientists get disparaged, and all I have to say to that is...How's that Baraminology comin' along? No really, that's how any scientists gets treated when they just don't have good evidence for their pet theory. Behe lost BAD, so bad that his kids are going to feel the swift crotchshot delivered unto Behe. But, I don't think Behe should kill ID either; ID can do that to themselves far easier by hanging themselves with their own rope. They don't need evos do disparage them while they do it, so yes I do agree with you on that randman.

Randman, if you want to think that Haeckel's fakes should have some long lasting unwashable blood on evolution's hands, that's an indictment of just you and whoever agrees with you (probably only creationists) even YOU already said Gould threw his two cents on the matter, and evolution doesn't use his theories. If they're in textbooks, that's the editors fault. If there was a textbook that taught Plato's Music of the Spheres, does that damn Cosmology?! Seriously dude...
 
Last edited:
Lowpro, the use of Haeckel diminished quite a bit after even an evolutionist in 1997 published an extensive paper with follow-ups and publicly called it one of the "biggest fakes in all of biology." So you being 23 may not have it taught to you. You were what, 9-10 years old at the time.

Nevertheless, it still hasn't quite completely gone away. Evos reacted vehemently over being so exposed and even Richardson that once called it "one of the biggest fakes in all biology" went on to publish a paper in the early 2000s stating, and I kid you not, that Haeckel's faked drawings were "good for teaching aides" and even more astonishingly, "evidence for evolution."

I am not making that up. Just unbelievable but there it is.

It's like you imply evos are in on some scheme, when they just aren't.
Click to expand...

No, could be worse than that. They could actually conduct themselves in such a manner that such a blatant fraud would be perpetuated by them without being aware of it despite the numerous and sustained attempts to inform them.

Keep in mind, evos didn't first expose Haeckel. That criticism stemmed from the creationist camp or scientists that would be called ID theorists today.

Why didn't the evolutionist community listen? How could the state of their science be so poor that it would take over 130 years to get them to back off a little, and then some still are trying to resurrect Haeckel's faked data as "EVIDENCE" and that was published in a peer-reviewed publication???
 
The drawings are probably good, photos are better. The drawings do not show Ont Recap Phyl or the hourglass model, which were Haeckel's pet theories. I'm sure Richardson would agree that the drawings do not present the level of detail and understanding that photos give, which is why the texts I have use photos and not drawings.

They could actually conduct themselves in such a manner that such a blatant fraud would be perpetuated by them without being aware of it despite the numerous and sustained attempts to inform them.
Click to expand...

Using Haeckel's drawings isn't the same fraud as using Haeckel's theories.

Keep in mind, evos didn't first expose Haeckel. That criticism stemmed from the creationist camp or scientists that would be called ID theorists today.
Click to expand...

So?

Why didn't the evolutionist community listen? How could the state of their science be so poor that it would take over 130 years to get them to back off a little, and then some still are trying to resurrect Haeckel's faked data as "EVIDENCE" and that was published in a peer-reviewed publication???
Click to expand...

They DID listen! Haeckel got skewered in his own lifetime. It just wasn't scorched Earth and it still got around. But that's not a conspiracy to indoctrinate via fraud, it's more like bumbling oafs who cannot keep up to date with the scientific world.

And any paper using Haeckel SHOULD be skewered, but they aren't attempts to indoctrinate with fraud, because like you and I already said (we work together!) people like Gould come out and give the big daddy slap with the wedding ring on to whomever does.
 
Check this comment out:

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

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12475051

Published by Richardson MK, Keuck G. in 2002. Richardson stated the following before the uproar of creationists and IDers saying I told you so.

"Although Haeckel confessed ... the drawings persist. 'That's the real mystery.' says Richardson.", (New Scientist, p23, 9/6/97)

'This is one of the worst cases of scientific fraud. It's shocking to find that somebody one thought was a great scientist was deliberately misleading. It makes me angry ... What he [Haeckel] did was to take a human embryo and copy it, pretending that the salamander and the pig and all the others looked the same at the same stage of development. They don't ... These are fakes.' (Michael Richardson, in an interview with Nigel Hawkes, The Times (London), p. 14, August 11, 1997. )

"he also fudged the scale to exaggerate similarities among species, even when there were 10-fold differences in size. Haeckel further blurred differences by neglecting to name the species in most cases, as if one representative was accurate for an entire group of animals." ... "Haeckel's confession got lost after his drawings were subsequently used in a 1901 book called Darwin and After Darwin and reproduced widely in English language biology texts. (Elizabeth Pennisi, Michael Richardson, 'Haeckel's Embryos: Fraud Rediscovered', Science 277(5331):1435, September 5, 1997.)

St. George's Hospital Medical School, "What he did was to take a human embryo and copy it, pretending that the salamander and the pig and all the others looked the same at the same stage of development." They don't. ... There's only one word for this, and Dr. Richardson doesn't flinch from using it. 'These are fakes. In the paper we call them misleading and inaccurate, but that is just polite scientific language." The Times (London), p. 14, 8/11/97
Click to expand...

So how does one go from being angry at such blatant "fraud" (his words), and then just 5 years later publishes a peer-reviewed paper stating the drawings are "EVIDENCE" for evolution.

Think about it.
 
Does Richardson know that you consider him to be the messiah of evolution and the end all be all immutable word of it?

Does this absolve Gould and Dawkins and Ernst Meyer and PZ Myer and everyone else who isn't Richardson from this "evo sham"

What is it with religious people and this weird messiah thing -.- I'm actually surprised you and whomever agrees with you thinks this is a damning indictment of evolutionary theory and use it for yours/their platform of "indoctrination" because it's wrong obviously and I don't think anyone here will fall for it. So really....nuts to you on this one sir!

I mean this really is just unbelievable ridiculous that THIS is the platform by which you'll stand against Haeckel. This isn't a conspiracy. Richardson notes that Haeckel fudged the drawings, AND everyone knows it! He's not being taught as if the theory is correct anymore either. Richardson knows that. The reason Richardson calls them famous fakes is because they are, but they aren't being taught as anything of the theory either.

If this is the conspiracy of indoctrination...laugh out loud dude. No one can take that seriously randman, except for you I guess.

Also do you want me to link the whole paper so that we can weed through cherrypicking?
 
Last edited:
Lowpor, why dodge the question?

Clearly, something strange is going on for scientists and even peer-reviewed articles to try to depict a known fake and fraud as "evidence"?

How do you explain it?

This doesn't matter as far as evo theory but it does speak to something even more important and that is how the field treats data and the standards for data. To me, that is more critical because all the theories in the world don't make real science if you have a pattern of accepting and promoting false data, for whatever reason.

How do you explain evolutionist stubbornness to cling to Haeckel in some form or another, and even after being even more widely exposed, to come back and say faked drawings are "evidence"?

How can we trust the peer-review process if faked data can be called "evidence" and all the reviewers are Ok with that? Maybe they need to have all their papers reviewed by at least one IDer or creationist just so they don't make such outrageous claims and help keep them accurate because clearly evos reviewing this sort of stuff among themselves is problematic. You'd think even they would object to openly calling faked data "evidence for evolution" but apparently not.
 
Last edited:
randman said:
No, could be worse than that. They could actually conduct themselves in such a manner that such a blatant fraud would be perpetuated by them without being aware of it despite the numerous and sustained attempts to inform them.

Keep in mind, evos didn't first expose Haeckel. That criticism stemmed from the creationist camp or scientists that would be called ID theorists today.

Why didn't the evolutionist community listen? How could the state of their science be so poor that it would take over 130 years to get them to back off a little, and then some still are trying to resurrect Haeckel's faked data as "EVIDENCE" and that was published in a peer-reviewed publication???
Click to expand...

I suggest you take this whole debate to a new thread in "Conspiracy Theories". It has nothing to do whatsoever in proving that there is a "Wholly Natrualistic Alternative To Neo-Darwinism"
 
LSSBB said:
I suggest you take this whole debate to a new thread in "Conspiracy Theories". It has nothing to do whatsoever in proving that there is a "Wholly Natrualistic Alternative To Neo-Darwinism"
Click to expand...

No, you are the ones calling it a conspiracy. I am just saying the field among evos has a major problem in their assessment of data as evidenced by saying faked data is "evidence" and publishing that in a peer-review publication.

It's relevant to this discussion because if you note, it took a long time to get some acceptance here that natural selection, genetic drift and subgroup isolation are by themselves mechanisms for decreasing genetic diversity, and even then, I am not sure all the participants understand this basic fact on the data. It's troubling because how can we assess whether Neodarwinism provides a sufficient explanation for macroevolution if participants cannot assess such basic claims and data?

In other words, how can we assess whether an alternative is needed if people don't even understand the basics of ND due a mentality that doesn't treat data with scientific rigor and accuracy?

I tried to bring up a legit criticism of ND and participants suggested I was wrong in basic data claims when I was entirely correct on mechanisms reducing genetic diversity; then said I was lying, and they brought up Haeckel but the whole incident just reiterates the problems within the evo community for assessing data and thinking critically about their theories.
 
Last edited:
randman said:
No, you are the ones calling it a conspiracy. I am just saying the field among evos has a major problem in their assessment of data as evidenced by saying faked data is "evidence" and publishing that in a peer-review publication.

It's relevant to this discussion because if you note, it took a long time to get some acceptance here that natural selection, genetic drift and subgroup isolation are by themselves mechanisms for decreasing genetic diversity, and even then, I am not sure all the participants understand this basic fact on the data. It's troubling because how can we assess whether Neodarwinism provides a sufficient explanation for macroevolution if participants cannot assess such basic claims and data?

In other words, how can we assess whether an alternative is needed if people don't even understand the basics of ND due a mentality that doesn't treat data with scientific rigor and accuracy?

I tried to bring up a legit criticism of ND and participants suggested I was wrong in basic data claims when I was entirely correct on mechanisms reducing genetic diversity; then said I was lying, and they brought up Haeckel but the whole incident just reiterates the problems within the evo community for assessing data and thinking critically about their theories.
Click to expand...

randman, it looks to me like you are saying that current evolutionary theory uses Haekel's "faked data" as "evidence" therefore Neodarwinism cannot be a sufficient explanation for macroevolution, and this means an alternative theory may not be needed. For one thing, I do not see the entirety of Neodarwinism being based on Haekel's "faked data", even remotely. You have not provided a connection there that I could discern. Secondly, the validity of Neodarwinism is irrelevant to the validity of an alternative.
 
No, I laid out very specific and substantial reasons to doubt ND as a sufficient paradigm to explain the emergence, evolution or creation of complex genomes.

The Haeckel stuff just speaks to a mindset that, imo, afflicts evos in dealing with data. It doesn't matter as far as ND whether embryology is supportive of ND. Imo, it is not. Pig embryos, for example, are more similar than frog embyros to human beings because adult pigs are more similar to adult human beings. Nothing to see there frankly.

But evos persist, for some reason, in defending some versions of their early myths on data.

Real science must entail you can just admit when you were wrong, acknowledge it and learn from it instead of stonewalling and even going as far as to claim faked data is "evidence for evolution."

On the question of alternatives, sure. Maybe there the data does not fully support any model, or maybe does, but it's hard to discuss unless the people involved know how to assess and deal with data.

Believe it or not, I am not a front loader. I talk about it because they impressed me with their predictions on genetics. But that doesn't mean the idea doesn't have other problems.

The ultimate theory for me is not the issue. The issue is how one approaches and understands data. Science is limited but useful and this core, basic principle should not be corrupted. It's fine to have different models but the treatment of data is even more fundamental to good science.
 
Last edited:
ehcks said:
Because we already know the truth. We've been through it in multiple threads, most of all Antpogo's thread which included the purchase of biology textbooks showing that your claim is utterly false.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=203961

You are lying.
Click to expand...
Exactly. Randmans repeated lies about Haeckel have been dealt with in at least five threads:
Humans Didn't evolve from Apes - How Do We Know?
ID/Creationism challenge
Evolution a hoax?
Stupid Christian Article on Evolution
and of course ANTPogo excruciatingly detailed thread Ernst Haeckel's embryological diagrams and biology textbooks

Fast Eddie B said:
God, this is boring.
Click to expand...
Yeah, well he doesn't have much material to work with, you have to expect some repetition.

randman said:
Well, it would be more interesting if evos didn't nearly ALWAYS resort to calling people liars whenever they bring out true information they are uncomfortable with.
Click to expand...
It would be nice if the anti-evolutionary IDiots and god botherers stopped lying, but then they wouldn't have much to say.:rolleyes:

randman said:
It's undeniable what I am saying is true on Haeckel.
Click to expand...
No it's undeniable that your are repeating lies that have been debunked on this forum multiple times.
 
randman said:
No, you are the ones calling it a conspiracy. I am just saying the field among evos has a major problem in their assessment of data as evidenced by saying faked data is "evidence" and publishing that in a peer-review publication.

It's relevant to this discussion because if you note, it took a long time to get some acceptance here that natural selection, genetic drift and subgroup isolation are by themselves mechanisms for decreasing genetic diversity, and even then, I am not sure all the participants understand this basic fact on the data. It's troubling because how can we assess whether Neodarwinism provides a sufficient explanation for macroevolution if participants cannot assess such basic claims and data?

In other words, how can we assess whether an alternative is needed if people don't even understand the basics of ND due a mentality that doesn't treat data with scientific rigor and accuracy?

I tried to bring up a legit criticism of ND and participants suggested I was wrong in basic data claims when I was entirely correct on mechanisms reducing genetic diversity; then said I was lying, and they brought up Haeckel but the whole incident just reiterates the problems within the evo community for assessing data and thinking critically about their theories.
Click to expand...


Fraud

Propaganda

Bait and switch

Stonewalling

Disturbing mentality of myth-making

Faked data

Totally elastic theory

The use of these terms says to me that you do think there's a conspiracy even if you're not willing to come out and admit it.

All your "evidence" leads to ID. ID isn't even junk science. It's just not science at all. It's a dangerous joke because deluded people like yourself believe it and want it taught in science classes.

You think there's nothing wrong with the Wedge Document.

You insist on using the tired old Haeckel's drawings argument, as if that somehow proves evolution to be false and then, as a consequence, your deluded fantasy to be true.

At the heart of your delusion is the inescapable fact that for ID or Creation Science or Theistic Evolution (or whatever you want to call it) to work you require a creator for which there is no evidence and can be no evidence by definition.

By the way did you even read this: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7812900&postcount=1620

or my links re: Haeckel? Or any of the other thoughtful explanations in this thread?

Trying to poke holes in evolution is sometimes a worthwhile pursuit but you're doing it with a thinly veiled ulterior motive and it's typical of creationist cranks. Why not just come out and say god did it? You can't do that can you?

By all means, continue with your delusions but don't try to force them on to others as if they were fact.

I think you've seriously derailed poor Patrick1000's thread.
 
So can you actually in one or 2 sentences explain where I lied? Or is that impossible for you?

Just quote me and say where the lie is, please. Is that too much to ask considering you are publicly smearing with me with libelous claims?
 
you require a creator for which there is no evidence and can be no evidence by definition.
Click to expand...

By definition, eh?

Let's just assume for sake of argument that there is a Creator and Designer. Can we do that?

Or is that hypothesis ruled out "by definition"? If so, is that brainwashing?

Let's assume that there is a Designer and the evidence suggests that or indicates that. If we are committed to saying it is anti-science to even consider such a proposition, are we then creating a fallacy that science cannot go where the evidence leads?

If your argument is that science can accept a Designer if there is evidence, then say that. Science can entail Intelligent Design but you don't think the evidence is there, and then we can talk about the evidence.
 
Last edited:
Krikkiter said:
By definition, there can be no evidence of the supernatural.
Click to expand...

Really? Is that a scientific comment? If God exists, by definition in science terms as part of reality, you'd have to say the concept of God is by definition natural, right?

By theological definitions or doctrine, one can say God is supernatural, but by scientific ones, the concept is a natural one.

This illustrates the juvenile nature of many in science. They adopt a theological and even specifically theological definition and apply that to science incorrectly without thinking. It's really sad because by definition, if there is a God or Designer that has done anything in the natural world, by definition the concept of God at that point is not a supernatural one, at least from a scientific perspective.

Maybe God is supernatural outside that range of activity but the whole concept of God intervening means from a science definition, that it is a potential area of study for science.
 
Last edited:
If you want to say god is part of the natural world go for it but also enjoy the interesting position that then puts you in.

Further, if you want to you'll have to start another thread in the Religion and Philosophy section.
 
Terms mean different things depending on the context. Natural means something different in science than theology. I prefer to eat more natural foods without additives, hormones and the like.

Does that mean commercial, grain-fed, and hormone, antibiotic pumped beef is not part of the "natural world"?

Depends on what you mean by natural. If you mean "real", then it certainly is. I can go buy some beef like that. If you mean there is no artificial manipulation or intelligent design by humans, then clearly it is not natural.

The idea God isn't by definition not real is a major error and corruption of science by evos.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom