Wholly Natrualistic Alternative To Neo-Darwinism?

[catsmate]

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.

So you'll be providing evidence for your creator god then?

 

[randman]

In particular, I am interested in whether or not Rütimeyer was a creationist (or would be considered one if he lived today), or if in the short time period between the publication of Haeckel's "Natural History of Creation"

Kotasu, why can't you bother looking up some things for yourself?

Rutimeyer was a professor of zoology and comparative anatomy at the University of Basel, who rejected natural selection as simply mechanistic and proposed an anti-materialist view of nature.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embryo...imeyer.2C_Theodor_Bischoff_and_Rudolf_Virchow

Can you admit he would definitely fall into something like the ID or creationist camp today as he rejected Darwinism and proposed an anti-materialist view of nature?

 

[randman]

If so, I must assume from your blatant lack of comment on my last post, these drawings and ideas of Haeckel's are used in textbooks in spite of evolutionary science knowing and having known since the same year they were first published that they are faked. Evolutionary science cannot be blamed for this. The publishing industry and the individual authors of those textbooks can.

No, evos claimed ignorance. Yes, plenty of creationists, IDers and some evos pointed out they were faked but evos claimed they were unaware. Keep in mind we are talking of not just some textbook writers but a Brown university professor of Biology for example.

 

[Aridas]

Kotasu, why can't you bother looking up some things for yourself?

So, basically... you're trying to get others to do your legwork. It's your claim and therefore yours to support. If you don't? That just makes it completely dismissable, especially given that you've given little to no reason for others here to trust your word, on this topic.

 

[Wowbagger]

For example, if we were to talk of front loading, the evidence for somewhat extreme genomic complexity very early on, compared to the organism, is positive evidence for that, but if you won't admit the data suggests that, what can we do?

The fact of "extreme genomic complexity" does not inherently contradict the Theory of Evolution. The examples you are referring to could still be mapped in nested trees of descendants, or "clades".

Does Front-Loading predict an aspect of life that would not be found in nested trees of clades? THAT would be an amazing discovery, that could shake the very foundations of Evolution, and give credence to F.L. theory.

As far as ID, it has proven more useful because it treats things like so-called "junk DNA" as likely to be functional, and of course, they were right on that.

The functional nature of "Junk DNA" is accounted for by Evo Theory, as well. And, your argument that it didn't is based on a misunderstanding. "Non-coding" did NOT mean "non-functional". Others, here, have posted more details.

Is there any idea, predicted by ID, that Evo Theory currently thinks is impossible? And, what experiments can be said up to discover it?

Any completely novel ideas predicted by ID that Evo Theory has no opinion about, yet?
For example, maybe ID predicts that there should be a hidden layer of silicon-based life that was designed to serve carbon-based life, only we keep missing it because we don't know what to look for.
Maybe ID predicts we would find God's Debugging API in some aspect of our physiology.

..or SOMETHING incredible like that?

Maybe ID predicts something more technical, such as "We should usually find newly designed creatures being developed and tested to take over a niche, BEFORE the species currently in that niche becomes extinct."
We know, from Evo Theory, that the extinction of a species leaves a vacuum of niches to be filled by others. But, if we can spot design in the act of preparing to replace a species, beforehand, that might indicate design, assuming there is a specific test for this coming out of the I.D. camp.

I know you guys don't like the word "chance" but that's what you are saying. Sure, there are real mechanisms but no direction.

Again, you can't avoid making negative remarks about Evo theory, even when trying to name positive remarks. Can you?!

Selection is non-random, and appears to have direction, because it depends on the fitness landscape.

 

[randman]

So, basically... you're trying to get others to do your legwork. It's your claim and therefore yours to support. If you don't? That just makes it completely dismissable, especially given that you've given little to no reason for others here to trust your word, on this topic.

Already gave a ton of evidence. He or she was just grasping at straws asking for something on someone I hadn't mentioned yet. Fact is opponents of haeckel and Darwin exposed this in the 1880s and every decade since with some evos joining to boot. But the larger evo community kept perpetuating the fraud.

 

[Kotatsu]

Kotasu, why can't you bother looking up some things for yourself?

I certainly can, as evidenced by the fact that I looked up what the last thread where you and I discussed this contained. When we spoke last, you continually claimed that my understanding of evolutionary theory was worse than yours, and that I would not be able to comprehend the evidence if you placed it before me. If this is the case, why should I rely solely on what I can look up for myself, rather than apply to a more well-read person with a vaster understanding of the subject to present the evidence for their claims in a suitable manner, possibly dumbed down so that I may understand it?

I see no reason why I should have to second-guess what your sources are, when simply asking you to provide evidence for your claims is by far a more expedient route, even if you deliberately ignore 75% of my requests and I have to make the remaining 25% over and over again until you actually get going.

Can you admit he would definitely fall into something like the ID or creationist camp today as he rejected Darwinism and proposed an anti-materialist view of nature?

I will admit no such thing. The wikipedia article you link to gets its facts from a paper by Hopwood (Isis, 2006, 97:260–301), which states, on page 282-283:

'Professor of zoology and comparative anatomy at the University of Basel, Rütimeyer was a founding member of the German Anthropological Society, which owned the Archiv and would become a bastion of empiricist resistance to Darwinist speculation. He not unusually rejected natural selection as too mechanistic, and his antimaterialist view of the history of nature as a progressive striving for consciousness left the natural sciences only a modest place in the order of knowledge. But Rütimeyer accepted human evolution and in the early 1860s had been one of the first to place fossil mammals in evolutionary lineages. Darwin commented in 1865, “I think Rütimeyer, for whom I have the greatest respect, is also with us.”'

This, to me, does not make him unequivocally a creationist. However, this appraisal is based only on the Hopwood text, and if you have further evidence that Hütimeyer was, indeed, a creationist, I would be much obliged if you would present it.

Until you provide such evidence, I will maintain that for your claim that the first criticism of Haeckel's drawings came from the creationist camp, or from people who, were they to be alive today, would have been placed in this camp -- for this claim to be validated, you will need to show evidence of a creationist that published a criticism of Haeckel's drawings between the publication of Haeckel's "Natural History of Creation" and Hütimeyer's critique of the same. If you cannot do so, and nonetheless persist in making this claim, the label "liar" will be a suitable mode of addressing you.

No, evos claimed ignorance. Yes, plenty of creationists, IDers and some evos pointed out they were faked but evos claimed they were unaware. Keep in mind we are talking of not just some textbook writers but a Brown university professor of Biology for example.

Again, if evos claimed ignorance of the exposure of Haeckel's drawings as falsified by scholars, creationists or not, that is still a problem of the dissemination of these critical papers and discussions, nothing else. As I said before, it is certainly unfortunate that these early criticisms were not appreciated more widely, but that does in no way imply that these early criticisms does not exist, any more than the fact that I didn't know of the existence of an article by Sikora and Eichler on some unusual sex positions in pigeon lice until this morning meant that that article didn't exist.

If you want to show that not all evos were aware that these early exposures of Haeckel's drawings existed until 1997, then you will find that no one will argue with you. Certainly these people exist, and have existed, as no scientist has the time to read everything.

However, if you want to show that no evos were aware of them untl 1997, then you need to demonstrate unambiguously that the many people who wrote critics and exposures of Haeckels drawings -- papers and books that were, as you can see from the list I compiled, published at a rate of almost one every decade (except the 1880s and the 1930s in the incomplete list I have provided -- between 1868, which was the very same year that Haeckel first published them, and 1977, which is when Gould published his book on the subject -- were all non-evos. You have so far not demonstrated this.

Further, if you want to show that some, most or all evos knew about this, but suppressed or ignored it in order to inoculate students with their false beliefs, then you will need a whole different sort of evidence, and I am afraid I do not, at the moment, even care to spell out what an enormous task the amassing of this evidence would be.

Meanwhile, so that no one forgets where you are coming from, your idol Davison spent roughly 1/4th of his article on how he believes evolution works with listing famous scientists -- biologists and non-biologists -- who have referred to God. To your idol Davison -- and by extension to you, until you disavow his laughable essays -- "front-loading" is a slightly longer synonym for "goddidit".

 

[randman]

The fact of "extreme genomic complexity" does not inherently contradict the Theory of Evolution. The examples you are referring to could still be mapped in nested trees of descendants, or "clades".

Which theory of evolution? It conflicts with NeoDarwism. Many IDers accept common descent, for example, but they are not "evolutionists" under current definitions.

The functional nature of "Junk DNA" is accounted for by Evo Theory, as well. And, your argument that it didn't is based on a misunderstanding. "Non-coding" did NOT mean "non-functional".

There is no misunderstanding on my part. Evos said they were evidence for evolution because they were non-functional. IDers said they were wrong and boldy predicted we'd discover that. IDers were right. Evos were wrong.

Deal with it.

Of course, evos now say it's evidence for evolution which just shows they have no real evidence because the opposite data is said to be evidence as well, making their ideas so elastic as to be of little value outside microevolution.

Any completely novel ideas predicted by ID that Evo Theory has no opinion about, yet?

Yea, but why waste my time if you are just going to pretend evos predicted it all along when they predicted the opposite. These few instances should be sufficient; that junk DNA would be functional; that the earliest organisms would be shown to be have a much more complex genome, even having more "types of genes available to them than plants and animals do today"; etc,....

Keep in mind though there are different camps. Front loaders predicted the genomic complexity and creationism does a little as well but denies, at least for YECers, common descent and so just goes back to something akin to the family level.

There's a lot you could learn actually listening to other models and viewing the data objectively from their perspective.

 

[randman]

Rutimeyer was not with Darwin.

I am very sorry to disagree with you on any point, but I cannot agree that there is any innate principle of progressive perfection;f7 it seems to me that this will inevitably follow from natural selection.

http://www.darwinproject.ac.uk/entry-5930

Davison accepts humans evolved from primates as well. Doesn't make him an evolutionist.

Also, I stated that many of these scientists would be known as IDers or creationists. You guys don't even recognize the distinction so if someone is an IDer, you say they are a creationist. Fine with me for this thread either way.

You also have ignored others like Agassiz and others that debunked Haeckel. He was a professor at Harvard and a household name practically. So the silly excuse that just maybe the literature wasn't publicized widely doesn't work. Just another lame whitewashing attempt by evos.

 

[Sideroxylon]

randman, this dodging of questions and refusal to back up your claims looks rather lame.

 

[randman]

Name on single instance of dodging a question. Just one, please.

You guys like to act like haeckel as well in smearing people that simply want a little intellectual integrity.

 

[ehcks]

Name on single instance of dodging a question. Just one, please.

You guys like to act like haeckel as well in smearing people that simply want a little intellectual integrity.

You might as well be asking us to locate and give the speed for a molecule of water in the ocean, and that if we can't, water doesn't exist.

 

[randman]

So you can't? Just lied to get in a little smear since the facts are something to avoid at all cost?

ETA: see it's 2 different people but considering the group-think on display, maybe it doesn't matter.

 

[Lowpro]

Of course, evos now say it's evidence for evolution which just shows they have no real evidence because the opposite data is said to be evidence as well, making their ideas so elastic as to be of little value outside microevolution.

You cannot possibly assert something like this and consider yourself intelligent at the same time. Tinfoil hat lunacy -.-

You might as well say ID helped evolution and shot itself in the foot too, or rather fell on their own sword.

Really though, what opposite data? The term Junk DNA is DNA that doesn't transcribe to proteins, but that doesn't mean it's nonfunctional. At what point does Intelligent Design predict that it has to have a function and how does evolution say it must not either? I mean scientists can be wrong all the time and you can get all uppity about it too, but in what way does the advent of noncoding functional DNA prove or give any credence to intelligent design? How does it take away from evolution?

 

[randman]

You cannot possibly assert something like this and consider yourself intelligent at the same time. Tinfoil hat lunacy -.-

You might as well say ID helped evolution and shot itself in the foot too, or rather fell on their own sword.

Do you admit or deny evos claimed non-functional DNA as strong evidence for evolution?

If you admit that, how is it the opposite is also evidence?

It's not evidence for evolution at all, in fact, because it's not exclusive to evo models. Basically, you have no real evidence for mainstream evo theory, just a bunch of assertions which if proven wrong, evos just say the opposite is evidence too!

 

[Krikkiter]

Do you admit or deny evos claimed non-functional DNA as strong evidence for evolution?

If you admit that, how is it the opposite is also evidence?

It's not evidence for evolution at all, in fact, because it's not exclusive to evo models. Basically, you have no real evidence for mainstream evo theory, just a bunch of assertions which if proven wrong, evos just say the opposite is evidence too!

Therefore god.

 

[Lowpro]

Dude I don't know what evos admit because I don't know who is classified as an evo. If I'm a molecular biologist does that make me evo by association? If microbiology conforms to evolutionary theory (and vice versa) does that make it evolution by association? Because if so, then yes, if evos = microbiology then nonfunctional DNA is strong evidence for evolution, which again makes total sense if you wanna talk about introns.

They conform to evolutionary hypothesis.

How do you plan on proving the passing of genes from one organism to the next as being wrong? I'd love to hear it.

 

[Kotatsu]

Already gave a ton of evidence. He or she was just grasping at straws asking for something on someone I hadn't mentioned yet.

I beg your pardon?

I will now acquaint you with a novelty of this forum, which I, at least, am immensely grateful for. The administrative staff here has, in their seemingly unending wisdom, awarded this forum's readers the opportunity to read not only the posts that were made the same day, but also those that were made in the recent past -- and this without any charge or other form of remuneration!

Through this form of magic, which I shall term "go back and look at what you wrote yesterday", I shall now take you on a journey into the past, randman:

1. You mentioned Rütimeyer the last time we spoke of this here:

Rager: "Haeckel was not prudish in the selection of tools for his fight. In order to prove the validity of the law of biogenesis, he published several figures, the original and legends of which were faked up." ... "This fake is now shown in a few examples. For this purpose he used the same printing stock three times and invented a different legend for each copy." ... "There are a number of other figures, the originals of which were changed by Haeckel in order to demonstrate that human ontogeny successively passes through stages of development which repeat phylogeny." ... "This is not the first time that Haeckel's fake has been revealed. The well-known zoologist, Ludwig Rutimeyer (1868), protested against it." ... "The law of biogenesis has to use cheating tricks in order to fit data to the theory." (Human Embryology and the Law of Biogenesis, G. Rager, in Rivista di Biologia, Biology Forum 79, 1986, p 451-452)

2. In this thread, you claimed, in post 1643, that:

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.

3. Within the context of this thread, you first mentioned Ludwig Rütimeyer here:

http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/abstracts/sum6_1.html
Original criticisms of the honesty of Haeckel's arguments and illustrations are presented here, based on translated excerpts from the original German reviews by L. Rutimeyer, professor of science at the University of Basel, and early critic of Haeckel. These original sources indicate that Haeckel's woodcut series illustrating the ova and embryo were fraudulent.

That is, in post 1632. I first mention Rütimeyer in post 1669.

I am thus not "asking for something on someone [you] mentioned yet", I am specifically asking you to provide evidence that the Ludwig Rütimeyer you refer to in post 1632 and in ANTPogo's thread (where you are also the first person to refer to Rütimeyer) was or would be considered to be a creationist, or show that an unequivocal creationist published criticism of Haeckel's drawings prior to the critique Rütimeyer published. Alternatively, you could retract your claim that the first criticism of Haeckel's drawings came from within the creationist camp or from people who would today be said to belong to this camp.

Fact is opponents of haeckel and Darwin exposed this in the 1880s and every decade since with some evos joining to boot. But the larger evo community kept perpetuating the fraud.

An interpretation more faithful to what actually took place, unless you chose to present data that shows otherwise, is that opponents of Haeckel and Darwin, who were not creationists, exposed this from the 1860s and in virtually every decade after that, with a few opportunistic creationists, unable to do their own research and therefore relying on that made by evos, jumping on the bandwagon and crying shrilly. Meanwhile, the larger evo community were either unaware of or uninterested in the whole debate, and instead developed a thousand other lines of evidence which shows the validity of evolutionary theory.

There is no misunderstanding on my part. Evos said they were evidence for evolution because they were non-functional. IDers said they were wrong and boldy predicted we'd discover that. IDers were right. Evos were wrong.

Deal with it.

Of course, evos now say it's evidence for evolution which just shows they have no real evidence because the opposite data is said to be evidence as well, making their ideas so elastic as to be of little value outside microevolution.

This again. We were over this last time as well, randman, if you care to remember, and you were as wrong then as you are now. Prior to the discovery that "junk DNA" was not non-functional, evolutionary theory predicted that both non-functional and functional DNA would behave in a certain way, but that non-functional DNA was likely to change quicker. Then evos discover that "junk DNA" is functional, and the theory is still the same, namely that both non-functional DNA and functional DNA is predicted by evolutionary theory would show certain patterns, whether there is any non-functional DNA or not. Unless the patterns shown also changed when this discovery was made, nothing changed apart from labels. Like last time, your argument is one of terminology, not one of substance.

There's a lot you could learn actually listening to other models and viewing the data objectively from their perspective.

Yes, please detail what you and the others in Davison's version of front-loading camp believe. Please include the phrases "does not include data from after 1973", "believes having the same English name for two things make them biologically the same", "several famous scientists have compared scientific discovery to a divine revelation", and "there is no such thing as 'homology' and 'analogy'".

Rutimeyer was not with Darwin.
http://www.darwinproject.ac.uk/entry-5930

Thank you for finally attempting to provide evidence for your claim. I would have thought that the confidence you placed in your claim previously would have been based on more than one line in a letter where Darwin says that he disagrees with Rütimeyer on a point, especially when the footnote read:

This comment on the progressive principle of development was evidently in the missing letter from Rütimeyer.

implying that what Rütimeyer actually wrote is unknown from the data you have presented, and we can therefore not know what Darwin objected to more specifically, nor to what degree they disagreed, nor, indeed, what Rütimeyer replied, unless you have a reference to Rütimeyer's letters. The only letter that is from Rütimeyer on that page (dated January 3rd, 1865) contains no clues, but does contain a brief discussion on the phylogenetic clues one can draw on the milk dentition of some fossil and extant ungulates, where Rütimeyer asks Darwin's opinion.

I therefore still do not see any evidence that Rütimeyer would be a creationist, IDer, or belong to either of those categories if he had lived today. Your reference is certainly a start, but as it contains what Darwin wrote to Rütimeyer, and does not go into any details whatsoever, I am afraid I will have to ask you for more evidence.

Note, further, that your statement:

Davison accepts humans evolved from primates as well. Doesn't make him an evolutionist.

works in both ways. The fact that someone opposes Darwin does not make that person a creationist, IDer, or what-have-you.

You also have ignored others like Agassiz and others that debunked Haeckel.

I ignore no one. I have included in my list all people mentioned in the first five pages of ANTPogo's thread linked to previously who published a critique or exposure on Haeckel's drawings, as well as all published critiques and exposures mentioned by Richardson in either his 1997 or his 2002 paper. Agassiz is mentioned in the latter, yes, but only in reference to "unpublished marginalia" which I feel it is unreasonable to demand that people should have known about. Published material, yes, but not unpublished material.

However, feel free to link to any exhaustive list of people who debunked Haeckel you may know.

So the silly excuse that just maybe the literature wasn't publicized widely doesn't work. Just another lame whitewashing attempt by evos.

Again, the only reference to Agassiz's criticism in Richardson's paper (2002) is to unpublished marginalia, with the footnote that "It is not clear to us if Agassiz's are original criticisms; similar charges were made by Rütimeyer (1868)". Their only other mention of Agassiz, as far as I can find, is the claim that Haeckel may have got his drawings of turtles from Agassiz's book Embryology of the Turtle (1857).

Name on single instance of dodging a question. Just one, please.

Certainly. I have made a total of five posts (not including this one, naturally) in this thread. I will now list unanswered or ignored questions posed to you in those, in order of appearance. I have defined "dodged" as "ignoring the question, referring to evidence presented previously without a specific reference, waving the question away with a haughty answer, writing nonsense in lieu of a proper answer, attacking the questioner, or in other ways failing to come up with a brief or extensive discussion, reference, quotation, argument, collection of data, or other documentation seriously intended to satisfy all general or specific curiosity in the problem the question presents". This, I admit, is a liberal definition.

Like your idol Davison does?

However, if you have evidence that your conclusion is the correct one, please present it. That is, to be clear, evidence that the authors referred to by Richardson et al. (1997) as having recently revived interest in Haeckel's ideas choose not to cite any sources for their claim that "members of most or all vertebrate clades pass through a virtually identical, conserved stage" did so because they took the validity of this statement to be a matter of faith.

Do you have evidence for that e.g. the authors Richardson et al. (1997) cite as criticizing Haeckel are/were "critics of mainstream evo practices", that what they are/were criticizing is "mainstream evo practices", and that this is at all relevant to your belief in Davison's god-based explanation of animal diversity?

Or have I misunderstood your stance? Do you mean, when you write:
[quote omitted]
that critics of mainstream evo practices were criticizing these findings of Haeckel while at the same time people who were not critics of mainstream evo practice did the same, as certainly, until you provide evidence to the contrary, Sedgewick, Lillie and de Beer appear to have done?
Do you more truthfully mean that "critics and non-critics of mainstream evo practices [-- if you can show that Haeckel's drawings do indeed belong in this category --] alike pointed out, published papers, articles, books, etc,... for over 100 years showing this was wrong, not real science, not based on data, promoted through fraud and fakes"? If so, this still cannot be reconciled with your statement that it took 130 years for evos to come a little bit clean over this.

Where is the cut-off?

How long, in your opinion, is a person allowed to cling on to claims that have been shown to be false?

Now, if you could just help me narrow this down a bit, randman. When does the first window of opportunity, when it is still acceptable to cling to a claim shown to be false, end? How long after a claim has been show to be false it is still alright, according to you, to maintain that it is correct? When does the period of being ignored begin? Will we have to wait 139 years before it gets unacceptable that you continue to cling to false claims?

I do not find the fact that Haeckel is constantly referred to as having gradually changed his drawings in subsequent editions of Anthropogenie in response to criticism as convincing evidence that evos didn't criticize Haeckel's drawings until 139 years after they were published, until you provide evidence that all the people whose criticism Haeckel took into account when he changed his drawings in those subsequent editions, as well as the people referred to above, were creationists or, at least, "critics of mainstream evo practices", or, alternatively, you can show evidence that Haeckel didn't successively change his illustrations. If you have such evidence, feel free to present it at any time.

And your claim, with regards to this, is that these numerous scientists who continually exposed Haeckel's fraud from the 1800s and onwards were all creationists or, at least, "critics of mainstream evo practices"? If so, please provide evidence for your claim.

If there were other critics before Rütimeyer, please list them. If it is Rütimeyer you refer to when you claim that the first exposure of Haeckel came from the creationist camp, or from scientists that would be called ID theorists today, please provide evidence for this claim. If you refer to someone who exposed Haeckel after Rütimeyer in 1868, I would very much appreciate it if you named that person and the year in which he/she published his/her exposure of the fraudulent activities of Haeckel.

So I assume you have abandoned Davison's god-based idea of front-loading, then?

. In particular, I am interested in whether or not Rütimeyer was a creationist (or would be considered one if he lived today), or if in the short time period between the publication of Haeckel's "Natural History of Creation" and Hütimeyers critique thereof there was a published critique by a person we can unambiguously assign to the category "creationist, or person who would be considered a creationist if he/she lived today". Do you have evidence for either of these possible solutions to the inconsistencies in your claims?

.Note: you can still wriggle out of this by providing evidence that all of these people were actually creationists, criticized "mainstream evo practices", or would have been counted as creationists if they had lived today.

Does it, now? So how many people active in a discipline have to have explicitly exposed a certain set of fake data before you are satisfied that the discipline-community have satisfactorily exposed it as faked? 1%? 10%? 100%?

When we spoke last, you continually claimed that my understanding of evolutionary theory was worse than yours, and that I would not be able to comprehend the evidence if you placed it before me. If this is the case, why should I rely solely on what I can look up for myself, rather than apply to a more well-read person with a vaster understanding of the subject to present the evidence for their claims in a suitable manner, possibly dumbed down so that I may understand it?

This, to me, does not make him unequivocally a creationist. However, this appraisal is based only on the Hopwood text, and if you have further evidence that Hütimeyer was, indeed, a creationist, I would be much obliged if you would present it.

You will note that on some occasions, I included indirect questions that were not marked with a question mark, but which nevertheless have the nature of a question. As I see it, that is 16 unanswered questions in five posts, or about three per post. Some, I admit, were rhetorical or posted in jest, and others were merely repetitions of earlier questions. Nonetheless, there are more than one, which should adequately meet your demand.

My prediction is that you will claim to have "responded" to all of them, possibly with vague references to "earlier". Please prove me wrong, preferably by actually providing answers.

Do you admit or deny evos claimed non-functional DNA as strong evidence for evolution?

If you admit that, how is it the opposite is also evidence?

You mean, how come both non-functional and functional DNA are evidence for evolution? Well, as I explained to you last time we spoke, both kinds of DNA would, under the theory of evolution, be expected to behave in the same way, but at different speeds. Functional DNA may be expected to change more slowly than non-functional DNA, but both sets should over time come to form nested hierarchies. When both types of data is analyzed, we find that the prediction of evolutionary theory is carried out. Therefore, nature can be explained by evolutionary theory, and this line of data supports the theory of evolution. Non-functional DNA would, if it behaved as predicted by evolutionary theory, be evidence for evolutionary theory, whether it exists in the real world or not.

Your problem with this, again, is one of terminology, not one of substance.

It's not evidence for evolution at all, in fact, because it's not exclusive to evo models.

This is so stupid it is not even funny. Data can be supporting multiple theories at the same time, you know. For instance, the fact that some famous scientists compared scientific discovery to divine revelation supports both ID and the front-loading nonsense of your idol Davison. Similarly, the hypothesis that things that look the same must be the same is central to both the branch of creationism called baraminology and to the front-loading nonsense of your idol Davison.

Basically, you have no real evidence for mainstream evo theory, just a bunch of assertions which if proven wrong, evos just say the opposite is evidence too!

Petulance will get you nowhere. If you want to argue your case, do so. If your specific claim is that there is no evidence for mainstream evo theory, you should have no problem with me selecting a paper I feel tests a central prediction of evolutionary theory and review it critically, detailing why the data, analyses, and results of this paper does not support the evolutionary hypotheses they were meant to test.

 

[Reality Check]

So you agree. They WERE used just as I stated.

No I do not agree.
No Haeckel's faked images WERE NOT used..
Try reading Haeckel and his Embryos
The textbook used their own images based on Haeckel's work. This does not mean that they copied any of his images. It does not even mean that they used the faked images.

The 'fix' was that they realized that the one faked diagram in the original edition of his book was popularly believed to to taint all of Haeckel's work. So they replaced their images with "accurate drawings of the embryos made from detailed photomicrographs".

 

[randman]

Reality, you mean they colored them in and so in your worldview, they were not used?

Incredible.