Wholly Natrualistic Alternative To Neo-Darwinism?

[randman]

Kot, I don't have time to waste on your long posts that skew the facts. Suffice to say, you are just wrong. For example, evos specifically argued that non-functional DNA was particularly strong evidence for evolution because they argued there was no rationale way for similar sequences to have appeared without being passed on via common ancestry.

of course, they were wrong on many counts. First, even non-functional DNA may be more likely to mutate into a certain pattern but the larger argument was that the DNA would be found to be functional. You likely cannot figure it out from here but should be able to.

Repetition of functional sequences is explained by function of design.

 

[Lowpro]

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.

That's what I wanted to say, so yea. Repeated because it's concise, well written, and is near effortless to reproduce.

 

[randman]

Oh, and as far as nested hierarchies, if molecular data is inconsistent with it, what do evos do?

Do they drop the argument?

Nah.

 

[Reality Check]

No, they were not aware.

Yes they were probably aware. That is why they did not use them.
Haeckel and his Embryos

Page 223 of the Lion Book (BIOLOGY - The Living Science) and page 283 of the Elephant Book (BIOLOGY by Miller and Levine) each contain drawings of the early stages of embryonic development in several vertebrates. Although neither of these drawings are identical to his, they are based on the work of Ernst Haeckel (portrait at left), a 19th century German Biologist who was a pioneer in the study of embryonic development.

What they were not aware of was just how fudged these images were as shown by Richardson (1999).

They apologized and said like nearly every textbook, the images were used but took them out after the Richardson study and when they became aware of the fraud.

They did not apologize because errors in textbooks are expected.
They found an error and fixed it.

You keep saying they don't use the images. Yea, that's right. They did until 1997. They admit it. Why are you trying to whitewash that?

You keep saying they use the images when they explicitly state that they did not. They did not even after 1997. They admit it. Why are you trying to lie about this?

Luckly the IDiots have what Miller & Levine's 1994 version of Biology: The Living Science stated in his section "DATA SUPPORTING THE FACT OF EVOLUTIONARY CHANGE" and a sub-section titled "Similarities in Anatomy and Development.". The page niumber differs from that in Haeckel and his Embryos but the editions may be different.

Note that there is no attribution of the image to anyone. This is an image that Miller & Levine drew themselves (or had drawn).
It is not anything from Ernst Haeckel.

The fact is that Ernst Haeckel only fudgeda set of images in the original edition of one of his books.

Haeckel's entire literary output was extensive, working as a professor at the University of Jena for 47 years, and even at the time of the celebration of his 60th birthday at Jena in 1894, Haeckel had produced 42 works with nearly 13,000 pages, besides numerous scientific memoirs and illustrations.[35]

It is this body of work that Miller & Levine refer to.

 

[randman]

That's what I wanted to say, so yea. Repeated because it's concise, well written, and is near effortless to reproduce.

Except Kot isn't repeating the former evo arguments but misrepresenting it.

 

[randman]

Reality, they did use them. You admitted that. You said the drawings were the basis of their drawings; their source code. That means they USED THEM, which is why they quit using them when they found out they were fakes.

Are you suggesting they knowingly used and relied on faked drawings?

Most textbooks appeared to just colored them in.

Showed that already last time.

 

[randman]

Oh, and look at the pics in your link from 1994. How can you say they are nothing like Haeckel's. They are virtually identical and also erroneous.

Are you saying they faked data too? And put erroneous drawings they drew themselves without the assistance of relying on Haeckel? Isn't that even a worse accusation?

 

[Reality Check]

randman, what is your evidence that Hütimeyer was a creationist

Rutimeyer was not with Darwin.

Well Duh! That has been well established.
For example Dawin lived in England, Rutimeyer did not .

You need to stop dodging the question

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.

What is the answer randman?

 

[Reality Check]

Oh, and look at the pics in your link from 1994. How can you say they are nothing like Haeckel's. They are virtually identical and also erroneous.

I did not say that they are nothing like Haeckel's.
They are alike but not erroneous - just inaccurate. That is why they fixed them !
And when you look at the accurate images, they are also "virtually identical" rolleyes to Haeckel's.

The point is that you are lying when you state that they used Haeckel's image. There is no attribution of the image to Haeckel, thus they did not use them. This is really simple, randman.

 

[Reality Check]

Reality, they did use them. You admitted that.

randman, they did not use them. I did not admit it. The missing attribution of the images shows that they did not use them.

To support your assertion that Miller & Levine used this specific image from Haeckel's book, you need to produce evidence, e.g. where they cite Haeckel as the author of the diagram.

So far al you have is what Miller & Levine state:

Page 223 of the Lion Book (BIOLOGY - The Living Science) and page 283 of the Elephant Book (BIOLOGY by Miller and Levine) each contain drawings of the early stages of embryonic development in several vertebrates. Although neither of these drawings are identical to his, they are based on the work of Ernst Haeckel (portrait at left), a 19th century German Biologist who was a pioneer in the study of embryonic development.

No mention any specific images produced by Ernst Haeckel.

 

[randman]

How can you say they did not use them when they admit they did?

They flat out stated Haeckel's drawings were the source material for their depictions. That's using them whether you want to admit or not. Just because they colored them in or something like that does not mean they were not used.

They quit using them when they found out they were faked.

 

[randman]

In fact, they presented straight up Haeckelism; ontogeny recapitulating phylogeny as shown in the bolded section below.

Darwin and his contemporaries knew that early embryos of many animals look nearly identical and that the earliest stages of development in "lower" animals seem to be repeated in the development of "higher" animals such as ourselves (Fig. 8.15). Darwin realized that the similar developmental paths followed by animal embryos make sense if all of us evolved long ago from common ancestors through a series of lengthy evolutionary changes.
These striking embryological similarities led some of Darwin's contemporaries (though apparently not Darwin himself) to believe that the embryological development of an individual repeats its species' evolutionary history.

Why, then, should the embryos of related organisms retain similar features when adults of their species look quite different? The cells and tissues of the earliest embryological stages of any organism are like the bottom levels in a house of cards. The final form of the organism is built upon them, and even a small change in their character can result in disaster later. It would hardly be adaptive for a bird to grow a longer beak, for example, if it lost its tongue in the process.

The earliest stages of the embryos life, therefore, are essentially "locked in," whereas cells and tissues that are produced later can change more freely without harming the organism. As species with common ancestors evolve over time, divergent sets of successful evolutionary changes accumulate as development proceeds, but early embryos stick more closely to their original appearance.

(Joseph S. LeVine & Kenneth R. Miller, Biology: Discovering Life, pg. 162 (2nd Ed., D.C. Heath, 1994), emphasis added)

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2007/03/ken_millers_evolving_position003367.html

Look at the diagrams they used.
http://www.evolutionnews.org/Miller_DiscoveringLife.jpg

Straight up Haeckel all the way.

 

[catsmate]

Rutimeyer was not with Darwin.

Yet his 1871 review of Descent of Man was extremely positive; I assume you've read it? He agreed with the evolutionary view of nature, it didn't conflict with his religious views.

 

[randman]

Yet his 1871 review of Descent of Man was extremely positive; I assume you've read it? He agreed with the evolutionary view of nature, it didn't conflict with his religious views.

Behe, Goldschmidt, Pierre Grasse, Davison and a bunch of others also have an evolutionary view of nature but not evolutionary in the sense of agreeing with your concept of "evolution."

Let me ask you something.

Is Behe an evolutionist or Intelligent Design theorist?

 

[Reality Check]

How can you say they did not use them when they admit they did?

How can you say they did use them when they admit they did not?

They flat out stated Haeckel's drawings were the source material for their depictions.

They flat out stated Haeckel's work was the source material (see below) for their depictions.
They never used his actual drawing because they never attributed the drawing to him.

Why did they not just use his drawing, randman?
Could it be because they knew that it was dubious? Maybe they know about Rutimeyer's criticism.

They quit using them when they found out they were faked.

Wrong. They quit using the diagram when the already known fact that the images were fudged became reported in the popular media.
Haeckel and his Embryos

This idea has been pushed back into the news recently by the news that Haeckel's drawings of embryonic similarities were not correct. British embryologist Michael Richardson and his colleages published an important paper in the August 1997 issue of Anatomy & Embryology showing that Haeckel had fudged his drawings to make the early stages of embryos appear more alike than they actually are! As it turns out, Haeckel's contemporaries had spotted the fraud during his lifetime, and got him to admit it. However, his drawings nonetheless became the source material for diagrams of comparative embryology in nearly every biology textbook, including ours

As I have been saying - they did not use Haeckel's diagram. They used their own diagram, based on his work.

The extent of their knowledge of how fudged Haeckel'sdiagram before 1997 was is unknown.

 

[randman]

What part of the following do you not understand Reality?

However, his drawings nonetheless became the source material for diagrams of comparative embryology in nearly every biology textbook, including ours

You even admit they used him when you say their diagrams were based on his work. So they used Haeckel, period.

In fact, they are more than just based on. They are virtually identical.

 

[randman]

Here's a little illustration though not of Miller and Levine's textbook but of a later one.

http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=download&id=1224

 

[Reality Check]

In fact, they presented straight up Haeckelism; ontogeny recapitulating phylogeny as shown in the bolded section below.

In fact, that is quite dumb.
How did you expect then to debunk "ontogeny recapitulating phylogeny" without stating the idea of "ontogeny recapitulating phylogeny" ?

The statement of "ontogeny recapitulating phylogeny" is in bold.
The evolutionary explanation is in bold and red.

Darwin and his contemporaries knew that early embryos of many animals look nearly identical and that the earliest stages of development in "lower" animals seem to be repeated in the development of "higher" animals such as ourselves (Fig. 8.15). Darwin realized that the similar developmental paths followed by animal embryos make sense if all of us evolved long ago from common ancestors through a series of lengthy evolutionary changes.
These striking embryological similarities led some of Darwin's contemporaries (though apparently not Darwin himself) to believe that the embryological development of an individual repeats its species' evolutionary history.

Why, then, should the embryos of related organisms retain similar features when adults of their species look quite different? The cells and tissues of the earliest embryological stages of any organism are like the bottom levels in a house of cards. The final form of the organism is built upon them, and even a small change in their character can result in disaster later. It would hardly be adaptive for a bird to grow a longer beak, for example, if it lost its tongue in the process.

The earliest stages of the embryos life, therefore, are essentially "locked in," whereas cells and tissues that are produced later can change more freely without harming the organism. As species with common ancestors evolve over time, divergent sets of successful evolutionary changes accumulate as development proceeds, but early embryos stick more closely to their original appearance.

(Joseph S. LeVine & Kenneth R. Miller, Biology: Discovering Life, pg. 162 (2nd Ed., D.C. Heath, 1994))

 

[Reality Check]

What part of the following do you not understand Reality?

What I am saying is simple English, randman:
They did not use not use Haeckel's actual diagram as published in Haeckel's book. We know this because there is no citation at all for their diagram.

They used their own diagram, based on his work. That turned out to be virtually identical to Haeckel's diagram.

 

[randman]

Except none of it's true. The earliest stages are not "locked in" in that they are very dissimilar and so do not indicate evolutionary relationships. They may be locked in that they have not differentiated as much but the earliest stages are very divergent. Moreover, "divergent sets of successful changes accumulate as development proceeds" in the context of the preceding statement is clearly wrong. They don't start similar and accumulate into more changes in the later stages. That's total bull-crap.

So is the last part about "early embryos stick more closely to their original appearance." That's just flat out not true and the fact they wrote that indicates the level of confusion among evos and distortions when it comes to data.

But I'll give you one thing: they didn't really understand haeckel either as he wasn't this screwed up. He promoted the hourglass model which shows more divergence in the earliest and late stages. How in the world that could be evidence for evolution is anyone's guess. It's the opposite of what evos would expect, which would be more like what these guys wrote. Problem is what they said isn't true.