tsig
a carbon based life-form
- Joined
- Nov 25, 2005
- Messages
- 39,049
Rather predictable. The waving of hands while ignoring data is the last resort of the apologist.
Rather predictable. The waving of hands while ignoring data is the last resort of the apologist.
Randman, what's your point in all this? Even if you could prove evolution wrong, and how could you, it's the most heavily studied science in the history of humankind. Any wrongness it can have at this point is in the most minor of details, and fixing those would just make the theory stronger as a whole.
But even if you could, you have nothing to replace it with. Creationism is wrong. Absolutely impossibly wrong. Intelligent design is creationism with a different name and a smokescreen around "the Christian god." ID is also absolutely impossibly wrong.
There is no other theory. There is no alternative. Evolution describes the history of life on this planet as closely to perfectly as science can physically do. "A wizard did it" is not an alternative, and there is no controversy. This is the progression of science vs. the regression of fundamentalists. An attempt to recreate the Dark Ages. It is unacceptable!
But even if you could, you have nothing to replace it with. Creationism is wrong. Absolutely impossibly wrong. Intelligent design is creationism with a different name and a smokescreen around "the Christian god." ID is also absolutely impossibly wrong.
There is no other theory. There is no alternative. Evolution describes the history of life on this planet as closely to perfectly as science can physically do. "A wizard did it" is not an alternative, and there is no controversy. This is the progression of science vs. the regression of fundamentalists. An attempt to recreate the Dark Ages. It is unacceptable!
Plugging "de Grasse" into the english Wikipedia, I coincidentally found this fellow:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neil_deGrasse_Tyson
Pierre-Paul Grasse actually.....the "De" should not be there.
Nice faith statement but the problem is Darwinism does not. You can have a viable theory of common descent and argue that, but the small changes adding to big changes via Darwinian evolution has no support whatsoever as far as actual facts. That's one reason evos have relied so much on faked data and overstatements, such as the Biogenetic Law.
Every thing we know about microevolution via Darwinian means is evidence against Darwinism. It's a process running counter to the origin of the higher taxa.
Ss an aside, I like these comments by John Davison though I disagree that common descent is a fact and acknowledge he can be a bit if crank if disrespected on a message board but that can be true for all of us.
http://www.iscid.org/boards/ubb-get_topic-f-6-t-000370-p-22.html
Prove it.
Edit to add: read the rest of your post. You are resting this claim on a evo site that although acknowledges some weaknesses of evos, the article's aim is to blame creationists if you read it carefully. I used it because it clearly showed an admission of widespread use of Haeckel.
9 of 11 show vertebrate drawings. They say only a few are Haeckel's.
Is that like when the NCSE said some drawings were not Haeckel's because they had colored them in?
You also have provided no evidence from the 70s and 80s whereas I have shown you examples of Haeckel being used in textbooks, and indeed attending school during those years, it was in our's.
Last edited:
That's fine because Darwinism is not the current theory of evolution. And it's not a faith statement because science does not and can not allow faith.
Darwinism is not the modern theory of evolution, so even if I could understand that sentence it wouldn't mean anything.
You're inventing words, redefining words, and creating strawmen, but you can't actually invent an alternate explanation for anything.
A'isha
Miss Schoolteacher
I'm using your evidence that you posted, randman:
And look, here's you in that post, after cutting and pasting the entire list at the original chart linked above, saying flat-out that it agrees with you:
I find it quite darkly amusing that the same source is completely unimpeachable and totally confirms what you're arguing when you think it agrees with you, and then suddenly and becomes utterly dubious and easily dismissed the instant you think it disagrees with you.
You did the same thing with Richardson's papers, too.
Last edited:
aggle-rithm
Ardent Formulist
If I were you, I would find something more productive to do. You're not going to convince anyone here. You're a smart person, you know it's true. I can only conclude that your purpose here is to convince yourself.
If so, then you might ask yourself why you need so much convincing.
I edited as I read the rest of your post and did not realize you guys had responded.
1. Of the 11 in the 60s given by this site, 9 use drawings related to embryology. When they say they are not Haeckel's drawings, is this like the NCSE that said textbooks did not use Haeckel's drawings because they colored them in?
2. I used the site as a reference because they acknowledge some obvious weaknesses in evo claims, but the point of the article is to condemn creationists for this error if you read it closely. The authors have a strong bias. This would be like reading a democratic article trying to put their best spin on something.
3. Where is your data from the 70s and 80s? I showed you examples of textbooks using data Haeckel, including a large majority of ones available for one state in the 80s. You've provided very little but just keep saying things without having any real basis for them.
For example, who told you Haeckel had declined in use in the 60s, 70s, and 80s and then textbooks starting using him again in the 90s?
That's not how textbook writing works and some embryologists taken a renewed interest in the Biogenetic Law is not going to cause that.
Do you not know that?
A textbook using more up to date drawings would not go back and start using Haeckel all of the sudden in the 90s. Maybe you figure it's harder to show textbooks before the internet and so are trying to throw out some confusion here.
Please show where you get you idea from so we can assess it.
1. Of the 11 in the 60s given by this site, 9 use drawings related to embryology. When they say they are not Haeckel's drawings, is this like the NCSE that said textbooks did not use Haeckel's drawings because they colored them in?
2. I used the site as a reference because they acknowledge some obvious weaknesses in evo claims, but the point of the article is to condemn creationists for this error if you read it closely. The authors have a strong bias. This would be like reading a democratic article trying to put their best spin on something.
3. Where is your data from the 70s and 80s? I showed you examples of textbooks using data Haeckel, including a large majority of ones available for one state in the 80s. You've provided very little but just keep saying things without having any real basis for them.
For example, who told you Haeckel had declined in use in the 60s, 70s, and 80s and then textbooks starting using him again in the 90s?
That's not how textbook writing works and some embryologists taken a renewed interest in the Biogenetic Law is not going to cause that.
Do you not know that?
A textbook using more up to date drawings would not go back and start using Haeckel all of the sudden in the 90s. Maybe you figure it's harder to show textbooks before the internet and so are trying to throw out some confusion here.
Please show where you get you idea from so we can assess it.
Yawn. Absolutely incorrect. But it's typical of the evo mindset which is not scientific, nor precise but all about appeals to authority without an ability to look at the details carefully.
Consider the common claim of quote-mining. It's generally that if an evolutionist is still an evo but admits some point in agreement with creationists or IDers, it's quote-mining and wrong for IDers and creationists to use that same point and them as a reference.
That'd be like questioning a man during a trial that says he is guilty, and you catch him admitting a point that hurts his case. Well, the evo defense attorney says, can you believe that men and women of the jury, the prosecution has the audacity to quote-mine this man. He clearly asserts his innocence.
You guys don't even see what you are doing and advocating most of the time.
Prove it.
Just for clarity.....Do you believe evolution says the higher taxa evolved via sequential speciation?
A'isha
Miss Schoolteacher
Repeating Wells again, I see.
But no, I don't mean that. I mean that they start using diagrams like this:
That's from the "blue" (or molecular biology) version of the final 1963 version of the textbook released by the Biological Sciences Curriculum Study, a group set up in 1959 specifically to review the state of biology textbooks in America and create a textbook more in line with actual, current scientific knowledge (the BSCS was led by active, working bio scientists).
The diagram above is not Haeckel's. It's not taken from anything Haeckel ever did in his lifetime, either, since it depicts animals he never examined, and depicts almost three times as many intermediate embyrological stages as he did. These depictions are also drawn from scratch from new embryos - you'll note that they include the yolk sacs that Haeckel omitted from his drawings.
The "yellow" (or cellular biology) version of the same textbook, also published in 1963, even rearranges the order of animals in the diagram, to make it resemble Haeckel's "fish-bird-man" left to right progression even less.
Why do you think the actual biologists behind the BSCS effort to bring textbooks more in line with current knowledge changed diagrams, randman? Why did they abandon Haeckel's diagrams and make their own? Why would they go to such lengths to make their new diagrams as unlike Haeckel's as possible?
No, it's to explain the spike in the use of Haeckel's drawings and diagrams derived from them. Which it does.
I already told you. You just happen to not have liked the answer because Wells told you not to like it.
Actually, yes it does, depending on who a particular textbook is targeted at. That's why college textbooks go through so many editions - to keep up with recent developments in the fields of science they are introductions to.
Well, that kinda depends on why they're using him and what they're saying about him, doesn't it? Which is what I've been trying to tell you.
Last edited:
iknownothing
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Jan 5, 2010
- Messages
- 1,357
No, creationists are commonly accused of quote mining because they frequently use chopped-up quotes out of context. (Like Darwin's comments on the eye being used to suggest he thought it was irreducibly complex.)
It would be more like if a man said "I couldn't have murdered that guy. I was in another city and I have the receipts to prove it. Besides, I'm not a cold blooded murderer," and he was quoted to the jury as saying "I...murdered that guy. I was...a cold blooded murderer."
Last edited:
Halfcentaur
Philosopher
- Joined
- Jun 10, 2010
- Messages
- 6,620
If he honestly thinks he is going to prove the theory of evolution wrong after over a century of rigorous scientific debate by coming on a message board and engaging some scientists and people who are just interested out of personal reasons, he is suffering from delusions of grandeur. He must realize the futility of this.
The alternative it seems is that he is trying to reconcile somehow with the fact that his argument is founded on a faith based religion, but he is seeking the certainty that only empirical evidence offers. Even if he did manage to expose the theory of evolution and common descent as an error, falsifying evolution doesn't = God exists, it would only suggest another material cause we've been wrong about. But he's got quantum physics to counter the materialism. What the Bleep Do We Know?
There's a reason only a percentile of Christians come to the same conclusions that you do, Randman. And it's not because of a conspiracy or dogmatic institution that has mistakenly fooled the overwhelming majority of the world's population into wearing the Emperor's clothes while not seeing what you privileged denialists have the lucidity to recognize. It's because your faith conflicts with reality.
No link?
First things first.... show us where you get your evidence from.
As far as the depiction, looks like they do the same thing as Haeckel, making a similar error but just added new pictures. Good for them not use obvious faked data, but still isn't so good to further the same false concept.
Also, if in the 60s, 70s, and 80s, embryologists were taught the phylogenic stage without Haeckel using different data-sets, by and large, as you claim. Why did Ricahrdson say in 1997 they were still using Haeckel's drawings?
Makes no sense. Why would you go back to using Haeckel in the 90s?
That's even worse than my point, which is more logical, that by and large they continued to use Haeckel'd depiction all along.
What you are saying is they principally departed from Haeckel's data-set and created new ones, but they decided to go back to Haeckel's.
Why would they do that?
Ok, what were they saying in the textbook you linked to that differs from the textbooks later that used Haeckel?
You appear to have access to the 60s textbook. What does it say?
Keep in mind I am not asking for something unreasonable. You claim due to the teaching in the textbook changing, they went back to Haeckel.
Seems even worse than my point then, however, in that they removed data-sets that wouldn't support their new addition?
dasmiller
Just the right amount of cowbell
randman, you may be assuming a level of consistency and purpose among American textbook companies that, if present, would be pleasantly surprising.
No, I know they are not all consistent though most have used the same basic arguments as support for evolution for decades. Plenty of evolutionists, though less insistent, complained about Haeckel and recapitulation over the years (Gould for one).
But the idea that textbook authors and even working scientists developed more advanced data-sets and then all of the sudden switched back to Haeckel, at least for a legitimate reason, requires a suspension of disbelief.
A'isha
Miss Schoolteacher
To what? It's a book. It's this book, in fact.
Every place I've ever obtained any information from has been cited in this thread. You're deflecting from the point once again:
Why is the above diagram so different from Haeckel's? Why does it show things Haeckel never even attempted to show? If Haeckel was so relied in and trusted, why is there even a different version of his diagram in existence?
Why is Haeckel or his drawings not cited or even mentioned in peer-reviewed studies about the exact thing you claim is just Haeckelism warmed over: the concept of phylotypic stages? Why is he not mentioned, but von Baer is?
Where and how do scientists, actual scientists performing studies and writing papers in disciplinary journals? Be specific, randman.
Really? What error?
And what concept would that be?
How many times do I have to tell you? A resurgence of the science of comparative embryology, which prompted people to start looking once again at the first person to truly investigate the topic.
No, that's not logical. That's what you so desperately want to believe, to the point where you will refuse to answer my questions above about the role Haeckel and his drawings play in the current Synthetic Model.
Show us where scientists rely on Haeckel's drawings.