• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Stupid Christian Article on Evolution

Well, since two of the textbooks are incomplete in terms of my photographs, and my plans to put all this in a totally different thread, I want to close with the 2002 textbook and something I uncovered purely by accident, grabbing random books off of shelves.

IMG_20110318_153659.jpg


Biology: A Guide to the Natural World, by David Krogh.


IMG_20110318_153724.jpg


Second edition published 2002, originally published in 2000.

IMG_20110318_153826.jpg


Once again, no mention in the index of our friend Haeckel. Though I see Woody Guthrie gets a namedrop. Apparently folk singers are more important to modern science than Haeckel is. That's gotta sting.

Anyway, as I paged through the book, looking for a comparative embryology diagram, I encountered this:

IMG_20110318_153748.jpg


It's a comparative diagram, all right. But look closer, at the caption.

See that? "Adapted from M. K. Richardson, 1997". This diagram was taken right from the paper about Haeckel that randman is so fond of waving about! Richardson's own diagrams showing how Haeckel was incorrect and shouldn't be used as evidence for vertebrate embryological similarities showing common descent, are themselves evidence for vertebrate embryological similarities showing common descent. The problem wasn't the concept, it was Haeckel. So, science abandoned Haeckel, and turned to non-tainted evidence instead. Just like it's supposed to.

So yes, randman, science textbooks do indeed keep up with the latest research in the field, and are update to take into account what's important and what's currently big news.
 
Last edited:
ANTPogo said:
In other randman news, I was briefly skimming the 9/11 Conspiracies Forum to get my mind off of all this other junk, when I encountered this thread, where I was, admittedly, really rather unsurprised to see our friend randman post stuff like the following.





So he's a Truther in addition to a Creationist. Whodathunk, right?
Click to expand...

Whether or not I agree that he's on a quest to be wrong about everything, it's probably unwise to drag in other threads.
 
So yes, randman, science textbooks do indeed keep up with the latest research in the field, and are update to take into account what's important and what's currently big news.
Click to expand...
To be fair, textbooks lag behind the bleeding edge a bit. I mean, they have to--half the time the bleeding edge hasn't been sufficiently figured out yet to determine one way or the other. But thanks for the caption. Yet again, the paper randman cites says the opposite of what he says it says.
 
randman said:
just stating a fact......every conscious decision you make is based on faith, on what you believe is true and you have no proof it is true....science itself doesn't claim to prove anything
Click to expand...

That corner you're in is getting a bit tight?
 
randman said:
Robert Bloome, Goldschmidt, Otto Schindenwolf, Pierre Grasse, and more recently, Davison, Denton, etc,.....are you guys honestly unaware of the history of evo theory and how so many scientists reject NeoDarwinism?
Click to expand...

Haeckel.
 
randman said:
just stating a fact......every conscious decision you make is based on faith, on what you believe is true and you have no proof it is true....science itself doesn't claim to prove anything
Click to expand...
You know, I'm going to trot this out the next time someone says that Rand's characters are unrealistic. This is nearly a direct quote from James Taggart (after Galt's Speech, specifically).

Also, you're listening to the wrong philosophers of science. I recommend "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions", to better understand what proof is needed and what you need to do in order to change a paradigm.
 
Looking at Haeckels drawings I'm wondering if ID'ists have simply seen images and assumed they were Haeckels rather than modern diagrams presented in a similar format or style.
 
Last edited:
Dinwar said:
You know, I'm going to trot this out the next time someone says that Rand's characters are unrealistic. This is nearly a direct quote from James Taggart (after Galt's Speech, specifically).

Also, you're listening to the wrong philosophers of science. I recommend "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions", to better understand what proof is needed and what you need to do in order to change a paradigm.
Click to expand...

Agreed.

http://www.google.com/products/cata...=X&ei=ugyFTbHACIqV0QGGpfXjCA&ved=0CDEQ8wIwAg#
 
sphenisc said:
*cough*
*cough*

It is my theory, which belongs to me, is mine...



...That is the theory that I have, and which is mine, and what it is too.

(Well me and Weismann.)
Click to expand...

I'm sure it is. I'm also sure that your theory of NeoDarwinism bears as little resemblance to the actual theory of evolution or what was called NeoDarwinism in its day as does rand's NeoDarwinism.

eta:Actually, I'm not sure. I may have a false impression of your positions from the brief bits you've posted. But since I've yet to see an ID/Creationist accurately describe the theory they're disagreeing with, and I gather that's your angle, I'll hold with the above for now.
 
Last edited:
sphenisc said:
*cough*
*cough*

It is my theory, which belongs to me, is mine...



...That is the theory that I have, and which is mine, and what it is too.

(Well me and Weismann.)
Click to expand...

An Elk?

Whats the ID explanation for those massive impractical antlers then?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom