|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 5793 days) Posts: 79 From: Merritt Island FL Joined: |
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Why Lie? (Re: Evolution frauds and hoaxes) | |||||||||||||||||||||||
randman  Suspended Member (Idle past 4930 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: |
very good point.....makes you wonder, doesn't it?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
randman  Suspended Member (Idle past 4930 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: |
Probably the evolutionist lie that lasted the longest was Piltdown man, because the original fossils were kept closeted for many years Don't you think Haeckel's forgeries and their influence via the false concept of the biogenetic law would have to be the longest running forgery?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
randman  Suspended Member (Idle past 4930 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: |
Not at all, since Haeckel's embryos and his belief that "ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny" was discarded as early as 1909. Just simply not true as Haeckel's forgeries were widely used until 1999 not 1909, and his ideas were and to a degree still are used. In fact, the notion and term recapitulation is still used as well as "the Biogenetic law." Over the decades, evos have watered down the theory, the last watering down occuring in the late 90s, but his terms and ideas are still widely used despite the data being faked. This has been covered in multiple threads though already.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
randman  Suspended Member (Idle past 4930 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: |
Additionally, the idea that the yolk sac is non-functional is wrong and discredits the claim Darwinism promotes better science, as we have a history of things erroroneously declared non-functional due to evos wanting to find evidence for their ideas.
Calcitropic gene expression suggests a role for the intraplacental yolk sac in maternal-fetal calcium exchange | American Journal of Physiology-Endocrinology and Metabolism Btw, human embryos don't have gill slits either.....just to head off the usual argument. Edited by randman, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
randman  Suspended Member (Idle past 4930 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: |
So a guy that was still using Haeckel's forged drawings up until what? 1997? is somehow someone we should expect to give us factual information?
Not trying to say he was intentionally deceptive, but why have confidence in the guy if he kept using forged data? It was widely publicized and known for decades and especially emphasized in the 80s and 90s that the data was faked. Apparently, he was unaware? Heck, I knew even as an undergrad student in the 80s, Haeckel's data was faked. Anyone barely familiar with the debate on evolution knew this or should have if they were half-way intelligent and interested in the facts. But Miller didn't? It amazes me you would use his textbook as source for factual information after such a glaring mistake of including fraudulent data when it was widely reported to be fraudulent for decades. Then again, I suppose since most all other evos did the same, it might be hard to find a more credible source. Edited by randman, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
randman  Suspended Member (Idle past 4930 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: |
I suppose it's my fault for saying that the yolk sac is nonfunctional though... most vestigial structures still have a very subtle function, but it is a function far removed from its original use.
You mean alleged original use based on imagining it based on theory, and I hope you will also admit that it is incorrect to state "it only makes sense" if it was vestigal since in reality, it makes perfect sense as a functional organ.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
randman  Suspended Member (Idle past 4930 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: |
So are you now claiming Haeckel did not fake his data and that data wasn't repeated ad nauseum as evidence for evo ideas for well over a 100 years?
Which is it? It seems difficult to keep up with the latest version evos are giving of the truth on this. I thought evos themselves admitted this was a giant hoax and fraud, or perhaps you haven't read the Richardson paper?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
randman  Suspended Member (Idle past 4930 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: |
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!
Haeckel's Embryos He admits almost every textbook used faked data. Why? Isn't it true that on this point the creationists were right in stating that evos were using faked data in their textbooks, and specifically that Haeckel's drawings were faked? Heck, creationist scientists have been pointing this out for decades, including creationist college professors such as Van Dyke at NC State. He went around and included this in a standard presentation/lecture even about the subject. It was detailed in creationist books from the 80s and 90s, and websites in the 90s. Heck, even non-scientists like the tract maker, Jack Chick, presented this and hundreds of thousands, if not millions, passed around. It is inconceivable to me how evos could not have known it was faked, but maybe so. If so, what does that say about them? The way I see it there are 2 plausible explanations: One is that evos so ignore the facts and their critics, that even correcting something so small as this, faked data, is incredibly difficult to do, and the other is that the internet made it untenable to continue to print the faked data, and actually a 3rd is a combination of the 2 depending on the individual. I don't want to accuse evos of blatant fraud so let's take their word that they just didn't know. Imo, this is almost worse in that it shows an incredible level of ignorance, incompetence, stubborness (refusal to listen to criticism) and narrow-mindedness. It'd almost be better, though not as a statement on their character, to assume they were informed and intelligent and just left in there on purpose. Edited by randman, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
randman  Suspended Member (Idle past 4930 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: |
Not the original Haeckel drawings (which were faked), but contemporary drawings (which are closer to the appearance of actual embryos). Have you looked at the drawings he's talking about. They are not closer to the appearance of actual embryos. The only thing they changed was they colored Haeckel's drawings. Their attempt to gloss over that is striking all on it's own. Perhaps you meant the pictographs they eventually used to replace Haeckel's colored-in drawings? Either way, that was after the fact.
"However, his drawings nonetheless became the source material for diagrams of comparative embryology in nearly every biology textbook, including ours!" They used side-by-side comparisons of different species in different stages of embryonic development. If they're more anatomically correct drawings, or even photos, how can this be termed "fake data?"
Um, they were not more anatomically correct. They were in fact faked data. They simply added a little color to Haeckel's black and white drawings. You seem to be confusing the time they used the faked data to where they replaced it and so apologized for it with the excuse everyone did it too.
But both articles, the first from PZ Meyers, and the second from Ken Miller (of Miller & Levine himself) said that the original points and drawings that Haeckel made were incorrect. All that leaves is the modern understanding of embryological data which is in textbooks, but this isn't what you're disputing. So the scientists have known the error, admitted the error, and instead have replaced the error with more correct embryology as it relates to evolution. How is any of this ignorant, incompetent, or stubborn at all?
First, it's ignorant because anyone following the debate or mildly interested in checking the facts out could have and should have easily known the data was faked. Why did they continue to use faked data? Secondly, despite their trying to downplay it as if no errors were involved other than the illustrations, that is simply not the case. There have been and continue to be errors based on Haeckel's faked data and ideas to this day. We could discuss the nuances and details of that, or just read some prior threads that address it, but it's worth noting briefly that evos have used the same term, recapitulation, to refer to several discredited versions of it, and they are still using it today in a more watered down version. You'd think there would be some shame over the whole affair and at a minimum, they'd back off and admit they advanced false ideas and never use the same term, but that's not the case. In fact, you still find evos sometimes using the same false claims of Haeckel in claiming human embryos have gill slits and such. Moreover, the idea that animals that appear more similar as adults appear more similar as embryos as somehow some sort of strong evidence for evolution or even evidence at all is baffling. The reason embryological claims are mentioned so much in textbooks is due to the fact Haeckel's faked data and ideas were so convincing. Heck, my Dad in the late 50s and early 60s was taught at a very prestigious university that "ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny." The phrase didn't phase out in the late 1900s as some claim here.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
randman  Suspended Member (Idle past 4930 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: |
Why? What Wells says is of no consequence and I am pretty sure I have read the "paper". My opinion on Talkorigins is that it is propaganda and it discredits anyone citing it as somehow relevant material.
Maybe you should have read the actual science journal papers Richardson published or the creationist criticism of Haeckel in the 20 years before Richardson confirmed their criticisms?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
randman  Suspended Member (Idle past 4930 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: |
I think the evo side is fully conceding that Haeckel's drawings and theories were wrong, and that the drawings (and theories?) persisted in textbooks far longer than they should have. But in the total scheme of biological evolutionary theory, Haeckel's input was nothing more than a speck. Are you trying to push the thinking that "If part of the theory has been shown to be wrong, how can we trust any of the theory?" No, but I do think it should create doubt, not on evo theory per se but on the scientific community of evos in regard to the evidence for evolution. In other words, the whole affair says something about how facts and evidence are used in regard to evolution by evos. Imo, there is no excuse for the continued use of the faked data and ideas in the face of decades of persisent criticism easily verified. It's baffling and more so, very troubling. If it's this difficult to correct something fairly small, how much harder would it be to correct something more primary? If the obstinance of evolutionists can resist even a mild correction of obvious faked data to the point it takes over 100 years to get the community to back off of it, then what about other areas that are more primary as evidence for evolution? It just doesn't make the evo community look like the non-biased, objective group of scientists so often espoused. It certainly made an impression on me that prior to 1997, every evo I argued with and stated that Haeckel's data was faked insisted I was wrong, or a liar, or ignorant, etc,....despite the fact it wasn't that hard to tell the data was faked. Edited by randman, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
randman  Suspended Member (Idle past 4930 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: |
You mean a textbook writer like a biology professor of an Ivy League school or how about the fact Richardson stated in his peer-reviewed article that Haeckel's drawings and the idea of a phylotypic stage were near universally accepted by scientists despite there being no verification of the concept.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
randman  Suspended Member (Idle past 4930 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: |
I'm a little skeptical as to why they would color Haeckel's drawings. If they were going to rehash those diagrams that seems like unnecessary work. Try a little research. They were the same drawings, just color added.
What exactly do you mean by "data" here? Are you referring to the original drawings, or to Haeckel's idea that evolutionary changes can only be added on to the tail end of development? haeckel's drawings and ideas or related ideas. Keep in mind that despite the original Biogenetic law and recapitulation being abandoned, the concept ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny was not. It was just stated that adult forms are not recapitulated. However, it was maintained the embryonic forms were, still called recapitulation, and then that was watered down even more by claiming the phylotypic stage was real (it is not), and that was still called recapitulation and at times the biogenetic law too. And that's been largely discredited, though evos still make a pitch for it from time to time, but the new "recapitulation theory" is that somehow embryonic stages are coorealated due to evolution to a degree. Bottom line is evos have been trying to maintain and use Haeckel's fraudulent ideas and data for well over 100 years. Richardson, despite in the 90s calling it the biggest fraud in biology, lent his name to a paper (pressure from evos?) that has backtracked and calls Haeckel's fraudulent depictions "a good teaching aide." If it were not for the internet, I wouldn't be surprised to see the term "ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny" widespread in textbooks and college classes again, and we might still see it. This isn't the first time the fraud has been exposed. We'll see if it remains accepted that it was fraudulent among evos. Certainly, the evos I debated with in the 90s insisted it was correct.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
randman  Suspended Member (Idle past 4930 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: |
Hmmm....modern embryology accepted Haeckel's depictions as factual until 1997-98 and also claimed and many still do that the phylotypic stage is real. As far as gill slits and such, that's a stretch. Just because embryos are more similar the more similar adults are is no surprise and certainly not evidence for universal common descent.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
randman  Suspended Member (Idle past 4930 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: |
Some authors have suggested that members of most or all vertebrate clades pass through a virtually identical, conserved stage. This idea was promoted by Haeckel, and has recently been revived in the context of claims regarding the universality of developmental mechanisms. Thus embryonic resemblance at the tailbud stage has been linked with a conserved pattern of developmental gene expression - the zootype. Haeckel’s drawings of the external morphology of various vertebrates remain the most comprehensive comparative data purporting to show a conserved stage. ...... One puzzling feature of the debate in this field is that while many authors have written of a conserved embryonic stage, no one has cited any comparative data in support of the idea. It is almost as though the phylotypic stage is regarded as a biological concept for which no proof is needed. MK Rich Ardson - MK Blog Rich few salient points..... 1. The phylotypic stage was generally believed and held to be true, at least in 1997. 2. The evidence for this was Haeckel's drawings which was considered the "most comprehensive comparitive data purposting to show a conserved stage" in 1997. 3. The attitude or approach was "almost as though the phylotypicstage is regarded as a biological concept for which no proof is needed." I wonder why. Edited by randman, : No reason given.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024