|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 5763 days) Posts: 79 From: Merritt Island FL Joined: |
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Why Lie? (Re: Evolution frauds and hoaxes) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
randman  Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 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?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
BeagleBob Member (Idle past 5677 days) Posts: 81 Joined: |
quote: Not at all, since Haeckel's embryos and his belief that "ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny" was discarded as early as 1909. Haeckel believed that evolution could only craft new biological elements on the tail end of development. Not so! This was the theory that was discarded, since we do know that evolutionary changes can affect a creature at any point in development. What was retained, however, became modern embryology and more up-to-date knowledge about embryos and their role in understanding evolution. For example, even mammalian embryos have a non-functional yolk sac... this only really makes sense when you account for the fact that it was retained from their reptilian ancestry. Here's a few sources: Haeckel's Embryos Wells and Haeckel's Embryos
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
randman  Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 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 4899 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
BeagleBob Member (Idle past 5677 days) Posts: 81 Joined: |
There are two points you seem to be making here: First, you're arguing that modern scientists have retained bad, outdated science from Haeckel, and that this bad, outdated science is still being taught in schools.
On the first point: when Haeckel first made the argument that "ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny" he meant that as organisms develop the embryo would go through a fish stage, then an amphibian stage, then a reptilian stage, then to the mammalian stage. This idea has been rejected for decades. However, the more basic point is that embryos have features that are retained from ancestral forms... and this indeed is correct (see the yolk sac example I gave above). On the second point, here's PZ Meyers' review of the Campbell biology textbook on the matter:
quote: Ken Miller, one of the scientists who worked on the Miller and Levine biology textbook, also argued the point that Haeckel was wrong and used a proper example of ancestral remnants found in embryos. So no, it looks like the major textbooks do not repeat Haeckel's error. The scientific community as a whole would not like to see the public misinformed on the matter... if high school biology teachers do still maintain Haeckel's position (and honestly I wonder why they would... it's a rather bizarre proposition) it's their problem, not the problem of the science. If you still want to refer to this as a "watered-down" form of Haeckel's theory, at least take into account the fact that good science is retained and bad science is rejected. This is the way science in general is done (after all, we went through something like four models of the atom before we got to the current model, discarding bad elements and retaining good ones), and it can't be legitimately used as a targeted criticism against evolution.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
BeagleBob Member (Idle past 5677 days) Posts: 81 Joined: |
quote: I don't understand what your point is here... the yolk sac having coopted a role in the exchange of calcium between mother and fetus is a wonderful example of a vestigial organ. 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. EDIT: I'll have to dig through my anatomy books again, but IIRC while human embryos don't have gill slits, the same structures in embryos that develop into gill slits in fish instead develop into the bones of the inner ear in humans. Again, a wonderful example of cooption of an organ. Edited by BeagleBob, : Addressing another point.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
randman  Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2106 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
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. Here is a link to a long and very detailed discussion of the Haeckel issue. It is far too long to duplicate here.
Wells and Haeckel's Embryos: A Review of Chapter 5 of Icons of Evolution by PZ Myers One quotation from the conclusions:
Jonathan Wells would like to discredit evolution, and in Haeckel's embryos, he has found a story to his liking. There is a bit of intentional fakery to it, there is a clear affiliation with Darwin himself, and there is a long history of recognition of Haeckel's influence intermingled with unambiguous repudiation of his ideas. All he has to do is try to entangle Haeckel's discredited theories and poor modern reputation with the set of valid observations and modern explanations, and he can bury the truth under innuendo and association. Hmmmmm. Sounds like another example of creationist veracity here as well. Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
randman  Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 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 4899 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 4899 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2106 days) Posts: 6117 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? Perhaps you should have read the paper that I linked to.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ICANT Member Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: Member Rating: 1.5 |
Coyote writes: Here is a link to a long and very detailed discussion of the Haeckel issue. It is far too long to duplicate here. In the case of Haeckel, though, I have to begin by admitting that Wells has got the core of the story right. Haeckel was wrong. His theory was invalid, some of his drawings were faked, and he willfully over-interpreted the data to prop up a false thesis. Furthermore, he was influential, both in the sciences and the popular press; his theory still gets echoed in the latter today. Wells is also correct in criticizing textbook authors for perpetuating Haeckel's infamous diagram without commenting on its inaccuracies or the way it was misused to support a falsified theory. Wells and Haeckel's Embryos This is the second paragraph of PZ's Review. He says: Haeckel was wrong.His theory was invalid. Some of his drawings were faked. He willfully over-interpreted the date, To prop up a, False thesis. He was influential, in sciences and press. His theory still gets echoed in the press today. (2003) PZ goes on to say: Wells was correct in criticizing textbook authors for perpetuating Haeckel's infamous diagram without commenting on its inaccuracy. Or how it was misused to support a falsified theory. Other comments by PZ. There is no doubt that his efforts to popularize the theory were important in giving evolution credibility in the scientific establishment, and to laymen as well. Furthermore, Haeckel's theory was rotten at the core. Unfortunately, it was also completely wrong. So what is your point in referring to this article?
Coyote writes: Hmmmmm. Sounds like another example of creationist veracity here as well. The motives of that creationist was to point out the truth. PZ Myers pointed out the truth that Haeckel was very influential in the scientific community giving credibility to evolution by his efforts. The only problem was that the proclamations of Haeckel was rotten to the core and backed up by faked drawings according to PZ. God Bless, "John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Minnemooseus Member Posts: 3941 From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior) Joined: Member Rating: 10.0 |
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?" Moose
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2106 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
So what is your point in referring to this article?
Coyote writes: Hmmmmm. Sounds like another example of creationist veracity here as well. The motives of that creationist was to point out the truth. My point in posting the article was exactly as I stated when I posted it:
Coyote writes: Here is a link to a long and very detailed discussion of the Haeckel issue. It is far too long to duplicate here. And my comment:
Coyote writes: Hmmmmm. Sounds like another example of creationist veracity here as well. was a snide comment based on PZ Meyers' critique of Wells' chapter on Haeckel. We're allowed to do that aren't we?
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024