|
Author
|
Topic: Why Lie? (Re: Evolution frauds and hoaxes)
|
Straggler
Member (Idle past 93 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: 09-30-2006
|
|
Message 196 of 346 (470795)
06-12-2008 5:59 PM
|
Reply to: Message 194 by randman
06-12-2008 5:28 PM
|
|
Re: Haeckels Folly
Creationist scientists, not evos.
Who exactly and how? Who actually refuted the work experimentally/observationally and what is the history of this? I have yet to hear of any laboratory based conclusions of any creationist "scientist" so any such info would be warmly welcomed!!!
Problem is that it is still part of established evo thinking and evos are in the process of trying to resurrect Haeckel and a version of his biogenetic law.
Nobody is claiming Haeckel's work as something it is not. You cannot however dismiss the whole of embyology and it's relevance to evolutionary theory based on Haeckel's folly. Haeckel may have been wrong but using this as a reason to dismis all embryology as evidence is equally as disingenuous. How do you explain the various stages that whale embryos go throgh for example? Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 194 by randman, posted 06-12-2008 5:28 PM | | randman has replied |
|
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4927 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: 05-26-2005
|
Re: Haeckels Folly
Evos are claiming that Haeckel's drawings are "evidence for evolution" so in fact, they are indeed trying to use faked data as evidence. If you notice the quotes, you'd see that despite creationists and perhaps others detailing Haeckel's fraud from the 1800s until this very day, evos have continued to try to use the fraudulent data during that whole time. As criticism becomes more intense (the internet helped), evos tend to back off but as we see in the 2002 paper, it's typically only a few short years before they are back at it again, trying to promote the biogenetic law in some form or another.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 196 by Straggler, posted 06-12-2008 5:59 PM | | Straggler has replied |
|
Straggler
Member (Idle past 93 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: 09-30-2006
|
|
|
Message 198 of 346 (470801)
06-12-2008 6:36 PM
|
Reply to: Message 197 by randman
06-12-2008 6:07 PM
|
|
Re: Haeckels Folly
You fail to answer the question Straggler writes
Who exactly and how? Who actually refuted the work experimentally/observationally and what is the history of this? I have yet to hear of any laboratory based conclusions of any creationist "scientist" so any such info would be warmly welcomed!!! Nobody is claiming Haeckel's drawingas proof of anything. We have better evidence these days thanks to technological advancements. Are you really suggesting that current scientific thinking is based on Haeckels drawings rather than more recent embryonic analysis and observation. Do you consider embryology as no evidence for evolution at all?Ignore Haeckels. I mean current embryology examples. How do you explain the various stages of the whale embryo (for example) except in terms of evolution?
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 197 by randman, posted 06-12-2008 6:07 PM | | randman has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 205 by randman, posted 06-12-2008 10:29 PM | | Straggler has not replied |
|
Meddle
Member (Idle past 1298 days) Posts: 179 From: Scotland Joined: 05-08-2006
|
|
|
Message 199 of 346 (470815)
06-12-2008 8:26 PM
|
Reply to: Message 197 by randman
06-12-2008 6:07 PM
|
|
Re: Haeckels Folly
As has been agreed already, Haeckel's drawings glossed over the many differences in early embryo development. But this does not mean the drawings are complete fabrications, since the similarities are real, as has been confirmed by modern embryological studies. These similarities include the post-anal tail and the pharyngeal arches, as pointed out by BeagleBob, which give rise to the gills in fish, but in terrestrial vertebrates become various structures of the oropharynx, larynx and inner ear. I also found this article published last year showing conserved patterns of gene expression during embryo development around the time of appearance of the pharyngeal arches and somites, again suggesting a phylotypic stage in development. It is interesting that the gene expression at this time follows taxonomic groupings i.e. bilaterian, chordate, tetrapod, and amniote. And just to reiterate what others have pointed out, the phylotypic stage is not the same as the biogenetic law.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 197 by randman, posted 06-12-2008 6:07 PM | | randman has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 204 by randman, posted 06-12-2008 10:27 PM | | Meddle has not replied |
|
BeagleBob
Member (Idle past 5705 days) Posts: 81 Joined: 11-21-2007
|
|
|
Message 200 of 346 (470823)
06-12-2008 9:01 PM
|
Reply to: Message 197 by randman
06-12-2008 6:07 PM
|
|
Re: Haeckels Folly
quote:
Evos are claiming that Haeckel's drawings are "evidence for evolution" so in fact, they are indeed trying to use faked data as evidence. If you notice the quotes, you'd see that despite creationists and perhaps others detailing Haeckel's fraud from the 1800s until this very day, evos have continued to try to use the fraudulent data during that whole time. As criticism becomes more intense (the internet helped), evos tend to back off but as we see in the 2002 paper, it's typically only a few short years before they are back at it again, trying to promote the biogenetic law in some form or another.
Please look at the post I wrote, #193. Just a cursory look at it shows that the 2002 paper you posted rejects Haeckel's theory. From what I've read of it, the only confusion between Haeckel and modern embryology that really crops up seems to be in a high school textbook rather than in scientific papers, which is tragic but has nothing to do with the science behind it. Haeckel was wrong, but the idea of shared developmental paths is a legitimate one... after all, a mammalian species isn't going to rewrite its entire developmental structure when it evolves from a reptilian species.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 197 by randman, posted 06-12-2008 6:07 PM | | randman has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 202 by randman, posted 06-12-2008 10:24 PM | | BeagleBob has not replied |
|
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 312 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: 07-20-2006
|
|
|
Message 201 of 346 (470831)
06-12-2008 10:24 PM
|
Reply to: Message 197 by randman
06-12-2008 6:07 PM
|
|
Re: Haeckels Folly
Evos are claiming that Haeckel's drawings are "evidence for evolution" so in fact, they are indeed trying to use faked data as evidence. If you notice the quotes, you'd see that despite creationists and perhaps others detailing Haeckel's fraud from the 1800s until this very day, evos have continued to try to use the fraudulent data during that whole time. As criticism becomes more intense (the internet helped), evos tend to back off but as we see in the 2002 paper, it's typically only a few short years before they are back at it again, trying to promote the biogenetic law in some form or another. Evos are claiming that Haeckel's drawings are "evidence for evolution" so in fact, they are indeed trying to use faked data as evidence. If you notice the quotes, you'd see that despite creationists and perhaps others detailing Haeckel's fraud from the 1800s until this very day, evos have continued to try to use the fraudulent data during that whole time. As criticism becomes more intense (the internet helped), evos tend to back off but as we see in the 2002 paper, it's typically only a few short years before they are back at it again, trying to promote the biogenetic law in some form or another. * sigh * And again, the question arises --- why lie? We all know that you're lying, whom do you hope to deceive? Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 197 by randman, posted 06-12-2008 6:07 PM | | randman has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 203 by randman, posted 06-12-2008 10:26 PM | | Dr Adequate has not replied |
|
randman
Suspended Member (Idle past 4927 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: 05-26-2005
|
|
|
Message 202 of 346 (470832)
06-12-2008 10:24 PM
|
Reply to: Message 200 by BeagleBob
06-12-2008 9:01 PM
|
|
Re: Haeckels Folly
Just a cursory look at it shows that the 2002 paper you posted rejects Haeckel's theory. Have you read the whole paper and the 1997 paper? I have, and the 2002 paper is an attempt to undue the damage that the 1997 paper. It is not a rejection of Haeckel's theory, nor data.
From what I've read of it, the only confusion between Haeckel and modern embryology that really crops up seems to be in a high school textbook rather than in scientific papers, which is tragic but has nothing to do with the science behind it.
Actually, it's both as can be easily seen reading both papers.
Haeckel was wrong, That's a good start. Too bad evos like Richardson aren't sticking to recognizing that.
but the idea of shared developmental paths is a legitimate one What makes it a legitimate one? The faked data?
after all, a mammalian species isn't going to rewrite its entire developmental structure when it evolves from a reptilian species. That's based on assuming mammals evolved from reptiles and so is circular reasoning. Back to a question I have repeatedly asked: how is it proper to claim in a peer-reviewed journal that faked data is "evidence for evolution"?
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 200 by BeagleBob, posted 06-12-2008 9:01 PM | | BeagleBob has not replied |
|
randman
Suspended Member (Idle past 4927 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: 05-26-2005
|
Re: Haeckels Folly
How am I lying? What is your explanation for why in 2002, these evos insist that Haeckel's faked data is "evidence for evolution"? Is it OK in your view to use faked data and call it evidence?
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 201 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-12-2008 10:24 PM | | Dr Adequate has not replied |
|
randman
Suspended Member (Idle past 4927 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: 05-26-2005
|
|
|
Message 204 of 346 (470834)
06-12-2008 10:27 PM
|
Reply to: Message 199 by Meddle
06-12-2008 8:26 PM
|
|
Re: Haeckels Folly
Is it acceptable then in your view to call faked data "evidence for evolution"?
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 199 by Meddle, posted 06-12-2008 8:26 PM | | Meddle has not replied |
|
randman
Suspended Member (Idle past 4927 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: 05-26-2005
|
|
|
Message 205 of 346 (470835)
06-12-2008 10:29 PM
|
Reply to: Message 198 by Straggler
06-12-2008 6:36 PM
|
|
Re: Haeckels Folly
Nobody is claiming Haeckel's drawingas proof of anything. Really? How can you say this when the 2002 paper states the opposite, namely that Haeckel's drawings are "evidence for evolution"? Is it your contention that faked data is acceptable as scientific evidence?
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 198 by Straggler, posted 06-12-2008 6:36 PM | | Straggler has not replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 207 by BeagleBob, posted 06-13-2008 2:12 AM | | randman has not replied |
|
randman
Suspended Member (Idle past 4927 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: 05-26-2005
|
|
|
Message 206 of 346 (470836)
06-12-2008 10:33 PM
|
Reply to: Message 196 by Straggler
06-12-2008 5:59 PM
|
|
Re: Haeckels Folly
Who exactly and how? Who actually refuted the work experimentally/observationally and what is the history of this? Von Baer for one and please take note he was adamently opposed to Darwinism. I suggest you take a little time to research the topic yourself and recognize that Haeckel's forgeries and false ideas have been consistently shown to be wrong for quite a long time, well over 100 years prior to and throughout the intervening period to the 1997 cave-in by Richardson. Can you answer my questions please. Specifically, how do you justify evos claiming faked data is "evidence for evolution"? Edited by randman, : No reason given.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 196 by Straggler, posted 06-12-2008 5:59 PM | | Straggler has replied |
|
BeagleBob
Member (Idle past 5705 days) Posts: 81 Joined: 11-21-2007
|
|
|
Message 207 of 346 (470860)
06-13-2008 2:12 AM
|
Reply to: Message 205 by randman
06-12-2008 10:29 PM
|
|
Re: Haeckels Folly
quote:
Really? How can you say this when the 2002 paper states the opposite, namely that Haeckel's drawings are "evidence for evolution"? Is it your contention that faked data is acceptable as scientific evidence?
Richardson and Keuck DO display Haeckel's original diagrams, but they do so while pointing out the flaws, inconsistencies, and artifacts. R&K are pointing out the instances of fraud, not supporting them. R&K are also using Haeckel's sketches to make a historical point and contrast it with genuine embryological science: "Fig. 1... Mid-somite embryos, supposedly of dog, chicken, and turtle... The woodcuts are identical, sharing the same irregularities in the somite series [e.g. boxed area, added by us]." (p497) "Fig. 2... The early chick embryo is possibly copied from Erdl and resembles the chick in the middle row of Haeckel's Anthropogenie plate IV." (p498) "Fig. 3... The pictures contain many anomalies." (p499) The 2002 paper in no way supports Haeckel's original drawings or his original theory. The 2002 paper cites Haeckel to contrast his work against real embryological science. It's not an endorsement on their part, it's a criticism. This is the second time I've had to repeat myself.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 205 by randman, posted 06-12-2008 10:29 PM | | randman has not replied |
|
Adminnemooseus
Administrator Posts: 3976 Joined: 09-26-2002
|
On supplying links
The 2002 paper... This is intended to be to the membership in general. I know that this paper was linked to upthread, and I have managed to track it down in message 187, but doing such may not always be so easy. It's a nice touch, to resupply the links, especially for those that are not following the topic closely. Like I just did above. No replies to this message. Adminnemooseus
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 207 by BeagleBob, posted 06-13-2008 2:12 AM | | BeagleBob has not replied |
|
Straggler
Member (Idle past 93 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: 09-30-2006
|
|
|
Message 209 of 346 (470881)
06-13-2008 7:16 AM
|
Reply to: Message 206 by randman
06-12-2008 10:33 PM
|
|
Re: Haeckels Folly
Von Baer for one and please take note he was adamently opposed to Darwinism.
Yes he was opposed to Darwinism but Darwin, as I undwerstand it, actually used his embyonic research rather than Haeckels when examining evidence for evolution. You specifically said that creation scientists had exposed Haeckels fraud rather than it being uncovered by the methods of conventional science. This is just not true.
Can you answer my questions please. Specifically, how do you justify evos claiming faked data is "evidence for evolution"?
That question is a bit like the infamous "Have you stopped beating your wife?". Answering it in any way that accepts the validity of the question condemns. I do not accept that "evos" do continually use faked data as evidence for evolution. So I don't need to justify it and would not justify it if what you were claiming was actually true. However Haeckels forgerey does not make it any less true that embryonic development is evidence for evolution. Maybe not in the simplistic and very obvious way that Haeckel claimed. But evidence nevertheless. Haeckels aside - Do you dispute that embryonic development provides evidence for evolution? By detracting from the true nature of emryology based evidence for evolution Haeckel has actually done more damage to the theory of evolution than good. Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 206 by randman, posted 06-12-2008 10:33 PM | | randman has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 212 by randman, posted 06-13-2008 5:27 PM | | Straggler has replied |
|
ramoss
Member (Idle past 640 days) Posts: 3228 Joined: 08-11-2004
|
|
|
Message 210 of 346 (470964)
06-13-2008 4:59 PM
|
Reply to: Message 181 by randman
06-11-2008 4:54 PM
|
|
Re: btw.....why didn't they know?
Hum. I wonder why you didn't read the paragraph of the paper you studied Didn't you see
quote:
Haeckel’s ideas soon came in for strong criticism. His
drawings are also highly inaccurate, exaggerating the
similarities among embryos, while failing to show the
differences
THat is the paper you linked to that you seemed to think proved your point, yet, if you read the paper, it says the exact opposite of your claim. That is YOUR source paper.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 181 by randman, posted 06-11-2008 4:54 PM | | randman has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 211 by randman, posted 06-13-2008 5:25 PM | | ramoss has replied |
|
™ Version 4.2