Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Evolutionist Frauds
MrHambre
Member (Idle past 1393 days)
Posts: 1495
From: Framingham, MA, USA
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 6 of 52 (86956)
02-17-2004 10:18 AM
Reply to: Message 5 by Tamara
02-17-2004 9:26 AM


Re: Haeckel
As Kenneth Miller points out in this NOVA Online debate with Phillip Johnson, you have to be careful about discarding embryological development entirely just because of Haeckel's carelessness:
quote:
Haeckel was wrong, as the Life magazine article carefully points out. But it is an even greater mistake to maintain that development teaches us nothing about evolution.
The development of any animal is controlled by the unfolding of an internal genetic program. Haeckel believed that changes could only be added at the end of that program, the source of his well-understood mistake. Mutations that affect structure or timing can in fact occur at any part of the program, including the beginning. Because of this, there is no reason to be surprised at the fact that adaptations to the vastly different sizes of mammalian and avian eggs have produced "radically dissimilar" patterns of cell division in the early embryo. The chicken embryo develops on top of a huge store of nutritional yolk, which it gradually surrounds with an egg sac. The human embryo has no such store, and must implant in the uterine wall to obtain nourishment. Once both embryos surmount these early challenges, the rest of their development is remarkably similar, and that's precisely the point.
So there's a significant difference between admitting Haeckel was mistaken and ignoring the lesson to be learned by embryological similarities.

The dark nursery of evolution is very dark indeed.
Brad McFall

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Tamara, posted 02-17-2004 9:26 AM Tamara has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by Dan Carroll, posted 02-17-2004 10:42 AM MrHambre has not replied

  
MrHambre
Member (Idle past 1393 days)
Posts: 1495
From: Framingham, MA, USA
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 14 of 52 (86986)
02-17-2004 12:10 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by Tamara
02-17-2004 11:51 AM


Re: Haeckel
Tamara,
Again, I have no idea what your point is. We're so glad you agree with Stephen Jay Gould that the Haeckel drawings are misleading. We're not surprised that you don't agree with Gould that evolution doesn't require such subterfuge. Above, I posted a quote from cell biologist Kenneth Miller explaining what we should and shouldn't learn from the Haeckel affair, and what we should realize embryology is telling us.
It seems you've made up your mind that all evidence for evolution is deceitful, and that all fossils are frauds. Forgive us if our views are a bit more informed and rational.
regards,
Esteban "In Fraud We Trust" Hambre

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by Tamara, posted 02-17-2004 11:51 AM Tamara has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by Tamara, posted 02-17-2004 1:29 PM MrHambre has replied

  
MrHambre
Member (Idle past 1393 days)
Posts: 1495
From: Framingham, MA, USA
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 19 of 52 (87020)
02-17-2004 1:52 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by Tamara
02-17-2004 1:29 PM


Re: Haeckel
Tamara,
If you'd bother to say what's on your mind, perhaps I wouldn't have to try so hard to divine your intentions here. You have said:
quote:
But this is more of a fraud perpetrated ON evolutionists. It just raises the question of... how many other frauds are there undetected?
Oh and another point. Even if the Haeckel drawings were just very bad drawings, purporting to show how ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny, then how come they have been foisted on students for nearly 100 years after being recognized so???!!! That in itself is pretty fraudulent in my book.
Everyone here is well aware that the Haeckel drawings are still used to prove a point that Darwinists abandoned nearly a century ago. We have agreed that they were certainly misleading, perhaps even fraudulent. Why are you still beating us over the head with this? No one here seems to believe that ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny, so to whom are these remarks addressed?
What do you believe, Tamara? If you have an issue with evolution by natural selection, tell us what that is. In the "Finches" thread and this one, you seem to be using Wells's conspiracy theories to prove that evolution is based on deceit. Then you accuse everyone here of paranoia for pointing out that you are overstating the case. We're trying to make the point that there have been instances where frauds have been perpetrated, but the theory of evolution by natural selection is well supported. Did you even read what Kenneth Miller said about embryonic similarities? Or are you satisfied that you've learned the entire lesson to be learned from the deceitful evolutionists?

The dark nursery of evolution is very dark indeed.
Brad McFall

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by Tamara, posted 02-17-2004 1:29 PM Tamara has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by Tamara, posted 02-17-2004 2:04 PM MrHambre has replied

  
MrHambre
Member (Idle past 1393 days)
Posts: 1495
From: Framingham, MA, USA
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 22 of 52 (87041)
02-17-2004 2:40 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by Tamara
02-17-2004 2:04 PM


Re: Haeckel
Tamara,
quote:
This thread was opened up to list the frauds. It has not been opened up to discuss what I believe, so I must demur for another time, tempting tho it may be to have such a showcase!
Oh, don't underestimate yourself. When the subject is dishonesty, equivocation, and evasion, you fit in very well.
Rock on, T!
regards,
Esteban "Lo Dudo" Hambre

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by Tamara, posted 02-17-2004 2:04 PM Tamara has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by Tamara, posted 02-17-2004 3:23 PM MrHambre has replied

  
MrHambre
Member (Idle past 1393 days)
Posts: 1495
From: Framingham, MA, USA
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 24 of 52 (87064)
02-17-2004 3:35 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by Tamara
02-17-2004 3:23 PM


Outing Tamara
Tamara,
You never answered these questions I asked you in your "Galapagos Finches" thread:
quote:
Again, I wonder what you're getting at. Could you tell us whether you believe speciation has ever taken place? Should all organisms be classified as the same species just because laymen aren't comfortable with the amount of ambiguity in the definition of species?
Do you have a problem with the notion of common ancestry? If so, could you tell us what it is? Do you believe that certain groups of organisms popped into existence out of thin air?
Could you please tell us what the best explanation could be for the nested hierarchies we observe in life on Earth? Or why the family trees scientists have assembled using various methods all seem to correlate to a high degree?
You keep avoiding the issue of what you believe as if you're hiding something. Are you?
regards,
Esteban "Ask a Silly Question" Hambre

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by Tamara, posted 02-17-2004 3:23 PM Tamara has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024