|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Haeckels' Drawings Part II | |||||||||||||||||||||||
randman  Suspended Member (Idle past 4919 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: |
The problem is that fossils showing fish evolving to whales would not falsify ToE. That's an entirely bogus claim on your part. All that would entail is a rewrite of how evos claim it happened, a major rewrite, but nothing that would challenge the theory.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Chiroptera Inactive Member |
Trying to change the subject?
I wrote: That randman can seriously propose that scientists could easily ignore well over a century of paleontological and taxonomical research in order to claim that whales evolved directly from fish indicates how little randman understands the biological sciences. [Emphasis added.] Then you replied:
You know full well I never made any claims that whales evolved from fish. In responding to my post you distorted what I said. Rather than admit that you might have misread it, you are now trying to avoid the subject. That is dishonest.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
randman  Suspended Member (Idle past 4919 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: |
Chiro, you are just wasting my time and your's. If evos came up with new evidence that is stronger than their other "evidence", they would just rewrite the scenario. It would do nothing to falsify ToE.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Chiroptera Inactive Member |
I agree that it is a waste of time dealing with you, but I am simply calling you out on how you have distorted what I said in a post.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
randman  Suspended Member (Idle past 4919 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: |
Chiro, no one is distorting your posts. It appeared to me you were insinuating I claim whales evolved from fish.
But more importantly, the whole side issue here is meaningless. If evos thought whales evolved from fish, it would be a major rewrite, but could not falsify ToE.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Chiroptera Inactive Member |
quote: And you were wrong. I think my post was pretty clear. -
quote: Not really. This isn't the first time you have distorted another person's message. -
quote: A completely ridiculous statement that can only make sense to someone who believes that the acceptance of the theory of evolution depends on systemic bias.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
I wrote Message 27 where I said:
quote: The lack of reply I take to mean either a concession, a memory lapse, ignoring or a lack of interest. I think I'll scratch the last two, ignoring since I give credit to randman, and the latter because the thread is still ongoing. If it is a memory lapse, consider this a reminder. Otherwise I will continue with the assumption that this is a concession. Rather than using the umbrella term evolutionist we'll directly refer to the party's accused. So, according to your Message 26 the guilty parties can be broken down as this: 1. textbooks (or rather, as I have been saying, the writers thereof)2. introductory teachers 3. authors that write books explaining ToE I think we can, for the most part conflate (1) and (3), and since (2) are generally bound by various laws to teach what is written in (1) and (3) we can, for the moment, discount them. so we now have one prime culprit, textbook authors. Exactly as I have been trying to state for some time now. The follow-up argument randman has used is that evolutionist scientists should have done the research that Richardson did regarding comparitive embryology. I don't believe that scientists should be compelled to do research they do not want to do: the science community is not under a fascist regime that dictates research projects. Thus, we see that textbook authors are principally in error, and in some cases all that error was was trusting in the accuracy of other textbooks.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
randman  Suspended Member (Idle past 4919 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: |
Are you suggesting that textbook authors are not evolutionists?
Incredible. I did not respond because it was obvious. Evolutionists includes textbook authors, college professors and high school teachers, evo authors, evolutionist scientists in institutions like the Smithsonian and the whole gamut. It includes evos in their field who let false or unproven data be used in the teaching of evolution without challenging it. This message has been edited by randman, 08-22-2005 10:13 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
Are you suggesting that textbook authors are not evolutionists? No, I'm not sure how I can word this any more simply. Let me try it this way: Textbook authors are not ALL evolutionists. They are a specific subset thereof. There is no justification for saying 'evolutionists are guilty of x' when it has only been shown that a subset of evolutionists are actually the guilty party. This is like saying "Muslims are dangerous fanatics who kill innocents to further their agenda", when it is Islamic Fundamentalists who are the dangerous fanatics. Let's see what your response would look like if we were discussing Islam:
quote: Obviously this is not what was being suggested.
I did not respond because it was obvious. Great!
I did not respond because it was obvious. Evolutionists includes textbook authors, college professors and high school teachers, evo authors, evolutionist scientists in institutions like the Smithsonian and the whole gamut. Indeed, and it includes many more, like geneticists, paleontologists etc. When discussing the Haeckel's Diagram issue, we are generally referring to a subset of 'evolutionists' known as textbook authors.
It includes evos in their field who let false or unproven data be used in the teaching of evolution without challenging it. It is not the responsibility of paleontologists to check school textbooks' sections on comparitive embryology, that is the responsibility of editors and committees. Creationists were welcome to demonstrate why the diagrams were in error, rather than just asserting it. I've asked you to show this, and all you did was show me examples of creationists criticizing the diagrams because some of them were shown to be fraudulent (though the ones that were ousted as fraudulent (for example the dog embryos) weren't generally the ones used in textbooks). So far along our road of discovery we have agreed that textbook authors and those who are directly in charge of the textbook process were in error for printing erroneous diagrams. Next, you have to demonstrate why we should now add comparitive embryologists to the list. Are all comparitive embryologists morally/legally obligated to check educational resources to ensure accuracy? Indeed are the scientists of any given field likewise obligated to check said resources? I wonder if we should then hold anti-evolutionist engineers responsible for letting the thermodynamics argument get used in the public domain? Who can we hold responsible for Hovind?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
randman  Suspended Member (Idle past 4919 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: |
Creationists were welcome to demonstrate why the diagrams were in error, rather than just asserting it. I've asked you to show this, and all you did was show me examples of creationists criticizing Get real Modulous. I showed you where creationists specified particular over in Haeckel's drawings for decades. You are just ignoring that. Here's another example where Ian Taylor mentions it in his book prior to the Richardson study.
Ontogeny recapitulates Phylogeny Thank you Andrew for your nice remarks. I want to comment on your comment that the Recapitulation Theory died about 1925 and that it has not appeared in school textbooks for years. Almost ten years ago in Ontario, Canada, creationists had a successful campaign to remove this theory from the High School curriculum. It was removed but then slipped right back in again the following year. To my knowledge it is still there. If the theory died in 1925 would you not agree that this is a disgraceful move on the part of certain people in the Ontario Ministry of Education and would you be willing to help remove the nonsense from Ontario’s school textbooks? On page 277 of my book, In The Minds of Men, the illustration shows exactly how Ernst Haeckel cheated in 1868 to make the facts fit his theory. This was exposed as fraudulent in 1874 by Wilhelm His, and the theory should have died then and there, not in 1925. For those critics who would side-track the issue by pointing out that textbooks have replaced the old nineteenth century engravings of the embryos with modern drawings, this is of no consequence whatsoever. The textbook The Way Life Works by Hoagland & Dodson, 1995 published by Ebury Press, London, still used Haeckel’s drawings but took the trouble to colour them! Most readers will recall the famous row of embryos shown in the school textbooks. The usual argument for their retention is because although it is admitted that the stages of development (the vertical sequence) do not appear as Haeckel showed them, the horizontal likenesses of the early stages of the fish, the salamander, the turtle, the chicken the rabbit and the human are all virtually the same and illustrate embryonic homology. Michael Richardson, a lecturer and embryologist at St. George’s Hospital Medical School, London has recently exposed the so-called embryonic homology as another fraud. In his paper published in Anatomy and Embryology 1997, Vol.196 (2), p.91-106 he shows that the early embryonic stages of 39 different creatures including the fish, the turtle etc., are nothing like the same. Haeckel had simply repeated a series of look alike drawings for his 1874 Anthropogenie and, until Richardson reported the facts in 1997, no one had taken the trouble to actually check on Haeckel’s work! May I suggest that this was because Haeckel’s theory seemed such good evidence for evolution? http://www.trueorigin.org/ca_it_02.asp Ian's book was published in 1996, and rightly pointed out, as I noticed and pointed out here, that textbook authors used the identical drawings, but just colored them. Amazon.com Everything I've said about creationists detailing this error in numerous debates, articles, books, etc,...for a very long period of time is true, and only after decades of sustained criticism from creationists to the point that people like myself learned of their claims in this area and so evolutionism was getting tarnished, did the evos finally correct this error. Edit to add Ian's book was first published in 1984.
Ian Taylor, In the Minds of Men, TFE Publishing, Toronto, 1984, p. 184, who cites Peter Klemm, Der Ketzer von Jena, Urania Press, Leipzig, 1968. Return to Text..
Something Fishy About Gill Slits!
| Answers in Genesis
Creationists amply proved the drawings were fraudulent, but evos just didn't want to remove them from the textbooks. Maybe some would have, as you claim, but honestly, I didn't ever hear any evolutionists say they were using faked drawings in the textbooks. I had to learn that from creationists back in the 80s. This message has been edited by randman, 08-23-2005 03:01 AM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
Since you didn't address the central theme of my post I take that as a concession regarding how to identify the parties we are discussing? And a concession that the scientists in the appropriate field are not responsible for the contents of textbooks.
I said:
quote: you responded:
I showed you where creationists specified particular over in Haeckel's drawings for decades. You are just ignoring that. And you provide an example. The first part is about Ontogeny recapitulates Phylogeny, which is not currently under discussion. The quote then goes on to assert that Haeckel's diagrams were inaccurate and uses Richardson's paper to back that up. It does not show anti-evolutionists/creationists demonstrating the inaccuracies before Richardson, which is what I was asking for. You say the book was published in 1996/84, but clearly the edition you are quoting from wasn't, since it references papers written in 1997. AbE: I just realized, the quoted section is actually commentary about his book which he made in 1999.
Creationists amply proved the drawings were fraudulent That is almost what I am asking you to show. Here it is again: Show that creationists/anti-evolutionists demonstrated the inaccuracies of these diagrams rather than just asserting that to be the case. This message has been edited by Modulous, Tue, 23-August-2005 11:35 AM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Brad McFall Member (Idle past 5052 days) Posts: 3428 From: Ithaca,NY, USA Joined: |
Mod below is the closes image I have ever seen to rasing a rebutal image to Haeckels'!
I attached the paraphyletic trait to draw attention to the croc's egg the snake is eating but notice the intertwined TAILS. There is no "underbelly" here. I dont have time to drawn in all of my thinking that makes this a rebutal to the pics of Haeckel as I am actively working out a thought on the evolution of dominance instead. I forgot to bring the book title along. I will edit the reference in. It was a picture book on snakes in Human History. The alligator is not a snake.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
To quote Shakespeare: 'this learned constable is too cunning to be understood'
I fail to see a rebutal image to Haeckel's.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
randman  Suspended Member (Idle past 4919 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: |
The quote then goes on to assert that Haeckel's diagrams were inaccurate and uses Richardson's paper to back that up. It does not show anti-evolutionists/creationists demonstrating the inaccuracies before Richardson, which is what I was asking for. You say the book was published in 1996/84, but clearly the edition you are quoting from wasn't, since it references papers written in 1997. Totally wrong, modulous. He quotes Richardson in the article. The book does not quote Richardson, but came out with this way back in 1984. Why is that so hard for you to admit? As far as evos as a whole, it appeared many were surprised to learn that Haeckel's drawings were faked. One can only assume they too believe the lie, unless you have evidence to the contrary. And if they knew it was a lie, then it is indeed a little surprising they did not speak up about it more forcefully.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
He quotes Richardson in the article Which is what I said.
The book does not quote Richardson Agreed, it would be impossible for it to do that...as I pointed out.
but came out with this way back in 1984. Came out with what? That there was some fraud surrounding Haeckel's diagrams? That wasn't what was requested, do I have to say it a third time? Perhaps it would an idea to re-read what I said.
Why is that so hard for you to admit? What am I not admitting? I have not denied that there was a book published in 1984 that criticized Haeckel and his biogenetic law. I believe Gould published a book containing the same criticisms (indeed rather scathing ones) in the 70s.
As far as evos as a whole, it appeared many were surprised to learn that Haeckel's drawings were faked. True, but that depends on how you define evos doesn't it? That fraud was committed was widely known to those in the relevant fields as far as I'm aware. The inaccuracies in the remaining diagrams did come as somewhat as a surprise to many.
One can only assume they too believe the lie, unless you have evidence to the contrary. The evolutionists that were surprised that the diagrams were so inaccurate evidently believed a lie.
And if they knew it was a lie, then it is indeed a little surprising they did not speak up about it more forcefully.
Well that's the point isn't it. Did they know the diagrams were so inaccurate? I'm asking you to show some work, done by anybody, that goes towards explaining exactly why the diagrams were not a good representation of the embryos they purported to be.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024