Great Debate: Nuggin v. Randman

I already did. I don't post these long posts for nothing. As you are fairly unknowledgeable to the debate, I post long posts to bring you up to speed, but it seems like you are not reading them.But I think you answered yourself here. The point is if recapitulation theory is true, then we do not expect eels to be more similar to snakes. If eels embryos are more similar to snakes, or some other pair of distant species, then that falsifies recapitulation theory.Do you understand why?This is an important understanding to reach. The idea behind recapitulation is that embryos of species had to have evolved from former species with embryos before it. So more closely related species should have embryos that appear very similar, the more closely related species should have more closely related embryos.Closely related refers not to morphology but to genetic relatedness.It seems you have gone through most of this debate without really understanding what recapitulation theory is.Imo, if evolution were true, recapitulation theory would be true. You would always see embryos that are more closely related appearing more similar. That's because just as the species as a whole evolved, the embryos of those species evolved as well.So there should be a consistent rule here. You ought to be able to line up embryos in a line of descent, and they should show more similarity with each other according to how closely they are related, and as a group, there should be no species, regardless of morphology, that look more similar to any of those species than they do among themselves.But that's not the case; nor did you even expect that according to your post.So try to consider what recapitulation theory actually is, and then you can see why the evidence does not match. Haeckel fudged his drawings because he wanted to show embryos evolved from one another, but they don't show what he claimed.This message has been edited by randman, 12-11-2005 04:38 PM

I admit (for the 12th time?) that Haeckel's work contains mistakes. Those mistakes often (not always) cut in his favor. Is this suspicious? Yes. Was I there when he did it? No. Were you there when he did it? No. Was Richardson there when he did it? No.Is it possible that Haeckel intentionally drew the embryos different than he was seeing them? Yes.Is it possible that Haeckel believed that what he was drawing was accurate? Yes.You are trying to paint Haeckel as P.T. Barnum (which may in fact be the case) but it's not something you can prove.If there is a quote from Haeckel along the lines of, "Yup, I fooled you all! Ha ha!" then bingo, you've got it. I'm not ruling out the existance of such a quote. But without it, you have a hell of a time proving intent.

If I were writing a book about American History, do you expect me to go back to the source material on every event I included? Check the election results for Jefferson? Read the court transcripts for Dread Scott? No.If I was writing a book about Jefferson's presidency, it might be a good idea. If I was writing a book about the Dread Scott decision. It would be a very good idea.The books you've linked are not books on embryology. They are books on biology. Yes, they mention Haeckel. Should the authors of a book on biology go back and study Haeckel for that page of their 400 page book? Given that there were errors, would have been smart. But, do you likewise expect them to double check the Krebs cycle? Or the mechanics of sonar? Or the spores of a mushroom?Authors crib from earlier material. If earlier material contains a mistake, it's likely that the cribbed material would contain a mistake. See our earlier discussions about Columbus.Just because someone has found the mistake doesn't automatically correct the mistake everywhere. This is clearly evident with IDers. Many ID ideas have been shown to be complete fantasy. Yet, those ideas keep on appearing in books like "Pandas and People" or whatever it was called.Would it be great if all information ever published was completely checked, rechecked and constantly kept up to date? Sure would.Has that been the case for the last 100 years? No.

By this reasoning, The Law of Gravity doesn't hold up for sub atomic particles. It's wrong. Therefore we shouldn't mention gravity at all in our text books. Is that what I am suggesting? No. What I am saying is that the modern use of the term recapitulation is different than Haeckel's use of the term. Just like the modern use of the term atom is different than Aristotle's use of the term.Just because Aristotle's idea about what an atom is doesn't include protons and electrons, doesn't mean that we should completely disregard any understanding of atoms.If you were saying - "Hey, let's not use Haeckel's pictures in books" that would be one thing.What you are saying is - "Let's not teach that some features from earlier stages appear in the embryos of species which no longer have those features, because Haeckel's original idea that a baby human is a baby pig at one point is wrong."That's draconian and unrealistic. Further, it holds evolutionary science to a standard that you are not applying to history, physics, etc. And which you certainly aren't applying to Intelligent Design. Untrue. Simply because you disregard information that you can not explain away, doesn't mean the information is not there.You've repeatedly ducked the question of fossils and chronology. You've proposed a theory that modern whales have little legs so that they can potentially grow big legs, but refuse to accept the inverse of the theory (as it documented in the fossil record) that modern whale descended from species which had hind legs.

Let's test this:
If recapiulation is true then we'd expect snakes and turtle which share a common ancestor to have more in common than a snake and an eel do.If recapitulation is false, we'd expect the snake and eel to have more in common.Let's look at what we've got:Snakes - long, worm-like. Eels - Long, worm-like. Turtles - boxy.Score 1 for anti-recapSnakes - lungs. Turtles - lungs. Eels - gills.1 for RecapSnakes - vestigial hind legs. Turtles - hind legs. Eels - No legs at all.2 for recap.Snakes - end of embryo is same as adult form. Turtles - end of embryo is same as adult form. Eels - end of embryo is larval form of eel, not very similiar to adult form.3 for recap.Snakes - fins? None. Turtles - fins? None. Eels - Fins? Big4 for recap.Snake - no yolk sac. Turtles - no yolk sac. Eels - Big yolk sac.5 for recap.Let's take a look at the morphology Now, no cheating. Can you tell which is an eel.I'll give you a hint, it's head looks extremely different than the other two. In fact, the snake head is at an angle, like the turtles, while the eels is more in a straight line. Hrmm. Where have I seen a head like that? Fish embryo.So, your own suggested test shows recapitulation. So, since recapiulation is true, you think that evolution is true? Well, pun heavily intended, I kind of fished you in.But, I'm willing to give you that I picked the 3 animals. I asked you to pick different ones, since these we the three I came up with off the top of my head based on morphology.I'm willing to look at any three animals, so long as we can get photos of the embryos.

But this is listed as one of the major pieces of evidence, the icons, of evolution. It's usually one of the 5-6 major pieces of evidence presented.It'd be like college professors writing history books and mistaken Benedict Arnold as the first president instead of George Washington. No, it's worse that that. It'd be like history professors publicizing in peer-review journals over and over again that Benedict Arnold was the first president when for decades you had another group screaming about how wrong a claim that was, providing specific evidence it was wrong, but college history professors insisting for 125 years it was correct.That's what it is like, and that's why it is so egregious of an error.To write this off as a mere mistake minimizes the magnitude of how such a fantasy could be presented as scientific fact, over and over and over again, for 125 years.Something is seriously wrong with the state of evolutionist science.

Why? Gravity is a real phenomenon. The Biogenetic Law is not. In what way? What is the modern usage of the term recapitulation. As near I can tell, it is all over the map, from claiming a single phylotypic stage to trying to suggest the Biogenetic law was correct and to listing a few claims of vestigal organs developing.Maybe if evos were more honest and didn't keep using the same term, as a means of propaganda, and the same faked data as evidence of whatever form of recapitulation is fashionable today, maybe then it wouldn't be blatant deception, but as such, it is or was.I am not sure as of today evos still claim recapitulation as a theory.Can you show where they do? What the heck! I am flatly saying that showing doctored drawings and beleiving and teaching them as accurate is wrong.You are saying it's OK to use faked data.Geesh man. If you want to teach a little bumb is the beginning of a whale leg, then teach that, but don't trot out a known lie, faked data, to reinforce your claim.On whale fossils, I'd love to get into that on a different thread, as I have showed where the fossil data in toto actually disagrees with whale evo scenarios in a major way. I have hardly ducked the issue as I have posted almost as much on that as any topic here at the EVC forum.What you fail to realize is that whales have a significant variety, more so than one would expect, considering whales have been known to breed fertile offspring across genera.Can you show that evos

Once again, you don't understand the debate. It doesn't matter if some embryos are more similar that are more similar genetically. If recapitulation as a guiding principle in embryology is true, then it has to hold true across the board. Every embryo more related genetically has to resemble a corresponding similarity to it's degree of relatedness, and as I showed earlier on the thread, that is not the case.I could show examples where that is the case, and examples where it is not the case, thus showing recapitulation theory is wrong.Btw, I am not presenting a guiding theory, just showing how your theory is wrong.This message has been edited by randman, 12-11-2005 09:48 PM

Photos are on the link below, page 12. They show a variety of species with the embryos of a domestic cat and scaly anteater the most close in appearance.Read it for yourself.Here is the post from earlier in the thread. I suggest you read it since you are acting like it was never posted.You claimed: I beleive you even claimed it was like watching evolution in action. Well, let's put the claim to the test. Please look at embryos a-k on this link to the Richardson paper.MK Rich Ardson - MK Blog RichNote that the 2 most closely resembling one another. Be honest and say what you think are the 2 most closely resembling one another.I think it's pretty clear that d, the domestic cat, and g, the scaly anteater, most closely resemble one another.Are they the most closely related species among those?a. spiny anteater
b. brush-tailed possum
c. Dasyurus quoll (a Marsupial cat)
d. domestic cat
e. domestic dog
f. domestic sheep
g. scaly anteater
f. rat
h. rabbit
i. hedgehog
j. humanIn no way are the creatures more closely related more similar than they are to some they are more distantly related to. The domestic cat is not considered by evos to be closely related to the scaly anteater.This message has been edited by randman, 12-11-2005 09:55 PM

Jumping back to astonomy, would this group that you've listed above be the same group that executing people for heresy for disagreeing with their geocentric astronomy.Does that therefore mean that Jesus never existed? After all, this group sites the Bible as evidence for geocentric astronomy and for the birth and teachings of Jesus.Do you discount everything because one piece is mistaken?You seem to be implying that the theory of evolution arose from and is restricted to embryolic evidence. Not the case.

So much so that pakicetus fits well within their variety? After all, by your own account, whales can have legs if they want them.

No, but isn't this like the Hitler rule? You are going outside of science, not just for an analogy as I did, but as an evidentiary claim. Same ole, same ole. How often do I need to state that as far as this thread, it matters not one whit if evolution was true. In fact, it would be all the more tragic if evolution were true, but evos starting convincing half of America that it isn't because they continually present false data in their claims.When are you going to realize that the use of false data, overstatements, exagerrations, etc,...in and of itself is a bigger issue than if evolution is true. It's indoctrination and deception, and that is wrong.I have often pointed out, to help make this point, that I have known of Christian cults or cultish churches. I agree with them on Jesus, but that doesn't justify their practices.Can you see what I am talking about here? The basic approach of evolutionists is deceptive.

What's your impression of Pakicetus? In what way is he whale-like?Basically, calling Pakicetus a whale is another example of overstatement and deception on the part of evos.Here is a an up to date visual description of what Pakicetus probably looked like.

Does that look like a whale to you?

Then do. Not true. What I am saying is this:There are features that exist in a species of animal in the past. That animal has subsequently evolved into a species of animal which exists today. Some of the features that existed in the species in the past are present in the species today. Some of the features are not present in the species today.The cause of those missing features could be several different things.Here are some examples:A mutation(s) could have changed so much that it is almost unrecognizable as the original feature.A mutation(s) could have caused the feature to completely fail to develop.A mutation(s) could have caused the feature to stop developing in the first place.A mutation(s) could have occured which takes effect after the feature starts developing, but which stops that development.In some of those cases we wouldn't expect to see the feature in the embryo or adult.In other cases, we'd expect to see the feature develop, remain small and still appear in the adult (snake legs, for example)And in some cases, we'd expect to see the feature appear in the embryo, then not be visible in the adult. (Whale legs).But, how would we test this last scenario.Well, perhaps one of the mutations which caused the legs to stop developing might get knocked back. In that case, we'd expect to see an adult whale with avatistic legs. Or a human with a tail.Both of which I've shown examples of.Your argument that we'd have to see, or even expect to see, every feature is no more reasonable than people (you?) suggesting that every animal that ever lived should have left behind fossils.

I already have ad nauseum. When are you going to respond to my posts in that regard and admit that. I showed specifically where a domestic cat embryo appears most similar to a scaly anteater among a viewing of 11 embryos. Just so fantasy stories don't count. Let's deal with the data and the facts as they are, not as one wished them to be if evolution were true. In other words, it doesn't matter what the data shows because we are going to claim it is evidence for evolution anyway.Your claims here are thus completely unfalsifiable, and regardless, they are not the theory of recapitulation which is quite specific in it's claims. No one suggests that, but it is curious that we can find thousands of one species in a supposed evolutionary chain, but nothing of the 99.9% of the remaining species that would have evolved from that spot to the next and the ones prior.Maybe the most reasonable explanation for not seeing any fossils of 99.9% of the transitional forms, and the subsequent emergence of most features, is that, well, the process didn't happen as evos claim.