Understanding through Discussion

Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 80 (9005 total)
37 online now:
DrJones*, dwise1, nwr, PaulK (4 members, 33 visitors)
Newest Member: kanthesh
Post Volume: Total: 881,121 Year: 12,869/23,288 Month: 594/1,527 Week: 33/240 Day: 0/14 Hour: 0/0

Announcements: Topic abandonment warning (read and/or suffer the consequences)

Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Author Topic:   Lucy and Secular Humanism
Posts: 8948
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003
Member Rating: 6.9

Message 61 of 64 (218345)
06-21-2005 8:31 AM
Reply to: Message 59 by randman
06-21-2005 2:56 AM

Fuged skulls
The only source here is answersingenesis. With this degree is difference I would expect there to be some mainstream publications on it. Do you have another source?

This message has been edited by NosyNed, 06-21-2005 08:31 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by randman, posted 06-21-2005 2:56 AM randman has not yet responded

Member (Idle past 2537 days)
Posts: 2657
From: A Better America
Joined: 07-23-2004

Message 62 of 64 (218353)
06-21-2005 8:46 AM
Reply to: Message 57 by randman
06-21-2005 2:29 AM

Re: Fudged Drawings?
With all due respect. The website you listed:


also has this quote:

The idea that embryonic development repeats that of one's ancestors is called recapitulation. It is often expressed as "ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny"; that is, embryonic development (ontogeny) repeats phylogeny (the genealogy of the species).

This is a distortion of the truth. It implies, for example, that early in our embryonic development we go through a fishlike stage. We do not. Rather, we pass through some (not all) of the embryonic stages that our ancestors passed through. Therefore, we find that the more distantly related two vertebrates are, the shorter the period during which they pass through similar embryonic stages (fish and human) and vice versa (fish and salamander).

Therefore they are explicitly not endorsing any kind of Haekel type ideas. Therefore this is not an example of evolutionist misrepresentation.

The fact is that we do go through very similar stages of embryonic development to our nearest relatives. We should expect that if evolution is true, more distantly related species go through more different embryonic development and more closely related species go through more similar embryonic development. This is exactly what we see.

Organizations worth supporting:
www.eff.org (Protect Privacy and Security)
www.aclu.org (Protect Civil Rights)
www.aaup.org (Protect Higher Learning)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by randman, posted 06-21-2005 2:29 AM randman has not yet responded

Dr Jack
Member (Idle past 731 days)
Posts: 3507
From: Leicester, England
Joined: 07-14-2003

Message 63 of 64 (218356)
06-21-2005 9:06 AM
Reply to: Message 58 by randman
06-21-2005 2:46 AM

Re: Fudged Drawings?
Haeckel faked his drawings.

Haeckel did not "fake" his drawings. They're not particularly accurate and he did emphasise those features he wanted to draw attention to, and reduce other features he wanted to draw attention away from. And, what's more, he freely admits in the introduction to the second edition that he has done so. Haeckel argues that this is true of any and all diagrams and he has a point - you don't include oily stains on a diagram of an engine, for example.

Drawing inaccurately is different from faked, and different from fraud.

Personally, I think it's a shame they are still used so often, photos will demonstrate the point just as well and without any dificulties of 'ariststs interpretation' (which, in fact, is what the textbook I studied from at school did).

Added by edit: by way of analogy, this is a map of the underground, allowing you to compare the "real" map to the schematic one shown everywhere. The standard map bears strikingly little resemblance to the actual positions of things yet it is neither faked nor fraudulent.

This message has been edited by Mr Jack, 06-21-2005 10:54 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by randman, posted 06-21-2005 2:46 AM randman has not yet responded

Posts: 3931
Joined: 09-26-2002

Message 64 of 64 (218393)
06-21-2005 11:34 AM

Off topic - closing for at least a while
I bumped the Why are Haeckel's drawings being taught in school? to try to move the debate there - Didn't work.

Going to close this topic.


This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 06-21-2005 11:34 AM

New Members should start HERE to get an understanding of what makes great posts.

Comments on moderation procedures (or wish to respond to admin messages)? - Go to:
General discussion of moderation procedures: The Sequel
Thread Reopen Requests
Considerations of topic promotions from the "Proposed New Topics" forum

Other useful links:

Forum Guidelines, Style Guides for EvC and Assistance w/ Forum Formatting

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:

Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2020