randman,
Mark, it's tiresome to read you deliberate dodge my points and misrepresent me, which is just going to result more and more in ignoring you.
The conclusions contained specific errors I mention, which you ignore. Here are 2.
1. Error one: claiming a phylotypic stage as an observed fact when it was a mere hypothesis, and then using the hypothesis claiming it was an observed fact to make further hypothesis off of.
2. Error two: claiming human gill slits.
This does not even deal with the error of falsely maintaining well after it was exposed that ontology recapitulates phylogeny.
So since my points are valid, it therefore follows that anyone with an ounce of reason will see your argument to be what it is: a Red Herring, an effort to avoid discussing the facts raised.
Pay attention, randman. The point I was making was that all of the conclusions made from Haeckel's drawings can be made from examinations of the real thing, ergo, no evolutionary conclusions get retracted because of his false drawings. It is therefore a red herring to bring up Haeckel's drawings as evidence against evolution. Just to be clear, a
red herring is, "any argument in which the premisses are logically unrelated to the conclusion". The truth or falsity of those conclusions is irrelevent, the salient point is that no conclusions were made from the drawings that could not be made from examinations of the real thing, & Haeckel is innocent of leading anyone to false conclusions
because his drawings were exagerrated. Evolution has not been falsely informed by Haeckel, the conclusions via homology can be made without his drawings. Ergo, you commit a red herring logical fallacy if you attack the theory of evolution in this way.
Now, I have been falsely accused of misrepresenting you AGAIN. let's have a little look at your representations in the last day or two, shall we?
#1 I was falsely accused of attacking the bible.
#2 Both I & PaulK were accused of stances that ruled out theistic evolution.
#3 You misrepresented my argument to mean that no erroneous conclusions could be drawn from Haeckel's drawings.
You are a hypocrite, in other words. What, are you going for the record, or something, it's not a competition, you know? So you can drop the arrogant, oh-so-tired attitude, I can adopt the same with far more justification than you, randman, far more...
But for the record, I don't use your
actual misrepresentations as an excuse to cut & run.
Mark
This message has been edited by mark24, 11-19-2005 08:34 AM
There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't