Actually, all of those depictions of Neanderthal are excessively ape-like except perhaps one, and represent misrepresentations, and misrepresentations that were clearly known to be false. One must assume the misrepresentations were deliberate since it was known since the 50s that Neanderthals were not the crude subhumans evos claimed to be, but more properly described as a tribe of people that acted very much like other people from just a couple of hundred years ago that lacked modern technology.
Haeckel's drawings were used even recently, and probably still are in use. Remember that we are talking about college and high school classes and the evidence they present for evolution. The fact is evos used Haeckel's deceptions to make false claims which they still do today, of things like human gill slits which do not exist and phylotypic stage. This is just one of the lies, of course, that evos put forth as evidence for evolution, but honestly, most of all the remaining stuff are lies as well.
For example, the typical depiction of ape to human contained and probably still contains egregious errors and is unfounded, but evos still use that. Take Ramipithicus, or whatever his name is. He was once listed as a more advanced hominid in the transition, but since other fossils made the dates not work, he is now considered an ape of little significance, and not really transitional.
What was the difference? It looks to me like the evos are fudging data, leaping to conclusions, and insisting overstatements are facts.
Basically yaro, other than genetics, I have not seen one major evidentiary claim by evolutionists that wasn't riddled with overstatements and deception.
This message has been edited by randman, 11-16-2005 01:33 AM
quote:I'm not asking for an unbroken chain but for some sort of honesty from evolutionists. You have, at best, something like a handful of links in a chain that spans 4000 or more links. There is no rational reason why 99.99% of the links are not shown, and yet you still dishonestly suggest that what I asked for is every single link. I just think when something like 90% of the evidence that should be there is non-existent that it is reasonable to question the model. You to this date refuse to deal with that fact.
Scientists do not have a very good understanding of how gravity works.
There are, in fact, several competing scientific theories which attempt to explain it, but each of them have "holes" rather larger than the "holes" in the ToE, and none of them are as accurately predictive as the ToE.
Why do you attack Evolutionary Biology, casting aspersions, when this obviously weaker and less-supported area of science continues to be taught in schools?
quote:Basically yaro, other than genetics, I have not seen one major evidentiary claim by evolutionists that wasn't riddled with overstatements and deception.
Yeah, yeah, yeah, hundreds of thousands of scientists are colluding to lie and decieve. I suppose they have ties to, or maybe even are, the Illuminati or something, too, right?
It must be truly amazing to have enough time and utter intellectual brilliance to be able to read the thousands of peer-reviewed papers related to Evolutionary Science that are published every year, and even more time spent getting the several dozen PhD's in various subjects that you wouldr require to be able to completely understand everything in each specialized field.
You know, I started a thread a while back fo you to pick a few Evolutionaty Science papers and specify where the "deceptions" and "overstatements" were, but you never seemed into it.
Perhaps you are now. I strongly encourage you to put up or shut up.
Produce some examples of these "deceptions" or retract the claim.
Now, to address the rest...
Randman, genetics is fully integrated into modern Evolutionaty Biology. That's why they call it "The Modern Synthesis" these days.
It was genetics (specifically the amazing congrence that was found to exist between independently-built genetic trees of life and morphological trees of life) that finally set to rest any lingering doubt that the ToE was very, very solid science.
It is genetics, in other words, that did the most to confirm the ToE.
So, if you accept genetics, you must accept the ToE, because genetics supports the ToE at pretty much every turn. It supports common decent with modification.
...that is, if you are an honest debater, or honest with yourself.
This message has been edited by schrafinator, 11-16-2005 07:38 AM
This message has been edited by schrafinator, 11-16-2005 07:47 AM
There is no new information between your last post and this one, so you don't have to worry about reading through the whole post to get to the points. For reference it was http://www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&f=5&t=632&m=65#65
I for one am sorry to see this happen on this thread, as it was going in a good direction before. I hope that can be recaptured.
we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share.
Actually, every thing I mentioned is true, and even though evos claim to refute them just as they justified Haeckel's forgeries, anyone can look into the data for themselves and see that things like Haeckel's forgeries are real, that Neanderthals were not subhuman and ape-like, etc,...
Actually, anyone can examine the evidence & see that the conclusions drawn from embryological homology are perfectly valid, in spite of Haeckel's drawnings. It therefore follows that anyone with an ounce of reason will see this anti-evolutionary argument to be what it is: a Red Herring. A bit like claiming Christianity is false because the Turin Shroud was a hoax.
Furthermore, interpretations of Neanderthal skeletons was also perfectly valid, based on the information they had at the time. More data means better interpretations, which is exactly the same in in the rest of science. Was the atomic Plum-Pudding theory a lie? No, of course it wasn't, it was an interpretation based on the data had at the time that was subsequently improved upon.
Other than Haeckel's drawings I can only think of one other lie in support of evolution. I forget the chaps name, but he was a 19th century Frenchman who played fast & loose with trilobite bearing strata in Indochina. He was discovered by other French scientists & scientifically ostracised.
There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't
Pelycodus was a tree-dwelling primate that looked much like a modern lemur. The skull shown is probably 7.5 centimeters long.
The numbers down the left hand side indicate the depth (in feet) at which each group of fossils was found. As is usual in geology, the diagram gives the data for the deepest (oldest) fossils at the bottom, and the upper (youngest) fossils at the top. The diagram covers about five million years.
The dashed lines show the overall trend. The species at the bottom is Pelycodus ralstoni, but at the top we find two species, Notharctus nunienus and Notharctus venticolus. The two species later became even more distinct, and the descendants of nunienus are now labeled as genus Smilodectes instead of genus Notharctus.
Pelycodus is from a group of creatures which collectively are thought to be the ancestors of modern monkeys and apes. The diagram represents the whole of the early Eocene, spanning very approximately 55 million years ago to 50 million years ago. The fossils are from sediment in the Bighorn Basin of Wyoming.
(bold added for emphasis).
Note that the distinction that began as a speciation event here documented has in later development become two different genus classifications. This is one level above speciation.
quote:About the strongest evidence they have is genetic, but since it is relatively new, we will see how it holds up over time.
RA Fisher, 1930, "The Genetical Theory of Natural Selection"
This book is probably the single-most important work after Origin, and is considered to be the origin of the modern synthesis. I find it curious that 75 years is considered relatively new. I recognize that Rand probably is thinking that sequencing is the only genetic evidence there is and that is relatively new. That is why you shouldn't rely on tracts and Dr. Dino for your science info, they sometimes leave out important stuff.
Now back to the topic. I think the whale lineage is especially good despite not "having the dots connected" because it is an example of how multiple lines of evidence reinforce each other. I cannot see how this could happen unless the lineage evolved as stated. I know this has been stated over and over again on this forum, but maybe you (Rand & Christian) missed it. Here is a gross simplification of what I mean.
Long before any DNA evidence it was known that some early whale skulls had shared components with a group of artiodactyls (even-hoofed mammals). From this bit of evidence it was speculated (read PREDICTED) that whales evolved as an early offshoot from the artiodactyls. It is like reaching into a 1000-piece jigsaw puzzle and pulling out a single piece. If that piece is light blue you might speculate that the puzzle is a landscape with a sky, even without any idea of what the puzzle is supposed to be. From a single line of evidence it was predicted that the earliest whales would look like these artios (called mesonychids) and later whales less so and more like modern whales. That is a bold prediction. A single whale fossil with elephant-like or rodent-like traits would demolish the hypothesis. As it turns out every single fossil found has been as expected (more or less, what is important is that no fossil has contradicted this prediction). Furthermore it was found that some creatures thought to be mesonychids had ears that were indisputably whale-like. Like any good hypothesis, there is room for growth. Now, as I undertstand it, mesonychids look like the ancestor of whales because both are derived from the same early artiodactyl stock (they are close cousins) not because mesonychids are the actual ancestral group. But the prediction still holds true.
A potential argument against the above lines of evidence is that there is the possibility that there is a bias. That is, if one 'knows' that whales evolved from artiodactyls, then one might unintentionally focus on those traits and might miss others. This is where peer review is important. I do not believe that at any time there was a 100% consensus that whales are allied to artiodactyls. Evidence is reviewed by both supporters and detracters of your theory. Science does not work by a single individual (or team) making an assertion that is just believed by everyone. The fossil evidence for the artiodactyl origin of whales has passed peer review repeatedly over the last few decades.
Finally, the DNA evidence. This is of critical importance. DNA sequences are pretty much immune to biases, short of faking the sequences (which would be academic suicide). The fact is that the DNA evidence supports repeatedly the relationship between artiodactyls and whales. Had the DNA evidence come first, then the fossils, someone might ask if the fossil evidence was misinterpreted to match the DNA. But the DNA evidence came after and is completely consistent with the predictions made by the fossils. Again, if it were only a small DNA sequence that showed this the argument could be made that it was an amazing coincidence. But the fact remains that it is multiple sequences across many genes that say the same thing. And this has happened over and over across taxa. Looking only at DNA and without a single fossil the evolutionary tree looks pretty much exactly the way it does based on fossils. The odds of this are statistically impossible if it is supposed to be just coincidence.
Doctor Bashir: "Of all the stories you told me, which were true and which weren't?" Elim Garak: "My dear Doctor, they're all true" Doctor Bashir: "Even the lies?" Elim Garak: "Especially the lies"