|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Education | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Omnivorous Member Posts: 3992 From: Adirondackia Joined: Member Rating: 7.5 |
Even the guy in the street knows that faking and doctoring photos is wrong. You mean like those doctored petroglyph photos you were shopping around as proof that men lived along-side dinosaurs?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1497 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
So the fact your wife studies beetle evolution somehow validates 125 years of presenting a myth, faked data, as accurate, eh? No. The fact that there's a beetle evolution to study in the first place makes your obsession with Heckel et al. irrelevant. Evolution stands on a weight of data that has absolutely nothing to do with your two or three pet outrages. Heckel's drawings are, at best, a historical aside with no relevance whatsoever to the bulk of evolutionary research.
But then again, I am not sure showing that all beetles share common descent does much to prove evolution. The creationists would just argue that beetles are one kind, and so speciation based on that one kind is in full accord with their predictions. Yes, it's quite convenient that the concept of "kind" magically expands so as to include all offered examples of inter-taxon change. I imagine that, as our models of common descent grow in confidence and are supported by more and more data, creationists will eventually be forced to recognize all living organisms as members of the same "kind", and that the entire diversity of living things on Earth decend from a single organism via "microevolution." I suspect it will be quite funny to see.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
randman  Suspended Member (Idle past 4929 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: |
, like your previous insistence that acceptance of the Big Bang theory was an atheist plot... Uh huh,...really? Care to show where I have ever written anything about the Big Bang, much less that it was an atheist plot. Is this sort of like the Haeckel mentality? Fake the data to make your claim?
but you're like a bulldog with drawings no educated evolutionist has placed any credence in for decades clamped in your jaws as though you had found the Lost Bone. Also, you actually beleive evos didn't put any credence in Haeckel's drawings for decades?
This idea was promoted by Haeckel, and has recently been revived in the context of claims regarding the universality of developmental mechanisms. ... Haeckel’s drawings of the external morphology of various vertebrates remain the most comprehensive comparative data purporting to show a conserved stage. ... One puzzling feature of the debate in this field is that while many authors have written of a conserved embryonic stage, no one has cited any comparative data in support of the idea. It is almost as though the phylotypic stage is regarded as a biological concept for which no proof is needed. MK Rich Ardson - MK Blog Rich Looks like evos were taking Haeckel's claims very seriously up to at least 1997, to the point they accepted his claims of a phylotypic stage uncritically and offered little to no citations, as if it had already been well-established, which it was. The problem is Haeckel's work contained fraudulent data to make his claims.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
randman  Suspended Member (Idle past 4929 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: |
I posted that link as a subject of interest, not as a scientific claim on my part. I clearly stated the site contained a wide area of data, some better than others, but that it was intringuing.
The fact you think that equates with evolutionists relying on Haeckel's claims until at least 1997, and his faked data, is very telling.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
randman  Suspended Member (Idle past 4929 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: |
This idea was promoted by Haeckel, and has recently been revived in the context of claims regarding the universality of developmental mechanisms. ... Haeckel’s drawings of the external morphology of various vertebrates remain the most comprehensive comparative data purporting to show a conserved stage. ... One puzzling feature of the debate in this field is that while many authors have written of a conserved embryonic stage, no one has cited any comparative data in support of the idea. It is almost as though the phylotypic stage is regarded as a biological concept for which no proof is needed. MK Rich Ardson - MK Blog Rich
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1497 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
Fascinating, but relevant only to vertebrates. Do you believe that vertebrates constitute the focus of the bulk of evolutionary research?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6412 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
randman writes:
I shall consider that an unwarranted and scurrilous attack. So doctoring evidence and putting it in textbooks is acceptable to you. Ok, but most of the rest of America thinks things like that are wrong. What shall it profit a nation if it gain the whole world, yet lose its own soul. (paraphrasing Mark 8:36)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1497 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
I shall consider that an unwarranted and scurrilous attack. You didn't get that memo? That's what it means to be a creationist and an admin here at EvC - open license to promulgate the most base of slanders.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
randman  Suspended Member (Idle past 4929 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: |
Why? Did not Haeckel doctor his drawings and faked the data?
You act like I am wrong to bring it up.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminNWR Inactive Member |
You are wandering off topic, crashfrog. Moreover, it is inappropriate to criticize AdminRandman on the basis of posts by ordinary member randman.
To comment on moderation procedures or respond to admin messages:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
randman  Suspended Member (Idle past 4929 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: |
You wrote:
Heckel's drawings are, at best, a historical aside with no relevance whatsoever to the bulk of evolutionary research. I responded appropiately showing you where you were wrong. Are you under the impression that Haeckel's comparitive embryonic drawings depict something other than vertibrates?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6412 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
randman writes:
That is not actually relevant to what I posted.
Why? Did not Haeckel doctor his drawings and faked the data? You act like I am wrong to bring it up.
You were certainly wrong to bring it up in the form of an unwarranted accusation against me. For the record, I don't know whether Haeckel doctored his drawings and faked the data. I'm not an historian, so I have no way of determining his intent. What shall it profit a nation if it gain the whole world, yet lose its own soul. (paraphrasing Mark 8:36)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
randman  Suspended Member (Idle past 4929 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: |
nwr, I was responding to this by you:
The randman account of Haeckel's drawings are what strike me as myth making. I took one year of biology as an undergraduate. The text included Haeckel's drawings. In light of this comment, I thought my response was appropiate. It's not like I was hurling some wild scurrilous charge. You stated I am myth-making, and yet admit Haeckel's drawings were used, and hence my question. This message has been edited by randman, 12-11-2005 11:41 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1497 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
Are you under the impression that Haeckel's comparitive embryonic drawings depict something other than vertibrates? Are you? You seem intent on expanding their import to situations where they cannot possibly apply; such as the bulk of evolutionary research. Answer the question. Is it your apprehension that the bulk of evolutionary research occurs in the context of vertebrate organisms?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1497 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
Moreover, it is inappropriate to criticize AdminRandman on the basis of posts by ordinary member randman. I'm sorry? I'm familiar with the casual fiction that admins are different people than their non-admin logins, but that's simply carrying it too far. If we're required to treat that conceit as fact, it should be codified into the rules.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024