|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,766 Year: 4,023/9,624 Month: 894/974 Week: 221/286 Day: 28/109 Hour: 1/3 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Haeckeling, trying to wrap it up.... | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
pink sasquatch Member (Idle past 6048 days) Posts: 1567 Joined: |
The whole point of the paper is that a phylotypic stage is not accurate, as claimed, and he shows that by refuting the primary source material of evos in making that claim, Haeckel's drawings. You are essentially correct (I am NOT defended the phylotypic stage by any means, so you bringing this up at all is a strawman argument. Yes, Richardson is presenting evidence against the phylotypic stage. He doesn't do this by refuting Haeckel's drawings so much as he does by bringing in many other species that Haeckel and others didn't examine/consider - you did read the paper, right?). BUT You are discussing embryology and sticking "evos" in their to make it seem as though the phylotypic stage has a bearing on the status of the theory of evolution. You are intentionally misconstruing embryological controversy as evolution controversy. Let's be clear about what the Richardson paper is: It is an embryology paper resting on the foundation of evolution, and NOT an evolution paper resting on the foundation of embryology.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 9003 From: Canada Joined: |
quote:( bolds mine) "Evolutionists" commiting fraud Rand? It is not clear your own reference supports you. What it is saying is that a number of biologists may not have been careful enough. There is no hint that they didn't believe what they were publishing. Do you have any other support for your views Randman?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
randman  Suspended Member (Idle past 4925 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: |
Cut the absurd all caps. The OP is quite specific, and there is no misrepresentation at all, and one of the most narrowly defined topics on the board right now.
So either engage it or shut the heck up, please.
He doesn't do this by refuting Haeckel's drawings so much as he does by bringing in many other species that Haeckel and others didn't examine/consider - you did read the paper, right?). Wrong, he devoted significant amounts of the papers by refuting Haeckel's drawings, specifying they were inaccurate, doctored, etc,...and does so because the authors unequivocally state Haeckel's data is the chief bit of data used to make the claims of a phylotypic stage.
Let's be clear about what the Richardson paper is Yes, let's do that. It is a paper refuting both the phylotypic stage and the principal data used to make that claim.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
randman  Suspended Member (Idle past 4925 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: |
What it is saying is that a number of biologists may not have been careful enough. There is no hint that they didn't believe what they were publishing.
Incompetence works just as well as ignorance, and is in fact a stronger statement in support of my claims here since incompetence includes ignorance whereas ignorance leaves open the possibility for a reasonable cause for that ignorance. Either way, evos presented and relied on false claims for 125 years, and this after those claims had been debunked. As far as claiming they didn't believe Haeckel's drawings were accurate, I think I've been pretty clear on the fact they did believe it. They did believe what they were publishing. It's you guys that won't admit that, not me. This message has been edited by randman, 12-13-2005 12:55 AM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
pink sasquatch Member (Idle past 6048 days) Posts: 1567 Joined: |
pink sasquatch writes: Let's be clear about what the Richardson paper is Yes, let's do that. It is a paper refuting both the phylotypic stage and the principal data used to make that claim. Absofuckinglutely! This is the umpteenth time I've agreed with you! How many times do I have to agree with you before you accept it? Are you such a conspiracy freak that even when I agree with you, you read it as though I do not?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
randman  Suspended Member (Idle past 4925 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: |
Where does it say they were used to support evolution? Good grief. You are really scared that evos did this, aren't you? Must rock your world or something. Here is the Levine quote again.
This idea has been pushed back into the news recently by the news that Haeckel's drawings of embryonic similarities were not correct. British embryologist Michael Richardson and his colleages published an important paper in the August 1997 issue of Anatomy & Embryology showing that Haeckel had fudged his drawings to make the early stages of embryos appear more alike than they actually are! As it turns out, Haeckel's contemporaries had spotted the fraud during his lifetime, and got him to admit it. However, his drawings nonetheless became the source material for diagrams of comparative embryology in nearly every biology textbook, including ours! ...many of the stages that embryos pass through can indeed be understood as remnants of their evolutionary past. Haeckel's Embryos They used Haeckel's drawings but colored them to present the appearances of embryonic stages in making the claim that "many of the stages that embryos pass through can indeed be understood as remnants of their evolutionary past." If you want to point out that they do not actually say squat about stages after that, I agree. They present muddled thinking as evos are want to do. They refer to a few small features like yolk sacs, and really don't properly deal with whole stages. But that's just more evidence evos are very confused in this whole area. The fact is they admit that they used Haeckel's drawings as their source material and so did nearly everyone else. It's just people like you that have a hard time owning up to mistakes evos have made.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
randman  Suspended Member (Idle past 4925 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: |
So you are agreeing that the principal data evos relied on to make the claim of a phylotypic stage is Haeckel's data?
Or are you switching back and claiming otherwise?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
pink sasquatch Member (Idle past 6048 days) Posts: 1567 Joined: |
It's just people like you that have a hard time owning up to mistakes evos have made. Again, idiotic. I was the one who originally informed you of the age of the uncovering of the Haeckel fraud, so every time you point a finger at me for not admitting it you look more and more like an idiot. I asked:
pink sasquatch writes: Where does it say they were used to support evolution? You reply:
Good grief. You are really scared that evos did this, aren't you? Must rock your world or something. THEN THE BEST YOU CAN COME UP WITH IS THIS!:
source writes: ...many of the stages that embryos pass through can indeed be understood as remnants of their evolutionary past. One of the most assinine quote-mines I've ever seen, considering the lines IMMEDIATELY preceding it is:
As you read this, you may wonder why evolution should be limited to changes tacked on at the end of the process of development. So did evolutionary biologists, and Haeckel's idea was quickly discarded. In fact, evolution can affect all phases of development, removing developmental steps as well as adding them, and therefore embryology is not a strict replay of ancestry. Get it? It's your source after all! Evolution refuted the embryology; therefore the embryology was NOT the foundation of evolution. So I'll ask again: Where does it say they were used to support evolution? And I'll also answer: IT DOESN'T. In fact, it states the evolution was used to refute Haeckel. Again, you've got the direction of the evidence assbackwards, and you are essentially lying through your transparent quotemines. Ethics mean much to you?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
randman  Suspended Member (Idle past 4925 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: |
First off pink, anyone that has debated this is probably well aware of when Haeckel was first refuted, having been posted here on threads by me ad nauseum according to some. So please don't pretend you introduced some new information here.
Secondly, the authors make the claim they relied on Haeckel's claims as their source material. Of course, they did not assert the Biogenetic Law. Evos only took around 75 years to correct that horrendous error from the textbooks. But they do assert they relied on Haeckel's comparitive data for making their embryonic claims. Consider the following from one of their links to their materials.
How does all this explain why vertebrates pass through an early stage that resembles a fish embryo? ... Our "fish-like" early stages are directed by parts of the same genetic program that built early fishes -- some of the first members of our branch of the animal kingdom. By the time fishes evolved, genetic control of development was already a very complicated business, because fishes are complex animals. And once a genetic program passes a certain level of complexity, it becomes difficult for major changes early on not to have "domino effects" that knock things out of kilter down the line. So, over millions of years, evolution operated mainly by adding on to and fiddling around with later stages in development, rather than by making radical changes in genetic programs that substituted one type of body part for another. The result is that some aspects of the earliest stages in the human developmental program remain rather similar to those found in living fishes. NOVA Online/Odyssey of Life/Timing is Everything They clearly assert, just as Haeckel did, that vertibrates pass through "a fish stage." Now, they are no longer using Haeckel to make that claim, but they admit Haeckel was their source material until 1997. It's interesting though that they still essentially claim a fish stage, just as Haeckel to a degree, and use that as evidence for evolution. Of course, vertibrates don't actually pass through a fish-like stage, but facts like that never stopped evos before. This message has been edited by randman, 12-13-2005 01:26 AM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
pink sasquatch Member (Idle past 6048 days) Posts: 1567 Joined: |
First off pink, anyone that has debated this is probably well aware of when Haeckel was first refuted, having been posted here on threads by me ad nauseum according to some. So please don't pretend you introduced some new information here. You may not remember it, but I can easily remind you:
In this post you claimed that Creationists were the first to reveal the Haeckel frauds in the 1970s. In my response I inform you that you are off by a hundred years; that the real date was 1868. But that's okay, I won't "pretend" that I was the one who informed you... I don't have to, since I really did it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
pink sasquatch Member (Idle past 6048 days) Posts: 1567 Joined: |
They clearly assert, just as Haeckel did, that vertibrates pass through "a fish stage." Again, you intentionally misconstrue. You essentially lie to make your point. There is a clear difference between a "fish-like" stage and a "fish stage." "Resembles a fish embryo" is clearly different than "is a fish."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
randman  Suspended Member (Idle past 4925 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: |
I thought you were referring to this thread, but now that I recall that, you acted just as unreasonable then, and failed to substantiate that Rutimeyer was an evolutionist, as you claimed.
Considering the date, 1868, it is likely he was not an evolutionist, but I also pointed out that Von Baer was a creationist, and he spoke against the same idea of recapitulation prior to even Haeckel taking up the idea.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6410 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
They clearly assert, just as Haeckel did, that vertibrates pass through "a fish stage."
No, they quite clearly DO NOT say that. They talk of "an early stage that resembles a fish embryo", of "fish-like" early stages, of stages that are "rather similar to those found in living fishes". But they never say "fish stage" in the material that you quote. Fish-like or similar to fish, is far weaker than "fish stage" would be. You are again misconstruing what is being said.
It's interesting though that they still essentially claim a fish stage, just as Haeckel to a degree, and use that as evidence for evolution.
No, it isn't interesting. It is FALSE. Firstly, they are saying "fish-like" and not claiming that there is a fish stage. Secondly, that's a web page on the genetic control of development. It is NOT being used as evidence for evolution. 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 4925 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: |
Fish-like or fish stage, it doesn't matter because it's not true either way.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
randman  Suspended Member (Idle past 4925 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: |
Fish stage or fish-like stage, it's false either way. Clearly, I was not saying the fish stage, abbreviating it, meant all embryos were fish.
You guys are just trying to dodge admitting the obvious.
It is NOT being used as evidence for evolution. Wrong again, btw. Note the reference to evolution as the explanation for the claimed, but not observed, fish-like stage. This message has been edited by randman, 12-13-2005 01:52 AM
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024