|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Is talkorigins.org a propoganda site? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6412 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 4.5 |
In Message 21, randman wrote:
..., but there is often a level of illogic and distortion in the articles I have read that basically places it, imo, in the arena of propaganda. This thread is intended as a place where randman and other critics of talkorigins.org can provide details of the flaws and propagandistic tendencies of the to site, and where others can answer these critiques. (suggest "Is it Science")
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminJar Inactive Member |
Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
randman  Suspended Member (Idle past 4928 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: |
They still insist the phylotypic stage is true, imo, resurrecting an unsubstantiated claim thoroughly refuted by Richardson's 1997 study titled:
There is no highly conserved embryonic stage in the vertebrates: implications for current theories of evolution and development. MK Rich Ardson - MK Blog Rich Also, in this article, he says:
We regard the phylotypic stage as an archetype and not a real entity. MK Rich Ardson - MK Blog Rich But talkorigins still insists the phylotypic stage is true (maybe they are inserting their own definition?).
What is the phylotypic stage? Darwin said, "Hardly any point gave me so much satisfaction when I was at work on the Origin as the explanation of the wide difference in many classes between the embryo and the adult animal, and the close resemblance of the embryos within the same class." Early in the 19th century, von Baer noted that the embryos of different species could not be as easily distinguished from one another as are the adults. This is a simple observation that has been made numerous times in the past few hundred years, an observation that is not tied to any particular theory, whether of creation or evolution -- von Baer himself made these observations 30 years before Darwin published, and did not accept evolution then or later. That is, while vertebrate adults may look very different from one another, vertebrate embryos all go through a period in development in which they all resemble each other more strongly. This period is called the phylotypic stage. Wells and Haeckel's Embryos It is notable they do this in response to genuine and accurate criticism, some of which they found hard to deny and admit to, but rather than just admit Well's and other's are correct in denouncing the evo use of embryology and Haeckel, they try to resurrect a false claim, that of the phylotypic or highly conserved stage. This is not the first time Talkorigins misuses the data in respect to embryology claims and Haeckel.
“Ontogeny recapitulates Phylogeny” Thank you Andrew for your nice remarks. I want to comment on your comment that the Recapitulation Theory died about 1925 and that it has not appeared in school textbooks for years. Almost ten years ago in Ontario, Canada, creationists had a successful campaign to remove this theory from the High School curriculum. It was removed but then slipped right back in again the following year. To my knowledge it is still there. If the theory died in 1925 would you not agree that this is a disgraceful move on the part of certain people in the Ontario Ministry of Education and would you be willing to help remove the nonsense from Ontario’s school textbooks? On page 277 of my book, In The Minds of Men, the illustration shows exactly how Ernst Haeckel cheated in 1868 to make the facts fit his theory. This was exposed as fraudulent in 1874 by Wilhelm His, and the theory should have died then and there, not in 1925. For those critics who would side-track the issue by pointing out that textbooks have replaced the old nineteenth century engravings of the embryos with modern drawings, this is of no consequence whatsoever. The textbook The Way Life Works by Hoagland & Dodson, 1995 published by Ebury Press, London, still used Haeckel’s drawings but took the trouble to colour them! Most readers will recall the famous row of embryos shown in the school textbooks. The usual argument for their retention is because although it is admitted that the stages of development (the vertical sequence) do not appear as Haeckel showed them, the horizontal likenesses of the early stages of the fish, the salamander, the turtle, the chicken the rabbit and the human are all virtually the same and illustrate embryonic homology. Michael Richardson, a lecturer and embryologist at St. George’s Hospital Medical School, London has recently exposed the so-called “embryonic homology” as another fraud. In his paper published in Anatomy and Embryology 1997, Vol.196 (2), p.91-106 he shows that the early embryonic stages of 39 different creatures including the fish, the turtle etc., are nothing like the same. Haeckel had simply repeated a series of look alike drawings for his 1874 Anthropogenie and, until Richardson reported the facts in 1997, no one had taken the trouble to actually check on Haeckel’s work! May I suggest that this was because Haeckel’s theory seemed such good evidence for evolution?
http://www.trueorigin.org/ca_it_02.asp I will be busy this week, and may after today not be logged on until much later, but can provide other examples of TalkOrigins distorting the facts and using faulty analysis. This message has been edited by randman, 01-30-2006 03:29 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1372 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
here is a claim on today's bible.ca website:
quote: note two things: that there are no specific names of culprits listed, and there are TWO "evolutionists." here is glen kuban's rebutal to the claim, in which he quotes the following:
quote: note now that there is only one "evolutionist" who is named specifically as glen kuban. the internet wayback machine confirms this change:
quote: so glen kuban is not making the accusation up, and bible.ca really did change their tune. i would also note that the two quoted passages are not the same. there are slight differences. but judging from the fact that i've just demonstrated two major changes, which side do you think is responsible?
quote: i wonder WHY they changed their tune. should we try to verify this particular claim? on this page talkorigins does something bible.ca never does. it cites sources. here are some:
quote: while we're at it, here's the hastings papers that the same page cites:
quote: it seems both of these guys had been writing about paluxy years before the lecture. here's a copy of one of those paper, courtesy of glen kuban's personal website: http://paleo.cc/paluxy/tsite.htm notice that a description and picture of +3 is present. so, let's review.
which one looks less reputable? keep in mind also that paluxy is mentioned on aig: in the "don't use" faq.
quote: this doesn't mean they think it's false, neccessarily, just that they thought the "arguments were either factually incorrect, or were very dubious and unsafe, even counterproductive, to use" (cite). they also mention on the same page that the interpretation that the paluxy site demonstrated humans and dinosaurs living together "had serious problems." now, i don't mean to factually debate the issue here, or talk about what those problems are -- we have a thread for that. but aig, a very prominent creationist site, considers bible.ca to be essentially dishonest.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
On the first point the statement does not contradict Richardson's statement.
For instance to continue one of your quotations
We regard the phylotypic stage as an archetype and not a real entity. Like Owens archetype, the vertebrate phylotype applies to all vertebrates in general, but to no one species in detail. But this agrees with the statement quoted from t.o.
while vertebrate adults may look very different from one another, vertebrate embryos all go through a period in development in which they all resemble each other more strongly. This period is called the phylotypic stage.
The other criticism is a quote from a creationist but does not include any clear citicism of the t.o website. Indeed the article states that it is a reply to comments posted in the talk.origins newsgroup. The newsgroup is part of Usenet, open to all and thus cannot be directly equated with the website. So there is no actual criticism and the material being commented on may not even be on the t.o website.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
randman  Suspended Member (Idle past 4928 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: |
So is the thread about TalkOrigins or creationism? Seems like the stock answer for evos when confronted with errors by evos is to attack creationism but whether a creationist site is accurate or not doesn't change whether an evo site is, or vice versa.
Isn't it about time you guys accepted that?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Omnivorous Member Posts: 3991 From: Adirondackia Joined: Member Rating: 6.9 |
randman writes: So is the thread about TalkOrigins or creationism? Seems like the stock answer for evos when confronted with errors by evos is to attack creationism but whether a creationist site is accurate or not doesn't change whether an evo site is, or vice versa. Isn't it about time you guys accepted that? Ah, on-topicness, the last refuse of he who cannot refute... Well, rand, if you use creationist sites to critique T.O., then the credibility of creationist sites is fair game, yes? Speaking of which, surely you understand that this portion of your quote is (to put it kindly) inaccurate? Either the fellow is remarkably ignorant of history or deliberately repeating a lie:
Haeckel had simply repeated a series of look alike drawings for his 1874 Anthropogenie and, until Richardson reported the facts in 1997, no one had taken the trouble to actually check on Haeckel’s work! May I suggest that this was because Haeckel’s theory seemed such good evidence for evolution?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
randman  Suspended Member (Idle past 4928 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: |
Omni, by no one, in context he clearly refers to evolutionists as he mentions he and others had checked those facts and shown them to be wanting.
In general, I think his claim is accurate. Certainly, plenty of people before Richardson refuted the phylotypic stage, the Biogenetic law, and Haeckel's forgeries and did so pretty much in every decade since evos began to advance these ideas (although maybe not as much the phylotypic stage), but in general, evos kept using Haeckel's drawings, and assuming they genuinely believed they were likely to be accurate, I think the statement reflects the right emphasis, "no one" in the sense of evo publishers and teachers ever checked. Obviously, some did check, but let's give you guys the benefit of the doubt and assume evos just never took any of the prior claims the drawings were fakes seriously, and never checked. I guess the alternative is we could think they all deliberately lied, but that seems to be going too far, don't you think?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ramoss Member (Idle past 641 days) Posts: 3228 Joined: |
Well, you are wrong about what the Talk origins says abotu the embros.
From Icon of Obfuscation
quote: It further goes on to explain
quote: Since it deals with Haeckels embroys in depth, your critisms are unwarrented.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ramoss Member (Idle past 641 days) Posts: 3228 Joined: |
You know, upon seeing another of the sources you are using, I find it very ironic you are using 'True Origins' , written by Jorge Fernandez, to attack talkorigins.
Amoung the things that Jorge Fernandez promots is 'Young Earth Creationism'. Some sample articles is trying to show that the earth is YOUNG, using helium, and it also trys to promote that there was , indeed, a world wide flood.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1372 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
So is the thread about TalkOrigins or creationism? Seems like the stock answer for evos when confronted with errors by evos is to attack creationism but whether a creationist site is accurate or not doesn't change whether an evo site is, or vice versa. since this was a claim on t.o about a specific creationist site, and that cite made claims about the author of several articles hosted at t.o, it's fair game. the point is to show the claims t.o makes are indeed accurate, whereas the people making claims about t.o authors are innaccurate. it is a demonstration of what makes a cite reputable, versus a cite that is not reputable (even among creationists). oh, and i'll have to remember this argument for the next time you bring up bill clinton.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Omnivorous Member Posts: 3991 From: Adirondackia Joined: Member Rating: 6.9 |
Omni, by no one, in context he clearly refers to evolutionists as he mentions he and others had checked those facts and shown them to be wanting. Three possibilities: one, he means literally no one, in which case he is demonstrably wrong; two, he means no one but creationists, in which case he is demonstrably wrong; three, he means no scientists who accept the ToE, in which case he is demonstrably wrong. The man is just flat wrong. My intuitive take is that he got carried away with his rhetoric--but he didn't go back and clarify it, did he? I don't think evolutionary scientists need to explicitly repudiate every error made in prior centuries before getting on with their work, any more than Christians need to repudiate Ptolemy, and the persecution of Galileo, before discussing and critiquing modern science. Do you?
I guess the alternative is we could think they all deliberately lied, but that seems to be going too far, don't you think? Yes, I think so, but it would seem that many creationists, et al. disagree. Let me put it this way, rand: the creationists' smears of evolutionary scientists who had little interest or knowledge of Haeckel's work, and their distortions and misrepresentations about Haeckel's work, its significance and reception, dwarf Haeckel's own sins, and they occur for the same reason that his did--Haeckel thought the essential truth of his observations justified manipulating the images to make them more persuasive. That is a continuing problem of human behavior in everything from faked stem cell research to staged miracles. A good close-to-home example is your use of the Collector's Curve here at EvC to claim that 90% of all fossils that will ever be found have been found. Even though it was pointed out that you were representing an empty, data-free paradigm illustration as slam-dunk evidence, you never renounced your claim--you just left it uncorrected in the historical record, thus perpetuating an erroneous claim--sorta like bad drawings. Where are the creationists/IDers/critics of evolution who ought to be soundly rejecting your error in order to preserve their own integrity and credibility? Sound familiar? Creationists adore Richardson's 1997 paper and his rejection of a highly conserved phylotypic stage, but never address Richardson's subsequent publications, including his 1998 letter to Science repudiating the use of his work to attack evolutionary biology, and a later paper which addresses the continuing importance of Haeckel's ideas. Still, I am happy to learn that you reject the claims of critics who accuse evolutionists of deliberately misleading readers about Haeckel's drawings. That's progress. This message has been edited by Omnivorous, 01-30-2006 08:20 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
randman  Suspended Member (Idle past 4928 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: |
They still insist the phylotypic stage is real. Sure, they have had to concede that creationists were correct in denouncing Haeckel, but then still try to insert a watered-down version which isn't true either.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
randman  Suspended Member (Idle past 4928 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: |
Bottom line is if evos really never checked out Haeckel's claims, they shouldn't have been claiming they were factual. The faxt is you evos still cannot come around to just admitting the error without trying to slam your critics, unjustly I might add.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
randman  Suspended Member (Idle past 4928 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: |
Omni, Richardson honestly admitted and claimed it was one of the biggest science frauds in biology, and then came under intense pressure and criticism by other evos, people like you I might add, and then comes out and writes they are "good teaching aides."
What do I think a reasonable and objective person thinks of this turn-about? That the evo debate is highly politicized and evidence is not looked at in a scientific manner. That's why Haeckel keeps getting used. It gets debunked every 10-20 years, but then the awful implications of that are apparent, namely that evos passed off fantasy as fact (not just false theory but forged facts), and then the evos work to justify themselves, and pretty soon the forgery and false theory, or some watered-down version of it, is back in business. That's why a man like Richardson could on the one hand express outrage at the hoax, and so so publicly, and then actually change his tune 5-7 years later and try to restore Haeckel in calling his forgeries good teaching aides. It shows the utter vacuity of the evo community in it's ability to come clean about it's icons.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024