|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9163 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,418 Year: 3,675/9,624 Month: 546/974 Week: 159/276 Day: 33/23 Hour: 0/3 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Is talkorigins.org a propoganda site? | |||||||||||||||||||||||
ramoss Member (Idle past 633 days) Posts: 3228 Joined: |
Can you point to the specific part where Richardson said it was a fraut perpetuated? That is a claim of Well's yes.. but we can deal with Wells and his book where he makes that claim later.
Show the specific line that says it was a purposeful fraud in his work. Give an exact quote.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminWounded Inactive Member |
Lets do our best not to just have another 'Randman Vs. Haeckel' thread.
If you want to specifically discuss Haeckel why not take it to one of the still extant threads, i.e. Message 1. I appreciate that this is on topic discussion in as much as it relates to what Talkorigins says on the topic but this seems to be veering to much towards a mere reiteration of the usual arguments, which already have a thread. TTFN, AW
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17825 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
So far as I can see the whole point of Randman's second objection is to have a go at the Haeckel topic. The quoted comment is a response to a post on the talk.origins newsgroup and does not even criticise that.
The only point of quoting it seems to be to raise the whole generalised Haeckel argument again because it is quite obviously completely irrelevant to the supposed topic. Readers might like to consider why Randman would do such a thing if he really did have a good case against the t.o website.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ramoss Member (Idle past 633 days) Posts: 3228 Joined: |
Let me rephrase then.
Where does Talk origins say that Haeckel was correct? You seem to be ignoring the link I showed in talk origins that specifically said they agree that Haeckel's drawings should not be included. They also pointed out that Well's is exagerating the signifigence, and that none of the text books that used to use promote the concept that Haeckel was trying to illustrate that was incorrect.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Omnivorous Member Posts: 3985 From: Adirondackia Joined: Member Rating: 7.2 |
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." Please support this assertion. The rest of your message is tired, recycled rhetoric, and it fails to respond to my question: doesn't your misrepresentation of the Collector's Curve parallel Haeckel's use of his drawings? BTW, you say people like me did that? You mean a bunch of middle-aged Army veterans who were late-arriving English majors and graduate creative writing fellows, and who now manage computer networks, banded together to pressure Richardson? And they didn't invite me? Now THAT is a scandal. Evo conspiracies sure aren't what they used to be.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Jazzns Member (Idle past 3932 days) Posts: 2657 From: A Better America Joined: |
As much as we all loved the Haeckel threads the first time around, and really loved the second, and the third, can we find a different example of how TO is delinquent just to have a change of pace around here.
Sure Haeckel is controversial and important, but what if we pretended that the whole Haeckel issue is conceeded? Wouldn't that allow us to get to some other, potentially more interesting "problems" with TO? No smoking signs by gas stations. No religion in the public square. The government should keep us from being engulfed in flames on earth, and that is pretty much it. -- Jon Stewart, The Daily Show
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminNosy Administrator Posts: 4754 From: Vancouver, BC, Canada Joined: |
It is in the interests of those against TO to put forward as many examples as possible. However, each one does need to be examined for validity.
I suggest that if a particular one isn't more or less settled in a smalish number of posts (10 or so?) that it be a PNT of a separate thread. This thread can then be the "index" of problems and the other threads examine them in more detail. The embryonic argument has yet to be settled so it certainly won't be very quickly. Let's reopen/open a thread on it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
bernd Member (Idle past 4002 days) Posts: 95 From: Munich,Germany Joined: |
By AdminNosy:
Please take this specific item to another thread or we will not get to point two. Thanks Hello Randman, Richardson criticizes in his article [1] the idea that all vertebrate pass through a virtual identical stage, which would hint at highly conserved developmental constraints. Instead he suggests that evolutionary mechanism can modify all embryonic stages, a concept which may help to explain macro evolutionary change:
In summary, evolution has produced a number of changes in the embryonic stages of vertebrates including: 1. Differences in body size 2. Differences in body plan (for example, the presence or absence of paired limb buds) 3. Changes in the number of units in repeating series such as the somites and pharyngeal arches 4. Changes in the pattern of growth of different fields (allometry) 5. Changes in the timing of development of different fields (heterochrony) These modifications of embryonic development are difficult to reconcile with the idea that most or all vertebrate clades pass through an embryonic stage that is highly resistant to evolutionary change. This idea is implicit in Haeckel’s drawings, which have been used to substantiate two quite distinct claims. First, that differences between species typically become more apparent at late stages. Second, that vertebrate embryos are virtually identical at earlier stages. This first claim is clearly true. Our survey, however, does not support the second claim, and instead reveals considerable variability - and evolutionary lability - of the tailbud stage, the purported phylotypic stage of vertebrates. We suggest that not all developmental mechanisms are highly constrained by conserved developmental mechanisms such as the zootype. Embryonic stages may be key targets for macro evolutionary change Myers does not claim that all developmental mechanism are highly constrained by conserved developmental mechanism nor that the “phylotypic stage” is virtual identical in all vertebrates. He states in [2]:
Modern theories of development and evolution propose something that fits the observations, and that Wells cannot easily dismiss. Genes can be modified to act at virtually any point in development, so the theoretical constraint imposed by Haeckel is nonexistent. Variations between species at the earliest stages were a problem for Haeckel, but are not incompatible at all with modern developmental biology. There isn't even a requirement for absolute morphological identity at the phylotypic stage. As Wells points out, Michael Richardson has been identifying variation within that stage between species.
The main difference seems to be one of terminology, that is whether the expression “phylotypic stage” should be replaced for example by “phylotypic period” as Richardson suggests in [3]. Richardson’s proposal is - as far as I know - still under debate, therefore I wouldn’t criticize Myers for using the former term. -Bernd References [1] MK Rich Ardson - MK Blog Rich[2] Wells and Haeckel's Embryos [3] MK Rich Ardson - MK Blog Rich This message has been edited by bernd, 31-Jan-2006 07:17 PM This message has been edited by AdminNosy, 01-31-2006 01:27 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22480 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.8 |
nwr writes: 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. TalkOrigins merely tries to accurately present information about the field of biological evolution. The information there shouldn't be any different than the information found in any library in the world. It's intended to reflect the current state of scientific evolutionary knowledge at a level that laypeople can understand. This means that if TO is a propaganda site then all of biological science is a propaganda machine, which I think is Randman's true position. TO probably got singled out for criticism because of its easy availability on the Internet. In Randman's view it isn't just TO that is misrepresenting Haeckel specifically and the evidence for evolution generally, but all of biological science. Since Randman believes any representation of evolution is propaganda, it really isn't possible to convince him that TO isn't a propaganda site. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ramoss Member (Idle past 633 days) Posts: 3228 Joined: |
On the other hand, Randman specificlaly said that T.O is not reliable, since it is a 'propoganda site'. Yet, other than brining up Haekel, and accepting Well's mischaracterisation of it, Randman has not been able to show that 1) Talkorigins misrepresents Haeckle or 2) is unreliable.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
randman  Suspended Member (Idle past 4920 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: |
In a 1997 interview in The Times of London, Dr. Richardson stated: "This is one of the worst cases of scientific fraud. It’s shocking to find that somebody one thought was a great scientist was deliberately misleading. It makes me angry. ... What he [Haeckel] did was to take a human embryo and copy it, pretending that the salamander and the pig and all the others looked the same at the same stage of development. They don’t. ... These are fakes." Forbidden
Using modern techniques, a British researcher has photographed embryos like those pictured in the famous, century-old drawings by Ernst Haeckel--proving that Haeckel's images were falsified. Haeckel once admitted to his peers that he doctored the drawings, but that confession was forgotten. Just a moment... When ramos, will you admit to basic facts of the debate?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
randman  Suspended Member (Idle past 4920 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: |
Talkorigins still claims a phylotypic stage as accurate. That is unsubstantiated.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
randman  Suspended Member (Idle past 4920 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: |
Bernd, the following claims are all unsubstantiated or actually shown to be wrong:
Biogenetic lawRecapitulation theory the phylotypic stage TalkOrigins, like all evos, is having to come to grips with Haeckel's and their false embryonic claims, but they still try to say the phylotypic stage is real. That's a false claim. Now, it may be evos are starting to assert another watered-down claim to resurrect the hour-glass model, which by the way doesn't really support ToE anyway, but regardless, the phylotypic period concept is qualitatively different than the phylotypic stage, which has been shown to be wrong. TalkOrigins is a propaganda site, imo.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
randman  Suspended Member (Idle past 4920 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: |
One of the favorite propaganda technigues of evos is used at Talkorigins. Evos define "evolution" as basically any change or any heritable change, as shown in the article below.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-definition.html So they can safely argue that "evolution" is observed based on this definition of evolution. The reason this is a false argument is that the definition of "evolution" under debate is not the idea that change occurs. Creationism is thus equally as much "evolution" under the observed evolution definition as the Theory of Evolution, and evos know this. Let's see if they really are consistent and state "evolution" is mere change over time.
Evolution, the overarching concept that unifies the biological sciences, in fact embraces a plurality of theories and hypotheses. 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: The Scientific Case for Common Descent So here we see TalkOrigins state evolution is actually the grander concept they call "the overarching concept that unifies the biological sciences, in fact embraces a plurality of theories and hypotheses." Hmmm....what should we make of this? Clearly, they deliberately use propaganda stating "evolution" is observed to argue for an entirely different definition of "evolution" the grand concept embracing a plurality of hypothesis and theories. In other words, they talk out of both sides of their mouth. They say evolution is observed, and then use the same word to describe the Theory of Evolution, which is not observed. This is like saying, hey, we can read of someone stating in the past, for example, that they had a gay time, and trying to argue they referred to homosexuality. Evos are trying to use semantics to make a scientific argument, and imo, do so because they cannot make a sound argument based on people understanding the facts.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
I assume as evidence of this you are referring to what you posted in Message 3? And your refutation of talk origins comes from Richardson. Here is how T.O defines the phylotypic stage:
Myers writes:
This period is called the phylotypic stage. At this time in development, vertebrate embryos all express a suite of characters that are common to the entire vertebrate lineage: they have a notochord and a dorsal nerve cord, they have pharyngeal arches and a tail, and they have a repeating series of blocks of muscle called somites. And here is what Richardson says, in his 1997 paper:
richardson writes: We have reviewed the morphology of vertebrate embryos at the tailbud stage, which is generally considered to be resistant to evolutionary change, if not invariant. A wide range of clades has been considered, and the possible phylogenetic relations among these clades are indicated in Fig. 9. Vertebrates show many common features at this stage. These include the presence of somites, neural tube, optic anlagen, notochord and pharyngeal pouches.
Richardson seems to think that this should be called the Phylotypic period
richardson writes: The data reveal striking patterns of heterochrony during vertebrate evolution. These shifts in developmental timing have strongly affected the phylotypic stage, which is thereforepoorly conserved and is more appropriately described as the phylotypic period. Source
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024