Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
7 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,816 Year: 3,073/9,624 Month: 918/1,588 Week: 101/223 Day: 12/17 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Is talkorigins.org a propoganda site?
ramoss
Member (Idle past 612 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 08-11-2004


Message 16 of 301 (282799)
01-31-2006 6:44 AM
Reply to: Message 15 by randman
01-30-2006 11:44 PM


Re: Dr. Haeckel's Critics Hyde
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by randman, posted 01-30-2006 11:44 PM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by AdminWounded, posted 01-31-2006 7:14 AM ramoss has replied
 Message 26 by randman, posted 02-05-2006 6:15 PM ramoss has not replied

AdminWounded
Inactive Member


Message 17 of 301 (282801)
01-31-2006 7:14 AM
Reply to: Message 16 by ramoss
01-31-2006 6:44 AM


Oh no not again!!
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by ramoss, posted 01-31-2006 6:44 AM ramoss has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by PaulK, posted 01-31-2006 7:47 AM AdminWounded has not replied
 Message 19 by ramoss, posted 01-31-2006 8:14 AM AdminWounded has not replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 18 of 301 (282809)
01-31-2006 7:47 AM
Reply to: Message 17 by AdminWounded
01-31-2006 7:14 AM


Re: Oh no not again!!
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by AdminWounded, posted 01-31-2006 7:14 AM AdminWounded has not replied

ramoss
Member (Idle past 612 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 08-11-2004


Message 19 of 301 (282818)
01-31-2006 8:14 AM
Reply to: Message 17 by AdminWounded
01-31-2006 7:14 AM


Re: Oh no not again!!
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by AdminWounded, posted 01-31-2006 7:14 AM AdminWounded has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by randman, posted 02-05-2006 6:16 PM ramoss has not replied

Omnivorous
Member
Posts: 3978
From: Adirondackia
Joined: 07-21-2005
Member Rating: 7.3


Message 20 of 301 (282826)
01-31-2006 8:42 AM
Reply to: Message 15 by randman
01-30-2006 11:44 PM


Re: Dr. Haeckel's Critics Hyde
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by randman, posted 01-30-2006 11:44 PM randman has not replied

Jazzns
Member (Idle past 3911 days)
Posts: 2657
From: A Better America
Joined: 07-23-2004


Message 21 of 301 (282855)
01-31-2006 10:07 AM
Reply to: Message 15 by randman
01-30-2006 11:44 PM


Can we find a different example?
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by randman, posted 01-30-2006 11:44 PM randman has not replied

AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4754
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 22 of 301 (282896)
01-31-2006 12:59 PM


Moving this thread forward
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 3980 days)
Posts: 95
From: Munich,Germany
Joined: 07-10-2005


Message 23 of 301 (282898)
01-31-2006 1:12 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by randman
01-30-2006 11:37 PM


Re: talkorigins vs. bible.ca
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by randman, posted 01-30-2006 11:37 PM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by randman, posted 02-05-2006 6:21 PM bernd has replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 24 of 301 (282985)
01-31-2006 8:24 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by nwr
01-30-2006 2:19 PM


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by nwr, posted 01-30-2006 2:19 PM nwr has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by ramoss, posted 01-31-2006 9:09 PM Percy has not replied

ramoss
Member (Idle past 612 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 08-11-2004


Message 25 of 301 (282998)
01-31-2006 9:09 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by Percy
01-31-2006 8:24 PM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by Percy, posted 01-31-2006 8:24 PM Percy has not replied

randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 26 of 301 (284226)
02-05-2006 6:15 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by ramoss
01-31-2006 6:44 AM


you can't google ramos?
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?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by ramoss, posted 01-31-2006 6:44 AM ramoss has not replied

randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 27 of 301 (284227)
02-05-2006 6:16 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by ramoss
01-31-2006 8:14 AM


Re: Oh no not again!!
Talkorigins still claims a phylotypic stage as accurate. That is unsubstantiated.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by ramoss, posted 01-31-2006 8:14 AM ramoss has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by Modulous, posted 02-05-2006 6:41 PM randman has not replied

randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 28 of 301 (284228)
02-05-2006 6:21 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by bernd
01-31-2006 1:12 PM


Re: talkorigins vs. bible.ca
Bernd, the following claims are all unsubstantiated or actually shown to be wrong:
Biogenetic law
Recapitulation 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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by bernd, posted 01-31-2006 1:12 PM bernd has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by bernd, posted 02-06-2006 6:04 PM randman has replied

randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 29 of 301 (284229)
02-05-2006 6:36 PM


propoganda
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.

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by Modulous, posted 02-05-2006 6:49 PM randman has not replied
 Message 32 by PaulK, posted 02-05-2006 7:17 PM randman has replied

Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 30 of 301 (284231)
02-05-2006 6:41 PM
Reply to: Message 27 by randman
02-05-2006 6:16 PM


Phylotypic stage
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 therefore
poorly conserved and is more appropriately described as the phylotypic period.
Source

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by randman, posted 02-05-2006 6:16 PM randman has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024