|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Is talkorigins.org a propoganda site? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
randman  Suspended Member (Idle past 4929 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
randman  Suspended Member (Idle past 4929 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?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
randman  Suspended Member (Idle past 4929 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?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
randman  Suspended Member (Idle past 4929 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 4929 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 4929 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
randman  Suspended Member (Idle past 4929 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 4929 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: |
Talkorigins still claims a phylotypic stage as accurate. That is unsubstantiated.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
randman  Suspended Member (Idle past 4929 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 4929 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
randman  Suspended Member (Idle past 4929 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: |
percy, any objective and reasonable person can see what I posted is true. To use the word "evolution" to mean 2 different things in the same context is wrong. First, they say "evolution is observed" and is a fact, but the definition of "evolution" is not the grander concept they use later. It's a subtle form of lying, pure propaganda.
They say it is important to have clear definition, and then proceed elsewhere on their site to use a different definition than they use here.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
randman  Suspended Member (Idle past 4929 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: |
First, the term phylotypic stage and highly conserved stage are synonymous. So if Talkorigins is doing as you say, and using the term in a manner less defined, then that is misleading propoganda, but typical for evos who used recapitulation to mean:
the Biogenetic lawthe phylotypic stage vestigal organs The simple fact is the historical claim of a highly conserved stage, also called the phylotypic stage, has been refuted, in large part because creatures' developmental pathway does not match up neatly as evos falsely claimed. So if TalkOrigins is using the same term to refer to what Richardson calls the phylotypic period, still weaseling I might add, then imo that is strong evidence TalkOrigins is a propaganda site. They use the same technique in their false use of the word, evolution. They claim evolution is observed when in fact evolution is not observed, but by using 2 different meanings, they pass off one claim, evolution is observed since change is observed, to equate with evolution (ToE which encompasses a broader range of meaning) is observed as well, when it is not. It is subtle deception, but very typical of how evos have used semantics to advance their ideas. It's really indicative of brainwashing more than education.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
randman  Suspended Member (Idle past 4929 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: |
Read my earlier posts and links. I showed where they do exactly that.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
randman  Suspended Member (Idle past 4929 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: |
What is so hard for you guys to grasp here. I will repost, but I clearly showed 2 places where TalkOrigins does exactly what I claim they do.
What don't you understand about the following? 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
randman  Suspended Member (Idle past 4929 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: |
Evolution is a process that results in heritable changes in a population spread over many generations. This is a good working scientific definition of evolution; one that can be used to distinguish between evolution and similar changes that are not evolution..... One can quibble about the accuracy of such a definition (and we have often quibbled on these newsgroups) but it also conveys the essence of what evolution really is. When biologists say that they have observed evolution, they mean that they have detected a change in the frequency of genes in a population. (Often the genetic change is inferred from phenotypic changes that are heritable.) When biologists say that humans and chimps have evolved from a common ancestor they mean that there have been successive heritable changes in the two separated populations since they became isolated. Unfortunately the common definitions of evolution outside of the scientific community are different. For example, in the Oxford Concise Science Dictionary we find the following definition: "evolution: The gradual process by which the present diversity of plant and animal life arose from the earliest and most primitive organisms, which is believed to have been continuing for the past 3000 million years." This is inexcusable for a dictionary of science. Heritable change, yep. I think it's clear here that they are bashing the use of "evolution" to refer to ToE, as expressed:
evolution: The gradual process by which the present diversity of plant and animal life arose from the earliest and most primitive organisms, which is believed to have been continuing for the past 3000 million years Which they claim is inexcusable. They nonetheless do refer to ToE and use "evolution" in the broader sense elsewhere on their site. It appears they want to be able to claim "evolution is observed", and yet "evolution" in the broader sense is not observed. It's a propaganda technigue, using semantics and sophistry to try to strengthen the claim that just because heritable changes occur, that means evolution in the broader sense is somehow observed, or to leave the impression it is logical to think so. It's wrong, but typical. Evos need to stick with one definition and one definition only. This message has been edited by randman, 02-07-2006 05:12 PM
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024