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:   Why are Haeckel's drawings being taught in school?
7
Inactive Junior Member


Message 16 of 306 (40324)
05-15-2003 9:13 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by crashfrog
05-15-2003 8:32 PM


quote:
"Art is a lie that tells us the truth." - Picasso
And no wonder, for even Satan disguises (the art) himself as an angel(the lie) of light(the truth...?)
2 Corinthians 11:14
note: brackets added in verse to make a point.
quote:
Isn't it possible that the embryology drawings and the peppered moth photos, while being staged events themselves, could still express a truth about adaptation?
what does drawings of embryo have to do with adaptation? How do lies tell truth?
quote:
I mean, do you disagree that dark trees will lead to a prevalence of dark moths?
You mean microevolution? I don't think any creationist denies microevolution. Macroevolution on the other hand....
------------------
Professing to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed animals and crawling creatures. (?evolution?) Romans 1:22-23

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by crashfrog, posted 05-15-2003 8:32 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by Mister Pamboli, posted 05-15-2003 9:40 PM 7 has replied
 Message 18 by crashfrog, posted 05-15-2003 10:15 PM 7 has replied

Mister Pamboli
Member (Idle past 7577 days)
Posts: 634
From: Washington, USA
Joined: 12-10-2001


Message 17 of 306 (40327)
05-15-2003 9:40 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by 7
05-15-2003 9:13 PM


SO have you found a school that teaches Haeckel's drawings yet? And are you in a position to tell us what teaching a drawing means?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by 7, posted 05-15-2003 9:13 PM 7 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by 7, posted 05-15-2003 11:03 PM Mister Pamboli has replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 18 of 306 (40329)
05-15-2003 10:15 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by 7
05-15-2003 9:13 PM


And no wonder, for even Satan disguises (the art) himself as an angel(the lie) of light(the truth...?)
Well, if Satan is the serpent in Genesis 3, he's certainly a truth-teller. So what?
How do lies tell truth?
Jesus taught in parables; a parable is a fictional account (a lie) used to express a truth. Lying to tell the truth is a phenomenon as old as storytelling. Why do you reject it in this case but allow it for Jesus?
You mean microevolution? I don't think any creationist denies microevolution. Macroevolution on the other hand....
There's no difference between them. That's why you'll find that biologists don't use those terms. And that's not even relevant. I've never seen the peppered moth example used to support anything but how environment shapes morphology. (Microevolution, in your terms.) Adaptation leading to speciation is another question that takes more than some moths to settle.
You still haven't answered why these images can't be used as illustrations. Even if the moths were glued to the trees by research assistants it doesn't change the fact that the environment of the moths selects for certain pigmentation. Staging a photograph to help illustrate that is not misleading.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by 7, posted 05-15-2003 9:13 PM 7 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by NosyNed, posted 05-15-2003 10:49 PM crashfrog has not replied
 Message 21 by 7, posted 05-15-2003 11:31 PM crashfrog has replied

NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 19 of 306 (40334)
05-15-2003 10:49 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by crashfrog
05-15-2003 10:15 PM


Even if the moths were glued to the trees by research assistants it doesn't change the fact that the environment of the moths selects for certain pigmentation. Staging a photograph to help illustrate that is not misleading.
Can you explain in some more detail. Is the above what happened? That is, did they simply "tie down" the moths in a place that they were naturally a lot of the time just to allow for taking a picture. To me this would really be something that doesn't affect anything. Or is there more to the fruhaha?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by crashfrog, posted 05-15-2003 10:15 PM crashfrog has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by John, posted 05-16-2003 12:24 AM NosyNed has replied
 Message 31 by PaulK, posted 05-16-2003 4:01 AM NosyNed has not replied

7
Inactive Junior Member


Message 20 of 306 (40335)
05-15-2003 11:03 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by Mister Pamboli
05-15-2003 9:40 PM


these are strange questions...
quote:
SO have you found a school that teaches Haeckel's drawings yet? And are you in a position to tell us what teaching a drawing means?
1. I never knew I was suppose to find a school that does. If a school uses textbooks that contain the drawings, what do you think?
2. Let me put it in words you understand: Schools use Haeckel's drawings as a way of teaching evolution. I thought this was obvious and did not need any explaination, since this is a creation/evolution forum.
------------------
Professing to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed animals and crawling creatures. (?evolution?) Romans 1:22-23

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by Mister Pamboli, posted 05-15-2003 9:40 PM Mister Pamboli has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by Mister Pamboli, posted 05-16-2003 2:35 AM 7 has replied
 Message 32 by Karl, posted 05-16-2003 4:59 AM 7 has not replied

7
Inactive Junior Member


Message 21 of 306 (40340)
05-15-2003 11:31 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by crashfrog
05-15-2003 10:15 PM


quote:
Well, if Satan is the serpent in Genesis 3, he's certainly a truth-teller. So what?
whatever satan said was a lie. Prove me wrong
quote:
Jesus taught in parables; a parable is a fictional account (a lie) used to express a truth.
A lie is something that is meant to deceive. Jesus did not use parables to deceive, so you cannot say that a parable is a lie. Parable is the derived from the Greek work Parabole meaning comparison or likeness.
quote:
Lying to tell the truth is a phenomenon as old as storytelling. Why do you reject it in this case but allow it for Jesus?
You use the wrong word here. Sub "Using parables" into "Lying". A parable is a method of teaching using a comparison between two things.
quote:
"That same day Jesus went out of the house and sat beside the sea. And great crowds gathered about Him, so that He got into a boat and sat there; and the whole crowd stood on the beach."
"And He told them many things in parables, saying: "A sower went out to sow. And as he sowed, some seeds fell along the path, and the birds came and devoured them. Other seeds fell on rocky ground, where they had not much soil, and immediately they sprang up, since they had no depth of soil, but when the sun rose they were scorched; and since they had no root they withered away. Other seeds fell upon thorns, and the thorns grew up and choked them. Other seeds fell on good soil and brought forth grain, some a hundredfold, some sixty, some thirty. He who has ears, let him hear."
"Then the disciples came and said to Him, "Why do You speak to them in parables?"
"And He answered them, "To you it has been given to know the secrets of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it has not been given. For to him who has will more be given, and he will have abundance; but from him who has not, even what he has will be taken away. This is why I speak to them in parables, because seeing they do not see, and hearing they do not hear, nor do they understand. With them indeed is fulfilled the prophecy of Isaiah which says: 'You shall indeed hear but never understand, and you shall indeed see but never perceive. For this people's heart has grown dull, and their ears are heavy of hearing, and their eyes they have closed, lest they should perceive with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their heart, and turn for Me to heal them.'"
"But blessed are your eyes, for they see, and your ears, for they hear." (Matthew 13:1-16 RSV)
quote:
There's no difference between them. That's why you'll find that biologists don't use those terms. And that's not even relevant. I've never seen the peppered moth example used to support anything but how environment shapes morphology. (Microevolution, in your terms.) Adaptation leading to speciation is another question that takes more than some moths to settle.
"In evolutionary biology today, macroevolution is used to refer to any evolutionary change at or above the level of species. It means the splitting of a species into two (speciation, or cladogenesis, from the Greek meaning "the origin of a branch") or the change of a species over time into another (anagenesis, not nowadays generally used). Any changes that occur at higher levels, such as the evolution of new families, phyla or genera, is also therefore macroevolution, but the term is not restricted to the origin of those higher taxa.
Microevolution refers to any evolutionary change below the level of species, and refers to changes in the frequency within a population or a species of its alleles (alternative genes) and their effects on the form, or phenotype, of organisms that make up that population or species."
quote:
You still haven't answered why these images can't be used as illustrations. Even if the moths were glued to the trees by research assistants it doesn't change the fact that the environment of the moths selects for certain pigmentation. Staging a photograph to help illustrate that is not misleading.
I never knew I was supposed to answer this? I'm not really sure what you are asking.
Click here, might answer question
Note: sorry if I have missed your posts, while I was typing out a response, brad and pamboli made several posts that I missed. I will try to answer them to the best of my ability. However, it is late and I regret to leave your questions and comments unanwsered.
------------------
Professing to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed animals and crawling creatures. (?evolution?) Romans 1:22-23

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by crashfrog, posted 05-15-2003 10:15 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by crashfrog, posted 05-16-2003 2:04 AM 7 has replied
 Message 27 by zephyr, posted 05-16-2003 2:17 AM 7 has not replied

Coragyps
Member (Idle past 734 days)
Posts: 5553
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 22 of 306 (40342)
05-15-2003 11:38 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by 7
05-15-2003 6:40 PM


5. Sylvia Mader, Biology, Sixth Edition (Boston: WCB/McGraw-Hill, 1998). ISBN 0-697-34080- 5
This edition, except in the softbound version, never mentions Haeckel and has only photographs of pig and chicken embryos "at comparable early stages." Your source is mistaken, or possibly spreading disinformation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by 7, posted 05-15-2003 6:40 PM 7 has not replied

John
Inactive Member


Message 23 of 306 (40348)
05-16-2003 12:24 AM
Reply to: Message 19 by NosyNed
05-15-2003 10:49 PM


quote:
That is, did they simply "tie down" the moths....
Hey... you try getting a bug to sit still for a picture.
Seriously, Kettlewell did perch ( dead, I believe ) moths on tree trunks to photograph them. And the moths don't spend a whole lot of time on those tree trunks. It is a valid criticism. There are numbers of problems with the early studies, actually. Still, the basics turned out to be correct.
No webpage found at provided URL: http://biocrs.biomed.brown.edu/Elephant%20stuff/Chapters/Ch%2014/Moths/Moth-Update.html
------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by NosyNed, posted 05-15-2003 10:49 PM NosyNed has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by NosyNed, posted 05-16-2003 1:51 AM John has not replied
 Message 25 by NosyNed, posted 05-16-2003 1:57 AM John has not replied

NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 24 of 306 (40356)
05-16-2003 1:51 AM
Reply to: Message 23 by John
05-16-2003 12:24 AM


Bugs
You think bugs are hard, try my teenagers!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by John, posted 05-16-2003 12:24 AM John has not replied

NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 25 of 306 (40359)
05-16-2003 1:57 AM
Reply to: Message 23 by John
05-16-2003 12:24 AM


Thank you. That is a useful expostion of the whole story. Another lie or near lie by some of the creationist sites. Tch tch.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by John, posted 05-16-2003 12:24 AM John has not replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 26 of 306 (40360)
05-16-2003 2:04 AM
Reply to: Message 21 by 7
05-15-2003 11:31 PM


whatever satan said was a lie. Prove me wrong
Not really the topic for this, but let's see if I can do it quickly:
Basic Genesis story: God makes perfect garden. God puts tree of knowledge of good and evil in middle and tells Adam "If you eat of this tree you will die that day." The serpent comes up and tells them "God's wrong; you won't die that day but rather, you will become like god, knowing good and evil." They eat the fruit of the tree. God says "They have become like us(?), knowing good and evil." They don't die that day but rather, 930-some years later.
Who's telling the truth here? The serpent's story is the one that actually happens. Seems simple to me.
A parable is a method of teaching using a comparison between two things.
...via a fictional narrative.
The moth photographs are not meant to decieve but rather to demonstrate something that actually happens. A kind of visual parable. Unless you disagree that dark moths can hide better on dark trees?
Definitions snipped
Your definitions are exactly what I expected (I've heard those terms before) but you have yet to provide evidence that they're in use by mainstream biologists. Also it's not logically clear why there should be a distinction because the same mechanism can account for both phenomenon.
I never knew I was supposed to answer this? I'm not really sure what you are asking.
What I'm asking is, why can't a fictional or staged photograph be used to illustrate something that happens in real life?
Is it as bad to include artist's conception sketches in astronomy texts? Or illustrations in the bible?
Is it ok for newspapers to retouch photographs to make them clearer or to remove visual artifacts? I once read about a sports magazine using photoshop on a picture of a runner to remove a radio antenna that appeared to jut from the runners chin, an accident of alighment between the camera, runner, and coach. Does that make the photograph any less "true"? Should the magazine have warned people that the real scene didn't look exactly like it did in the photograph they printed?
Illustrations aren't evidence and have never been claimed to be. They're just teaching aids to make certain points clearer. Whether or not the photograph recorded an actual event or not is irrelavant.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by 7, posted 05-15-2003 11:31 PM 7 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by 7, posted 05-18-2003 3:43 PM crashfrog has replied

zephyr
Member (Idle past 4550 days)
Posts: 821
From: FOB Taji, Iraq
Joined: 04-22-2003


Message 27 of 306 (40366)
05-16-2003 2:17 AM
Reply to: Message 21 by 7
05-15-2003 11:31 PM


quote:
whatever satan said was a lie. Prove me wrong
1. Where does the Bible say it was Satan in the garden?
2. What happened when they ate the fruit? Did they die that day, or did they gain the knowledge of good and evil?
quote:
"In evolutionary biology today, macroevolution is used to refer to any evolutionary change at or above the level of species. It means the splitting of a species into two (speciation, or cladogenesis, from the Greek meaning "the origin of a branch") or the change of a species over time into another (anagenesis, not nowadays generally used).
So are you trying to tell me you're unaware that speciation has been observed both in the wild and in laboratories? It's an established fact.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by 7, posted 05-15-2003 11:31 PM 7 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by NosyNed, posted 05-16-2003 2:28 AM zephyr has not replied

NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 28 of 306 (40369)
05-16-2003 2:28 AM
Reply to: Message 27 by zephyr
05-16-2003 2:17 AM


and speciation seems to be accepted by many if not most creationists. In fact others accept the evolution of new genera as well. Not only that but they accept an enormous rate of evolution to boot.
I still haven't figured out what the story is. There seems to be some different variation for every individual creationist. And sometimes several stories from one individual which contradict each other.
Members should, maybe, have a bunch of check boxes on their profile at sign up.
Eg.,
Age of earth
a) 6,000 years,
b)under 10,000 and over 6,000,
c)anything up to 30,000,
d)4.5 billion years or so
Evolution
a)none at all,
b)variations within kinds (kind = species)
c)kind = genera,
d)kind = family (but not for humans)
e) everything evolved but not humans
f) everyting evolved including humans but some steps were magic (ID)
e)none of the above
The flood
a)it rained a lot,
b)the earth was torn apart by catastrophes of all kinds,
c)the tide came in big time AND it rained a lot
d)a bunch of things happened which I wil add to in an adhoc fashion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by zephyr, posted 05-16-2003 2:17 AM zephyr has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by nator, posted 05-16-2003 9:33 AM NosyNed has not replied

Mister Pamboli
Member (Idle past 7577 days)
Posts: 634
From: Washington, USA
Joined: 12-10-2001


Message 29 of 306 (40372)
05-16-2003 2:35 AM
Reply to: Message 20 by 7
05-15-2003 11:03 PM


quote:
1. I never knew I was suppose to find a school that does.
Read the title you gave the topic. The best way to find out why is to ask, don't you think? Find a school, find yer answer
quote:
If a school uses textbooks that contain the drawings, what do you think?
First rule of critical thinking - look for assumptions and question them. I question your assumption that a school using a textbook uses all the material in it. I certainly didn't use the entire textbook when I was at school.
quote:
Schools use Haeckel's drawings as a way of teaching evolution. I thought this was obvious ...
I'm questioning your assumption that schools teach using Haeckel's actual drawings. The best way to find out is to find a school and ask them. Why is it so difficult, when you claim it is so widespread?
[This message has been edited by Mister Pamboli, 05-16-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by 7, posted 05-15-2003 11:03 PM 7 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by 7, posted 05-18-2003 4:04 PM Mister Pamboli has replied

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


Message 30 of 306 (40380)
05-16-2003 3:41 AM
Reply to: Message 11 by 7
05-15-2003 8:15 PM


Re: Evidence
Well that explains it. You used a report by an antievolution organisation prepared by a member of questionable honesty.
Quite frankly you would be wise not to rely on the findings in that document.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by 7, posted 05-15-2003 8:15 PM 7 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