Icons of Evolution

Not in my bio textbook. And mine was written by biologists for college students. It was in its own section, and guess what, they mentioned the other experiments as well, saying that the Miller-Urey was not as precise. But guess what, other experiments did, indeed, create amino acids.We have one from 1961, using a different atmosphere (this one HCN, NH3 in a water solution). A key find here was the nucleotide base adenine, a base used in DNA and RNA.In an improvement upon the Miller-Urey experiment, Jeffrey Bada changed their atmosphere to include iron and carbonate materials (given that carbon dioxide and nitrogen destroy amino acids, but the earth may have had large amounts of iron and carbonates readily available and these counter the effect of nitrites). The result--far more amino acids than Miller-Urey.In 2006, a new experiment shows how the earth may have been covered by an organic haze which can be created through a wide range of methane and carbon dioxide concentrations.As to the early atmosphere. Here's what we think it may have been. There were probably less reducing molecules present than in Miller-Urey. Plus, volcanic eruptions would release carbon dioxide, nitrogen, hydrogen sulfide, and sulfur dioxide. What happens when you mix all this together? More diverse molecules than what Miller-Urey achieved.You also keep on harping about oxygen and how it destroys organic compounds. Well, you're right, it does. However, that's not the whole story. Oxygen was a very, very minor component of the atmosphere--not until roughly 2.7 bya to 2.2 bya do we see oxygen being produced and added to the atmoshphere in great numbers. Free oxygen (as in O2), on earth, is produced by photosynthesis, which only living organisms are capabable of. It is O2 which destroys organic compounds. So in order for there to be enough oxygen to destroy life, life already has to exist! Furthermore, the paper responsible for the creationist attack suggests nothing of that sort. Instead, it suggests that photosynthetic organisms formed earlier (about 3.7 bya instead of 3.5 bya, and this may indeed push the first life forms further back (just so you know, we have fossils dated to 3.8 bya)In another blow against creationist misinformation, my own university (University of Colorado-Boulder) and the University of Waterloo performed simulations that suggest that the early atmosphere was up to 40% hydrogen (H2). This atmosphere is far, far more friendly to the creation of organic compounds and the building blocks of life. That's just it. Evolution isn't an alternate creation story. It can't, and doesn't, say how life started on earth. And as everyone here keeps saying (and you keep on missing), if god created the first organisms, if comets and meteorites brought the first building blocks, if life formed on earth, or any other method, the end-result is the same. Evolution only acts upon life. It does not act upon non-reproducing non-living things. It is the change between two generations of one species. Evolution can show us how the daughter species formed from the parent, but it cannot show us how the first species ever formed. So quit conflating abiogenesis (which is the domain of biochemistry) and evolution (which is the domain of biology).

Well, it seems that nature prefers lefties. In lab conditions equal amounts or so of both hands are made. In nature, it's been found that the inorganic production of amino acids does favor left-handedness. So long as you have more left-hands than right-hands, you're good. Scientific tentativeness bites you in the butt again. We don't decide what the actual atmosphere was. We let the evidence show us. It is this evidence that tells us there was extremely little oxygen until 2.7 bya. It is this evidence that tells us there were probably less reducing compounds in the atmosphere than thought during the 1950s. This evidence then allows us to create more accurate simulations and experiments, like the ones showing that the early atmosphere may indeed have been 40% H2.Which actually brings up a great point. This in itself shows how science is amenable to change due to improved evidence or better analyses of existing evidence. We know that the Miller-Urey atmosphere (which was based off of work done in the 20s and 30s) is wrong. We now have a better idea of what it actually was like, and our knowledge continues to improve. But we will never know, with 100% certainty, what the atmosphere 4 billion years ago was like. However, I'd say its a fair bet we'll get to within 95% certainty.Creationism, on the other hand, would stick with the Miller-Urey experiment no matter what changes in the picture come around (oh wait, they do). So much of creationist talking points has been refuted to the point that even AiG tells people not to use certain arguments, and yet people still do--like yourself.Your statement also displays the vast gulf between real science and creationism. Science doesn't decide a priorily what the past was like. We know what's needed for life to form from inorganic processes. However, if the evidence shows us that life could not have been created on earth, that earth had to have been seeded in some manner, we'll accept that.Creationism, however, does start out with an a priori decision about the past. It must conform to some version of the bible or some reality that can be reconciled with the bible. So even if the evidence shows something else, you stick with the original program.Now for the kicker. You're trying to show that science is a conspiracy, a hidden (to you not so hidden) religion promoting its own atheistic world vision (or is that ray?). So if science is trying to play a shell game here, consider this. Why, since the Miller-Urey experiments were so succesful at showing that organic compounds can form from inorganic material, since the Miller-Urey experiments showed that it could have happened in an early earth atmosphere, would science then make it more difficult for organic compounds to form? Shouldn't science be showing how easy it was, how simple it was for life to form on earth? What happens instead? Evidence is released suggesting that the Miller-Urey experiment was too good, that it didn't properly emulate the early atmosphere, which was less-friendly to the formation of organic compounds. Granted, abiogenesis is one of the fastest moving fields out there, so we are learning a lot in short amount of time, but your conspiracy ideas are rather full of bullshit I think.One final note--all your questions can be answered if you go to wikipedia. Try doing some actual research before making yourself look stupid.

You know, I saw the same thing. Although I think my book did have a copy of Haekel's images, it showed them and followed by saying "these are wrong!"I wish people who try to discredit science would actually look into the college textbooks before they make an ass out of themselves.

Stephen Meyer is a crackpot. He's not a credible scientist in any regard. His Ph.D is in the history and philosphy of science, for crying out loud. Hhis one teaching spot was in philosophy, and he has never done any real research in geology, which he only has a B.S. in. His one "peer-reviewed" article was pulled because, surprise, it wasn't peer-reviewed. Your paraphrase of him is completely invalid because the guy knows squat about what he's talking about.Jonathan Wells is no vertabrate embryologist. He failed to finish a B.S. in geology, got a Ph.D in religious education (in 1986), and in 1994 got a Ph.D in cell and molecular biology--not embryology. He had a grand total of 3 peer-reviewed articles (none of which on the outside are anti-evolution, but he has been fighting against evolution since he was a member of Moon's Unification Church. He is known for not only getting science wrong, but getting it very wrong. His famous contribution to ID--irreducible complexity, has been falsified numerous times.I can't find info on Adam Sedgewick or William Ballard. First off, Haeckel came up with the "recapitulation theory", which has been discredited since the early 1900s. Further, his "theory" is not in support of Darwin, but a different, falsified evolutionary theory called Lamarckianism.As to the similarities, guess what:
from wiki:"The backbone, the common structure among all vertebrates such as fish, reptiles and mammals, appears as one of the earliest structures laid out in all vertebrate embryos"
further:"If a structure vanished in an evolutionary sequence, then one can often observe a corresponding structure appearing at one stage during embryonic development, only to disappear or become modified in a later stage. Examples include:Whales, which have evolved from land mammals, don't have legs, but tiny remnant leg bones lie buried deep in their bodies. During embryonal development, leg extremities first occur, then recede. Similarly, whale embryos have hair at one stage (like all mammalian embryos), but lose most of it later.
The common ancestor of humans and monkeys had a tail, and human embryos also have a tail at one point; it later recedes to form the coccyx.
The swim bladder in fish presumably evolved from a sac connected to the gut, allowing the fish to gulp air. In most modern fish, this connection to the gut has disappeared. In the embryonal development of these fish, the swim bladder originates as an outpocketing of the gut, and is later disconnected from the gut."Here's a hint Beratta. Look up the real science, not the false bullshit promulgated by the ID crowd. If you want to attack evolution, you need to do what Wells tried--actually study what it says, not what you think it says.

Okay, you've got me there. However, two of his thre peer-reviewed articles appears to be, on second inspection, close to vertebrate embryology--"Confocal microscopy analysis of living Xenopus eggs and the mechanism of cortical rotation". Development 122 (4): 1281-9; "Microtubule-mediated transport of organelles and localization of beta-catenin to the future dorsal side of Xenopus eggs". Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 94 (4): 1224-9. (from wiki).
He appears as one of five authors in both articles. Does that even come close to making him an authority on vertabrate embryology?

You know, I began to realize that when I tried to find out what Wells taught at Lehigh University. A year ago I had them all straight. This is either what happens when you leave the debate or have heard it too much (I'm assuming here)--everyone becomes the same. Was it Wells or Behe at the Dover v. Katzmiller trial who said letting ID in would also mean letting astrology in? I'm going to guess that was Behe.If only these people would debate in areas I'm actually familiar with, such as the rise of Sweden in the 17th century or the causes of the American revolution (yes, it was over tea in a convoluted sort of way). Although in all honesty, I don't actually know that much about those subjects either. I know, let's debate music!! ugh.

I've copied my message over to the same thread:
http://EvC Forum: Haeckel in Biology Textbooks -->EvC Forum: Haeckel in Biology TextbooksEdited by kuresu, : No reason given.