Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 86 (8915 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 07-21-2019 1:06 AM
16 online now:
DrJones* (1 member, 15 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: 4petdinos
Upcoming Birthdays: anglagard
Post Volume:
Total: 857,228 Year: 12,264/19,786 Month: 2,045/2,641 Week: 0/554 Day: 0/113 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
...
45
6
78
...
15Next
Author Topic:   Scientific vs Creationist Frauds and Hoaxes
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19981
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.9


Message 76 of 220 (606020)
02-23-2011 10:46 AM
Reply to: Message 75 by Dr Jack
02-23-2011 10:24 AM


Re: Another Creationist site telling lies & what vestigial really means
Hi Mr Jack

Here's the definition of vestigial taken from my evolution course:

Thanks, that's a pretty good definition.

If the toes perform an adaptive function (which I'm not convinced they do) then they are not vestigial.

If they have been adapted (by evolution) to serve a non-toe function, then they no longer serve as toes. That would be a case of adaptive evolution rather than vestigial remnant.

In this case we have splints along the sides of the main toe bones, and I would venture to predict that they are of varying degrees of thickness and length.

Certainly when these splint bones have problems it adversely affects the horse, which like the appendix in humans, would not cause that effect by their absence.

Enjoy.


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by Dr Jack, posted 02-23-2011 10:24 AM Dr Jack has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 77 by jar, posted 02-23-2011 10:59 AM RAZD has responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 31076
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 3.5


(1)
Message 77 of 220 (606022)
02-23-2011 10:59 AM
Reply to: Message 76 by RAZD
02-23-2011 10:46 AM


Splints
This might help.

quote:

Horse Splints By Kentucky Equine Research Staff · November 15, 2006

To understand splints, we need to remember that prehistoric ancestors of the modern horse had multiple toes on each foot. The horse of today walks on the tip of its middle toe, but vestigial traces of the other toes are still present. Two of these leftover toe bones, called splint bones, lie along the inner and outer sides of each cannon bone beginning just below the horse’s knee or hock and tapering to an end above the fetlock. The splint bones bear some weight and give support to the cannon bone.


So it appears that the old toe bones in today's horse still serve some function BUT are an even better example of evolution in action; they are an example of transitional features that are always claimed to be missing.


Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by RAZD, posted 02-23-2011 10:46 AM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 78 by RAZD, posted 02-27-2011 6:59 PM jar has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19981
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.9


Message 78 of 220 (606676)
02-27-2011 6:59 PM
Reply to: Message 77 by jar
02-23-2011 10:59 AM


Re: Splints
Hi jar,

So it appears that the old toe bones in today's horse still serve some function BUT are an even better example of evolution in action; they are an example of transitional features that are always claimed to be missing.

Interestingly we also see polydactylous horses and horses with atavistic polydactyly.

http://bill.srnr.arizona.edu/...te%20Evolution/3ToeHorse.htm

quote:

Left. Owen Marsh's "horned horse from Texas." Right. Toes of normal and polydacylous horses. Roman numerals refer to toe number. Left-right. Normal condition. Toes II and IV are represented by splints. Middle-right. Polydactyly by duplication of the middle toe. Side splints are still present. Right-right. Polydactyly by atavism. The extra toe is an hypertrophied splint. In most two- and three-toed horses, the extra digits are duplications of toe III. But in roughly a third, supernumerary digits are enlarged splints - a condition hearkening back to the days when this was the norm. From S. J. Gould. 1983. Hen's Teeth and Horse's Toes. W. W. Norton Co. NY.

Bold for emphasis.

The atavistic hoofed toe is (rather obviously) a pale vestige of when the toe supplied direct support to the (evolving) horse.

Enjoy.


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by jar, posted 02-23-2011 10:59 AM jar has not yet responded

  
ANI
Junior Member (Idle past 2754 days)
Posts: 3
From: Australia
Joined: 10-06-2011


Message 79 of 220 (636386)
10-06-2011 8:27 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by RAZD
01-11-2009 9:40 AM


re- scientists' /evolutionists' fraud/hoax
Please, no replies, I've requested a topic proposal about double blind testing. Anyone can make the proposal, doesn't have to be ANI. --Admin

Experiments such as test for ESP and others as for example the Great Prayer experiment are double blinded, which means the subjects taking part in the experiments are relationally distanced. Check out the book of the great man himself, Richard Dawkins on page 62-3 where he states that double blinding has to be used and calls it a standard. Scientists say that double blinding is needed to make the experiments scientific. This is utterly untrue. The only condition that makes an experiment scientific is the addition of a control experiment. When we relationally distance the subjects, and this means that they don't meet and have never met and don't know each other or even of the existence of the other, then we destroy ESP and all that that entails, as for instance a patient knowing the person who is praying for them through first hand contact. In ESP experiments there is a triple jeopardy. They don't just double blind, they also have the subjects guessing, which means the brain gives priority for fuel materials to those areas required in thinking, while areas involved in perception, and not only mental perception but sensory perception are given a very low priority. And lastly they use cards and other objects that have no relevance to the subject. ESP is at a premium inside of personal relationships and the closer and more trusted the relationship the greater the ESP that can be observed. The person though needs to be calm and in a perceptive/ meditative mode. And the subjects also need to have a need to know something. So for instance in the so-called precognition experiments subjects invariably display distress (the physiological indicators recorded as evidence) when a computer is just about to choose a distressing image to display on its screen. This is highly relevant to the subject. Why not do the experiments properly.. scientifically, which means they are NOT double blinded at all.

Edited by Admin, : Moderator request.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by RAZD, posted 01-11-2009 9:40 AM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 80 by Admin, posted 10-06-2011 8:51 AM ANI has not yet responded

    
Admin
Director
Posts: 12614
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 4.5


Message 80 of 220 (636395)
10-06-2011 8:51 AM
Reply to: Message 79 by ANI
10-06-2011 8:27 AM


Re: re- scientists' /evolutionists' fraud/hoax
I assume you posted this here in this topic about frauds and hoaxes because you believe double-blind testing is a fraud, but I think a discussion about double-blind testing deserves its own topic. If you propose a thread to discuss double-blind testing over at Proposed New Topics I'll take a look as soon as I can.

Large monolithic blocks of text are hard to read, so please use paragraphs. Or if you don't like paragraphs just throw in a blank line for the heck of it every so often.


--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by ANI, posted 10-06-2011 8:27 AM ANI has not yet responded

    
Portillo
Member (Idle past 2358 days)
Posts: 258
Joined: 11-14-2010


Message 81 of 220 (636451)
10-06-2011 5:33 PM



And the conspiracy was strong, for the people increased continually - 2 Samuel 15:12

Replies to this message:
 Message 82 by fearandloathing, posted 10-06-2011 5:37 PM Portillo has not yet responded
 Message 83 by Theodoric, posted 10-06-2011 5:46 PM Portillo has responded

  
fearandloathing
Member (Idle past 2342 days)
Posts: 990
From: Burlington, NC, USA
Joined: 02-24-2011


(1)
Message 82 of 220 (636452)
10-06-2011 5:37 PM
Reply to: Message 81 by Portillo
10-06-2011 5:33 PM


Great example.

"No sympathy for the devil; keep that in mind. Buy the ticket, take the ride...and if it occasionally gets a little heavier than what you had in mind, well...maybe chalk it off to forced conscious expansion: Tune in, freak out, get beaten."
— Hunter S. Thompson

Ad astra per aspera

Nihil curo de ista tua stulta superstitione.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by Portillo, posted 10-06-2011 5:33 PM Portillo has not yet responded

    
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 6403
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.9


Message 83 of 220 (636453)
10-06-2011 5:46 PM
Reply to: Message 81 by Portillo
10-06-2011 5:33 PM


Your point is?
Care to explain and make your point?

This is a debate forum. so you probably should add some commentary to this image.

Just a suggestion.


Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by Portillo, posted 10-06-2011 5:33 PM Portillo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 84 by Portillo, posted 10-06-2011 6:16 PM Theodoric has not yet responded

    
Portillo
Member (Idle past 2358 days)
Posts: 258
Joined: 11-14-2010


Message 84 of 220 (636461)
10-06-2011 6:16 PM
Reply to: Message 83 by Theodoric
10-06-2011 5:46 PM


Re: Your point is?
Haeckels embryos is a picture that was altered in order to prove embryonic recapitulation.

quote:
“The so-called basic law of biogenetics is wrong. No buts or ifs can mitigate this fact. It is not even a tiny bit correct or correct in a different form. It is totally wrong.” - Erich Blechschmidt

quote:
"It was expected that the embryo would recapitulate the features of its ancestors from the lowest to the highest forms in the animal kingdom. Now that the appearance of the embryo at all stages is known, the general feeling is one of disappointment; the human embryo at no stage is anthropoid in appearance. The embryo of the mammal never resembles the worm, the fish, or the reptile. Embryology provides no support whatsoever for the evolutionary hypothesis." - Sir Arthur Keith

quote:
"We could ignore this pathetic chapter in the history of evolutionism—were it not for something Michael Richardson mentioned in a letter to the editor in the August 28, 1998 issue of Science: “Sadly, it is the discredited 1874 drawings that are used in so many British and American biology textbooks”. The evidence of this statement is obvious when you look at just how far-reaching Haeckel’s drawings have become. Even Dr. Benjamin Spock saw fit to perpetuate Haeckel’s recapitulation myth in his well-known book, Baby and Child Care. Spock confidently assured expectant mothers that “each child as he develops is retracing the whole history of mankind, physically and spiritually, step by step. A baby starts off in the womb as a single tiny cell, just the way the first living thing appeared in the ocean. Weeks later, as he lies in the amniotic fluid of the womb, he has gills like a fish.” - David Menton

quote:
“Its shortcomings have been almost universally pointed out by modern authors, but the idea still has a prominent place in biological mythology.” - Paul Ehrlich

quote:
“Ontogeny does not recapitulate phylogeny.” “You may well ask why we bother you with the principles that turned out to be wrong. There are two reasons. In the first place, belief in recapitulation became so widespread that it is still evident in some writings about biology and evolution. You should know therefore what recapitulation is supposed to be, and you should know that it does not really occur.” - Life: An Introduction to Biology, George Gaylord Simpson and William S. Beck

Edited by Portillo, : No reason given.


And the conspiracy was strong, for the people increased continually - 2 Samuel 15:12

This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by Theodoric, posted 10-06-2011 5:46 PM Theodoric has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 85 by RAZD, posted 10-06-2011 9:18 PM Portillo has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19981
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.9


Message 85 of 220 (636488)
10-06-2011 9:18 PM
Reply to: Message 84 by Portillo
10-06-2011 6:16 PM


Re: Your point is?
Hi Portillo,

Haeckels embryos is a picture that was altered in order to prove embryonic recapitulation.

Yep. And?

http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/embryos/Haeckel.html

quote:
Haeckel noticed that vertebrate embryos pass through a series of similar stages in early development, and argued that there was a good reason for this. As an organism evolves, he reasoned, it does so by tacking on new stages to its process of embryonic development. Therefore, as an organism passes through embryonic development it actually re-traces every stage of its evolutionary ancestry. This idea became known as "Ontogeny recapitulates Phylogeny," which literally means "Development is a replay of Ancestry."




As you read this, you may wonder why evolution should be limited to changes tacked on at the end of the process of development. So did evolutionary biologists, and Haeckel's idea was quickly discarded. In fact, evolution can affect all phases of development, removing developmental steps as well as adding them, and therefore embryology is not a strict replay of ancestry. Nonetheless, many of the stages that embryos pass through can indeed be understood as remnants of their evolutionary past.

One example is the fact that the embryos of all placental mammals (including humans) form a yolk sac during their development. Why is this important? Because the eggs of these organisms do not have large amounts of stored yolk, and therefore their yolk sacs are empty! Nontheless, the persistence of a yolk sac stage makes perfect sense when one considers that these animals are descended from egg-laying reptiles in which the sac encloses a massive amount of yolk to support embryonic development


More from the link above.

Note the image is actual photos of actual embryos during development, and they show how some elements are inherited, just not all.

So the fact that Haeckel committed fraud does not alter reality, and the evidence of evolution.

Note further that the fraud was uncovered by scientists, not creationists.

Any questions?

Enjoy.


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 84 by Portillo, posted 10-06-2011 6:16 PM Portillo has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 86 by Pressie, posted 10-07-2011 12:46 AM RAZD has acknowledged this reply
 Message 87 by Panda, posted 10-07-2011 1:04 AM RAZD has responded
 Message 88 by caffeine, posted 10-07-2011 7:17 AM RAZD has responded

  
Pressie
Member
Posts: 2074
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010
Member Rating: 2.7


Message 86 of 220 (636500)
10-07-2011 12:46 AM
Reply to: Message 85 by RAZD
10-06-2011 9:18 PM


Re: Your point is?
Also take note of the fact that you pointed at alledged fraud committed in , that's right, 1868! That's nine years after Origin of Species was published!

Portillo, do you have to go back so far to find an alledged fraud committed by evolutionary scientists? We can go back to this year and point at more than one piece of fraud committed by creationists, just in 2011!


This message is a reply to:
 Message 85 by RAZD, posted 10-06-2011 9:18 PM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

    
Panda
Member (Idle past 1910 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


Message 87 of 220 (636502)
10-07-2011 1:04 AM
Reply to: Message 85 by RAZD
10-06-2011 9:18 PM


Re: Your point is?
Zen Deist writes:

So the fact that Haeckel committed fraud does not alter reality, and the evidence of evolution.


To quote an earlier response from you:

RAZD writes:

...this is a tread devoted to listing both scientific and creationist frauds. See Message 1.

To qualify it only needs to be shown that it was done on purpose: the intent was to deceive.


Portillo is correct to list it as a scientific fraud.

Granted, the fraud has no effect on our current understanding of biological development - but that is not a requirement in this thread.


If I were you
And I wish that I were you
All the things I'd do
To make myself turn blue

This message is a reply to:
 Message 85 by RAZD, posted 10-06-2011 9:18 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 91 by RAZD, posted 10-07-2011 8:01 AM Panda has acknowledged this reply

  
caffeine
Member
Posts: 1677
From: Prague, Czech Republic
Joined: 10-22-2008
Member Rating: 6.2


(2)
Message 88 of 220 (636522)
10-07-2011 7:17 AM
Reply to: Message 85 by RAZD
10-06-2011 9:18 PM


Did Haeckel commit fraud?
It's become a matter of common knowledge widely accepted that Haeckel's drawings were fraudulent, but it's not at all clear that it's true.

The first thing to bear in mind, is that the picture presented by Portillo above is from a book published in 1874 (Anthropogenie: oder, Entwickelungsgeschichte des Menschen), the first edition of said work. Microscopy at the time was not what it is today, and embryos in their earliest stages are small. It was not possible to determine the level of detail we're quite capable of today. What's more, Haeckel was a marine biologist - he hadn't studied all of these vertebrate embyros in detail before drawing them. Some of the images were copied from the work of experts in the relevant field.

Anthropogenie was intended for the general public, created out of lecture notes he used in public lectures. As the years went on, he revised the work as he revised his lecture, adding more detail, clarifying points, and improving accuracy. The pictures of the embryos grow more detailed, and accurate, as each edition goes on. Better microscopes and more available information allowed him to improve his crude sketches.

And they aren't shockingly inaccurate. The picture below is taken from Haeckel’s embryos: fraud not proven, by Robert J. Richards, which was also the source of all the info in this post (via Josh Rosensau on scienceblogs). It compares the more accurate drawings Haeckel used in the fourth edition of Anthropogenie, with modern photographs. Considering the equipment available at the time, they're not that bad.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 85 by RAZD, posted 10-06-2011 9:18 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 93 by RAZD, posted 10-07-2011 8:07 AM caffeine has not yet responded

  
Portillo
Member (Idle past 2358 days)
Posts: 258
Joined: 11-14-2010


Message 89 of 220 (636523)
10-07-2011 7:43 AM


Do Haeckels embryos still appear in high school science textbooks?

And the conspiracy was strong, for the people increased continually - 2 Samuel 15:12

Replies to this message:
 Message 90 by jar, posted 10-07-2011 7:53 AM Portillo has responded
 Message 92 by caffeine, posted 10-07-2011 8:06 AM Portillo has not yet responded
 Message 94 by RAZD, posted 10-07-2011 8:20 AM Portillo has not yet responded
 Message 99 by Pressie, posted 10-09-2011 3:32 AM Portillo has not yet responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 31076
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 3.5


Message 90 of 220 (636525)
10-07-2011 7:53 AM
Reply to: Message 89 by Portillo
10-07-2011 7:43 AM


Which version?

Does it matter?


Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 89 by Portillo, posted 10-07-2011 7:43 AM Portillo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 95 by Portillo, posted 10-08-2011 1:20 AM jar has responded

  
Prev1
...
45
6
78
...
15Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019