Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 85 (8942 total)
34 online now:
Newest Member: LaLa dawn
Post Volume: Total: 863,836 Year: 18,872/19,786 Month: 1,292/1,705 Week: 98/446 Day: 98/64 Hour: 4/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   ICANT'S position in the creation debate
Rrhain
Member (Idle past 161 days)
Posts: 6349
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 374 of 687 (523120)
09-08-2009 2:31 PM
Reply to: Message 371 by mike the wiz
09-08-2009 5:56 AM


mike the wiz writes:

quote:
We have seen in the past how people like Haeckel formed his monera, and told us that a simple form led to present forms

Ahem. What does this have to do with origins? You just agreed the the origin of life is quite distinct from the diversification of life once it comes to arise and yet you immediately revert to the claim that because evolution doesn't explain the origin of life, there is something wrong with the theory.

Make up your mind.

Are you saying god cannot make life that evolves?

quote:
His supposed gills are nevertheless in modern biological textbooks despite them being fake

Prove it. What are the titles of these "modern biological textbooks"? And beyond that, what exactly is the accompanying text that is printed with the pictures should there be such a textbook that includes them?

Beyond that, are you saying that embryology is false?

quote:
The fact is that we are basically asked to dismiss the beginning, as not that relevant

Incorrect. You are not asked to dismiss anything. You are asked to understand that you are asking a separate question. Architecture, the creation of buildings, is very different from interior design, the use of the space created from the existence of the building. It isn't that we dismiss architecture when discussing how to best utilize the space we have. It's that the question of how the space got here is a different question.

quote:
the logical problems for chemical evolution are major

Name one.

Name one "logical problem" for evolution.

Remember, evolution has nothing to do with origins. That doesn't make the question of origins unimportant...just that it is a different question. Let's not change the goalposts, please.

quote:
Always learning, but never knowing.

That's the way science works. Are you going to jump off the bridge because we don't "know" that you'll plummet to your death but have only "learned" that you will?

quote:
Infact science, and facts, which science deals with, certainly show, without a doubt, that there is design

So why has nobody been able to show it? Why is it that every single example that has been proffered to show this "design" has been found to be evolved?

Can you show me a single journal article that has ever demonstrated this claim of yours? You say the evidence is out there, so this should be a trivial request.

Where is your evidence?

quote:
Therefore it is ludicrous to say that something as amazing as an organism, did not need a designer and construction.

So who designed god? Shouldn't we be worshipping that being rather than the middleman?

And who designed that god, in turn? Shouldn't we be worshipping the ultra-ubergod rather than the middlemen?

Exactly how far back do you plan on taking your infinite regression?

And if you decide that god doesn't require a god despite being so much more "amazing" than you or me, then why does life need a designer? Surely if something that rates an 11 on the "amazing" scale doesn't need a designer, then something that only rates an 8 or 9 doesn't need one.

quote:
should we believe in abiogenesis any more that spontaneous generation?

Who said anything about "believe"?

Why is it you can't handle the "We don't know" response?

Do you clearly not understand that I don't need to show that two and two make four in order to definitively prove that they don't make five?


Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 371 by mike the wiz, posted 09-08-2009 5:56 AM mike the wiz has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 375 by mike the wiz, posted 09-08-2009 2:47 PM Rrhain has responded
 Message 376 by mike the wiz, posted 09-08-2009 2:52 PM Rrhain has responded

    
Rrhain
Member (Idle past 161 days)
Posts: 6349
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 419 of 687 (523237)
09-09-2009 2:54 AM
Reply to: Message 375 by mike the wiz
09-08-2009 2:47 PM


mike the wiz responds to me:

quote:
I thought I told you I was finished with you forever.

Someone is forcing you to reply?

quote:
no really, I find you very argumentative which makes our exchanges futile.

Indeed. I take the discussion seriously, actually read your words, analyze them, see where they lead, and ask questions regarding your justifications of your own claims rather than simply accepting them at face value.

Of course you find it futile.

When you cannot support your own argument, it is very frustrating to have someone point it out.

quote:
I do not remember the names of the textbooks.

Then you'll understand when I call bullshit on your claim.

This is a common creationist whine, but the names of the books in question never seem to be available.

quote:
I believe they still show the branchial arches to be gill slits even though they form into the ear canal, tonsils, etc...nothing to do with breathing.

Well, you would be wrong, then. Gill slits are present in all chordates. It is one of the three characteristics that define chordates (the notochord and the dorsal nerve cord). In water-breathing animals, they eventually become the gills. In air-breathing animals, the gill arches develop into other structures.

It would be a failure of education not to mention this to students in the course of explaining comparative embryology.

quote:
If you mean abiogenesis, the problems are well know, such as the racemic aminos being left-handed in lifeforms.

Chirality is not a problem. We can create self-replicating, autocatalysing, homochiral molecules that evolve in the lab. You need to keep up on the state of the science. This has been a possibility for well over a decade. This has been brought up many times here. Why are you continuing to proclaim something that isn't true?

quote:
Time is also an enemy. The time-lengths involved are too great a problem, as the make-up for life would break down before it was made.

Huh? There is no problem with time, either. In fact, it appears that life started on this planet almost immediately from a geological perspective.

quote:
There is no evidence for abiogenesis.

There isn't any evidence for anything else, either. Is there a particular reason why you cannot accept "We don't know"? That's why it isn't called the "theory" of abiogensis. That's why investigations into the organic chemistry of origins continues.

By your logic, we shouldn't have looked into calculating the age of the universe since before we were able to measure the distances, understand the nature of light, etc., there was no evidence that it was billions of years old.

Your argument is that because we don't know everything, that means we don't know anything.

quote:
There will be no response, I have given my opinion but it's already a tatty affair because you wildly jump from one issue to the next.

Huh? I respond to your post and I'm the one jumping from one issue to the next? That makes no sense.

quote:
Perhaps you should just read the conversation between me and modulous.

In other words, you know you cannot justify it so rather than simply say, "Oops, I have made a mistake," you're going to whine about it.

Because somebody's holding a gun to your head and forcing you to respond.


Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 375 by mike the wiz, posted 09-08-2009 2:47 PM mike the wiz has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 421 by mike the wiz, posted 09-09-2009 7:17 AM Rrhain has responded

    
Rrhain
Member (Idle past 161 days)
Posts: 6349
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 420 of 687 (523238)
09-09-2009 3:16 AM
Reply to: Message 376 by mike the wiz
09-08-2009 2:52 PM


mike the wiz responds to me:

quote:
When I mention evidence I mean the induction so far shows that all life comes from life, nothing more.

So? The chemistry of replication is different from the chemistry of origins. There are lots of ways of making various chemicals. Certain reactions are easier to sustain than they are to initiate.

Take the simple act of making water. If you mix two moles of hydrogen gas and a mole of oxygen gas at STP, they'll sit there forever and never react to make water. You have to spark it. But you don't need to have a spark the entire mixture. All you need is to spark a small area: The energy from the reaction of those molecules will provide the energy of reaction for the rest of the mixture. The reaction feeds off itself. So long as there is hydrogen and oxygen to react, the reaction keeps going. From the point of view of the molecules late to the reaction, it appears that water is only created from the energy released from hydrogen and oxygen reactions, but we know that there was another step that started it, that is different from what we see now.

That's the entire point behind self-replication and auto-catalysis: The molecules themselves drive the reaction. The chemistry involved in creating the first molecule is different from the chemistry involved in replicating the molecule. Once the molecule comes into existence, it becomes much easier to get a second molecule because the molecule self-replicates and it its own catalyzer. The reaction to get these molecules is much more likely to occur from the self-replicating reaction rather than from the original reaction...and because of that, all the molecules get used in that reaction rather than the original one.

As the self-replicating, auto-catalysing process evolves and diversifies, we should expect that it takes over and that we never see the original reaction anymore: There is a much more favored reaction that is using up all the reagents.

And we can create self-replicating, auto-catalysing, homochiral molecules that evolve.

quote:
The fact of design is observable.

So give me an example. Why is it every single proferred piece of "design" has been shown in reality to have evolved?

quote:
Can God make things evolve? By definition he must, he is God - but it doesn't follow that it happened because of this.

Huh? That isn't what I asked. I simply asked if god can create life that evolves. If he can, then what is the problem with evolution not telling us how life began? You've just demonstrated that evolution is completely independent of origins. Life could have arisen chemically through abiogenesis, supernaturally through god zap-poofing it into existence, interdimensionally through a rift in space-time, extraterrestrially through alien seeding or panspermia, or any other possible means you care to imagine. Evolution doesn't care where life began, only that life doesn't replicate perfectly from generation to generation and that the environment constrains which variants of the current generation will reproduce the next one.

quote:
I believe the bible's literal Genesis is the best explanation of the facts

Unfortunately, the literal reading of Genesis directly contradicts the observations that we see. For example, Genesis claims that fruit-bearing plants appeared before insects. The fossil record clearly shows that it's the other way around: Insects first, then fruit-bearing plants.

quote:
I only have "doubts" against this, no reasons, other than weak ones that require giving natural processes a 0% interest rate.

Oh, so the fossil record is bullshit? There is absolutely nothing to learn from examining the remains of the life that existed before we were here?


Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 376 by mike the wiz, posted 09-08-2009 2:52 PM mike the wiz has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 422 by mike the wiz, posted 09-09-2009 7:41 AM Rrhain has responded
 Message 424 by mike the wiz, posted 09-09-2009 8:28 AM Rrhain has responded

    
Rrhain
Member (Idle past 161 days)
Posts: 6349
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 437 of 687 (523361)
09-09-2009 6:37 PM
Reply to: Message 421 by mike the wiz
09-09-2009 7:17 AM


mike the wiz responds to me:

quote:
First you have to understand my arguments.

Indeed. First, you have to understand your arguments.

quote:
What you do is jump down my throat.

Because you show that you don't understand your own argument. You cannot justify it, you cannot answer the most basic and simple questions about it, and you will run a thread out spinning in the wind to the point of contradicting yourself simply so that you can continue your automatic response of gainsaying everything that isn't acquiescence.

quote:
Call me odd, but the names od biology books don't strike me as particularly memorable.

But surely you can look it up. If you're going to claim that there is some grand conspiracy to lie to students of biology, it would help if you could provide at least one example of it. It would seem that you are of the opinion that comparative embryology is a debunked concept in and of itself and thus any mention of common developmental pathways among chordates is tantamount to fraud.

Nothing could be further from the truth. Ontogeny may not recapitulate phylogeny, but the mark of evolution is all over embryological development.

quote:
If you think this makes my claim bullshit, that's your opinion, it won't change the truth of the matter.

Indeed. All I am asking is that you justify your claim. If you cannot, why should we accept it as valid?

quote:
It is hard for me to find the books but I can name them if the seminar is repeated, and then I guess you will apologize? No>? I thought not.

Oh, so close. It is not enough that you name the texts, though that's a start. The request was that you provide the titles and the complete context surrounding the references. Again, you seem to be indicating that comparative embryology is a fraudulent enterprise. Since the exact opposite is true, especially in the study of evolution, we should not be surprised to find mention of the work of Haeckel. An accurate textbook that does discuss Haeckel would explore the concept of ontogeny recapitulating phylogeny, show it to be false, and then indicate how comparative embryology actually works.

But you seem to think that if the word "Haeckel" appears in the text, then it's immediately to be discarded.

This is precisely the same argument that traderdrew is trying to make with regard to Sternberg. Well, Stenberg claims that he was discriminated against due to his publishing of a non-reviewed article in an inappropriate journal. But investigation shows that such simply isn't the case. You're trying to say that there is some Vast Conspiracy to Suppress the Truth ©, but you can't provide a single example of it happening.

quote:
The branchial arches are not therefore "gill arches".

Who has said they did? Be specific. Names, dates, and complete quotes in full context, please.

You need to explain why mammals have the same gill arches as fish. The fact that they develop into different structures in mammals is indicative of evolution.

quote:
You can term them what you want

Huh? I didn't come up with the term. Biologists did. It's a physical structure:

On February 29, 1980 (enough of a rarity in itself), E. J. Kollar and C. Fisher reported an ingenious technique for coaxing chickens to reveal some surprising genetic flexibility retained from a distant past.

They took epithelial (outer) tissue from the first and second gill arches of a five-day-old chick embryo and combined it with mesenchyme (inner embryonic tissue) of sixteen- to eighteen-day old mouse embryos taken from the region where first molar teeth form. A fascinating evolutionary tale lies hidden in this simple statement as well. Jaws evolved from bones supporting the anterior gills of ancestral fishes. All vertebrate embryos still develop the anterior gill arches first (as ancestral embryos did) and then transform them during development into jaws (as ancestors did not in retraining the forward gills throughout life). Thus, if the embryonic tissues of chickens still retain any capacity for forming teeth, the epithelium of the anterior gill arches is the place to look.

-- Stephen Jay Gould, Hen's Teeth and Horse's Toes

It is very difficult to evolve by altering the deep fabric of life; any change there is likely to be lethal. But fundamental change can be accomplished by the addition of new systems on top of old ones. This is reminiscent of a doctrine which was called recapitulation by Ernst Haeckel, a nineteenth-century German anatomist, and which has gone through various cycles of scholarly acceptance and rejection. Haeckel held that in its embryological development, an animal tends to repeat or recapitulate the sequence that is ancestors followed during their evolution. And indeed in human intrauterine development we run through stages very much like fish, repties and nonprimate mammals before we become recognizably human. The fish stage even has gill slits, which are absolutely useless for the embryo who is nourished via the umbilical cord, but a necessity for human embryology: since gills were vital to our ancestors, we run through a gill stage in becoming human. The brain of a human fetus also develops from the inside out, and, roughly speaking, runs through the sequence: neural chassis, R-complex, limbic system and neocortex.

The reason for reacpitulation may be understood as follows: Natural selection operates only on individuals, not on species and not very much on eggs or fetuses. Thus the latest evolutionary change appears postpartum. The fetus may hyave cahracteristics, like the gill slits in mammals, that are entirely maladaptive after birth, but as long as they cause no serious problems for the fetus and are lost before birth, they can be retained. Our gill slits are vestiges not of ancient fish but of ancient fish embryos. Many new organ systems develop not by the addition and preservation but by the modification of older systems, as, for example, the modification of fins to legs, and legs to flippers or wings; or feet to hands to feet; or sebaceous glands to mammary glands; or gill arches to ear bones; or shark scales to shark teeth. Thus evolution by addition and the functional preservation of the preexisting sturcture must occur for one of two reasons—either the old function is required as well as the new one, or there is no way of bypassing the old system that is consistent with survival.

-- Carl Sagan, The Dragons of Eden


Click to enlarge

A series of embryos of different vertebrates at comparable stages of development. The earlier the stage of development, the more strikingly similar are the different groups. Note that each of the embryos begins with a similar number of gill arches (pouches below the head) and a similar vertebral column. In later stages of development, these and other structures are modified to yield the various different forms. (The embryos in the different groups have been scaled to the same approximate size so that comparisons can be made between them.) (From Romanes, adapted from Haeckel.)

-- Janet English, Evolution/Comparative Anatomy

Modern scientists do not subscribe to the biogenetic law as postulated by Haeckel. However, there are elements of recapitulation that are important in comparative embryology. In 1828, Karl von Baer pointed out that vertebrates share common characteristics during development (see Fig. 3). Examination of vertebrate embryos reveals that during corresponding stages of early development, the embryos appear to be very similar. For example, all vertebrate embryos pass through stages in which they have gill pouches. The pouches eventually develop into the gill apparatus in fish; in later-evolving vertebrates that do not have gills, the gill pouches undergo further refinement and develop into structures associated with the head and neck. Similarly, all early vertebrate embryos have tails, which persist in some animals but regress during the later stages of development of humans. Thus, the individual development of an animal occurs through a series of stages that paint a broad picture of the evolutionary stages (phylogeny) of the species to which it belongs.

-- Suzzette F. Chopin, Biology Reference

Are you seriously saying that because that drawing is adapted from Haeckel's erroneous claim that during fetal development, humans actually become fish and birds, then that means the entire concept is without merit? That there is absolutely nothing to be learned from comparative embryology?

When was the last time you cracked open a book dealing with comparative embryology?

quote:
they are irrelevant rudimentary shapes.

Huh? You mean the structures that become gills in fish and jaws in mammals are "irrelevant"? Are you saying your ears are irrelevant? Your mouth is irrelevant?

quote:
If I need to keep up with science, why do you ask that I proclaim something isn't true if you assume I didn't know about it?

Huh? This isn't the first time that you've been told about the ability to create homochiral molecules. But still, you continue to proclaim the falsehood that chirality is a problem.

But on top of that, you have displayed a common trait among people who are anti-science in general and are creationist in particular: Making statements without bothering to do any research beforehand to validate your position.

Tell us: When you made your claim that chirality was a problem for evolution, did you do any research on the subject at all? When I challenged you on it, did you bother to look anything up? When was the last time you were in a library looking at the journal articles? Heck, did you even bother looking at PubMed?

Now, I'm hardly saying that the entire question regarding chirality with regards to biochemistry is complete and done with nothing to investigate. We still don't know why we have the specific chirality pattern that we do (most everything is left-handed). However, we can create biological molecules in a process that results in homochirality. Thus, chirality in and of itself is not a problem.

quote:
You can do many things in the lab because it is a place designed to make correct conditions, and manipulate the variables.

And thus, you completely miss the point. Last time I checked, we don't happen to have an empty planet untouched by any outside influence and a hundred million years to wait for the results. Of course we're going to do it in a lab. Those results will lead to new questions, new experiments, and new results showing how things can happen.

You're shifting the goalposts. First, you claim that it is impossible to come up with chirality and then when shown that it isn't that hard, you complain that it's being done "in a lab" and hope to high heaven that nobody notices your change in position.

I get the feeling that there is no evidence that could possibly persuade you other than a videotape of the entire 4.3 billion years of earth history showing every single molecule in every single reaction.

quote:
This doesn't evidence abiogenesis in the least.

Nobody said it did. Chirality in and of itself isn't biogenesis. However, it shows that your claim of abiogenesis being impossible due to the impossibility of homochirality is false. You're stuck in a black-or-white mode of thinking: That if any piece of any structure is incorrect, then the entire structure fails and thus the only possible alternative is what you perceive to be the opposite.

Just because we can achieve chirality doesn't mean we have achieved life. Instead, it shows that your claim that life cannot be explained due to the inability to achieve chirality is false.

quote:
quote:
Your argument is that because we don't know everything, that means we don't know anything.

Not surprisingly, that is not my argument at all. I didn't make much of an argument.


(*chuckle*)

You do realize that you just made that argument right now, yes? That your whine about "You can do many things in the lab" is precisely the argument that because we don't know everything, that means we know nothing. Look at your conclusion, "This doesn't evidence abiogenesis in the least." That is precisely what you are arguing: Because we cannot provide you a twenty-minute, step-by-step process to take some simple chemicals and have a complete cell pop out of the reaction chamber, that means we know absolutely nothing, none of the research into biochemistry that shows self-replication, auto-catalysis, and homochirality is worth anything, it teaches us nothing, and provides no new clues into where we might look to find out more about how life started.

Because we don't know everything, you're insisting that we know nothing.

quote:
If you can't see how numerous topics were related to me in yopur initial response, then I question your comprehension.

Huh? I responded to your post. You were the one who raised the issue of chirality, not me. I asked you to provide what you describe as a "logical problem" for evolution and you were the one who said that chirality is a problem.

You will note, I didn't respond to your false logic. Specifically, you said in Message 375:

Evidence is a weak consequent because of the modus tollens

Do you even know what "modus tollens" is? It's known as denying the consequent and it's a valid argument: If P, then Q. ~Q, therefore ~P.

As an example: All squares are rectangles. This object is not a rectangle. Therefore, it is not a square. I'm not sure what you're confusing modus tollens for. Methinks you might have confused it with affirming the consequent: If P, then Q. Q, therefore P.

I didn't want to get bogged down in this, so I stuck with the main point: Can you provide a single "logical problem" for evolution?

quote:
You didn't merely respond to my post, you jumped to many conclusions about many different topics.

Name one.

quote:
Do you really want me to show everybody the specific mistakes you made, in detail?

Yes. I dare you. I double dare you.

quote:
Can't justify what?

Your claim that chirality is a problem for evolution.

Again, a very simple question: Before you made your claim that chirality is a "logical problem" for evolution, did you do any research into the subject at all? If so, what did you do? What resources did you avail yourself of? What was the process you used to find the materials by which you came to the conclusion that chirality is a "logical problem"?

Will you finally put your money where your mouth is?


Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 421 by mike the wiz, posted 09-09-2009 7:17 AM mike the wiz has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 452 by mike the wiz, posted 09-10-2009 7:47 AM Rrhain has responded

    
Rrhain
Member (Idle past 161 days)
Posts: 6349
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 438 of 687 (523366)
09-09-2009 7:11 PM
Reply to: Message 422 by mike the wiz
09-09-2009 7:41 AM


mike the wiz responds to me:

quote:
quote:
Oh, so the fossil record is bullshit? There is absolutely nothing to learn from examining the remains of the life that existed before we were here?

THIS is why I don't debate you. You are almost lying about me here. Why would I state tthat the fossil record is bullshit


Because your argument requires the fossil record to be bullshit. Your claim from Message 376 was:

I believe the bible's literal Genesis is the best explanation of the facts, I only have "doubts" against this, no reasons, other than weak ones that require giving natural processes a 0% interest rate.

But the fossil record clearly denies this. As I said in my response:

Unfortunately, the literal reading of Genesis directly contradicts the observations that we see. For example, Genesis claims that fruit-bearing plants appeared before insects. The fossil record clearly shows that it's the other way around: Insects first, then fruit-bearing plants.

So for you to insist that "literal Genesis is the best explanation of the facts" requires that the fact that we do not see any flowering plants in the fossil record until long after the rise of insects to be false. It requires that the fossil record showing the evolution of plants over time after the rise of insects to develop structures that exploit pollinators such as insects to be false.

The literal reading of Genesis requires denial of the fossil record. Therefore, the obvious question is whether or not you think the fossil record is bullshit and provides us absolutely nothing to learn from the remains of the life that existed before we were here.

quote:
I don't deny science

Yes, you do. Insisting upon a literal reading of Genesis requires denial of science.

Genesis says fruit-bearing plants first, insects second.

Science says insects first, fruit-bearing plants second.

quote:
I deny naturalism.

You mean there is no natural explanation for anything? We're back to the question nobody ever answers! Yea!

Is there anything that happens on its own or is god required for everything?

quote:
So you don't ask questions at all, you simply twist things in all almost immoral capacity.

(*chuckle*)

Since what I do is quote your own words back to you, what does that say about your morality?

quote:
I don't trust you at all.

I don't ask you to. That's why I provide references for my claims. And it's because I don't expect you to trust me that I also ask you to provide the references for your claims since I don't trust you.

quote:
Your motive is to twist everything I say to suit you own hate-agenda

Oh, that's so precious! You think I hate you! You actually think that I have feelings for you. That I actually spend time thinking about you. My word but your sense of self-importance is quite large.

Sweetie, honey, baby, pussy-cat, I don't know you from Adam. I couldn't care less about you. You are not that important.

quote:
I'm afraid your example did not show life coming from none-life in the least.

And where did I say that it did? Be specific. Quote me the exact words I used that even hinted that anything I said could possibly be interpreted to mean that we had a viable model of abiogenesis. As you said yourself in Message 421, "Do you really want me to show everybody the specific mistakes you made, in detail?" Yes.

Yes, I do.

I really want you to show me exactly where I said anything of the sort.

quote:
I do believe it is reasonable for me to assume Genesis

Since the fossil record contradicts the timeline of Genesis in pretty much every detail, how can it be reasonable to assume Genesis?

I thought you said you didn't deny science.

quote:
Believe it or not, you do not have to think the worst of me because of this.

Oh, darling, don't worry your pretty little head about that.

I don't think of you, period.

quote:
when we look at the facts of design

Could you please provide a single "fact of design"? So far, we haven't been able to find any. Every single example that has been proferred has been shown to have evolved.

quote:
I concede that an example of a transitional could be a species such as neaderthal man.

Did I just say that Rrhain?


Well, if you were someone who actually followed science, you would wish you hadn't since Neanderthal isn't transitional.

The problem is not that you don't allow for any transitionals. Where did I ever say that you didn't? Be specific. For all your talk about "jumping" and "strawmen," you seem to think you can read my mind. Physician, heal thyself!

Recognition of transitionals isn't an indication of an acceptance of science. Instead, it can quite easily be another manifestation of the creationist insistence on "microevolution/macroevolution." That is, it's nothing more than grudging acceptance of things that can shown right before your eyes and thus would be foolish to deny.

quote:
because you hate everything about me.

Mike, I'm not going to have sex with you.

Please stop asking. I know, I know. And I really am sorry about your penis, but you really need to stop obsessing about what I think of you and simply accept the fact that I just don't care about you.

quote:
I reiterate, I do not trust you

I never asked you to.

And you shouldn't. Don't ever accept anything I say simply because I say so. That would be the argument from authority and not only is it a logical error, but also I hardly claim to be an authority.


Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 422 by mike the wiz, posted 09-09-2009 7:41 AM mike the wiz has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 444 by ICANT, posted 09-09-2009 9:36 PM Rrhain has responded

    
Rrhain
Member (Idle past 161 days)
Posts: 6349
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 439 of 687 (523374)
09-09-2009 8:01 PM
Reply to: Message 424 by mike the wiz
09-09-2009 8:28 AM


mike the wiz responds to me:

quote:
Your argument is that because you don't know everything, then that lack of knowledge means I should believe in abiogenesis

I didn't say that. Where on earth did I ever say anything that even implies such a thing? I certainly don't think we have a viable theory of abiogenesis, so why would I demand that you believe in it? We certainly have some interesting experiments in organic chemistry regarding chemical process that take place in things that we consider to be "alive," but that is hardly abiogenesis.

What I have said is that the literal description of Genesis is not borne out by observation.

What I have said is that Genesis doesn't mention any method by which life arises. Instead, it simply says that life happens.

What I have said is that evolution is perfectly compatible with all methods of origins you could name.

So please tell me: Where did I ever say anything anywhere that even hints that I insist anybody believe in abiogenesis?

What part of, "We don't know," is so upsetting to you?

quote:
which is proven through information you don't have?

Huh? If we don't have the information, how on earth could it possibly be proven? The fact that we can make self-replicating, auto-catalysing, homochiral molecules that evolve doesn't mean we've created life (though that does bring into question what the definition of "life" is).

What I have said is that my personal feeling is that resolving the question of origins will be an extremely difficult task. However it happened 4 billion years ago, it likely happened on a very small scale (meaning on the scale of molecules) and since the earth is geologically active, the remnants of that process will probably have long since been scoured over, never to be retrieved.

Even if we do manage to show a way to start with some various organic compounds and process them in a way consistent with what we know regarding the geology of the earth at the time that results in things like RNA synthesis, that still doesn't mean that that's how it happened here on earth. To make that conclusion, we need to find remnants of that process and I highly doubt there are any to be found.

I could be wrong, though.

Note, this isn't an advocacy of abiogenesis. I haven't mentioned a method for how life arose. I simply said that whatever that process was, it was small and the traces of it have been wiped away.

quote:
You think that because you don't know "how" abiogenesis happened, or there is not evidence "yet" of your theory, that I should believe this lack of something favours such a theory?

Huh? Where did I even imply any such thing? As you said in Message 421, "Do you really want me to show everybody the specific mistakes you made, in detail?"

Yes.

Yes, I do.

I want you to quote my exact words in complete context that leads you to believe that I am advocating you "believe" in something for which I handily and readily agree we have no evidence for.

Where did I ever say that abiogenesis was a reality? That we have a model for it? That we have any theories regarding it?

quote:
That is perhaps the most stupid argument I have ever heard.

Well, since it came out of your own head, what does that say about your method of argumentation?

quote:
How would objective information as yet undiscovered have a name-tag on it saying, "the theory Rrhain wants to be true", on it?

Tell us, mike: When you read minds, do you have to concentrate upon the person you're channeling or do the thoughts just appear unbidden? Is there a cacophany of voices that you have to isolate?

I love being psycho-analyzed over the internet. I always learn such interesting things about myself!

Since you seem to have the inside scoop on my thoughts, why don't you tell us what the "theory I want to be true" is? Since I know I haven't mentioned it here, I'll be fascinated to see if you have guessed correctly.

quote:
You have forgotten that YOU reject science because you don't believe in steady state or spontaneous generation or monera.

Huh? How is the failure of hypotheses to withstand scrutiny become "rejection of science"? That's the entire point behind science: New observations that shed more light upon reality will cause us to re-evaluate our description of things so that we can have a more accurate picture of what is going on.

Sometimes, such as with steady-state and spontaneous generation, that new information will cause us to reject the entire structure outright. The observations were crude at best and when we finally managed to get decent observations, it became clear that our gross interpretation was based upon highly limited information.

Sometimes, such as with monera, all we need to do re-work things. The previous observations were sound yet incomplete. After all, the division was made because the genetic material isn't in a nucleus. When we found that not all cells with no nucleus have the same evolutionary history, a new division was made. We didn't even know of the existence of Archaea until recently.

quote:
I do not deny any experiments or facts of science.

But you have said that you find the literal Genesis reading to be the most compatible. This is clearly false as even a cursory examination of the fossil record contradicts Genesis pretty much at every point. So since science and Genesis do not agree, why do you reject science in favor of Genesis?

quote:
what I deny is a "claim" that this pathetic little adaptation somehow relates to a claim that every design came from such processes

And if that were the argument, then you might have a point.

But instead, the argument is that since you are the one claiming that there was a designer involved, then it is your responsibility to show the evidence for this designer.

Evolution is not an assumption. It is a conclusion. That's why we investigate evolutionary pathways: It's what allows us to conclude evolution.

And you seem to miss the point: The claim by Behe was that the flagellum could not possibly have evolved in any way, shape, or form; that to remove any part of the process makes the entire thing fail and be of absolutely no use no matter what.

Instead, we find that the flagellum is reducible and does provide function in this reduced state.

So where is your evidence of design?

quote:
even though the facts shows that such bacteria are fossilized, despite replicating thousands of times faster than humans.

Non sequitur. Please rephrase.

quote:
So basically, your problem is that because I don't share your belief in naturalist theories rather than say a baramin theory, I should reject gravity?

Incorrect. My problem is that because you reject science that contradicts your religious dogma, you are unable to justify your claims.

quote:
Friend, that's so dumb

Indeed. And since that argument came from your head, what does that say about your method of argumentation?

quote:
Why should I go one further and accept unproven things such as abiogenesis

Indeed, why should you? I certainly haven't said that you should. Again, you seem to have a black-or-white response: That the only possible choices are god and abiogenesis and that if even one trait is out of place for one, that means the entire concept is a failure in every possible way and thus the only other option is the other.

But lest you forget, please remind yourself: I do not claim that abiogenesis has been shown, that there is any model for it, or that there is any theory regarding it.

quote:
Why would I deny facts of design I have been shown?

What would these "facts of design" be? So far, you haven't shown any to us. Why are you holding back?


Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 424 by mike the wiz, posted 09-09-2009 8:28 AM mike the wiz has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 451 by mike the wiz, posted 09-10-2009 7:28 AM Rrhain has responded

    
Rrhain
Member (Idle past 161 days)
Posts: 6349
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 440 of 687 (523376)
09-09-2009 8:13 PM
Reply to: Message 426 by mike the wiz
09-09-2009 11:12 AM


mike the wiz writes:

quote:
Now, you get a radio control helicopter with full 3D flight, but at best the energy per-flight ratio is astoundingly poor compared to a hoverfly.

And you don't see anything different between the environmental conditions of a helicopter compared to that of a hoverfly?

Here's a hint: Suppose you found yourself in the same situation as the Incredible Shrinking Man. Do you really think you'd be able to turn the pages of a book? If not, what would be the problem? Would it be a question of the weight of the paper or might there something else going on? Some sort of "dynamics" (and yes, that is a festive clue) that would have a much larger impact at that scale than it does at human scale?

quote:
I think evolution tries to deal with the problem of design but doesn't actually tell us anything useful about such wonderfully different yet brilliant design.

Huh? You mean explaining the process by which the physical traits came into existence, were selected for, and diversified isn't useful?


Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 426 by mike the wiz, posted 09-09-2009 11:12 AM mike the wiz has not yet responded

    
Rrhain
Member (Idle past 161 days)
Posts: 6349
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 450 of 687 (523404)
09-10-2009 2:36 AM
Reply to: Message 444 by ICANT
09-09-2009 9:36 PM


ICANT responds to me:

quote:
Since you can't remember the literal Genesis facts I will repeat them for you.

(*chuckle*)

I notice that you didn't actually quote from the Bible. Why is that whenever you and I get into a discussion about the text of the Bible, I am the one that quotes it, not you?

Genesis 1:11 And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.
1:12 And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
1:13 And the evening and the morning were the third day.

Now, do you or do you not agree that this direct statement of the Bible indicates that flowering plants ("the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself") came along on the third day?

Genesis 1:24 And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.
1:25 And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
1:27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
1:28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.
1:29 And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat.
1:30 And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so.
1:31 And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.

Now, do you or do you not agree that this direct statement of the Bible indicates that insects ("every thing that creepeth upon the earth") came along on the sixth day?

Thus, flowering plants first, insects second, according to Genesis.

However, the fossil record shows the exact opposite order: Insects first, flowering plants second.

Therefore, for you to insist that a literal interpretation of Genesis is the best explanation of the facts requires that the fact that we do not see any flowering plants in the fossil record until long after the rise of insects to be false. It requires that the fossil record showing the evolution of plants over time after the rise of insects to develop structures that exploit pollinators such as insects to be false.

quote:
The problem with evolution is you don't have life to evolve.

Huh? There is no life? You're not alive? Are you saying that nothing is alive?

Oh! I see! You've confused evolution with origins. Once again, evolution is compatible with all methods of origins you care to imagine. Be it chemically through abiogenesis, supernaturally through god zap-poofing, interdimensionally through rifts in space-time, extraterrestrially through alien seeding or panspermia, evolution doesn't care one whit how life got started. Evolution is only about how life diversified after it came into existence.

Are you saying god cannot make life that evolves?

quote:
It is a fact life produces life.

Indeed. What does that have to do with anything? You're in danger of affirming the consequent which is a logical error: If P, then Q. Q, therefore P.

If I drop the plate on the floor, it will shatter.
The plate is shattered, therefore it was dropped on the floor.

Well, no...no, it wasn't. Instead, it was carefully placed on the floor and then struck with a hammer.

Just because life can generate life doesn't mean life can't arise from other means. After all, by your claims god created life from non-life. Life had to come from somewhere and thus there is some sort of process by which something that isn't life is converted to something that is.

In the most trivial of senses, we see that every single day simply by the acts of respiration and digestion: Molecules that are not alive are converted into living organisms. All of this happens chemically (or are you saying that there is something going on inside a cell other than chemistry?)

The point is that the process of origins is not the same as the process of replication. Back to the example of the creation of water. When you take two parts hydrogen and one part oxygen and mix them at STP, no reaction will take place. It needs a spark to get it going. But once it gets going, it won't stop so long as there are reagents to feed it: The very act of the previous molecules of hydrogen and oxygen reacting to create water provides the reaction energy required to drive the next molecules to react.

The fact that life replicates itself is insufficient to claim that life cannot come from non-life. Unless you are going to insist that there has always been life, then you necessarily declare that life does come from non-life.

We just don't know how.

quote:
It is a fact that non life has never produced life.

Then where did life come from? Your own book indicates that life was created from non-life:

Genesis 2:7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

According to your own book, humans were made from dust.

Are you saying that dust is alive?

Are you saying that life has always existed? That there has never been a time in the entire history of the universe that hasn't had life in it? That the only reason that life is here on this planet is because it came from somewhere else? That would be an advocation of panspermia. Is that what you're saying?

If not, if you claim that there was a time when there was no life and then there was a time when there was, then you necessarily claim that non-life can produce life.

We just don't know how.

quote:
There is life on this planet.

Therefore there had to be a lifeform to beget life.


So you're advocating panspermia?

Was there ever a time when there was no life? If so, then you necessarily claim that non-life produces life.

quote:
It is a scientific fact life produces life.

Nobody has ever denied that.

The Denver mint makes US coins.

That hardly means the Philadelphia mint doesn't exist.

Just because life makes life doesn't mean that is the only way to get life. In fact, your own book indicates that life comes from non-life. Humans are made from dust.

Genesis 3:19 In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return.

Are you saying dust is alive?

Are you advocating panspermia?


Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 444 by ICANT, posted 09-09-2009 9:36 PM ICANT has not yet responded

    
Rrhain
Member (Idle past 161 days)
Posts: 6349
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 485 of 687 (523697)
09-12-2009 12:27 AM
Reply to: Message 451 by mike the wiz
09-10-2009 7:28 AM


mike the wiz responds to me:

quote:
My point about science, is that at the very least you allude to the fact that I do not dismiss certain theories, such as gravity, because I assume you think I am biased.

Since evolution is even more solidly evidenced than gravity, it is an interesting question as to why you are picking on evolution. After all, we have a mechanism for evolution. We can make it happen right in front of our eyes at will.

We still have no idea what gravity is or how to make it happen.

Now, it is quite possible for scientists to disagree on aspects of science. After all, it isn't like scientists have no capacity for independent thought. The entire process of science involves the search for mistakes that other scientists have made.

However, you are confusing the debate two mathematicians might have over whether or not the six millionth digit of pi is a 2 for an argument over whether or not pi is an integer. There are plenty of debates in science regarding evolution, but they are not about the existence of evolution but rather the method by which it happens.

You don't question gravity because you experience it every day. You understand the sheer silliness of questioning it because you are constantly being affected by it. Doesn't matter that we have no idea what it actually is and no way to manipulate it, the evidence for it is overwhelming, right?

So why are you picking on evolution which has even more evidence behind it than gravity? It's because you don't see it every day. You don't wake up in the morning and see the evolution around you. It takes work, sophisticated equipment, and patience to see it, but it can be done and has been done so often that it is just as ridiculous to question it. Not only can we see it happen, we can make it happen at will. We know of mechanisms to control it. We know the reasons why it works. The evidence for it is even more overwhelming than anything that ever existed for gravity.

So why are you picking on evolution? What could possibly be the reasoning for hesitating?

quote:
Infact, all I am is extra-tentative.

No, you deny things that we have seen right in front of our own eyes. You deny things that can be reproduced at will. You don't merely withhold judgement regarding the explanation of certain events...you deny that the events ever happened in the first place.

quote:
but I won't go a step further and believe an abiogenesis happened

What on earth does abiogenesis have to do with anything?

This is a serious question. Why do you keep bringing this up? Evolution has nothing to do with abiogenesis. Evolution does not depend on abiogenesis. There is no theory of abiogenesis. There is no evidence of abiogenesis.

Why are you doing your damnedst to equate the two?

quote:
Theories are accepted, and then not.

Indeed, but why? Why are theories rejected? This is a serious question. I want to hear your answer. Why do you think theories get rejected?

And what does that do to the previous observations that were made to justify the rejected theory?

quote:
So you shouldn't make out that I am rejecting science, or partaking in special pleading.

But that would require me to lie. Why do you want me to lie?

quote:
I think the fossil record shows dead things.

And nothing more? There is absolutely nothing to be learned about the body of a once-living thing by examining it and the environment in which it was found?

Are you really willing to let murderers out of prison, then? For the exact same techniques that we use to examine murder victims are used to examine fossils. If the science is bogus, why aren't you picketing the courthouse?

quote:
I don't think the fossils show evolution. I don't think they show time.

And thus, you reject science. Could you please explain why it is impossible to determine the age of a fossil?

quote:
I have been told, that one fossil can have two different dates

You have been told wrong.

quote:
and that those dates are majorly different.

And that isn't true. Who told you this? Why did you accept the claim? Did you do any research on your own regarding it? Did you look up the various journal articles regarding the physics, geology, and chemistry involved? Did you do any research of any kind at all?

quote:
There are other arguments and points, such as polystrate fossils.

Why do you think polystrate fossils are a problem? Again, who told you that they were? Why did you accept the claim? Did you do any research on your own regarding it? Did you look up the various journal articles regarding the physics, geology, and chemistry involved? Did you do any research of any kind at all?

Have you considered the possibility that the problem is not the science but rather your ignorance and gullibility?

quote:
That's ad logicam. You can only say that Behe was wrong, because mike the wiz was not, has not, ever mentioned irreducible complexity.

Huh? "Ad logicam" is the error that because the logic behind an argument is fallacious, the conclusion being justified by the argument is false.

What on earth does this have to Behe and his inability to show even the tiniest example of "ID" he claims is so pervasive? This isn't "ad logicam." This is basic science: Burden of proof is always on the one making the claim. The default position is always for nothing, not something. Until you can show something, we have no reason to consider it being there, especially when other processes seem to be capable of giving us the results we see.

Why do you need chocolate sprinkles?

quote:
I did not mention gods, or God.

Please, let us not play dumb. This is the very reason why "intelligent design" exists in the first place: It's creationism without the big, bad g-word. Whether or not you didn't use the word "god" really is irrelevant. Are you seriously trying to convince us that you think it might have been aliens?

quote:
My claim, not Behe's, is that if the ToE claims this, is it fair that an example of a bacteria flaggellum adapting to a disease, really a great example of evolution.

Huh? "Great"? What is with the subjective sneering? Either it is evolution or it is not.

Your disdain is irrelevant. The claim is that the flagellum couldn't have evolved at all. The evidence shows that it did.

So where is your evidence of "intelligent design"? Burden of proof is always on the one making the claim. I do not need to show that two and two make four in order to show that they do not make five. It would certainly be sufficient, but it is not necessary (you do understand the difference between necessary and sufficient, yes?)

So ignoring all the evidence we have for evolution, assuming we started from a completely blank slate, there is still no evidence for "intelligent design" anywhere to be found.

quote:
You thought this was proof of macro evolution

Huh? "Macroevolution" is simply evolution that happens above the species level. How would the flagellum be such a thing?


Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 451 by mike the wiz, posted 09-10-2009 7:28 AM mike the wiz has not yet responded

    
Rrhain
Member (Idle past 161 days)
Posts: 6349
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 486 of 687 (523703)
09-12-2009 2:59 AM
Reply to: Message 452 by mike the wiz
09-10-2009 7:47 AM


mike the wiz responds to me:

quote:
You infact shown Haeckel's picture in a fairly modern biology book, which was what I claimed.

Incorrect. You did see the attribute, yes? It is not Haeckel's drawing. It's an adaptation of it.

This is Haeckel's drawing:


Click to enlarge

You're still missing the point: Haeckel's claim of "ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny" was a claim that during the development of the human fetus from a fertilized egg through to a newborn, it goes through stages not where it simply resembles a fish but is actually a fish.

This is Lamarckism through and through: That somehow the physical experience of an organism gets written into its body and is physically passed onto later generations.

But the underlying observation that developing embryos look an awful lot alike early on, is hardly false. It is trivial to show:


Click to enlarge

Are you complaining that it's a drawing rather than a photograph? Is your argument that no, embryos don't actually look similar in early stages? That the entire field of embryology is a complete and utter fraud?

Haeckel's claims were wrong. Nobody supports them anymore. But his original observations (duplicated by von Baer and what Darwin relied on...remember, Origin of Species was published in 1859, Haeckel didn't publish his ontogeny claim until 1866 and his drawings didn't come onto the scene until 1874) were right. Yes, he altered his drawings in an attempt to support his claim, but the actual observations are correct.

This is what Darwin had to say:

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.

Von Baer made such observations 30 years before Origin of Species was published. Since all vertebrates are chordates, this isn't exactly surprising as these are the basic structures that are common to all vertebrates. Later study into genes such as emx, otx, and Hox genes explains precisely why: These are the ancient genes that regulate body plan and since all vertebrates have the same basic body plan and since the body plan is formed first during embryogenesis, it is expected that vertebrate embryos look alike early on.

It's called the "phylotypic" stage.

Note, this doesn't mean that everything about the embryo develops according to evolutionary sequence. Von Baer pointed out that the extraembryonic membranes come along early and such membranes are a feature of mammals. This doesn't make the general process false, though.

quote:
I did not say nothing can be learned from embryology, I am indicating that it is not helpful to show false embryos in a biology book, without stating that such a diagram is utter falsehood.

You mean the embryos don't actually look alike?

That's a serious question: Are you saying that embryos of various vertebrates don't actually look alike early on?

quote:
The branchial arches in a human embryo, become tonsils, etc...

And what do they become in fish?

quote:
anyone, whether Einstein or Bob the builder, can term them "gill slits".

But why do you think they were called that? What do these structures become in fish?

Think carefully.

From Life: The Science of Biology by Purves/Orians (my bio textbook from college):

Most of the chordates in teh sea, and all those on the land, are vertebrates. The remaining species—the invertebrate chordata—belong to two subphyla that are extremely dissimilar in outward appearance. They share certain similarities in their embryonic development and display, at some point in their life cycle, the three diagnostic characteristics of the phylum Chordata: (1) a dorsal, hollow nerve cord; (2) clefts in the wall of the thorat region, usually referred to as gill slits, which circulate water during feeding and respiration; and (3) a notochord, a unique, stiffening rod located along the back.

Same book:

Despite their strikingly different appearances, the invertebrate chordates all have a dorsal, hollow neverous cord, gill slits, and a notochord at some time during their life cycles. (a) Tunicates (subphylum Urochordata) resemble tadpoles as larvae, but the adults lose all the diagnostic chordate features except gill slits, which are highly developed into a large basket used to filter food from the water. The direction of water flow in a typical solitary tunicate is shown with arrows in this diagram. (b) The external form of a solitary tunicate is readily seen in this photograph of Molgula manhattenensis from Long Island Sound. (c) Lancets (subphylum Cephalochordata) are small, fishlike marine animals that also use their gill slits to filter small food particles from the water. When feeding they are mostly buried in sand with only the anterior ends of their bodies exposed. (d) The general body structure of a lancet is shown by this specimen; note the large gill basket and the stiff dorsal notochord that extends from the front end of the head (hence the name, Cephalochordata) to the tail.

So it seems that these same structures, these "gill slits" that you seem to have a problem with, become yet another structure in other animals.

Same book:

In the Devonian Period, generally referred to as the Age of Fishes (but recall that fishes are still the most numerous and species-rich of the vertebrates), an immense variety of new kinds of fishes evolved in the seas and fresh waters in company with the agnaths. Among the first to appear were the archaic placoderms (class Placodermi; see Figure 6 in Chapter 41). Their jaws were derived from some of the cartilaginous or bony hyoid arches that support the gill region (Figure 36.)

Are you saying there is no such structure as these gill slits and arches?

quote:
Does this mean that if something in an embryo of a none-human looks like a penis, I should call those "rudimentary penis", even if it becomes an arm or something?

Huh? Do you seriously not understand what the gill slits and arches become in fish? Do you truly not understand that these structures are present in ALL chordates?

quote:
So now it isn't what i claimed - pictures in a book, but infact the goal posts have spread out to become, "titles and the complete context surrounding the references"?

Incorrect. It has always been full and complete context. You seem to have forgotten, mike, that this is the internet and words stick around. We can easily look up what was said. Here it is, from Message 374

Prove it. What are the titles of these "modern biological textbooks"? And beyond that, what exactly is the accompanying text that is printed with the pictures should there be such a textbook that includes them?

Now, what exactly did you think I meant when I said, "accompanying text that is printed with the pictures," if not "context"?

quote:
I was bang on accurate the first time.

Incorrect. In the example that I gave of an educational source using the picture, there is no mention of "biogenetic law," "ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny," or any other such nonsense. Instead, it simply showed that embryos of vertebrates are very similar early on and then diversify.

Are you saying that isn't true?

quote:
Haeckel's pictures are indeed used in biology books.

But "what exactly is the accompanying text that is printed with the pictures"?

Surely you're not saying that vertebrate embryos don't look alike early on?

quote:
A "sorry mikey" would have been more mature of you.

But that would require me to lie. Why do you want me to lie?

Question: Why was it I was able to find what you were trying to justify? Why do I have to do your homework for you?

quote:
Do you think there is a biogenetic law? I don't.

Neither do I. What makes you think there is any textbook anywhere that advocates such? In the source that I quoted to you, where is the claim of "ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny"?

See, this is why I asked you to provide "the accompanying text that is printed with the pictures." Your complaint is exactly as predicted: If the word "Haeckel" appears in the text, then it's immediately to be discarded.

Are you saying that vertebrate embryos are not similar early on?

quote:
You have to prove that certain rudimentary shapes are all logically "gill" arches.

(*blink!*)

You did not just say that, did you?

No, the shock isn't the demand that I have to justify my claim. It's that you think it hasn't been done. It's that you haven't done any research at all into the question. You haven't opened a single book on biology to look up embryological development to actually see the gill slits and arches and see how they develop in different chordates into different things.

What do you think the gill slits and arches become in fish?

Or are you saying that these structures don't exist?

quote:
This means an assumption that anything that looks like a gill is infact not a branchial arch, but a gill.

(*blink!*)

You did not just say that, did you?

You seriously believe this? You seriously think that biologists the world over have all made a catastrophic failure in basic anatomical identification and that these structures that can be dissected at every stage along embryological development and shown how they develop into certain structures in fish, other structures in terrestrial vertebrates, and still others in invertebrates don't actually exist?


Click to enlarge

That's not actually a real structure?

quote:
If it was a gill at the beginning

But it's not a gill at the beginning. Just as the gonads are undifferentiated in the human embryo and don't become ovaries or testes until about the 53rd day of gestation, the gill slits and arches don't become gills until later on during gestation.


Click to enlarge

What do you think those structures become in fish?

Or are you saying those structures don't exist?


Click to enlarge

quote:
That mammals have branchial arches that develop into different structures

Hold it right there.

What do you think those structures become in fish?

quote:
t they were never gills anyway.

Indeed.

But what do they eventually become in fish? After all, at fertilization you're just a single cell. You have no bones, no skin, no blood.

What does that single cell eventually become?


Click to enlarge


Click to enlarge


Click to enlarge


Click to enlarge

Brainstem:
1. There are six groups of cell columns, one is added to the alar and one to the basal
plates.
2. Alar = GSA, SVA, GVA
3. Basal = GVE, SVE, GSE
4. SV = special visceral - these are cells that receive information from or innervate
striated muscle formed from gill arches. Ex: larynx, pharynx, muscles for vocalization,
uvula, and palate
5. The alar plate grows extensively laterally, and most proliferation comes from the alar
plate, sensory.

-- http://www1.indstate.edu/thcme/anderson/neurotext/dev1lec.html

This is what you're trying to argue against, mike. That all of these people have all made a horrendous mistake in watching these structures turn into gills in fishes but cartilage structures and the jaw in humans.

quote:
What do you expect me to do - go off of the fraudulent drawings?

Hold it right there.

What was fraudulent about them?

Be specific. What, precisely, was the problem with Haeckel's drawings?

Are you saying that vertebrate embryos don't like alike early on?

quote:
Perhaps back up the claim that these arches start out looking exactly the same in all mammals.

You do realize that this demand of yours is equivalent to demanding that I "back up the claim that the sky is blue," yes? Indeed, we do not take for granted that the sky is blue, but it is such a trivial thing to do that for you to hold your breath and throw a temper tantrum over it simply shows that you actively refuse to learn anything.

Did you bother to look anything up? During this discussion, have you tried doing any research? Did you look at a biology textbook? Have you researched anything regarding comparative embryology in general or gill slits and arches in particular?

I'm happy to back it up, but I get the feeling that you won't accept any of it. Not even if grabbed you by the scruff of the neck and shoved your face into a microscope to look at it.

quote:
If you reduce complexity, they will all look exactly the same at their rudimentary beginnings

No, not completely. There are differences between them. As mentioned above, mammals get the extraembryonic membranes. Fish, not being mammals, won't get them. But since fish and mammals are both chordates and since one of the defining characteristics of a chordate is the presence of gill slits at some point during development, then perhaps we might want to mention that fact when discussing biology.

quote:
therefore logically, that we all start out as sperm and egg could also indicate evolution.

Indeed. And ya wanna know why?

Because we don't all start out as sperm and egg. There are at least two other methods of reproduction out there that I can think of off the top of my head.

Your homework is to do some research and find out the various methods of reproduction that exist in the biological landscape.

quote:
Not very powerful reasoning to me!!

Considering how little knowledge you have demonstrated here concerning evolution in general and biology in particular, considering how little homework you do, considering how infrequently you bother ever trying to find out something on your own by visiting a library and doing some research, are you really surprised that you don't find it powerful?

Because it is.

quote:
At the beginning, in embryos, there are similarities. This is because if you reduce a 3D letter "t" and a 3D letter "l", as they get lesser and lesser, they will start to look alike. If we only have a line left for both, they will look exactly the same.

Are you seriously claiming that the world community of biologists have made a horrible mistake regarding basic anatomy? That the structures in mammals and fish don't arise from the very same embryonic tissue?

quote:
It's called a reduction of the make-up in regards to the same matter.

No, it's called complete ignorance on your part regarding embryology.

What books have you read on the subject? Have you done any research into this at all of any kind?


Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 452 by mike the wiz, posted 09-10-2009 7:47 AM mike the wiz has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 488 by mike the wiz, posted 09-12-2009 1:21 PM Rrhain has responded
 Message 489 by mike the wiz, posted 09-12-2009 1:32 PM Rrhain has responded
 Message 490 by mike the wiz, posted 09-12-2009 1:48 PM Rrhain has responded

    
Rrhain
Member (Idle past 161 days)
Posts: 6349
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 487 of 687 (523704)
09-12-2009 3:06 AM
Reply to: Message 453 by ICANT
09-10-2009 7:52 AM


ICANT writes:

quote:
Is there 1 living creature on planet earth today that was not produced by a life form?

Huh? Did life only get started today? Are you seriously claiming that the biochemical landscape of today has been precisely consistent for all time?

Question: Are you saying there has always been life somewhere in the universe or do you think that there was a time when there was no life followed by a time when there was life?

If the former, then you are advocating panspermia. Are you?

If the latter, then you necessarily proclaim that life comes from non-life.

You just don't know how.

Which is it, ICANT? Panspermia or biogenesis?

[Note, that is not a typo.]


Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 453 by ICANT, posted 09-10-2009 7:52 AM ICANT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 492 by mike the wiz, posted 09-12-2009 2:05 PM Rrhain has responded
 Message 496 by ICANT, posted 09-14-2009 10:59 AM Rrhain has responded

    
Rrhain
Member (Idle past 161 days)
Posts: 6349
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 540 of 687 (524698)
09-18-2009 6:58 AM
Reply to: Message 489 by mike the wiz
09-12-2009 1:32 PM


mike the wiz responds to me:

quote:
I have looked at the photographs and the embryo of a dog and a human was very different to the drawings you show.

I also gave you a photograph. Are you saying it was faked, too?

quote:
I believe the brancial arches do exist, but these rudimentary forms didn't always look the same exactly, in the photographs I saw in the seminar.

Huh? What does "look the same exactly" have to do with anything? And on top of that, how on earth would you know? You still haven't responded to the main point:

One of the three distinguishing features of all chordates is the presence of gill slits during embryogenesis.

Do you deny this?

quote:
It's not that I deny the existence, it's that they are not gill slits.

Apparently, you do. So we're back to the result you claimed you weren't saying: Biologists the world over have all made a catastrophic failure in basic anatomical identification and that these structures that can be dissected at every stage along embryological development and shown how they develop into certain structures in fish, other structures in terrestrial vertebrates, and still others in invertebrates don't actually exist.

Again, one of the three identifying characteristics of ALL chordates is the presence of gill slits during embryogenesis.

Do you deny this?

quote:
I blob that looks like a penis and becomes an arm, isn't a penis-blob even if you name it that.

Huh? As I have asked you repeatedly:

What do these structures become in fish?

There's a reason I am asking you this. It would be nice if you would respond. There is a follow-up question that will follow, but it won't make any sense until you answer the first question:

What do these structures become in fish?

quote:
My only point is that these aren't "gills" in humans, at any stage.

Indeed.

That's why they're called "gill slits," not "gills." Different terms, different meanings. You need to get past the long-discredited claim of "ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny." We've known that wasn't true for decades. At no point is a human embryo a fish and nobody is taught that.

Instead, they are taught the truth: Humans are chordates and as such, they have gill slits as embryos.

Do you deny that one of the three defining characteristics of all chordates is the presence of gill slits during embryogenesis?

quote:
That these might become gills in fish is logically irrelevant because we wouldn't call these "human lung arches", would we?

No, because they don't become lungs in humans. They don't even become related to lungs in humans. Now, please answer the question:

What do these structures become in fish?

quote:
If these rudimentary arches are 100% accurately the same as one stage, as human branchial arches, then prove this

I have. They are one of the three defining characteristics of all chordates: Gill slits as embryos.

You seem to be upset that instead of "trisomy-21," someone used the term "Down's Syndrome," as if those two don't mean the same thing.

quote:
otherwise I am not obliged to believe that these rudimentary shapes are the "same" things in fish, human, dog.

So we're back to the result you claimed you weren't saying: Biologists the world over have all made a catastrophic failure in basic anatomical identification and that these structures that can be dissected at every stage along embryological development and shown how they develop into certain structures in fish, other structures in terrestrial vertebrates, and still others in invertebrates don't actually exist.

Do all chordates have gill slits as embryos?

quote:
Actual photographs are what is needed

And you were given them. And yet you're still complaining. Ergo, the problem isn't the biology but rather your inability to accept your own ignorance.

quote:
I do not trust you in the least.

Nor should you. That's why I provided you with references. Do you deny them? If so, what is the basis by which you deny them? Did you look them up? Did you read them? Did you do any actual research of any kind regarding this topic or are you simply automatically gainsaying everything you hear?

Why is it that in this entire discussion, I have been the only one providing external sources?

quote:
If you can show a fish, a dog and a human photograph of embryos at the same stage of development, then i will change my mind.

I did. Have you forgotten already?

This isn't about the biology. There is no evidence that will change your mind. What you demanded was provided specifically and directly to you and still you are insisting that biologists are incapable of performing simple anatomical identification. You know better. Never mind that you haven't shown any evidence to support your position. You'll conveniently ignore the very thing you demanded and hope we don't notice.

quote:
That is your homework, not mine,

Which is why I provided it.

Before you even asked for it.

Have you forgotten already?

quote:
because it is you who wanted to persue this in detail when it wasn't the topic.

Huh? You're the one who brought it up. Typical creationist response, though: Demand X, thinking that it cannot be shown. When X is shown, deny it, ignore it, insist it isn't Y, and then claim that it is off-topic, hoping nobody will notice that you were the one who demanded it in the first place.

quote:
If you are so confident they will be like the drawings, then show us. The likes of Gould disagree.

I showed you photographs.

And I quoted Gould. And Sagan.

Have you forgotten already?

quote:
I pointed out something sound when I said that if they never become gills at all, in anyway, in say, a human or a dog, then why should they be called gill slit?

We're getting to that. You need to answer the first question first, though:

What do these structures become in fish?

You seem to be upset that someone said "Down's Syndrome" instead of "trisomy 21" even though those mean the same thing.

quote:
Why should we believe that slightly similar rudimentary shapes prove something about gills where there are no actual gills, only rudimentary shapes?

Because comparative embryology shows us that the gill slits of chordate embryos become gills in aquatic life, jaws in vertebrates, and other throat structures in terrestrial life.

What do these structures become in fish?


Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 489 by mike the wiz, posted 09-12-2009 1:32 PM mike the wiz has not yet responded

    
Rrhain
Member (Idle past 161 days)
Posts: 6349
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 541 of 687 (524700)
09-18-2009 7:11 AM
Reply to: Message 490 by mike the wiz
09-12-2009 1:48 PM


mike the wiz responds to me:

quote:
It looks EXACTLY THE SAME.

Ahem. What do you think an "adaptation" is?

quote:
A human embryo looks NOTHING like the depiction.

Huh? Are you saying that the first stage in the drawing doesn't look like a fetus somewhere between 33 and 41 days? That the second drawing doesn't look like a fetus somewhere around 47 days? That the third one doesn't look like a fetus somewhere around 56 days?

You really don't see it?

quote:
I could not find a photograph of anything that looked like your drawing

I provided you one. IN THE VERY MESSAGE TO WHICH YOU RESPONDED. Have you forgotten it already? It showed Haeckel's drawing compared to a photograph of an actual fetus, showing how the two compared. Fish, salamander, turtle, chicken, rabbit, and human.

Have you forgotten it already?

quote:
with those protruding "gill slits" that don't exist.

I provided you one. IN THE VERY MESSAGE TO WHICH YOU RESPONDED. Have you forgotten it already? Human embryo pointing out the gill arches indicating which one will go to the maxillary, which one will go to the mandible, and which one will go to the hyoid.

Have you forgotten it already?

quote:
with those protruding "gill slits" that don't exist.

So we're back to the claim you insist you aren't making: Biologists the world over have all made a catastrophic failure in basic anatomical identification and that these structures that can be dissected at every stage along embryological development and shown how they develop into certain structures in fish, other structures in terrestrial vertebrates, and still others in invertebrates don't actually exist.


Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 490 by mike the wiz, posted 09-12-2009 1:48 PM mike the wiz has not yet responded

    
Rrhain
Member (Idle past 161 days)
Posts: 6349
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 542 of 687 (524702)
09-18-2009 7:33 AM
Reply to: Message 491 by mike the wiz
09-12-2009 1:56 PM


mike the wiz responds to me:

quote:
Can anyone notice the difference?

No. The first drawing looks like an embryo at either stage 15, 16, or 17. The second drawing looks like stage 19 or 20. The third drawing looks like stage 23.

You really don't see it?

quote:
In the drawing, we get a worm with gills, but in reality, we can not see these arches, as being anything meaningful.

So we're back to the claim you insist you aren't making: Biologists the world over have all made a catastrophic failure in basic anatomical identification and that these structures that can be dissected at every stage along embryological development and shown how they develop into certain structures in fish, other structures in terrestrial vertebrates, and still others in invertebrates don't actually exist.

Have you already forgotten about the photograph I gave you showing the human gill arches indicating which one becomes the maxillary, which one is the mandible, and which one is the hyoid?

quote:
Can we at any stage see any gills?

And since nobody has claimed "gills" for decades at the very least, one wonders why you're hyperventilating about it.

Seriously, do you not understand the difference between "gills" and "gill slits"? Between "gills" and "gill arches"?

A "gill slit" is not a gill. Neither is a "gill arch" a gill. In aquatic chordates, such structures will become gills and the supporting structures for them, but they are not gills.

The male testes are made from the same structures as the female ovaries. Before the 53rd day, there is an undifferentiated mass of gonadal tissue that, under appropriate hormonal wash, will turn into one kind of organ in a male and a very different kind of organ in a female.

This is different from the rest of the genitalia. Humans are hermaphroditic at first, having complete structures to form both Fallopian tubes/uterus as well as epididymis/vas deferens. The tissue by which the sperm is transferred from the testes to the urethra is not the same as the tissue by which the egg is transferred from the ovary to the uterus.

And yet, the tissue from which the testes are created is the exact same tissue from which the ovaries are created.

In all chordates, there are gill slits during embryogenesis. It is one of the three defining characteristics of all chordates (the other two being the notochord and a dorsal, hollow nerve cord.

Just as the same tissue becomes two very different final structures in males and females, the gill slits/arches which are present in every single chordate become very different final structures in invertebrates, aquatic vertebrates, and terrestrial vertebrates.

quote:
Think; If you had never seen a human before, could you guess, from looking at these pictures, what a human was going to become?

Precisely. That's the evidence for evolution: Closely related embryos appear very similar during early development with differentiation only happening later on. This is not trivial similarity such as the fact that life starts as a single cell. Instead, this is large-scale similarity where a single structure that appears early in development such as gills slits and arches (which are present in all chordates as one of the three defining characteristics of chordates) differentiates as the various species develop.

This is what evolution predicts: You start with a given structure and adapt it into a new structure. Living on land and breathing air, gills aren't very helpful. So instead of developing into gills, the gill slits and arches become throat structures such as the jaw and hyoid. It's why the same three bones in the reptilian jaw are the mammalian ear bones.

quote:
So then logically, how can such rudimentary "shapes" be called "gill slits" in the first place

What do these structures become in fish?

quote:
when you could not relate such primal blobs to anything significant untill they are substantially formed.

Huh? It seems were back to the claim you insist you aren't making: Biologists the world over have all made a catastrophic failure in basic anatomical identification and that these structures that can be dissected at every stage along embryological development and shown how they develop into certain structures in fish, other structures in terrestrial vertebrates, and still others in invertebrates don't actually exist.

Why is it we call it "gonadal tissue" when it is clearly neither a testis nor an ovary?


Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 491 by mike the wiz, posted 09-12-2009 1:56 PM mike the wiz has not yet responded

    
Rrhain
Member (Idle past 161 days)
Posts: 6349
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 543 of 687 (524710)
09-18-2009 7:48 AM
Reply to: Message 488 by mike the wiz
09-12-2009 1:21 PM


mike the wiz responds to me:

quote:
My claim is therefore that his drawings are in modern biological textbooks.

Which ones? And if you could, please provide the full context in which the drawings are presented, including the surrounding text.

Or admit you don't have any evidence of this.

quote:
To prove this I have to show this is so, as you assumed me a liar.

Incorrect. This is what I said:

Prove it. What are the titles of these "modern biological textbooks"? And beyond that, what exactly is the accompanying text that is printed with the pictures should there be such a textbook that includes them?

Where is the accusation of lying? I simply asked you to put your money where your mouth is.

And so far, you haven't been able to provide a single example of a modern biology textbook that uses Haeckel's drawings.

quote:
Here is a quote from a source; We have to assume both scientists are therefore also liars.

No, not liars. But the question hasn't been answered:

What is the complete context by which these drawings are presented? That does make a difference. After all, Haeckel was trying to say that during embryogenesis, a human embryo is an actual fish at one point.

That clearly isn't true. But if all we're pointing out is that embryogenesis of vertebrates follows a similar pattern that then differentiates as the process goes on, then while Haeckel's drawings aren't the best example out there, they aren't nearly as horrendous as you are pretending they are.

Yes, it would be nice if actual photographs were used or at least more accurate drawings (since plain photographs can fuzz the subtle structures whereas drawings can emphasize significant areas to look at), but that requires money to get someone to get the embryos, mount them, and take pictures. Public domain pictures get used and since part of the lesson is that this recognition of embryological similarity was noticed nearly two centuries ago, it's not completely out of bounds to show the evidence from way back when.

And in a perfect world, the context would then go on to point out how those drawings were manipulated, how the "biogenetic law" was hard to swallow from the very beginning and has been soundly discredited, but how the basic observations are still quite valuable and are part of the entire concept of comparative embryology and are extremely strong evidence of evolution.

quote:
My claim is true, Haeckel's fraudulent misleading drawings are in modern biology books

Which ones? And how do they use them? You still haven't been able to provide a single example.


Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 488 by mike the wiz, posted 09-12-2009 1:21 PM mike the wiz has not yet responded

    
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019