Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 80 (8897 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 03-19-2019 12:38 PM
120 online now:
caffeine, CosmicChimp, edge, PaulK, ringo, Stile, Tangle (7 members, 113 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 848,457 Year: 3,494/19,786 Month: 489/1,087 Week: 79/212 Day: 9/31 Hour: 0/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
2
3Next
Author Topic:   Science, dogmas, and AiG Creation Museum statement of faith
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6349
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 16 of 39 (525347)
09-23-2009 3:48 AM
Reply to: Message 14 by ApostateAbe
09-22-2009 8:08 PM


ApostateAbe writes:

quote:
Sure, Lithodid-Man. Creationists often talk about Haeckel's embryo sketches, and they claim that the sketches are used in modern textbooks. The NCSE denies this claim (Icon 4: Haeckel's Embryos). Here is a paragraph from the NCSE page, and I put the relevant statement in bold.

You have missed the point: The NCSE reviewed the books that Wells was using to justify his claim and found that those books did not use Haeckel's drawings as Wells claims they did.

This goes back to the back-and-forth I had with mike the wiz regarding this very subject:

What is the complete context of any such comparative embryology image?

Haeckel developed his image to push forward his claim of "ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny." He wasn't simply saying that embryos look alike in early stages. That is obviously true by simple inspection and was established long before Haeckel came on the scene.

No, what Haeckel was trying to say is that during embryogenesis of "higher" animals, they go through a stage where they are actually the "lower" animal from which they evolved. That is, at some point during the development of a human fetus, it goes through a stage where it is an actual fish. Not merely looking like a fish embryo at a similar stage in development but an actual fish.

You seem to be sharing the same complaint mike the wiz had: That the mere existence of the picture is proof that the text is trying to advocate "ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny." Damn any explanatory copy that accompanies the picture...high school students are being lied to, right?

But what if that's not what the text is trying to do? Do you deny the science of embryology? Do you deny that close biological relatives have very similar embryological development paths with divergences that show up later in the process?

Yes, Haeckel enhanced his drawings. Yes, it would be much better if the textbook publishers would use photographs to show the very real truth that vertebrate embryos go through remarkably similar developmental processes early on and diverge later. But since this fact of embryological development was known nigh on 200 years ago, it is hardly surprising to find that a survey of evolutionary theory would mention this fact and present what was found then.

But to claim that the use of the drawing in and of itself is a sign of hoaxing is to "mangle the facts," as you put it. His drawing isn't that far off:


Click to enlarge


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.

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by ApostateAbe, posted 09-22-2009 8:08 PM ApostateAbe has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by ApostateAbe, posted 09-23-2009 11:11 PM Rrhain has responded

    
MrGrim
Junior Member (Idle past 3355 days)
Posts: 11
From: Jo'burg
Joined: 09-18-2009


Message 17 of 39 (525352)
09-23-2009 4:56 AM
Reply to: Message 13 by PaulK
09-22-2009 1:49 PM


What I deserve
Hi ya,

Yes indeed I don't deserve any benefit of any doubt. Why I didn't even ask for any benefit of any doubt.

I don't want your approval either.

What I DO deserve is to burn all eternity in hell, because I am that useless and un deserving.

Now that I reduced my worth and deservedness to zero, and since I am better at insulting me then you are, you have to resort to flattery and lies to annoy me from here on.

Sorry to disappoint you. Yes, I am a big disappointment as well... Have you ever seen something as pathetic a creature as I am.

Didn't think so.

"Next!"


This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by PaulK, posted 09-22-2009 1:49 PM PaulK has not yet responded

  
MrGrim
Junior Member (Idle past 3355 days)
Posts: 11
From: Jo'burg
Joined: 09-18-2009


Message 18 of 39 (525353)
09-23-2009 5:14 AM
Reply to: Message 15 by ApostateAbe
09-22-2009 8:27 PM


The Evangelical method...
Hi,

I understand people like you, because I was like you.

Understanding people serves little evangelical purpose. Understanding God the Father does.

People's motivations are of little matter. God's motives for damning them to hell does matter.

Avoiding debate is essential: There can not be any middle ground, compromise or meeting a person half way.


  • God is always right and you are usually wrong so you listen.
  • God knows everything and you are usually stupid so you ask a lot.

I'd say that science has no elevated place in my faith.

To avoid eternal damnation is more important than science and debate.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by ApostateAbe, posted 09-22-2009 8:27 PM ApostateAbe has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by greyseal, posted 09-23-2009 5:40 AM MrGrim has responded
 Message 20 by AdminModulous, posted 09-23-2009 7:42 AM MrGrim has responded
 Message 24 by ApostateAbe, posted 09-23-2009 11:14 PM MrGrim has not yet responded

  
greyseal
Member (Idle past 1935 days)
Posts: 464
Joined: 08-11-2009


Message 19 of 39 (525359)
09-23-2009 5:40 AM
Reply to: Message 18 by MrGrim
09-23-2009 5:14 AM


Re: The Evangelical method...
you are either a very strange sad little man, or a troll.

This is a debate website, if you want to avoid debate, why are you here?

You're not on topic, but you're a good example OF the topic - the method is I AM RITE AND U ARE WRONG BECOZ GOD SEZ SO SO SHUT IT AND DO WOT I SAYS WOT IS WOT GOD SEZ TO ME


This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by MrGrim, posted 09-23-2009 5:14 AM MrGrim has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by MrGrim, posted 09-23-2009 7:47 AM greyseal has not yet responded

    
AdminModulous
Administrator (Idle past 178 days)
Posts: 897
Joined: 03-02-2006


Message 20 of 39 (525376)
09-23-2009 7:42 AM
Reply to: Message 18 by MrGrim
09-23-2009 5:14 AM


Avoiding debate is essential

If this is your intention then you will find yourself getting suspended indefinitely. This is not a board dedicated to evangelising to the faithless. Please read the board rules, which you should already have done.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by MrGrim, posted 09-23-2009 5:14 AM MrGrim has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by MrGrim, posted 09-23-2009 7:51 AM AdminModulous has not yet responded

    
MrGrim
Junior Member (Idle past 3355 days)
Posts: 11
From: Jo'burg
Joined: 09-18-2009


Message 21 of 39 (525378)
09-23-2009 7:47 AM
Reply to: Message 19 by greyseal
09-23-2009 5:40 AM


Correct
Hi,

You are almost completely correct in your summary of me apart from maybe these:

1. I don't know what you mean by troll.

2. I should add that the thing WOT GOD SEZ TO ME happens to be written in ze bible (KJV 1611). I.e. not me making it up...

See it doesn't require more than 5 posts to understand my narrow view.

See ya

P.S. To prevent your eternal demise you need to ask Jesus Christ to save you.
Based on the sub-clause: He died taking your sins on Him.
You don't have to go to hell.

Go on. Try it. He happens to be real you know. Like now at this moment he knows what you are thinking.

Yes he is somewhat more real than a ton of bricks falling on your head...

Consider yourselves warned :)


This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by greyseal, posted 09-23-2009 5:40 AM greyseal has not yet responded

  
MrGrim
Junior Member (Idle past 3355 days)
Posts: 11
From: Jo'burg
Joined: 09-18-2009


Message 22 of 39 (525380)
09-23-2009 7:51 AM
Reply to: Message 20 by AdminModulous
09-23-2009 7:42 AM



Edited by Admin, : Fix smilies.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by AdminModulous, posted 09-23-2009 7:42 AM AdminModulous has not yet responded

  
ApostateAbe
Member (Idle past 2701 days)
Posts: 175
From: Klamath Falls, OR
Joined: 02-02-2005


Message 23 of 39 (525608)
09-23-2009 11:11 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by Rrhain
09-23-2009 3:48 AM


Rrhain, it is not about whether Haeckel was right, wrong, or something in between, and it isn't about the point that the NCSE was trying to make. The NCSE explicitly denied a claim from Wells that was very clear, and it turns out that the statement from Wells was completely true. Here is the statement from the NCSE again:

"Wells states that books use "Haeckel's drawings, or redrawn versions of them" (Wells 2000:255), but this is not true."

I have seen both Haeckel's original drawings and redrawn versions of them in several textbooks, given as evidence for the theory of evolution. And the Discovery Institute has shown scanned images, again proving that specific claim from Wells. Ergo, the NCSE was wrong, misleading the reader. That is all there is to it. If the NCSE meant something slightly different, then the NCSE should have said something slightly different.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by Rrhain, posted 09-23-2009 3:48 AM Rrhain has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by Rrhain, posted 09-24-2009 10:32 PM ApostateAbe has responded

  
ApostateAbe
Member (Idle past 2701 days)
Posts: 175
From: Klamath Falls, OR
Joined: 02-02-2005


Message 24 of 39 (525609)
09-23-2009 11:14 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by MrGrim
09-23-2009 5:14 AM


Re: The Evangelical method...
McGrim, I expect that you will be banned from this forum soon, so you can join me on the CARM forum. I post in the Atheist, Apologetics and and Evo boards of that forum.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by MrGrim, posted 09-23-2009 5:14 AM MrGrim has not yet responded

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6349
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 25 of 39 (525839)
09-24-2009 10:32 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by ApostateAbe
09-23-2009 11:11 PM


ApostateAbe responds to me:

quote:
it isn't about the point that the NCSE was trying to make.

Huh? Just what do you think was the point they were trying to make?

Wells made a claim about specific books. NCSE looked at those books and found that Wells' claim was false.

How is that not the point?

quote:
The NCSE explicitly denied a claim from Wells that was very clear, and it turns out that the statement from Wells was completely true.

You meant "completely false," right? That was a massive typo on your part, right? Wells' claim was completely false.

You did read the NCSE's report, right? You quoted it, so you must have read it, right? You didn't just copy it from a creationist web site as proof of "evil, lying scientists" but rather actually read it and used it as supporting evidence for an argument of your own creation, right?

For any textbook to show Haeckel's drawings themselves as unqualified statements of developmental anatomy or to advocate "recapitulation" in a Haeckelian sense would be inexcusable, but none of the textbooks reviewed by Wells appear to do so.

What part of "none" is escaping you?

It appears that you are having the very reaction I predicted: The mere existence of the photo in a book is sufficient cause to claim that scientists are lying to students.

You did read the NCSE report, yes?

Wells gleefully excoriates Futuyma for using Haeckel's drawings, but apparently in his fit of righteous indignation, he forgot to read the text, in which the drawings are discussed in a historical context stating why Haeckel is wrong and Futuyma has an entire chapter devoted to development and evolution.

You do understand what the word "wrong" means, yes? Wells is claiming that Futuyama is part of this, "evil, lying scientist" conspiracy simply because the book contains Haeckel's drawings...

...completely missing the fact that Futuyama includes them specifically to show the errors.

Is it your position that a science textbook cannot discuss previous errors made in analysis? That it is bad science to talk about the past and mistakes that were made in an attempt to show how more accurate models were developed?

quote:
I have seen both Haeckel's original drawings and redrawn versions of them in several textbooks, given as evidence for the theory of evolution.

Same demand to you as to mike the wiz:

Which ones? Titles and full quotes in complete context, please.

Otherwise, you're talking out of your ass.

Or is your position that the mere existence of the drawings is sufficient to claim "evil, lying scientist"?

quote:
And the Discovery Institute has shown scanned images, again proving that specific claim from Wells.

Again, which books? Full quotes in complete context, please.

Otherwise, they're talking out of their asses, too.

What? The DI would lie to people? Surely you jest! They're the epitome of objectivity and rationality!

(Hint: The default position is that if the DI says it, most likely the opposite is true.)

quote:
Ergo, the NCSE was wrong, misleading the reader.

That was another typo, right? You meant to say that Wells was wrong, misleading the reader, correct? That the NCSE showed that Wells actually claimed the exact opposite of reality, right?

quote:
That is all there is to it.

Indeed, that is all there is to it.

Wells said something that wasn't true.

The NCSE called him on it.

quote:
If the NCSE meant something slightly different, then the NCSE should have said something slightly different.

But they didn't mean to say something slightly different.

What part of "none" and "wrong" are you having trouble with?


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.

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by ApostateAbe, posted 09-23-2009 11:11 PM ApostateAbe has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by ApostateAbe, posted 09-24-2009 11:26 PM Rrhain has responded

    
ApostateAbe
Member (Idle past 2701 days)
Posts: 175
From: Klamath Falls, OR
Joined: 02-02-2005


Message 26 of 39 (525846)
09-24-2009 11:26 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by Rrhain
09-24-2009 10:32 PM


rhain, I provided a link to the page on Discovery Institute, and you are free to look at the titles and the images of the scanned pages, and you are free to verify the contents at your local college or university library. I will not provide for you the titles of the textbooks that I saw at the library, because it was years ago for me, and I did not save the data, nor will I go to another college library again, sorry. The data at the Discovery Institute website should serve the same purpose for you. I didn't investigate the examples given by Wells. It could very well be that his examples are faulty, though I doubt it, because there seems to be an abundance of published relevant textbooks that would prove his point. But that matters only a little bit. I tested only the specific claim made by the NCSE, in isolation, and I found it to be faulty.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by Rrhain, posted 09-24-2009 10:32 PM Rrhain has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by Rrhain, posted 09-25-2009 1:46 AM ApostateAbe has responded

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6349
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 27 of 39 (525862)
09-25-2009 1:46 AM
Reply to: Message 26 by ApostateAbe
09-24-2009 11:26 PM


ApostateAbe responds to me:

quote:
I provided a link to the page on Discovery Institute, and you are free to look at the titles and the images of the scanned pages, and you are free to verify the contents at your local college or university library.

But it appears that you didn't look at them, because they are not what you claim.

Here is Haeckel's drawing:


Click to enlarge

Here is what is in the first book from your link (Peter H Raven & George B Johnson, Biology (5th ed, McGraw Hill, 1999), pgs. 416, 1181):


Click to enlarge

This is not Haeckel's drawing. And here is the text that accompanies the drawing:

This hypothesis, proposed in the nineteenth century by Ernst Haeckel, is referred to as the "biogenic law." It is usually stated as an aphorism: ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny; that is, embryological development (ontogeny) involves the same progression of changes that have occurred during evolution (phylogeny). However, the biogenic law is not literally true when stated this way because embryonic stages are not reflections of adult ancestors. Instead, the embryonic stages of a particular vertebrate often reflect the embryonic stages of that vertebrate's ancestors. Thus, the pharyngel slits of a mammalian embryo are not like the gill slits its ancestors had when they were adults. Rather, they are like the pharyngeal slits its ancestors had when they were embryos.

Vertebrates seem to have evolved largely by the addition of new instructions to the developmental program. Development of a mammal thus proceeds through a series of stages, and the earlier stages are unchanged from those that occur in the development of more primitive vertebrates.

Thus, the claim that this textbook "uses Haeckel's drawings" or in any way promotes what Haeckel was trying to prove with his drawings is trivially shown to be false. The drawings are completely new and the accompanying text specifically denies Haeckel's claim.

Why is this problematic for you?

If we go through all of the textbooks, we find that the only one that actually uses Haeckel's drawing is the Futuyama text which, as we have previously seen, was used to specifically point out the erroneous conclusions of Haeckel.

In short, your description is outrageously false and trivially shown to be so.

Did you actually look at the drawings and compare them to Haeckel's? Or did you just assume the validity of what the Discovery Institute said?

It appears that your assumption is that comparative embryology is part of the "evil, lying scientist" conspiracy.

Direct question for you. I really want to know your answer to this:

Is comparative embryology an actual science?

Your own description of your personal experience is not borne out by any facts. You claimed (Message 14):

The image was contained in my own high school biology textbook. It was the Miller & Levine "Elephant book." The authors caught flack for this, largely because of the creationists, so they corrected it, and they put a page online explaining the correction (millerandlevine.com).

But following your link, we find this actual description:

Page 223 of the Lion Book (BIOLOGY - The Living Science) and page 283 of the Elephant Book (BIOLOGY by Miller and Levine) each contain drawings of the early stages of embryonic development in several vertebrates. Although neither of these drawings are identical to his, they are based on the work of Ernst Haeckel (portrait at left), a 19th century German Biologist who was a pioneer in the study of embryonic development.

So no, they weren't Haeckel's drawings as you claimed, though they were based upon them. But you still haven't responded to the point: What was the lesson being taught? Was it "ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny"? Because that's what Haeckel was trying to say.

Or were you being taught the actual lesson we have learned from comparative embryology that embryogenesis follows a common original process that diversifies later in the process?

quote:
The data at the Discovery Institute website should serve the same purpose for you.

But they don't show what you claim they did. In fact, they show the exact opposite. They show precisely what the NCSE claims they do:

1a) Haeckel's drawings are not used except in one book.
1b) In that one book, they are used to point out the flaws in Haeckel's claim.
2) Comparative embryology shows that embryogenesis for closely-related species follows a common process that later diversifies.

Or are you saying that comparative embryology is a fraud? I really want to know your answer to that.

quote:
I didn't investigate the examples given by Wells.

Then how do you know that the NCSE's description of Wells' claims are flawed? The DI's list is completely fraudulent. What makes you think Wells fared any better?

quote:
It could very well be that his examples are faulty, though I doubt it, because there seems to be an abundance of published relevant textbooks that would prove his point.

Except you haven't shown a single one. Every single example you have given shows the exact opposite. None of them use Haeckel except for one to use a specific example of an error.

Is comparative embryology a fraud?

quote:
I tested only the specific claim made by the NCSE, in isolation, and I found it to be faulty.

Um, how the hell did you manage to do that when you admit that you didn't investigate the examples from Wells? NCSE's study was of Wells' examples. So how did you find their results to be faulty when you didn't examine Wells' examples?

Methinks I've discovered a quote miner. The DI link you provided was an article by Luskin describing the Wells' results. If you had read it, you would have known that the examples provided are the texts Wells claims use Haeckel's drawings.

But simple inspection shows that they're not using Haeckel's drawings except for a single book which only does so to prove Haeckel wrong.

So it would appear that you didn't actually read your own source. You simply went mining for information, thought you had something, and blindly attached it without considering it.

So it would seem that the NCSE was correct, as you quoted:

No textbook discusses embryology in any way that could be considered strongly "recapitulationist."

Once again, the direct question:

Is comparative embryology a fraud?


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.

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by ApostateAbe, posted 09-24-2009 11:26 PM ApostateAbe has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by ApostateAbe, posted 09-25-2009 2:55 AM Rrhain has responded

    
ApostateAbe
Member (Idle past 2701 days)
Posts: 175
From: Klamath Falls, OR
Joined: 02-02-2005


Message 28 of 39 (525863)
09-25-2009 2:55 AM
Reply to: Message 27 by Rrhain
09-25-2009 1:46 AM


Rhain, you ask, "Is comparative embryology a fraud?" And I answer, "Absolutely not." It is actually conclusive evidence for common descent, and this is what I have believed for years. I haven't met anyone who talked to me the way you are talking to me right now ever since I was 16, which was ten years ago, debating this stuff the whole time (I switched sides when I was 18). You seem to be taking me for someone I am not. To prove myself, here is a thread I posted on the forum four years ago:

Smoking-Gun Evidence of Man-Monkey Kindred: Episode II... Tails

The first image down is me using comparative embryology to prove evolution. I have since updated the same argument, and I recently posted a new thread:

How creationism explains babies with tails

The second image is an MRI of an embryo with a tail, to prove my point about common ancestry with tailed organisms.

Haeckel's theory is wrong, but the laws of von Baer concerning embryos and common descent are very well accepted among the relevant scientists, and for good reason.

Your point about that page from the textbook not containing Haeckel's sketches is resolved by these two points:

1) The statement of Wells via NCSE is: "Wells states that books use 'Haeckel's drawings, or redrawn versions of them' (Wells 2000:255), but this is not true." The bolded portion is relevant in that the page from the textbook you cited has embryos that are redrawn versions of Haeckel's sketches, as are seemingly most of the modern textbooks guilty of the error. I am sorry I did not make this point clear.

2) The caption of the image is the text that explains the purpose of the image, not the main text. The caption reads:

FIGURE 60.18
Embryonic development of vertebrates. Notice that the early embryonic stages of these vertebrates bear a striking resemblance to each other, even though the individuals are from different classes (fish, amphibians, reptiles, birds, and mammals). All vertebrates start out with an enlarged head regian, gill slits, and a tail regardless of whether these characters are retained in the adults.

This information may or may not be perfectly true (it actually isn't, but more on that later), but the main error is that it is an explanatory caption for an image that does not factually represent the principle described. The image is inaccurate for the accompanying explanation. The main text that you quoted does not cite Figure 60.18, and a normal reader would not be aware that the image is connected with Haeckel, nor would he or she be aware that the image is inaccurate.

If you think maybe the images are not close enough to Haeckel's drawings to claim derivation (I agree they are different in at least a minor respect), or if you think maybe the selected images of progression are scientifically accurate, then I invite you to read this page from this textbook, Developmental Biology, and view the images of the true embryos. Changes in morphology can take place at any time in an organism's development, and the images in the Raven & Johnson book are radically different from the true embryos.

I am not who you think I am, but my own person should have never been an issue, regardless of any doubt or belief about my intentions or what I believe. I suggest that you focus on the arguments themselves, not on the person delivering them. I never made your beliefs or your motives or your intentions an issue in this, and I personally think it would benefit you to treat your opponents with respect, as though they are on your side, including and especially the true creationists.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by Rrhain, posted 09-25-2009 1:46 AM Rrhain has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by Rrhain, posted 09-25-2009 3:56 AM ApostateAbe has responded

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6349
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 29 of 39 (525868)
09-25-2009 3:56 AM
Reply to: Message 28 by ApostateAbe
09-25-2009 2:55 AM


ApostateAbe responds to me:

quote:
No textbook discusses embryology in any way that could be considered strongly "recapitulationist."

Then why are you complaining about textbooks that discuss comparative embryology using pictures of embryos? None of the texts mentioned used Haeckel's drawings except for one and that one only did it to point out where Haeckel went wrong. All the rest of them do not advocate Haeckel's "biogenetic law" but rather discuss results of modern embryology.

So you need to explain why you described this as a failure on the NCSE's part and not a failure on Wells'. You said (Message 1):

I have seen the NCSE mangle the facts in favor of their conclusions.

But where? Where is this mangling of facts? Your own source of these texts shows precisely what the NCSE stated:

For any textbook to show Haeckel's drawings themselves as unqualified statements of developmental anatomy or to advocate "recapitulation" in a Haeckelian sense would be inexcusable, but none of the textbooks reviewed by Wells appear to do so.

Explain yourself. Where is this "mangling of facts" you asserted?

quote:
The bolded portion is relevant in that the page from the textbook you cited has embryos that are redrawn versions of Haeckel's sketches

Except they're not. You seem to be saying that any drawing of an embryo is a "redrawn version of Haeckel's sketches." Is it possible to draw an embryo as a visual aid for the discussion of embryology without it being declared a "redrawn version of Haeckel's sketches"?

Here is a comparison of Haeckel's drawing and then what all the other texts use:


Click to enlarge

None of them are "redrawn."

Again, is it possible to draw a picture of embryos as a visual aid to a discussion of comparative embryology without it being a "redrawn version of Haeckel's sketches"?

quote:
The caption of the image is the text that explains the purpose of the image, not the main text.

(*blink!*)

You did not just say that, did you? The main text has no bearing on the point of including the picture? Are you truly serious?

quote:
This information may or may not be perfectly true (it actually isn't, but more on that later),

Incorrect. The information presented is exactly true. You're not about to have a hissy fit over the use of the phrase "gill slit," are you? That's what those structures have been called for quite some time. More recently, some biologists have started calling them "pharyngeal slits," but whether we call them "gill slits," "pharyngeal slits," or "William Shakespeare" is irrelevant. All vertebrates have them as embryos. They are one of the three defining characteristics of all chordates.

quote:
but the main error is that it is an explanatory caption for an image that does not factually represent the principle described.

(*blink!*)

You did not just say that, did you? The explanatory caption is absolutely correct. Where is your evidence that it isn't?

Be specific.

quote:
a normal reader would not be aware that the image is connected with Haeckel

That's because it isn't!

Again, is it possible to draw a picture of embryos as a visual aid to a discussion of comparative embryology without it being a "redrawn version of Haeckel's sketches"?

quote:
Changes in morphology can take place at any time in an organism's development,

Has anybody said otherwise? As Von Baer mentioned (and he was 30 years before Origin of Species, mammals develop the extraembryonic membranes (which only mammals have) early.

Are you saying that the statement from Raven and Johnson

Vertebrates seem to have evolved largely by the addition of new instructions to the developmental program. Development of a mammal thus proceeds through a series of stages, and the earlier stages are unchanged from those that occur in the development of more primitive vertebrates.

Is false?

quote:
and the images in the Raven & Johnson book are radically different from the true embryos.

Oh? How? Be specific. Again, here is a direct comparison of actual Haeckel drawings to micrographs of actual embryos:


Click to enlarge

Now, Haeckel got it wrong, but please do tell how this:


Click to enlarge

Is "radically different."

Be specific.

quote:
or if you think maybe the selected images of progression are scientifically accurate, then I invite you to read this page from this textbook, Developmental Biology

Did you bother to read your own source?

Certainly, the early embryos of certain vertebrate classes are very similar (for instance, the chick and mouse twenty-somite embryos), and the processes of somitogenesis, limb formation, axis generation, etc. are probably conserved throughout the vertebrate groups).

Your source seems to be complaining about something that isn't actually advocated. Specifically, it said:

Until this new paper appeared, it was assumed that Haeckel was correct and that there was a particular stage of development that was identical in all vertebrates.

But as mentioned previously, even Von Baer knew this wasn't true. Your source goes on:

The 1990s has seen a remarkable celebration of the similarity of molecular processes throughout the animal kingdom. Homologous genes abound (the Hox genes, fringe, tinman, and Pax6 being seen to specify the anterior-posterior axis, the limb, the heart, and the eye, respectively, of organisms as diverse as insects and flies). Even signalling pathways are seen as being homologous both within a developing organism and between organisms. Thus, the neural tube in vertebrates and insects are seen as being formed through the same interactions of the "same" proteins, even though one neural tube is dorsal and the other ventral.

So yes, it's warnings that "differences are also important" are quite true, but where is there anybody not aware of those differences? And how does that change the underlying accuracy of embryogenesis?

quote:
I am not who you think I am

And what do I think you are? When you read my mind, do my thoughts just pop into your head or do you have to concentrate to drown out all the other voices?

quote:
but my own person should have never been an issue

Huh? Your own sources contradict you and it is somehow not kosher to point that out? It is beyond the pale to wonder if you actually bothered to look at the very data you were presenting but rather started with your conclusion, did a quote mine to find something to justify it, and didn't bother to check it out.

Prove me wrong. What are the specific problems? Where is this "mangling of facts" that you claim exists?


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.

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by ApostateAbe, posted 09-25-2009 2:55 AM ApostateAbe has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by ApostateAbe, posted 09-25-2009 11:40 AM Rrhain has responded

    
ApostateAbe
Member (Idle past 2701 days)
Posts: 175
From: Klamath Falls, OR
Joined: 02-02-2005


Message 30 of 39 (525981)
09-25-2009 11:40 AM
Reply to: Message 29 by Rrhain
09-25-2009 3:56 AM


Rhain, yes, the caption of the image is the text that explains the purpose of the image, not necessarily the main text. The main text has bearing if the image is cited, as in "...Haeckel proposed that the morphology of early embryos from many phyla appear similar (Figure 60.18), but this hypothesis was shown to be inaccurate." But Figure 60.18 was not cited. I have read plenty of textbooks, and I have taken a course on technical writing. To me, it is just common knowledge, and you are talking to me like I am the one who just said something foul? I am not sure how to go about proving this point to you, except maybe to have you ask your college's tech writing instructor. Print out the page and have him or her interpret it.

You asked, "but please do tell how this:... Is 'radically different.' Be specific."

Sure, Rhain, but I would prefer to use the image from Developmental Biology, not an image from a creationist, though both may work.

1) Fish. Raven & Johnson's fish embryo has a head that is considerably wider than the torso. The actual embryo head is continuous with the torso, much like an adult fish, and it has a spherical bulge protruding from its midsection.
2) Salamander. The Raven & Johnson's amphibian does not have a serious bulge sticking out of its entire length, but the actual "Amphibian" embryo does.
3) Chicken. The actual embryo has visible limbs, is tightly curled, has a non-pointy tail, has incongruous features about the neck and shoulders, and has a spheroid on its tail. The Raven & Johnson chicken embryo has none of these things.

The degrees of such differences may be largely subjective, and I know that you said that "His drawing isn't that far off," and you posted an image illustrating largely the same actual embryos, but my opinion is different, and the relevant expert opinion seems to be that the early embryos really are radically different from each other. From the Developmental Biology page:

quote:
But Haeckel's drawings are wrong. Photographing actual embryos at these stages, Richardson and colleagues show that Haeckel's drawings are oversimplified to the point of obscuring important differences between classes of vertebrates. The Richardson et al. paper does not dispute that there is a highly conserved embryonic stage among the vertebrate classes. Indeed, at the late tailbud stage, vertebrate embryos of most all classes possess "somites, neural tube, optic anlagen, notochord, and pharyngeal pouches." However, these authors do criticise the notion that this stage is nearly identical in all species and that differences between the classes can be resolved only after subsequent development. Rather, they discover significant differences between groups. Size is one distinctive marker. The scorpion fish embryo is 700 microns long at the tailbud stage, while the mudpuppy salamander measures some 9 millimeters. Heterochrony is another problem. In some species of direct developing frogs, and in monotreme mammals, limb buds are already present at the tailbud stage, whereas in other species, these are not seen until significantly later. Birds are characterized by their prominent mesencephalon. Whereas most amniote embryos have a heart by this stage, the zebrafish does not. (Teleosts such as zebrafish are even the exception to the rule mentioned above. They eventually possess a notochord, somites, pharyngeal pouches, etc., but they do not have the pharyngeal pouches until after the tailbud stage). Some of these differences are depicted in Figures 2 and 3.

It should not be expected that early embryos from diverse clades display strong commonalities, because that expectation does not follow from the laws of von Baer, nor does it follow from the evidence, at least not without imagination. But it does follow from the theory of Haeckel. Raven & Johnson discounted Haeckel in the main text, but their image and caption, in an attempt to prove common descent, implicitly accepted a faulty premise from Haeckel, and it considerably misled the reader about comparative embryology.

Rhain, it is getting more frustrating arguing with you on this, and I may soon quit. You have argued with creationists for too long, and you are projecting their habits onto me. Please don't do this.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by Rrhain, posted 09-25-2009 3:56 AM Rrhain has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by Rrhain, posted 09-27-2009 3:33 AM ApostateAbe has not yet responded
 Message 32 by mike the wiz, posted 09-28-2009 7:44 AM ApostateAbe has not yet responded

  
Prev1
2
3Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019