|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,889 Year: 4,146/9,624 Month: 1,017/974 Week: 344/286 Day: 65/40 Hour: 1/5 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Haeckeling, trying to wrap it up.... | |||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6412 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 4.5 |
Responding to Message 147:
I opened another thread on this, which I think you ought to consider participating on so that you can get your facts straight instead of falsely accusing me of myth-making for merely pointing out verifiable facts.
Taking a minor incident and grossly exaggerating its importance does constitute myth making.
My impression was that Richardson was talking about embryology, and that the "significant influence" was there. The paper is quite explicit titled something like: "There is no highly conserved stage..." which is an embryonic claim given as evidence for evolution. What shall it profit a nation if it gain the whole world, yet lose its own soul. (paraphrasing Mark 8:36) |
|||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6412 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 4.5 |
Responding to Message 148:
And that is because you have no credible evidence, none whatsoever, against the theory of evolution. Wrong. You guys are the ones that present embryology and false claims of a phylotypic stage as evidence for evolution. Even if all claims about recapitulation are correct, they would constitute only minor circumstantial evidence in support of evolution. If such claims are all false, then the theory of evolution still stands. So what you are aguing is not evidence against ToE. You said "that present embryology and false claims ...". That's using the present tense. So where is this currently being presented as evidence for evolution? What shall it profit a nation if it gain the whole world, yet lose its own soul. (paraphrasing Mark 8:36)
|
|||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6412 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 4.5 |
This thread is about trying to get you guys to admit or deny a basic fact; that evos do use Haeckel's drawings and claims, at least to the late 90s.
Use them for what? If I were to use one of Haeckel's drawings as a avatar, would you claim that doing so refutes ToE? I thought they stopped the Salem witch trials a few hundred years ago. I'm wondering why you are reviving them.
Robinrohan has kindly pointed out that Mayr used the drawings in his 2001 book.
And what does this show? I haven't seen Mayr's book. If Mayr used them to misrepresent, then shame on Mayr (but that wouldn't refute ToE). If Mayr used them honestly, then shame on randman.
You think his statement is right or wrong?
Whose statement, robinrohan's or Richardson's? I don't have any reason to doubt either of them. I'm troubled by the way you are using this for an unwarranted witch hunt. What shall it profit a nation if it gain the whole world, yet lose its own soul. (paraphrasing Mark 8:36)
|
|||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6412 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 4.5 |
Richardson clearly states that evos relied on Haeckel's claims of a phylotypic stage without further citations, and states that evos publicized widely Haeckel's drawings to validate that concept well into the 1990s.
In my opinion, you are being dishonest. Here is a rewrite:
Richardson clearly states that embryologists relied on Haeckel's claims of a phylotypic stage without further citations, and states that embryologists publicized widely Haeckel's drawings to validate that concept well into the 1990s.
Sure, the embryologists are likely evos. But by writing that in terms of evos rather than embryologists, you seriously distort what is being said.
Why don't you read the quote and the link in the OP?
I have read it several times.
This is taken from a 1997 peer-review study by an evo. More dishonesty. You should have said
This is taken from a 1997 peer-review study by an embryologist.
It seems to me that you are taking an internal debate within embryology, and misrepresenting it as a evolutionists' conspiracy.
Do you agree with Richardson's statement or not?
I'm not an embryologist. I am in no position to judge. What you have is a peer reviewed article by embryologist Richardson criticising the peer reviewed work of several other embryologists. If I had to guess, then I would go with the majority. The Richardson paper is now out there. Over time, others will attempt to replicate his work. It will be either confirmed or refuted. In the meantime, the best advice is to go with the conventional wisdom within the discipline. Either way, this has to do with embryology, not with ToE.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6412 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 4.5 |
Just can't give an honest and straight answer, can you?
I gave you a completely honest answer, randman. Your problem is that you read everything through your own biases and misconceptions.
The reason I refer to evos is Haeckel's drawings were generally used as one of the main evidences for evolution. Since evos made that claim to back their theory, dating all the way back to Darwin until the 1990s, it is not inappropiate to refer to evos making that claim.
The reason you refer to evos, is that you are making a thoroughly dishonest attempt to insinuate guilt by association. Older evolution books wrote of recapitulation. Richardson is using "conserved embryonic stage". That sounds like a very unlikely expression to be used in a book on evolution. However, it is right in line with the kind of technical language that embryologists would use. I will say it again. You are taking an internal debate within embryology, and you are deliberately misrepresenting it as malfeasance by evolutionists. Shame on you, randman.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6412 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 4.5 |
quote:What is it that you don't understand about "diagrams of comparative embryology"? The Miller web page clearly states "In 1998 we rewrote page 283 of the 5th edition to better reflect the scientific evidence. Our books now contain accurate drawings of the embryos made from detailed photomicrographs." If this is all part of a bogus argument for evolution, one would expect Miller to remove that argument, rather than replace the drawings with more accurate ones. I don't have Miller's book, but it sure looks as if this is from a discussion of comparative embryology. What shall it profit a nation if it gain the whole world, yet lose its own soul. (paraphrasing Mark 8:36)
|
|||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6412 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 4.5 |
Do you agree with Richardson's comments in 1997 and this Brown biology professor that Haeckel's drawings were being used as the source material for evolutionist claims?
Richardson's comments and Miller's comments are about the use of the drawings in comparitive embryology. Why are you misrepresenting what they say, randman?
|
|||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6412 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 4.5 |
and comparitive biology has been used as evidence for evolution, which is why the drawings were in Levine's and just about every other textbook.
You say that they are in the books as evidence for evolution. If I have time, and if I remember, I might check some day. But without checking, I have no evidence of your assertion. As I already said in Message 7, evidence on embryo development could not provide more than minor circumstantial evidence in support of ToE. So with respect to evolution this is a silly issue. At worst, it is a tempest in a teapot. And maybe Miller is actually correct in saying that the diagrams are being used for comparitive embryology.
Why can't you admit that?
I happen to believe that honesty is important. I refuse to "admit" what I do not know to be true. Shame on you randman, for repeatedly pressuring me to "admit" what I do not know to be true.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6412 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 4.5 |
They clearly assert, just as Haeckel did, that vertibrates pass through "a fish stage."
No, they quite clearly DO NOT say that. They talk of "an early stage that resembles a fish embryo", of "fish-like" early stages, of stages that are "rather similar to those found in living fishes". But they never say "fish stage" in the material that you quote. Fish-like or similar to fish, is far weaker than "fish stage" would be. You are again misconstruing what is being said.
It's interesting though that they still essentially claim a fish stage, just as Haeckel to a degree, and use that as evidence for evolution.
No, it isn't interesting. It is FALSE. Firstly, they are saying "fish-like" and not claiming that there is a fish stage. Secondly, that's a web page on the genetic control of development. It is NOT being used as evidence for evolution. What shall it profit a nation if it gain the whole world, yet lose its own soul. (paraphrasing Mark 8:36)
|
|||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6412 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 4.5 |
Fish stage or fish-like stage, it's false either way.
All that says, is that you are using "fish-like" to mean something different from what Levine means.
You guys are just trying to dodge admitting the obvious.
Your argument has been thorougly debunked in this thread, randman. You are just too blind to see it.
It is NOT being used as evidence for evolution. Wrong again, btw. Note the reference to evolution as the explanation for the claimed, but not observed, fish-like stage.Embryonic development IS NOT being used as evidence for evolution.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024