Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 81 (8905 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 04-19-2019 2:25 PM
28 online now:
AZPaul3, DrJones*, edge, kjsimons, PaulK, Tanypteryx (6 members, 22 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 849,832 Year: 4,869/19,786 Month: 991/873 Week: 347/376 Day: 24/116 Hour: 1/3


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev12345
6
7Next
Author Topic:   Haeckeling, trying to wrap it up....
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3004 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 76 of 93 (268634)
12-13-2005 1:56 AM


interesting quote by Richardson
In a 1997 interview in The Times of London, Dr. Richardson stated: "This is one of the worst cases of scientific fraud. It’s shocking to find that somebody one thought was a great scientist was deliberately misleading. It makes me angry. ... What he [Haeckel] did was to take a human embryo and copy it, pretending that the salamander and the pig and all the others looked the same at the same stage of development. They don’t. ... These are fakes."

http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=23532

One wonders about how long he could make statements like that, speaking the truth, before his colleagues start pressuring him to moderate those claims due to the beating the evos took from finally admitting the creationists were right all along.


Replies to this message:
 Message 78 by pink sasquatch, posted 12-13-2005 1:59 AM randman has responded

pink sasquatch
Member (Idle past 4127 days)
Posts: 1567
Joined: 06-10-2004


Message 77 of 93 (268635)
12-13-2005 1:58 AM
Reply to: Message 72 by randman
12-13-2005 1:44 AM


Re: quick history lesson
Nice. I point out that I told you about the date. You respond with this crap about who was and wasn't a creationist:

I thought you were referring to this thread, but now that I recall that, you acted just as unreasonable then, and failed to substantiate that Rutimeyer was an evolutionist, as you claimed.

Seems you need another history lesson, since I never made that claim, and it was you who failed to substantiate that Rutimeyer was a creationist:

randman writes:

Maybe you don't realize that since 1868, creationists have denounced Haeckel's drawings.

The 1868 denouncement was Rutimeyer. Here you claimed that the 1868 denouncement was by a creationist, and thus that Rutimeyer was a creationist.

Something you backed up with absolutely zero evidence.

You obviously went back and read a bit of the old thread to remind you of the Rutimeyer argument, but yet again you got your facts assbackwards.

I'm not trying to be petty in bringing this old stuff up, but twice you've told me I'm wrong and twice I've showed you that I was actually right, both about arguments you yourself made.

I really don't see how you are at all following the discussion, which is only strengthened by the fact that you repeatedly make the same comments and reuse refuted arguments and quotes; not to mention the fact that you continue to argue points even when people agree with you.

I see little point in continuing discussion if your behavior is going to continue, and I see little reason to expect your behavior to change.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by randman, posted 12-13-2005 1:44 AM randman has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 80 by randman, posted 12-13-2005 2:05 AM pink sasquatch has responded

pink sasquatch
Member (Idle past 4127 days)
Posts: 1567
Joined: 06-10-2004


Message 78 of 93 (268637)
12-13-2005 1:59 AM
Reply to: Message 76 by randman
12-13-2005 1:56 AM


Re: interesting quote by Richardson
One wonders about how long he could make statements like that, speaking the truth, before his colleagues start pressuring him to moderate those claim...

I think he's pretty damn safe, considering that the vast majority of evolution biologists agree with him 100%.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by randman, posted 12-13-2005 1:56 AM randman has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 82 by randman, posted 12-13-2005 2:06 AM pink sasquatch has responded

randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3004 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 79 of 93 (268638)
12-13-2005 2:02 AM


applying this to evolution
"Anatomically homologous parts in different related organisms appear to have quite different embryonic origins. This is almost impossible to reconcile with orthodox Darwinian or neo-Darwinian theory, and it is by no means evident at the time of writing how such problems may be overcome." —*D. Oldroyd, "Charles Darwin’s Theory of Evolution: A Review of Our Present Understanding, " Biology and Philosophy (1988), p. 154.

http://evolution-facts.org/Appendix/a22.htm

The idea that similar anatomical features arise differently in embryos of different species is fairl strong evidence against ToE, but first, will the folks on this thread answer the OP or not?


Replies to this message:
 Message 81 by pink sasquatch, posted 12-13-2005 2:06 AM randman has responded

randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3004 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 80 of 93 (268640)
12-13-2005 2:05 AM
Reply to: Message 77 by pink sasquatch
12-13-2005 1:58 AM


Re: quick history lesson
Something you backed up with absolutely zero evidence.

I offered evidence that most biologists of that time were not evolutionists, and thus some sort of creationists of one sort or another.

Besides, the first one to expose the fraud is not the issue. The relevant issue is how creationists kept refuting the fraud while evos kept using it, and still cling to vestiges of the Biogenetic Law in making claims like a fish-like stage for vertibrates. Haeckel's claims are so embedded into the psyche of evos that they still seem to be having a hard time extricating themselves from it.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by pink sasquatch, posted 12-13-2005 1:58 AM pink sasquatch has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 85 by pink sasquatch, posted 12-13-2005 2:12 AM randman has not yet responded

pink sasquatch
Member (Idle past 4127 days)
Posts: 1567
Joined: 06-10-2004


Message 81 of 93 (268641)
12-13-2005 2:06 AM
Reply to: Message 79 by randman
12-13-2005 2:02 AM


Re: applying this to evolution
Don't even try changing the direction of the thread with some silly quote. Obviously you haven't even begun to defend your opening post.

Can you really do no research beyond Richardson and Miller?

You still haven't provided any peer-reviewed articles based upon Haeckel's fraud... that might be a good place to start.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by randman, posted 12-13-2005 2:02 AM randman has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 84 by randman, posted 12-13-2005 2:09 AM pink sasquatch has responded

randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3004 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 82 of 93 (268642)
12-13-2005 2:06 AM
Reply to: Message 78 by pink sasquatch
12-13-2005 1:59 AM


Re: interesting quote by Richardson
You think so? You think the vast majority agree with the following:

"This is one of the worst cases of scientific fraud. It’s shocking to find that somebody one thought was a great scientist was deliberately misleading. It makes me angry. ... What he [Haeckel] did was to take a human embryo and copy it, pretending that the salamander and the pig and all the others looked the same at the same stage of development. They don’t. ... These are fakes."

I strongly suspect that by now he is backpedalling as fast he can. I wouldn't be surprised if he now claims the drawings are good teaching aides or some such.

This message has been edited by randman, 12-13-2005 02:07 AM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by pink sasquatch, posted 12-13-2005 1:59 AM pink sasquatch has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 88 by pink sasquatch, posted 12-13-2005 2:19 AM randman has responded

nwr
Member
Posts: 5585
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005


Message 83 of 93 (268644)
12-13-2005 2:08 AM
Reply to: Message 75 by randman
12-13-2005 1:51 AM


randman debunked
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.


That only shows that you are WRONG, randman. Evolution is being used to explain genetic control of embryonic development.

Embryonic development IS NOT being used as evidence for evolution.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by randman, posted 12-13-2005 1:51 AM randman has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 86 by randman, posted 12-13-2005 2:12 AM nwr has not yet responded

randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3004 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 84 of 93 (268645)
12-13-2005 2:09 AM
Reply to: Message 81 by pink sasquatch
12-13-2005 2:06 AM


Re: applying this to evolution
You still haven't provided any peer-reviewed articles based upon Haeckel's fraud... that might be a good place to start.

Your idiocy apparently knows no bounds. Just look at the study in the OP. It's peer-reviewed.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by pink sasquatch, posted 12-13-2005 2:06 AM pink sasquatch has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 87 by pink sasquatch, posted 12-13-2005 2:16 AM randman has responded

pink sasquatch
Member (Idle past 4127 days)
Posts: 1567
Joined: 06-10-2004


Message 85 of 93 (268646)
12-13-2005 2:12 AM
Reply to: Message 80 by randman
12-13-2005 2:05 AM


Re: quick history lesson
still cling to vestiges of the Biogenetic Law in making claims like a fish-like stage for vertibrates

Must everything be so simple, so black-and-white to you, that saying something is like something else means that they are the same thing? Or is it just the conspiracy freak in you that can't let go?

Early human embryos are often described by OB/GYN as being "bean-like" when they are helping their patients discern the embryo on a sonogram. Does that mean that the doctors are claiming that the embryo is actually a bean? Or are they just saying that it has characteristics of a bean?

Human embryos and fish embryos share many characteristics. Get over it. And no, I am NOT claiming that human embryos have gills. Don't even start.

When you have some evidence of a modern evolution biologist claiming that human embryos actually ARE fish, let me know.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by randman, posted 12-13-2005 2:05 AM randman has not yet responded

randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3004 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 86 of 93 (268647)
12-13-2005 2:12 AM
Reply to: Message 83 by nwr
12-13-2005 2:08 AM


Re: randman debunked
Embryonic development IS NOT being used as evidence for evolution.

This would be funny if it wasn't so sad. Frankly, I am not sure who can help you. The Orwellian statements you are making speak for themselves.

The authors specifically refer to embryonic evidence for evolution and include links for more data, and on these links detail more embryonic claims, and discuss how evolution and these claims work together. They most certainly are and do claim embryonic development as evidence for evolution.

Your near hysteria in refusing to accept that ought to give you pause.

This message has been edited by randman, 12-13-2005 02:17 AM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by nwr, posted 12-13-2005 2:08 AM nwr has not yet responded

pink sasquatch
Member (Idle past 4127 days)
Posts: 1567
Joined: 06-10-2004


Message 87 of 93 (268648)
12-13-2005 2:16 AM
Reply to: Message 84 by randman
12-13-2005 2:09 AM


Re: applying this to evolution
Your idiocy apparently knows no bounds. Just look at the study in the OP. It's peer-reviewed.

You really have no clue. Of course Richardson is peer-reviewed, and of course mentions Haeckel, because it is pointing out where Haeckel was wrong.

I'm asking for a peer-reviewed papers based upon Haeckel (accepting his fraud as correct), not refuting Haeckel. This is what you promised in the OP:

randman in the OP writes:

My point here is that Haeckel's diagrams were relied on by evos in their studies, research, textbooks and peer-reviewed work, at least until 1997.

So. Substantiate your claim. Reference one of these peer-reviewed works.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 84 by randman, posted 12-13-2005 2:09 AM randman has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 89 by randman, posted 12-13-2005 2:19 AM pink sasquatch has responded

pink sasquatch
Member (Idle past 4127 days)
Posts: 1567
Joined: 06-10-2004


Message 88 of 93 (268649)
12-13-2005 2:19 AM
Reply to: Message 82 by randman
12-13-2005 2:06 AM


Re: interesting quote by Richardson
You think so? You think the vast majority agree with the following:

Yes. Absolutely. Scientific fraud is abhorred in the scientific community - banishment is universally the result if fraud is found to have occurred. Even being suspected of fraud can often destroy one's scientific career forever.

Your conspiracy theory view of the scientific community simply doesn't hold true.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by randman, posted 12-13-2005 2:06 AM randman has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 90 by randman, posted 12-13-2005 2:21 AM pink sasquatch has responded

randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3004 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 89 of 93 (268650)
12-13-2005 2:19 AM
Reply to: Message 87 by pink sasquatch
12-13-2005 2:16 AM


Re: applying this to evolution
Of course Richardson is peer-reviewed, and of course mentions Haeckel, because it is pointing out where Haeckel was wrong.

Wow. Can I write this down? Are you sure you aren;t going to insist otherwise in a few minutes.

I'm asking for a peer-reviewed papers based upon Haeckel (accepting his fraud as correct), not refuting Haeckel.

Richardson references some papers in the quote in the OP. Look them up for yourself if you don't believe him.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 87 by pink sasquatch, posted 12-13-2005 2:16 AM pink sasquatch has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 91 by pink sasquatch, posted 12-13-2005 2:23 AM randman has not yet responded

randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3004 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 90 of 93 (268651)
12-13-2005 2:21 AM
Reply to: Message 88 by pink sasquatch
12-13-2005 2:19 AM


Re: interesting quote by Richardson
banishment is universally the result if fraud is found to have occurred. Even being suspected of fraud can often destroy one's scientific career forever.

Did it ruin Haeckel's career? He was exposed, right? As early as 1868 even.

Did it harm his career?

Let me ask you something. What would you think of an evolutionist today recommending the fraudulent drawings as teaching aides?

You think any credible evos do that still?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 88 by pink sasquatch, posted 12-13-2005 2:19 AM pink sasquatch has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 92 by pink sasquatch, posted 12-13-2005 2:26 AM randman has not yet responded

Prev12345
6
7Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019