Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 85 (8925 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 08-20-2019 6:32 AM
22 online now:
(22 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: Jedothek
Post Volume:
Total: 860,059 Year: 15,095/19,786 Month: 1,818/3,058 Week: 192/404 Day: 6/73 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev123
4
5Next
Author Topic:   Icons of Evolution
gluadys
Member (Idle past 3190 days)
Posts: 57
From: Canada
Joined: 08-22-2008


Message 46 of 65 (481883)
09-13-2008 9:44 AM
Reply to: Message 43 by Beretta
09-13-2008 8:49 AM


Re: What Christians believe
I don't pick and choose what part of scripture to believe.

But just like you I do choose how to interpret the text. I just think that it is ridiculous to insist on literal interpretations that don't make sense and have no basis in reality.

I believe God created a real world, not the fantasy world of YECism.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by Beretta, posted 09-13-2008 8:49 AM Beretta has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 62 by Beretta, posted 09-17-2008 4:20 AM gluadys has responded

    
Coyote
Member (Idle past 333 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 47 of 65 (481886)
09-13-2008 9:58 AM
Reply to: Message 41 by Beretta
09-13-2008 8:33 AM


Proof in science
Evolutionary ‘science’ is based on hypothetical possibilities that are certainly not proven.

Please name one theory in science that is "proven."


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by Beretta, posted 09-13-2008 8:33 AM Beretta has not yet responded

  
kuresu
Member (Idle past 740 days)
Posts: 2544
From: boulder, colorado
Joined: 03-24-2006


Message 48 of 65 (481887)
09-13-2008 10:02 AM
Reply to: Message 41 by Beretta
09-13-2008 8:33 AM


Re: Haeckel's Embryos
Stephen Meyer is a crackpot. He's not a credible scientist in any regard. His Ph.D is in the history and philosphy of science, for crying out loud. Hhis one teaching spot was in philosophy, and he has never done any real research in geology, which he only has a B.S. in. His one "peer-reviewed" article was pulled because, surprise, it wasn't peer-reviewed. Your paraphrase of him is completely invalid because the guy knows squat about what he's talking about.

Jonathan Wells is no vertabrate embryologist. He failed to finish a B.S. in geology, got a Ph.D in religious education (in 1986), and in 1994 got a Ph.D in cell and molecular biology--not embryology. He had a grand total of 3 peer-reviewed articles (none of which on the outside are anti-evolution, but he has been fighting against evolution since he was a member of Moon's Unification Church. He is known for not only getting science wrong, but getting it very wrong. His famous contribution to ID--irreducible complexity, has been falsified numerous times.

I can't find info on Adam Sedgewick or William Ballard.

Some of the strongest evidence for Darwin’s theory (according to Darwin at the time) is that the vertebrate embryos are most similar in their early stages –except that they’re not

First off, Haeckel came up with the "recapitulation theory", which has been discredited since the early 1900s. Further, his "theory" is not in support of Darwin, but a different, falsified evolutionary theory called Lamarckianism.

As to the similarities, guess what:
from wiki:"The backbone, the common structure among all vertebrates such as fish, reptiles and mammals, appears as one of the earliest structures laid out in all vertebrate embryos"
further:"If a structure vanished in an evolutionary sequence, then one can often observe a corresponding structure appearing at one stage during embryonic development, only to disappear or become modified in a later stage. Examples include:

Whales, which have evolved from land mammals, don't have legs, but tiny remnant leg bones lie buried deep in their bodies. During embryonal development, leg extremities first occur, then recede. Similarly, whale embryos have hair at one stage (like all mammalian embryos), but lose most of it later.
The common ancestor of humans and monkeys had a tail, and human embryos also have a tail at one point; it later recedes to form the coccyx.
The swim bladder in fish presumably evolved from a sac connected to the gut, allowing the fish to gulp air. In most modern fish, this connection to the gut has disappeared. In the embryonal development of these fish, the swim bladder originates as an outpocketing of the gut, and is later disconnected from the gut."

Here's a hint Beratta. Look up the real science, not the false bullshit promulgated by the ID crowd. If you want to attack evolution, you need to do what Wells tried--actually study what it says, not what you think it says.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by Beretta, posted 09-13-2008 8:33 AM Beretta has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by Wounded King, posted 09-13-2008 5:24 PM kuresu has responded
 Message 55 by bluegenes, posted 09-13-2008 7:09 PM kuresu has responded
 Message 57 by Beretta, posted 09-14-2008 2:53 AM kuresu has responded

    
AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4754
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 49 of 65 (481890)
09-13-2008 11:38 AM


Haeckel Thread Please
To avoid cluttering this thread too much can we take some issues to other focused threads please?

For Haeckel: Haeckel in Biology Textbooks


  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 20039
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.0


Message 50 of 65 (481943)
09-13-2008 3:24 PM


Debunking Well's Icons
An excellent article that goes through each one of Well's "icons" and decontructing his argument with the light of facts and reality:

http://www.natcenscied.org/icons/index.htm

I suggest anyone arguing for Well's position read this.

In addition to the Haeckel thread that Admin Nosy mentions there is also a Peppered Moth thread

www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&f=5&t=640&m=1 -->www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&f=5&t=640&m=1">http://www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&f=5&t=640&m=1

Enjoy.


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


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

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by AdminNosy, posted 09-13-2008 4:51 PM RAZD has responded

  
AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4754
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 51 of 65 (481958)
09-13-2008 4:51 PM
Reply to: Message 50 by RAZD
09-13-2008 3:24 PM


Brining it home
You are supposed to bring such information here. We have the two "icons" covered in existing threads. Can you post summaries there from your site.

And pick the next one for a new thread? You'll do a better job than pretty well anyone.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by RAZD, posted 09-13-2008 3:24 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 54 by RAZD, posted 09-13-2008 6:17 PM AdminNosy has not yet responded

  
Wounded King
Member (Idle past 2322 days)
Posts: 4149
From: Edinburgh, Scotland
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 52 of 65 (481962)
09-13-2008 5:24 PM
Reply to: Message 48 by kuresu
09-13-2008 10:02 AM


Re: Haeckel's Embryos
Jonathan Wells is no vertabrate embryologist. He failed to finish a B.S. in geology, got a Ph.D in religious education (in 1986), and in 1994 got a Ph.D in cell and molecular biology--not embryology.

I'm not standing up for Wells here but there is no reason why someone with a Ph.D. in cell and molecular biology couldn't be a vertebrate embryologist. Modern developmental biology, effectively embryology, is principally a discipline of cell and molecular biology.

TTFN,

WK


This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by kuresu, posted 09-13-2008 10:02 AM kuresu has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 53 by kuresu, posted 09-13-2008 5:43 PM Wounded King has not yet responded

    
kuresu
Member (Idle past 740 days)
Posts: 2544
From: boulder, colorado
Joined: 03-24-2006


Message 53 of 65 (481966)
09-13-2008 5:43 PM
Reply to: Message 52 by Wounded King
09-13-2008 5:24 PM


Re: Haeckel's Embryos
Okay, you've got me there. However, two of his thre peer-reviewed articles appears to be, on second inspection, close to vertebrate embryology--"Confocal microscopy analysis of living Xenopus eggs and the mechanism of cortical rotation". Development 122 (4): 1281–9; "Microtubule-mediated transport of organelles and localization of beta-catenin to the future dorsal side of Xenopus eggs". Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 94 (4): 1224–9. (from wiki).
He appears as one of five authors in both articles. Does that even come close to making him an authority on vertabrate embryology?
This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by Wounded King, posted 09-13-2008 5:24 PM Wounded King has not yet responded

    
RAZD
Member
Posts: 20039
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.0


Message 54 of 65 (481978)
09-13-2008 6:17 PM
Reply to: Message 51 by AdminNosy
09-13-2008 4:51 PM


Re: Brining it home
And pick the next one for a new thread? You'll do a better job than pretty well anyone.

Thanks, let me consider it.

We have the two "icons" covered in existing threads. Can you post summaries there from your site.

Actually we have three(+) threads, as there are ones on Darwin's Finches too.

www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&f=5&t=421&m=61 -->www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&f=5&t=421&m=61">http://www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&f=5&t=421&m=61

I'll work on the summaries.

Enjoy.


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


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by AdminNosy, posted 09-13-2008 4:51 PM AdminNosy has not yet responded

  
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 704 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 55 of 65 (481987)
09-13-2008 7:09 PM
Reply to: Message 48 by kuresu
09-13-2008 10:02 AM


Re: Haeckel's Embryos
kuresu writes:

His famous contribution to ID--irreducible complexity, has been falsified numerous times.

It's not really your day, I'm afraid, but you seem to be confusing Wells with Behe.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by kuresu, posted 09-13-2008 10:02 AM kuresu has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 56 by kuresu, posted 09-13-2008 7:56 PM bluegenes has not yet responded

  
kuresu
Member (Idle past 740 days)
Posts: 2544
From: boulder, colorado
Joined: 03-24-2006


Message 56 of 65 (481989)
09-13-2008 7:56 PM
Reply to: Message 55 by bluegenes
09-13-2008 7:09 PM


Re: Haeckel's Embryos
You know, I began to realize that when I tried to find out what Wells taught at Lehigh University. :o

A year ago I had them all straight. This is either what happens when you leave the debate or have heard it too much (I'm assuming here)--everyone becomes the same. Was it Wells or Behe at the Dover v. Katzmiller trial who said letting ID in would also mean letting astrology in? I'm going to guess that was Behe.

If only these people would debate in areas I'm actually familiar with, such as the rise of Sweden in the 17th century or the causes of the American revolution (yes, it was over tea in a convoluted sort of way). Although in all honesty, I don't actually know that much about those subjects either. I know, let's debate music!! ugh.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by bluegenes, posted 09-13-2008 7:09 PM bluegenes has not yet responded

    
Beretta
Member (Idle past 3825 days)
Posts: 422
From: South Africa
Joined: 10-29-2007


Message 57 of 65 (482023)
09-14-2008 2:53 AM
Reply to: Message 48 by kuresu
09-13-2008 10:02 AM


Re: Haeckel's Embryos
Ad hominems are always a last ditch cry of desperation when the facts are against you.
As for your stories of embryos, none of that changes the fact that embryos are not most similar in their earliest stages so there is no ontogenic recapitulation of phylogeny after all.
Haeckel was charged with fraud at his own university.Why did Haeckel invent the story? Because he desperately wanted to find evidence to support Darwin.Darwin was utterly impressed with the fraud too.

You tell me why that nonsense has been used to fool people into becoming believers in evolution for more than a century if there's so much evidence out there?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by kuresu, posted 09-13-2008 10:02 AM kuresu has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 58 by Percy, posted 09-14-2008 6:52 AM Beretta has not yet responded
 Message 59 by kuresu, posted 09-14-2008 7:05 AM Beretta has not yet responded
 Message 60 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-14-2008 12:58 PM Beretta has not yet responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 18801
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 58 of 65 (482035)
09-14-2008 6:52 AM
Reply to: Message 57 by Beretta
09-14-2008 2:53 AM


Re: Haeckel's Embryos
I've replied to your Message 57 over at Message 12 in the Haeckel in Biology Textbooks thread.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by Beretta, posted 09-14-2008 2:53 AM Beretta has not yet responded

    
kuresu
Member (Idle past 740 days)
Posts: 2544
From: boulder, colorado
Joined: 03-24-2006


Message 59 of 65 (482037)
09-14-2008 7:05 AM
Reply to: Message 57 by Beretta
09-14-2008 2:53 AM


Re: Haeckel's Embryos
Man, you certainly can't read.

Ad hominems are not always invalid logical arguments. We're not dealing with formal logic here, but evidence. And the credibility of evidence depends upon the credibility of the person. So if you are a shady person, your evidence is going to be taken at a much lower face value than someone else. Wells, Meyer, and the whole clan are shady people. They have consistently gotten the theory of evolution wrong or are simply out to attack it without following the rules of science (prefering to publish their "work" in mass-publication books, getting nebulous, incomplete, and wrong 'theories' into the classroom, etc).

Now then, if I had used an ad hominem towards you, insulted you or whatnot, then you might have a point. Further, I did it as a way to try and get you to look at other places aside from creationist wankery, as in, maybe something from real research centers.

Recapitulation theory has been dead since the beginning of the 1900s, disproved by scientists. Every textbook I've come across says this. They don't use the pictures to show that recapitulationis right, either.

Further, his 'evidence' was to try and support Lamarckianism, a different, falsified view of evolution. It works like this: If I work at getting strong, my offspring will be naturally strong. If giraffe stretches his neck to eat that highest leaf and gets a longer neck, she will pass that on. It's called "soft inheritance" and ever since Mendel and Darwin it's been discredited (though various people have attempted to revise it, most notably the Soviet Union in agriculture).

Now then, since you're the one making the claim that Darwin was impressed with Haeckel's recapitulation theory, why don't you find some evidence to back it up?

Fraudulent nonsense does not exist for very long in real science, and while it may be used by interested parties for their own aims (such as convincing the world that man originated in England of all places), the hoaxes are cut down very quickly and mentioned in passing.

I've copied my message over to the same thread:
www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&f=17&t=195&m=13#13 -->www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&f=17&t=195&m=13#13">http://www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&f=17&t=195&m=13#13

Edited by kuresu, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by Beretta, posted 09-14-2008 2:53 AM Beretta has not yet responded

    
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16097
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 60 of 65 (482063)
09-14-2008 12:58 PM
Reply to: Message 57 by Beretta
09-14-2008 2:53 AM


Re: Haeckel's Embryos
Ad hominems are always a last ditch cry of desperation when the facts are against you.
As for your stories of embryos, none of that changes the fact that embryos are not most similar in their earliest stages so there is no ontogenic recapitulation of phylogeny after all.
Haeckel was charged with fraud at his own university.Why did Haeckel invent the story? Because he desperately wanted to find evidence to support Darwin.Darwin was utterly impressed with the fraud too.

You tell me why that nonsense has been used to fool people into becoming believers in evolution for more than a century if there's so much evidence out there?

Because some textbook writers apparently thought that this was valid evidence too, so they mentioned it. This is because they had Haeckel's erroneous pictures confused with the correct Darwinian predictions about embryology.

Obviously the T.o.E. can get by fine without Haeckel's pictures, which is why, when scientists exposed Haeckel's error for you, they continued to be convinced by all the genuine evidence for evolution.

---

PS: as every creationist argument has been exposed as bogus, perhaps you guys should learn from the example of scientists. They plucked the mote from their eye, could I draw your attention to the beam in yours?

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by Beretta, posted 09-14-2008 2:53 AM Beretta has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 61 by AdminNosy, posted 09-14-2008 7:00 PM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

  
Prev123
4
5Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019