|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: evolution vs. creationism: evolution wins | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mf Inactive Member |
So you are almost supporting the theory that Ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny? Hmmm...
And how was I wrong? Please explain? I said "no we don't have gills." Was I wrong? Please explain how pharyngeal pouches are the same as gills in any way?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Chiroptera Inactive Member |
What used to be gills are our jaws, inner ears, and eustachian tubes.
All vertebrate embryos look pretty much alike. They all develop a structure called the pharyngeal pouches. These are exactly the same structure in all early vertebrate embryos. They are in the exact same position in all early vertebrate embryos. In jawless fish, these pharyngeal pouches develop into gills. In mammals, these pharyngeal pouches develop into the jaws and inner ear. No, humans don't have gills. But we do have structures homologous to gills, namely our jaws and the bones of our inner ears.
Check it out.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Quetzal Member (Idle past 5873 days) Posts: 3228 Joined: |
I think I'll have to go with MF on this one crash, if s/he's remembering the conversation correctly. If either the textbook or the teacher claimed that human embryos have gills, then they're wrong, and MF was right (albeit a bit harsh with the "lie" thing) to point it out. You're correct that pharyngeal pouches are the structures that develop into gills in fish, but this was Haeckel's main error - they AREN'T gills - and trying to make them more "gill like" in his drawings was tantamount to fraud.
Interestingly, I checked my #1 daughter's science textbook (Daniel, Ortleb, Biggs "Glencoe Life Science", McGraw-Hill 1997) to see if Haeckel's embryos were covered. On page 169, there's a comparison of the embryos of fish, lizard, chicken, and rabbit very similar to what he drew in the 19th Century. The accompanying text states: quote: MF has a point that the way it's presented could be misleading. The way it is written does seem to say human embryos etc have gills (although they do mention gill slits, which are a simple way of saying pharyngeal pouch). They aren't lying, just phrasing it badly. I don't know why they couldn't just have written something like: Quetzal writes: That way the textbook could use the drawings (which are striking), and remove the ambiguity and potential for misunderstanding. In the early stages of development, the embryos of fish, reptiles, birds, and mammals have a tail and structures, called pharyngeal pouches, that in fish develop into gills but in other vertebrates become jaws and other structures as their development continues. edited to fix quote tags Just my 10 kopeks. [This message has been edited by Quetzal, 03-26-2004]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mf Inactive Member |
I think I'll have to go with MF on this one crash
Thanks Quetzal!
MF was right
i'm flattered!
MF has a point
Wow I have gained new respect for this forum! Anyways,Yes the drawings are VERY misleading, especially when they don't even have adequate explanation to go along with them. It is just a very misleading picture without an explanation. This textbook also makes natural species hybridization out to be a very common event... which it is not all that common.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Quetzal Member (Idle past 5873 days) Posts: 3228 Joined: |
Hmm, don't get me wrong. I never said the drawings were misleading (I think I used the term "striking"). I said the accompanying text was badly written, but I consider it a pretty minor ambiguity. Remember that the text I quoted was in a very basic biology book designed for (US) 7th and 8th graders. The book overall does quite a good job of covering the basics of evolutionary theory, geared down for the level. I'm certainly not chuffed up enough or concerned enough to write the textbook editors and demand they re-write the section. After all, any ambiguity or misapprehension can be cleared up at a later, more advanced course. When my daughter got to that part, for instance, I made her read ppg 652-653 in Futuyma's "Evolutionary Biology" - which even has much better pictures , and which was designed for undergrad college students. That DOES have a good explanation. More advanced students get more detailed discussion, is all.
Inre the hybridization thing - her book doesn't cover it at all, so I don't know what you are referencing. Natural hybrids are pretty common among closely related species (or those that recently diverged) - and the development of hybrid incompatibilities is one of the key indicators that a speciation event may be happening. I don't suppose you have the passage handy to quote?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mf Inactive Member |
don't suppose you have the passage handy to quote
No sorry not in that class anymore. I will see if I can find it sometime.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mf Inactive Member |
Oh yes in your book it isn't nearly as bad as I remember it in my book. But that was some time ago. The drawings in my book barely had much information with them.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Quetzal Member (Idle past 5873 days) Posts: 3228 Joined: |
Doesn't surprise me. To quote a friend of mine (a practicing evo biologist), "Textbook publishers are scum."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Deimos Saturn Inactive Member |
Your teacher sounds like a complete moron giving you a project like that unless it's to teach the futility of the scientific method to prove things with physical evidence. Ultimately, neither creation or evolution wins. each side is NEVER able to even approach a single universal and self evident fact without using evidence, experience, faith, or heresay. Public schools seem to be so horrifically oblivious to the idea of sensativity.
Nihilism is the answer, and it's not what you think... http://www.hatem.com
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
coffee_addict Member (Idle past 478 days) Posts: 3645 From: Indianapolis, IN Joined: |
DS writes:
And what is your point exactly? If we are not supposed to reach an agreement based on at least some evidence, how the hell do we know that what we agree isn't a pile of crap? each side is NEVER able to even approach a single universal and self evident fact without using evidence, experience, faith, or heresay. This message has been edited by Lama dama ding dong, 07-29-2004 03:21 AM The Laminator For goodness's sake, please vote Democrat this November!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
HxC4Christ Inactive Member |
First of all, I would like to know what the deal is with trying to "prove" either fact right. As a Christian, I have tried time and again to prove that creationism is the one true fact, undesputable by any means. I will also continue to believe this until the day I die.
Let me ask you something now. How do you propose to prove evolution as a "fact" rather than a theory. It is after all known as the "Theory of Evolution" is it not?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1467 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
I call dibs on this guy!
Hx, I'm going to answer your question, but I wanted to make sure that you weren't hit with a deluge of answers to what is a very common question we get here.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1467 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
...but unfortunately they're not on topic in this thread. I'm going to answer them, but if you want to discuss the answers, we can find better threads for it if you want. Just ask and we'll sort it out.
First of all, I would like to know what the deal is with trying to "prove" either fact right. Ok, wll, you have to understand something about science first, and what evolutionists are trying to do. Science isn't the process where we prove what's right and wrong. Science is the process by which we determine which model is the most accurate description of reality. That doesn't mean that the model is true in every respect; it means that it explains all the data we have and makes predictions about data we might find in the future. Evolution does that. Creationism does not. That's what we mean when we say that evolution is "true" - that's a shorthand for "evolution is an accurate description of the history of species on Earth.
As a Christian, I have tried time and again to prove that creationism is the one true fact, undesputable by any means. You're free to do that, but creationism is contradicted by much evidence. It's not an accurate description of the history of species on Earth, unlike evolution. We can't know if it's "right" or "wrong", but it's certainly inaccurate.
Let me ask you something now. How do you propose to prove evolution as a "fact" rather than a theory. Well, evolution is both fact and theory. The fact is, evolution has occured. The way we describe that, the way we model it as the result of processes called "natural selection" and "random mutation", is the theory of evolution. It's like the difference between a map and the territory it represents. The theory of evolution is our model of the biological reality of evolution.
It is after all known as the "Theory of Evolution" is it not? Yes, just like gravity is a theory (the theory of relativity), germs are a theory (germ theory of disease), and molecules are a theory (kinetic theory of gases.) Theory doesn't mean "guess" or "speculation". (If that's what we meant, we'd say "hypothesis" or "conjecture".) Theory means "explanitory model." A conjecture only becomes a theory when it's been confirmed both by repeating the observations and substantiating the predictions.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
CK Member (Idle past 4128 days) Posts: 3221 Joined: |
God Lord - this post is actually the same as my parody in the Evolutionists pretend to be creationists in the coffee shop!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 8996 From: Canada Joined: |
and he has made it clear how any interactions with him will go too:
I will also continue to believe this until the day I die. Anyone who engages him has been warned.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024