Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,819 Year: 3,076/9,624 Month: 921/1,588 Week: 104/223 Day: 2/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   evolution vs. creationism: evolution wins
mf
Inactive Member


Message 61 of 310 (94841)
03-25-2004 9:39 PM
Reply to: Message 60 by crashfrog
03-25-2004 8:53 PM


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?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by crashfrog, posted 03-25-2004 8:53 PM crashfrog has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 62 by Chiroptera, posted 03-25-2004 9:57 PM mf has not replied

Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 62 of 310 (94850)
03-25-2004 9:57 PM
Reply to: Message 61 by mf
03-25-2004 9:39 PM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by mf, posted 03-25-2004 9:39 PM mf has not replied

Quetzal
Member (Idle past 5873 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 63 of 310 (94918)
03-26-2004 9:29 AM
Reply to: Message 60 by crashfrog
03-25-2004 8:53 PM


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:
In the early stages of development, the embryos of fish, reptiles, birds, and mammals have a tail and gills or gill slits. Fish keep their gills, but the other organisms lose them as their development continues.
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:
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.
That way the textbook could use the drawings (which are striking), and remove the ambiguity and potential for misunderstanding.
edited to fix quote tags
Just my 10 kopeks.
[This message has been edited by Quetzal, 03-26-2004]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by crashfrog, posted 03-25-2004 8:53 PM crashfrog has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 64 by mf, posted 03-26-2004 10:54 AM Quetzal has replied

mf
Inactive Member


Message 64 of 310 (94937)
03-26-2004 10:54 AM
Reply to: Message 63 by Quetzal
03-26-2004 9:29 AM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by Quetzal, posted 03-26-2004 9:29 AM Quetzal has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 65 by Quetzal, posted 03-26-2004 11:46 AM mf has replied

Quetzal
Member (Idle past 5873 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 65 of 310 (94947)
03-26-2004 11:46 AM
Reply to: Message 64 by mf
03-26-2004 10:54 AM


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?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by mf, posted 03-26-2004 10:54 AM mf has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 66 by mf, posted 03-26-2004 11:54 AM Quetzal has not replied
 Message 67 by mf, posted 03-26-2004 11:58 AM Quetzal has replied

mf
Inactive Member


Message 66 of 310 (94949)
03-26-2004 11:54 AM
Reply to: Message 65 by Quetzal
03-26-2004 11:46 AM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by Quetzal, posted 03-26-2004 11:46 AM Quetzal has not replied

mf
Inactive Member


Message 67 of 310 (94950)
03-26-2004 11:58 AM
Reply to: Message 65 by Quetzal
03-26-2004 11:46 AM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by Quetzal, posted 03-26-2004 11:46 AM Quetzal has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 68 by Quetzal, posted 03-26-2004 12:03 PM mf has not replied

Quetzal
Member (Idle past 5873 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 68 of 310 (94952)
03-26-2004 12:03 PM
Reply to: Message 67 by mf
03-26-2004 11:58 AM


Doesn't surprise me. To quote a friend of mine (a practicing evo biologist), "Textbook publishers are scum."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by mf, posted 03-26-2004 11:58 AM mf has not replied

Deimos Saturn
Inactive Member


Message 69 of 310 (128341)
07-28-2004 9:40 AM


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

Replies to this message:
 Message 70 by coffee_addict, posted 07-29-2004 4:19 AM Deimos Saturn has not replied

coffee_addict
Member (Idle past 478 days)
Posts: 3645
From: Indianapolis, IN
Joined: 03-29-2004


Message 70 of 310 (128541)
07-29-2004 4:19 AM
Reply to: Message 69 by Deimos Saturn
07-28-2004 9:40 AM


DS writes:
each side is NEVER able to even approach a single universal and self evident fact without using evidence, experience, faith, or heresay.
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?
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!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by Deimos Saturn, posted 07-28-2004 9:40 AM Deimos Saturn has not replied

HxC4Christ
Inactive Member


Message 71 of 310 (128542)
07-29-2004 4:27 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by verbiskit
02-19-2004 2:20 PM


How is it possible to prove either or??
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?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by verbiskit, posted 02-19-2004 2:20 PM verbiskit has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 72 by crashfrog, posted 07-29-2004 4:29 AM HxC4Christ has not replied
 Message 73 by crashfrog, posted 07-29-2004 4:42 AM HxC4Christ has not replied
 Message 74 by CK, posted 07-29-2004 11:10 AM HxC4Christ has not replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 72 of 310 (128543)
07-29-2004 4:29 AM
Reply to: Message 71 by HxC4Christ
07-29-2004 4:27 AM


Dibs!
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by HxC4Christ, posted 07-29-2004 4:27 AM HxC4Christ has not replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 73 of 310 (128544)
07-29-2004 4:42 AM
Reply to: Message 71 by HxC4Christ
07-29-2004 4:27 AM


You've asked a lot of great questions...
...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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by HxC4Christ, posted 07-29-2004 4:27 AM HxC4Christ has not replied

CK
Member (Idle past 4128 days)
Posts: 3221
Joined: 07-04-2004


Message 74 of 310 (128602)
07-29-2004 11:10 AM
Reply to: Message 71 by HxC4Christ
07-29-2004 4:27 AM


Re: How is it possible to prove either or??
God Lord - this post is actually the same as my parody in the Evolutionists pretend to be creationists in the coffee shop!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by HxC4Christ, posted 07-29-2004 4:27 AM HxC4Christ has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 75 by NosyNed, posted 07-29-2004 11:48 AM CK has not replied

NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 75 of 310 (128614)
07-29-2004 11:48 AM
Reply to: Message 74 by CK
07-29-2004 11:10 AM


Parody
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by CK, posted 07-29-2004 11:10 AM CK has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024