65
   

Don't tell me there's no proof for evolution

 
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Fri 13 Jul, 2007 12:58 pm
Quote:
The embryologist could not escape the question.why (in these cases such as fish-to-mammal) ontogeny follows such a roundabout way to reach the adult stage, instead of simply eliminating the embryonic structures that were no longer needed, just as many cave dwelling animals eliminate pigmentation and eyes. The reason was found (by experimental embryologists), who found that these ancestral structures serve as embryonic "organizers" in the ensuing steps of development. For instance(they found experimentally), if one cuts the pronephric duct of an amphibian embryo, there will be no development of the mesonephros. SImilarly, the removal of the midline stripe of an archenteron , prevents the formation of a notochord and nervous system. Thus the "useless" pronephros and the midline stripe are recapitulated because they have the vital function of being the embryonic organizers of later developing stages.This is the same reason that all terrestrial vertebrates develop gill arches at certain stages in their ontogeny. These gill-like structures are never used for breathing, but instead are drastically restructured during later ontogeny and give rise to many structures in the neck regions of birds, reptiles, and mammals

(Mayr 2001-p30)

Recapitulation is quite healthy,RL, maybe you didnt get the memo. Its difficult to explain something RL when you have no idea of what youre speaking.PUHLEEZE try to read the wjhole chapters of biology books and dont rely solely on your "predigested" snippets from AIG.
0 Replies
 
real life
 
  1  
Reply Fri 13 Jul, 2007 04:21 pm
farmerman wrote:
Quote:
The embryologist could not escape the question.why (in these cases such as fish-to-mammal) ontogeny follows such a roundabout way to reach the adult stage, instead of simply eliminating the embryonic structures that were no longer needed, just as many cave dwelling animals eliminate pigmentation and eyes. The reason was found (by experimental embryologists), who found that these ancestral structures serve as embryonic "organizers" in the ensuing steps of development. For instance(they found experimentally), if one cuts the pronephric duct of an amphibian embryo, there will be no development of the mesonephros. SImilarly, the removal of the midline stripe of an archenteron , prevents the formation of a notochord and nervous system. Thus the "useless" pronephros and the midline stripe are recapitulated because they have the vital function of being the embryonic organizers of later developing stages.This is the same reason that all terrestrial vertebrates develop gill arches at certain stages in their ontogeny. These gill-like structures are never used for breathing, but instead are drastically restructured during later ontogeny and give rise to many structures in the neck regions of birds, reptiles, and mammals

(Mayr 2001-p30)

Recapitulation is quite healthy,RL, maybe you didnt get the memo. Its difficult to explain something RL when you have no idea of what youre speaking.PUHLEEZE try to read the wjhole chapters of biology books and dont rely solely on your "predigested" snippets from AIG.


You're entitled to your opinion. But , probably not everyone would agree that recapitulation is 'quite healthy'.

Quote:
Law of biogenesis

-->recapitulation theory

The theory formulated by E.H. Haeckel that individuals in their embryonic development pass through stages similar in general structural plan to the stages their species passed through in its evolution; more technically phrased, the theory that ontogeny is an abbreviated recapitulation of phylogeny. The theory has been discredited in the light of the modern science of genetics. even at the time, there was much reason to doubt its validity. Especially as Haeckel himself was ordered to appear before a university court in Jena were he was accused of faking the evidence for recapitulation. He finally admitted that his evidence had been 'doctored'. Synonym: biogenetic law, haeckels theory, embryonic recapitulation.

from www.biology-online.org

Quote:
from http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9079254/biogenetic-law#166269.hook

Farmerman,

Even your own source admits that structures that were once mistaken by Haeckel and others for 'gills' actually have nothing to do with breathing. Give it up.
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Fri 13 Jul, 2007 04:47 pm
You are so full of crap your eyes are brown. Haekels interpretration may have been stretching evidence, but the fact that Mayrs comments, suitably substantiated by Futayama,Strickelberger, Gould, et al (I think Ill rest my case on better grounds )

Quote:
The term "recapitulation" refers to the appearance and subsequent loss of structures in ontogeny, which in related taxa are retained in adults. Thus it refers to the loss of an acestral character in later embryonic development in one phyletic linneage, but the retention of this character in living species of other linneages derived from the same common ancestor. For example, embryos of baleen whales still develop teeth at a certain embryonic stage, but these are later reabsorbed and disappear. ...The anlage of te ancestral organ serves as a somatic program for ensuing development of the retructured organ . What is recapitulated are always particular structures (gill slits etc) not the whole adult form of the ancestor


MAYR 2001 What Evolution IS


Weve previously discussed Haeckels misrepresentations before. However, while his conclusions were in error, the concept he developed is still an observable fact, and genetics actually helps seal the deal, especially since we know that relatively few genes account for huge embryonic somatic changes.
We also know that suchfeatures as gill pouches DO show up on mammalian embryos(as well as reptiles, birds etc). These are then modified as salivary glands or esutachian tubes. ALl derived from the Somatic gene sequences that code for structure variants that appear in "advanced" organisms.
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Fri 13 Jul, 2007 04:56 pm
Quote:
You're entitled to your opinion. But , probably not everyone would agree that recapitulation is 'quite healthy'.


Its not MY OPINION. Ive quoted from MAyr (perhaps youve heard of him) I could quote Futuyama, Gould, etc.
I think your Encycopedia Britannica Quotes relate to strict Haekelioan interpretations, not the concept that embryos DO show ancestral structures in their development. Thats what modern recapitulation refers to. The concept of scala naturae of von Baer and Haekel have specifically been discarded , however developmental embryology still shows us the sequential appearance and resorption of ancestral features.
0 Replies
 
real life
 
  1  
Reply Mon 16 Jul, 2007 08:07 am
farmerman wrote:
Quote:
You're entitled to your opinion. But , probably not everyone would agree that recapitulation is 'quite healthy'.


Its not MY OPINION. Ive quoted from MAyr (perhaps youve heard of him) I could quote Futuyama, Gould, etc.
I think your Encycopedia Britannica Quotes relate to strict Haekelioan interpretations, not the concept that embryos DO show ancestral structures in their development. Thats what modern recapitulation refers to. The concept of scala naturae of von Baer and Haekel have specifically been discarded , however developmental embryology still shows us the sequential appearance and resorption of ancestral features.


Why are Haeckel's faked up drawings still used in textbooks to this day?

Why do you use Haeckelian terms such as 'gill slits' for something that has nothing to do with breathing?

farmerman wrote:
while his conclusions were in error, the concept he developed is still an observable fact


Your response of 'he was wrong but he is right' doesn't do much to distance you from Haeckel.

farmerman wrote:
You are so full of ....


Sad to see your argument slide to such a level.
0 Replies
 
Pauligirl
 
  1  
Reply Mon 16 Jul, 2007 07:44 pm
Lots of information here

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/wells/haeckel.html
Wells and Haeckel's Embryos
A Review of Chapter 5 of Icons of Evolution
by PZ Myers
.............What's wrong with "gill slits"?
Wells is quite unhappy with the common term "gill slits." He spends several pages telling us that embryonic mammals don't have gills, and that even at the stages that fish have gill slits, they don't have gills. He is missing the point, however: nobody has claimed that they do have gills. They have "gill slits," a completely different thing altogether. He has gotten so wrapped up in a trivial etymological argument that he has lost all sight of biological reality.
Vertebrate embryos universally have prominent structures in their neck region that are called by various names in the scientific literature: branchial, pharyngeal, or visceral pouches or grooves or furrows or arches. Because they may appear as a repeating series of slits in the neck of the embryo, resembling the pattern of repeated elements in the neck of adult fish, they have also been colloquially called "gill slits" or "gill pouches." They are not, however, gills - and scientists have not been claiming that they are (Wells even quotes several authors, Wolpert and Rager, who explicitly state this simple, obvious fact). So what are they?
"Gill slits" are common structural elements of vertebrate craniofacial development. "Common" is the important term here. It turns out that all vertebrates build their face in the same, somewhat improbable and counterintuitive way; it is this deep similarity that is the root of the evolutionary argument that it reflects common ancestry.
The head of all vertebrate embryos, whether they are a fish or a human, can be simply described as a curved tube largely made up of presumptive brain (Figure 2), with a series of 4 to 7 finger-like tissues hanging down from it, the pharyngeal arches. What we consider a face, everything from just below the eyes, back to the ears, and down to the neck, is absent. Instead, we have these dangling blobs, each of which will contain a cartilaginous rod, a column of muscle, a significant branch of the circulatory system, and an assortment of other cell types. These arches are reiterated modules that will subsequently merge and rearrange themselves (along with other cranial tissues, most importantly a migrating population of cells from the top of the head called the neural crest) to form the more familiar face. They do so in similar ways in all vertebrates: the first pharyngeal arch, for instance, always forms the jaw, and the second arch always forms the hyoid. There are also differences that emerge in different classes. Pieces of the first two arches find their way into bones of the mammalian ear. The third and subsequent arches in fish end up in the gills, while those same arches in a human form a series of cartilages in the throat. The third fuses with the hyoid, the fourth forms a major part of the thyroid cartilage, and the fifth forms the cricoid and arytenoid cartilages. Non-cartilaginous elements of these structures end up incorporated into all kinds of tissues, glands and muscles and epithelia, of the neck and face..........
0 Replies
 
real life
 
  1  
Reply Mon 16 Jul, 2007 07:55 pm
Hi Pauligirl,

How funny to see your source casually dismiss as 'colloquial' the use of the term 'gill slits'. Laughing

The term is undeniably Haeckelian, and it's use is linked to Haeckels faked up drawings, which are still to this day used in textbooks.

Another such reference is often made to a supposed 'tail' in human embryos, which is known to be nothing of the kind.

But Haeckelian fans can't seem to resist using the term on occasion to try and win a few rhetorical points for the big E.

Recapitulation is something evolutionists just can't seem to give up on, even though Haeckel's 'evidence' was undeniably faked up.

It's place alongside other famous evolutionary fakes like the peppered moth is assured.
0 Replies
 
maporsche
 
  1  
Reply Mon 16 Jul, 2007 08:08 pm
real life wrote:
which are still to this day used in textbooks.


Please show me where this is. I did a search and all I could find is that these 'used' to be used.
0 Replies
 
Diest TKO
 
  1  
Reply Mon 16 Jul, 2007 08:12 pm
real life wrote:

The term is undeniably Haeckelian, and it's use is linked to Haeckels faked up drawings, which are still to this day used in textbooks.

Another such reference is often made to a supposed 'tail' in human embryos, which is known to be nothing of the kind.

Let's not forget how many churches have paintings of a caucasian Jesus hanging up or a white Jesus on the cross.

If it's in a textbook so what. The Rutherford-Bohr model of the atom is still in the textbooks even though we know it to be inncorrect. This model is the one that looks like a planet with orbitting moons BTW. Why is it still there? Perhaps to show how the theory of the nuclear model has changed throughout history.

Pictures with gill-slits are there, so what? Tell Jesus to get a tan, and then we'll talk about misrepresenting champions.

T
K
O
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Mon 16 Jul, 2007 08:34 pm
I'm just wondering of real ever heard of the "black virgin?"
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Mon 16 Jul, 2007 08:38 pm
http://smg.photobucket.com/albums/v97/imposter222/th_200px-Czestochowska.jpg



Does this make Jesus black?
0 Replies
 
maporsche
 
  1  
Reply Mon 16 Jul, 2007 08:41 pm
I just realized that we're talking about drawings done in 1874. WOW.
0 Replies
 
maporsche
 
  1  
Reply Mon 16 Jul, 2007 08:43 pm
cicerone imposter wrote:
http://smg.photobucket.com/albums/v97/imposter222/th_200px-Czestochowska.jpg



Does this make Jesus black?


Since this drawing is obviously WRONG, Jesus must not exist.




This is RL's argument in a nutshell.
0 Replies
 
Diest TKO
 
  1  
Reply Mon 16 Jul, 2007 11:22 pm
maporsche wrote:
cicerone imposter wrote:
http://smg.photobucket.com/albums/v97/imposter222/th_200px-Czestochowska.jpg



Does this make Jesus black?


Since this drawing is obviously WRONG, Jesus must not exist.




This is RL's argument in a nutshell.


ba-dun-chish!

Exactly. BTW, nice find CI. I'm looking for the very rare and exotic pic of mary with the badonkadonk to round off my personal collection.

T
K
O
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Tue 17 Jul, 2007 04:30 am
RL said
Quote:
Why are Haeckel's faked up drawings still used in textbooks to this day?


Haeckels and von Baers drawings are not used in texts today, unless you are saying that a text from the 20's and 30's is a "text of today'. As far as I know, the accurate depictions of comparative embryology is from Strickberger (1990) in which the :gill arches' "medial lines, 'Tails" are shown on embryonic stages from fish to humans (and many in between).
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Tue 17 Jul, 2007 05:25 am
OH DOODY, the copies of "The ATlas of Creation" had been sent to a number of us at our school maiboxes. I wont get a chance to open this but I was told that the book is too beautiful to toss. I wont get a chance to see my copy till September.
ArunYahyah is the author. I believe its a pen name. The NYT did an article in this AMs science section about how almost everybody who teches something related to evolution has gotten a copy. Imagne the cost.

We did a book of the "Geology of Pa" a few years back and it was a real loss leader. (The Pittsburgh Geological Society has it for sale fdor 10 bucks and its also about 900 PAGES. (ABOUT THE SIZE OF A STEPHEN KING HORROR STORY )
0 Replies
 
real life
 
  1  
Reply Tue 17 Jul, 2007 08:44 am
PZM on talkorigins.org wrote:
In the case of Haeckel, though, I have to begin by admitting that Wells has got the core of the story right. Haeckel was wrong. His theory was invalid, some of his drawings were faked, and he willfully over-interpreted the data to prop up a false thesis. Furthermore, he was influential, both in the sciences and the popular press; his theory still gets echoed in the latter today. Wells is also correct in criticizing textbook authors for perpetuating Haeckel's infamous diagram without commenting on its inaccuracies or the way it was misused to support a falsified theory.

Unfortunately, what Wells tries to do in this chapter is to take this invalid, discredited theory and tar modern (and even not so modern) evolutionary biology with it. The biogenetic law is not Darwinism or neo-Darwinism, however. It is not part of any modern evolutionary theory. Wells is carrying out a bait-and-switch here, marshalling the evidence and citations that properly demolish the Haeckelian dogma, and then claiming that this is part of "our best evidence for Darwin's theory."

Who was Haeckel, and what was his theory?
Ernst Haeckel (1834-1919) was an extremely influential German scientist. He had an enviable reputation as a comparative embryologist, but his primary claim to fame was that he was an early adopter of Darwin's theory who used the evidence of embryology to support evolution. Wells is quite correct to mention the importance of Haeckel in 19th century biology. There is no doubt that his efforts to popularize the theory were important in giving evolution credibility in the scientific establishment, and to laymen as well. Darwin and Haeckel met and corresponded, and each influenced the theories of the other strongly. However, Haeckel's theories owed an even greater debt to an earlier philosophical tradition, in particular the work of Goethe and Lamarck. Although Darwin was appreciative of Haeckel's support for natural selection, he was also tentative in using Haeckel's ideas in his writings; Darwin relied far more on von Baer's embryological data to support common descent.

Furthermore, Haeckel's theory was rotten at the core. It was wrong both in principle and in the set of biased and manipulated observations used to prop it up. This was a tragedy for science, because it set evolutionary biologists and developmental biologists down a dead-end, leading to an unfortunate divorce between the fields of development and evolution that has only recently been corrected.

Haeckel's theory is encapsulated in his memorable aphorism, "ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny," also called the biogenetic law. What that means is that development (ontogeny) repeats the evolutionary history (phylogeny) of the organism - that if we evolved from a fish that evolved into a reptile that evolved into us, our embryos physically echo that history, passing through a fish-like stage and then into a reptile-like stage. How could this happen? He argued that evolutionary history was literally the driving force behind development, and that the experiences of our ancestors were physically written into our hereditary material. This was a logical extension of his belief in Lamarckian inheritance, or the inheritance of acquired characters. If the activity of an organism can be imprinted on its genetics, then development could just be a synopsis of the activities of the parents and grandparents and ever more remote ancestors. This was an extremely attractive idea to scientists; it's as if development were a time machine that allowed them to look back into the distant past, just by studying early stages of development.

Unfortunately, it was also completely wrong.


from http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/wells/haeckel.html

( I just know fm will get all over me for citing a fundamentalist site, but I thought it was interesting.) Laughing
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Tue 17 Jul, 2007 08:55 am
Yes, what is most interesting is that this source points out that Haeckel's " . . . theory still gets echoed in the latter today."--latter in this case referring to "the popular press." Not text books, nor contemporary evolutionary biological research--the popular press.
0 Replies
 
real life
 
  1  
Reply Tue 17 Jul, 2007 09:05 am
Setanta wrote:
Yes, what is most interesting is that this source points out that Haeckel's " . . . theory still gets echoed in the latter today."--latter in this case referring to "the popular press." Not text books, nor contemporary evolutionary biological research--the popular press.


You might want to read it all.

The next sentence reads:

Quote:
Wells is also correct in criticizing textbook authors for perpetuating Haeckel's infamous diagram without commenting on its inaccuracies or the way it was misused to support a falsified theory.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Tue 17 Jul, 2007 09:38 am
Note the language: "falsified theory." Since that statement is itself false, the content of the sentence is suspect. I simply said that i found the previous sentence interesting. I did not find that sentence interesting, since it is bullshit.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.05 seconds on 05/17/2025 at 12:26:44