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

real life wrote:

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.

And please do tell, what particular textbooks are using Haeckel's drawing?

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

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.

The 'falsified theory' that PZM is referring to is not the evolutionary theory.

Talkorigins is a pro-evolution site, and PZM is a proponent, not an opponent of evolution.

The falsified theory he is referring to is recapitulation.

0 Replies

Thank you, i hadn't understood that.

0 Replies

RL is partly correct .(but as usual for the wrong reasons) Haeckels "theory of recapitulation" stated that every organism passes through a previous organismsFORM in its embryonic state. We know that is false. But, the concept (as Mayr stated) that recapitulation of structures does occur in embryonic stages is self evident. To miss the "tail in a human embryo " and the same number of "gill arches" and the medial line and pronephros , one would have to be totally blind .
The recapitulation theory is not dead at all, its modeified to correct the mistakes of Haeckel and von Baer and recognizes the role that limited gene sequences play in comparative embryology.

0 Replies

farmerman wrote:

Haeckels "theory of recapitulation" stated that every organism passes through a previous organismsFORM in its embryonic state. We know that is false.

farmerman wrote:

Mayr stated that recapitulation of structures does occur in embryonic stages

Seems like a distinction without a difference.

The organism recapitulates the 'structures' but not the 'form'?

Of what is the 'form' composed but the accumulated 'structures'?

0 Replies

An "organism" is composed of "structures". the Hox genes account for the thoracic structures, eg medial fin of a fish, the wing of a bird, or the arm of a human. Haeckel was referring to the entire organism, Where as Gould and Futuyama and Mayr speak of tyhe components .

Not so hard when you think about it no?

0 Replies

farmerman wrote:

An "organism" is composed of "structures". ........ Haeckel was referring to the entire organism,

Where as Gould and Futuyama and Mayr speak of tyhe components .......

Yes, this is just what I said.

That is why I said that claiming recapitulation of the 'components' or 'structures' is valid while denying that would result in recapitulation of the 'form' or the entire organism is laughable.

Evolutionists just can't let go of Haeckel.

But they can't admit it either, because everyone knows (except the textbook publishers apparently) that his drawings were faked up.

Like the photos of the peppered moths.

0 Replies

Quote:

Evolutionists just can't let go of Haeckel.

. Its easy, hes been dispatched in the last century.

Im more amused that the statement you just made accuses evolution science of desparately hanging on to something that has been shown to be in error. Coming from a creationist thats a knee slapper.

0 Replies

farmerman wrote:

Coming from a creationist thats a knee slapper.

Well, analyse THEIR beliefs logically.

Quote:

That a cosmic Jewish Zombie who was his own father can make you live forever if you symbolically eat his flesh and telepathically tell him you accept him as your master, so he can remove an evil force from your soul that is present in humanity because a rib-woman was convinced by a talking snake to eat from a magical tree

0 Replies

Gee, Wilso, that would make a good comedic movie or comic book.

0 Replies

Yea... jeese, making a topic on evolution is like lighting a match to an oil tanker.

0 Replies

Hey guys.

Real life,
I went searching through posts when I found the one which made me leave this website for six months. You may remember it - or the series of posts. Pages 26-30 I think.
The reason that I started posting on this site was that I was still finding myself. I wanting to know what I really believed. You made up my mind. You have decided how I view life. You have sculpted my beliefs in the most significant way possible. I thank you for that.
And here I am, six months later. I know what I believe, and I like it. I post my views on a school blog site. Sure, I get far less responses than here, but that doesn't matter.
I have realised that once a person's mind is set, nothing will sway it.

So that is why I am saying to all of you - GIVE UP TRYING TO CHANGE EACHOTHER'S VIEWS ON EVOLUTION because it's not going to work!

0 Replies

Perhaps there's one thing you don't understand;

THEY DO THIS BECAUSE THEY LIKE IT!

IF YOU DON'T THAN LEAVE.

0 Replies

aperson wrote:

I wanting to know what I really believed. You made up my mind. You have decided how I view life. You have sculpted my beliefs in the most significant way possible.

Don't blame me (or anyone else) for what you choose to believe, aperson.

What you choose to believe is dependent on you, not others.

You posted a 'reply' to one of my posts in which you mischaracterized some of my statements, then you went on a rant that ended with 'don't reply to that paragraph'.

So my reply was fairly short. I corrected your misstatement, and didn't reply to the part you asked me not to.

You responded by throwing a tizzy.

I am not responsible for your behavior, nor your beliefs , aperson.

You are.

Glad to see you back. Very Happy

0 Replies

Apey, please don't yell. It causes xingu to respond in loud homonyms.

0 Replies

neologist wrote:

Apey, please don't yell. It causes xingu to respond in loud homonyms.

I figured he it was hard of hearing and so it was talking in a manner it could hear.

I didn't want to say something and hear it respond "Hey what??"

0 Replies

I thought you were trying to wake us up.

Coffee's ready. See ya later.

0 Replies

"Apey" might just be the worst shortning of any A2k handle I've seen to date.

T
K
lOl

0 Replies

Well as crap as it may be, it's quite nice to have my username shortened, albeit mocking or sarcastic.

Real life, yes, I responded in a tizzy, and I apoligise for that. BUT, I still believe that it went like this - I repeatedly asked you to state your position and your weasled and dodged your way out of my questions each time like a chatbot. This made me frustrated and so I reacted in anger.

And I don't blame you for my view. I'm just saying that it was you that made me decide finally to be an effective atheist (notice the use of the word "effective).

Ps, Although I am amazed at how many posts this thread has got, it still falls very short of the previous major evolution topic (evolution, how?). It had a wapping 11918 posts.

Pps Then not than

0 Replies

aperson wrote:

I repeatedly asked you to state your position and your weasled and dodged your way out of my questions each time like a chatbot. This made me frustrated and so I reacted in anger.

That's RL style of debating. He has nothing significant to offer so he takes enjoyment in presenting balderdash. His ignorant mind may believe there's something to his silliness because he has faith in his Creationist instructors.

I enjoy this because I like seeing people who know this subject dismantle his nonsense. Think of how boring this thread would be without a foil.

0 Replies

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

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know