No, do you? The picture I posted was used in the 2011 edition though.
What exactly was incorrect about about what Mader wrote about embryology?
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Do you have the editions Luskin cited?
Luskin was careful to exclude those with corrected texts.
- Sylvia S. Mader, Jeffrey A. Isaacson, Kimberly G. Lyle-Ippolito, Andrew T. Storfer, Inquiry Into Life (13th ed., McGraw Hill, 2011).
- Sylvia S. Mader, Biology (McGraw Hill, 10th ed., 2010).
- Sylvia S. Mader, Biology (McGraw Hill 2007).
Doesn't the coccyx support and stabilize the man while he is in a sitting position? Isn't it also used for defecation?PART 1
Creationists are seemingly programmed to deny the very existence of vestigial structures, and engage in all manner of intellectual gymnastics to prop up their case. They will do this even to the point of embarrassing themselves in their zeal to deny that, darn it, the coccyx is vestigial.
Vestigial =/= useless. It never did.Doesn't the coccyx support and stabilize the man while he is in a sitting position? Isn't it also used for defecation?
In another thread, I made a comment around the age for circumcision in the bible of 8 days being the optimal time, and received all manner of comments from evolutionists about foreskin having a use. If evolutionists can identify a purpose for a flap of skin that certain groups have lived without for millennia, I find it highly unlikely they will identify another body part or organ (i.e. a vestigial structure) that has less demonstrable use than this.
If you really believe the coccyx or other part is vestigial, where are the groups of people who have had this useless part removed, and the studies on these people? I am certain thorough studies will identify problems in all groups where so-called vestigial parts were removed.
This is one of Hutton’s unconformities. See if it matches the nonsense you tell yourself about it. This unconformity is obviously hard rock layers that were laid horizontally, then pushed vertically, then eroded down flat, then overlaid by other horizontal rock layers. Both layers are sedimentary. View attachment 230444
This isn't a serious attempt [by Tomkins] at comparing human and chimpanzee DNA. It's a masquerade that looks like science but isn't.
The jury is still out on your methodology, Stephen. There simply does not seem to have been enough time (enough generations) for the many millions of differences to have become fixed.
Dan
I'll be honest though chief, I couldn't care less if Haeckel lied, exaggerated or molested a turtle. Embryology has moved on since 1847,
They wouldn't be, if creationists didn't keep bringing them up.It would be no problem, Jimmy, if fraudulent and deceptive Evolution Icons were not so darn hard to get rid of.
Dan
Well Dan, we'll just have to disagree about that. As a graduate geologist and an autodidact in evolutionary biology I see no magic, but mountains of evidence in a variety of fields, that cross validate the theory. I sense you are getting your information from creationist websites and publications - these are not necessarily reliable when it comes to an objective examination of that evidence.
It would be entertaining, if you are interested, to take a look at the easy rebutall of any "flaky evolutionary geology" theory you care to select. I'd be happy to address whatever evidence or argument you have that you feel effectively rebuts the theory, or - should it so arise - to concede that you have a point.
Are you an "evolutionary geologist" or a regular old geologist?
Let's begin with your explanation of the high degree of lamination of the sedimentary layers. Explain why there is little or no bioturbation.
View attachment 230493 You mean this chromosome 2 . I would think it’s rather obvious especially since all of the other 22 pairs line up too.
You're pulling that old, beaten horse corpse out? Really?
Care to actually address the content of that essay?
Oooo! My favorite Creationist gambit. Tell us how many times did Darwin, and you can round it to the nearest ten, refer to humans in Origin.
What the heck is "evolutionism"? Why do creationists feel the need to make up words?
why do creationists keep spreading this lie. Darwin was a fervent abolitionist and unusually for someone of his social class in the 19th century , he actually learned taxidermy from a Black man . He hated slavery. Now as far as his usage of races in the title; modern scientists would probably say subspecies . Darwin thought that humans were a single species and also thought that societal inequalities were due to education ( or the lack there of).
Darwin actually figured out how atolls form so he could wear that geologist hat too
In all the times that creationists have tried this dodge -- quoting the title of a book that has nothing to do with races as if it proved Darwin a racist -- have you ever seen one retract the claim or apologize for spreading falsehoods?
There's more than a little hyperbole in that account it seems.
Please do. If you're only getting creationist sources for it, you're getting a very slanted perception of the actual history.
That doesn't appear to be what AiG or the ICR believe. Like I said, creationism seems about protecting a very specific religious dogma from anything perceived as contradicting it. Nothing more.
The Flood as described by modern YECs is blatantly contradicted by every branch of natural science as well as social sciences (e.g. history/archaeology).
The Urey-Miller experiment demonstrated evidence for what it sought to demonstrate: the formation of organic compounds from precursors. In that respect, it was successful. Not having seen the books in question myself, I can't comment.
What does "proves evolution" mean? What do you think evolution is?
Transitional fossils are evidence of evolutionary events that occurred in the past (namely the morphological changes that occurred throughout life's history). It's silly to demand that something be "proved" before one compiles evidence for the thing they are trying to demonstrate.
I don't know what "evolutionism" is.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?