Creationists caught lying for their religion - quote bombing

[tas8831]

This is a compilation of 3 posts I had made in other threads, presented here to remind readers that quote-bombing plagiarist trolls and their YEC sources are not to be trusted...

Over here, our current quote-bomb-spammer presented this quote in response to an abstract I had presented that mentioned human-chimp % similarities:

“It is clear that the genetic differences between humans and chimpanzees are far more excessive than previously thought, their genomes are not 98-99% identical”
-Todd Press Human Brain evaluation PNAS 109 20121 10709-16​

That is verbatim. Googling the quote returned several hits - all only to places where the quote-bomber had spammed before. So I searched for the citation:

-Todd Press Human Brain evaluation PNAS 109 20121 10709-16

Nothing. Well, except for the quote-bomber's footprint. Long story short, I finally found the source:

Human brain evolution: From gene discovery to phenotype discovery
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2012 Jun 26; 109(Suppl 1): 10709–10716.
Todd M. Preuss​

So you can see why it was so hard to find - misspelled name... erroneous title.... garbled citation...

And even the quote was not correct- a comma where a semi-colon belonged:

"It is now clear that the genetic differences between humans and chimpanzees are far more extensive than previously thought; their genomes are not 98% or 99% identical."​

Now, that statement is unwarranted hyperbole in my opinion, especially when we consider what the author explains later in the paper:

Humans possess species-specific genes, as a result of the numerous tandem duplications of chromosome segments that occurred in human evolution, and also recombination events (46, 47). One consequence of the numerous duplications, insertions, and deletions, is that the total DNA sequence similarity between humans and chimpanzees is not 98% to 99%, but instead closer to 95% to 96% (41, 48, 49), although the rearrangements are so extensive as to render one-dimensional comparisons overly simplistic.​

Wow - 2-4% = extensive! Who knew?

Hmmm.... It is almost as if the creationist source of Tokien's copying hadn't read the paper (they usually don't). It is obvious that Tolkien didn't read it - or any of the quotes he copies from other creationists.
I had only checked 2 other quotes that this fellow has presented, 1 turned out to be a creationist lie and the other was a misrepresentation like this one.


********

This quote is from a creationist engineer and, amazingly, doctor, ranting about the coccyx. As one with graduate training and professional experience in teaching human and vertebrate anatomy at the college level, I cringe (but I love it!) when I see creationists with no business discussing this sort of thing pontificating like they were Vesalius himself. The quote as per our pal Tolkien, ellipses and all*:


“Shouldent students be skeptical when they're told that evolutionist can simply look at folds in embyoes and see gill slits? The truth is those are only folds of tissue in the pharynx region of vertebrates during the pharyngula stage of development....they never develop into a structure that is in any way like fish gills....the human tail is another misnomer born of evolutionist “look- imagine- see” methodology. What we actually see through time are early precursors to the spine forming the axial skeleton....so when evolutionist see a lower portion of the afial skeleton where the embryo is yet to grow, they “see” a transient “tail” in their imaginations. Human embroyes are recapitulating their reptilian past. But there never is a tail. The embryo grows down to its coccyx, which begins anchoring devolving muscles of the pelvic floor.”
-Randy Guliuzza P.E M.D Haeckel's Embryos Born of Evolutionary Imagination

Let's go though this point by point.


“Shouldent students be skeptical when they're told that evolutionist can simply look at folds in embyoes and see gill slits?"


Creationists should be skeptical when a professional propagandist for Christ claims that any such thing is taught. In fact, very few modern texts use the phrase "gill slits" except in historical reviews, and those that do use the term (I have a book from the 1990s that uses the term) indicate very clearly that they are not actually gills, or that they only become gills in fish. Interestingly, I am betting our engineer creationist friend Randy has no problem looking at something and seeing Creation!
And as an aside, it was never merely looking at them and calling them gill slits - Haeckel observed these structures in fish embryos and other vertebrate embryos, and erroneously concluded that they were gills. I guess Randy forgot that Haeckel wrote his treatise more than 100 years ago, and did not have the imaging technology we do today.


"The truth is those are only folds of tissue in the pharynx region of vertebrates during the pharyngula stage of development....they never develop into a structure that is in any way like fish gills...."

They are not even really "folds" as such - they contain bundles of primordia that are 'encased' in a thin layer of tissue, and this produces the appearance of folds (I guess we can attack Randy for calling these structures folds?). In fish, they DO develop into gills. Amphibians also, at least in some stages of their life cycle. The creationist only seems to be focusing on humans, of course, neglecting or being ignorant of the fact that ALL vertebrate embyos contain this pharyngeal apparatus. They all contain the same primordia (aortic arch, cartilage, mesoderm, etc.). In fish, they become gills and parts of their face and neck (if they had necks - the area behind the mouth), and in mammals and reptiles, they become parts of the face and neck and associated structures.

"the human tail is another misnomer born of evolutionist “look- imagine- see” methodology. What we actually see through time are early precursors to the spine forming the axial skeleton....so when evolutionist see a lower portion of the afial skeleton where the embryo is yet to grow, "

What? The embryo IS growing there, too. When one looks at other vertebrate embryos, one sees something very similar, hence the connection.

"they “see” a transient “tail” in their imaginations. Human embroyes are recapitulating their reptilian past."

This is Haeckel's thesis, and it is wrong and is not taught in textbooks anywhere since maybe 1915 (as seen in the movie "Flock of Dodos").

But there never is a tail. The embryo grows down to its coccyx, which begins anchoring devolving muscles of the pelvic floor.”
-Randy Guliuzza P.E M.D Haeckel's Embryos Born of Evolutionary Imagination

I do enjoy this creationist claim about how the coccyx "anchors" things. Pshun2404 claimed the coccyx "anchored" the nervous system. I have seen creationists claim that it 'anchors' the spinal cord and such. And now this guy is claiming that it 'anchors' the muscles of the pelvic floor.
Anchoring something, in my view, means that it is very strong and holds something in place. Fair? The coccyx does not do anything like that. It happens to be in a place where the tendons of several pelvic floor muscles pass. People born without a coccyx have those muscles simply joining to the perineal body. Be very skeptical when creationists ascribe all manner of superlative function to the coccyx.


Haeckel was wrong in his interpretation, but the universality of the pharyngeal apparatus in vertebrates (even in the lungless, gill-less groups of salamanders) is very good evidence for common descent, creationist desperation or ignorance-based dismissal/rejections notwithstanding.

*2 things - 1. I noticed something - this quote seems to contain typos not in the original (horrible) article - does Tolkien actually re-type these collected quotes? Does he not know how to use the copy-paste function? He must! Maybe he typed them by hand into his quote-bomb archive, then just copy-pastes from there?
2. The engineer creationist also declares that students are still taught the errors that Haeckel made as fact. Which means that even professional creationists are liars.

********

I went to that den of simpletons, "The Institute for Creation Research" to see the essay that Tolkien quotes.

This is the essay by the creationist engineer:

"Major Evolutionary Blunders: Haeckel's Embryos Born of Evolutionary Imagination"

In it, we see creationist engineer Randy Guliuzza write:

I didn’t escape being misled. In 1975 my sophomore biology textbook referred to a drawing very similar to Haeckel’s. Like most students absorbing this information for their first—and possibly only—time, I was somewhat shocked by the incredible fish-like similarity of all early embryos…especially humans. The visual evidence looked undeniable.

These drawings persuasively promoted three powerful evolutionary concepts. First, life evolved from “primitive” animals to complex humans. This “fact” is seen in the supposedly nonhuman structures that humans possess during development. My textbook commented, “For example, the early human embryo has a well-developed tail and also a series of gill pouches in the pharyngeal region.”3

Second, as my textbook went on to say, “Human and fish embryos resemble each other because human beings and fish share a common remote ancestry.”3 It presented the remarkable similarity of the embryos in the illustration as strong evidence for a universal common ancestor.

Third, a synopsis of the evolutionary history of life on Earth emerges as scientists map out all stages of embryonic development for every species. Remarkably, the stages of embryonic development for organisms, called ontogeny, supposedly reenacted or “recapitulated” their evolutionary history through time, which was called their phylogeny. Haeckel’s embryos were clearly time-lapse pictures of evolution itself.

Those concepts remain cemented in contemporary evolutionary thinking.​

That number 3 citation is:
Keeton, W. T. 1972. Biological Science, 2nd Ed. New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 550.

I'm betting ol' Randy was betting that nobody would be able to read this book. I bet he didn't think it was still available anywhere.

Poor Randy didn't know that it is available for free (to borrow electronically via The Internet Archive). Which I just did.
First, recall, Randy writes:

"This “fact” is seen in the supposedly nonhuman structures that humans possess during development. My textbook commented, “For example, the early human embryo has a well-developed tail and also a series of gill pouches in the pharyngeal region.”3"​

Ok. That is on p. 344. But Randy only writes "550" in his citation. Weird... But not uncommon for creationist authors to try to trick skeptics.

Then on p.345, we see:

"The modern view is that Haeckel's idea was an oversimplification. Ontogeny does not repeat phylogeny in any strict or literal sense."

Which is odd, because ol' Randy claims:

"Third, a synopsis of the evolutionary history of life on Earth emerges as scientists map out all stages of embryonic development for every species. Remarkably, the stages of embryonic development for organisms, called ontogeny, supposedly reenacted or “recapitulated” their evolutionary history through time, which was called their phylogeny. Haeckel’s embryos were clearly time-lapse pictures of evolution itself."​

DIRECT contradiction of what Randy the creationist at ICR claims the text indicates!

It is odd - Randy cites p. 550 of the text, but p. 550 does not mention Haeckel at all. And the drawing of embryos (p. 344)? NOT Haeckel's (they are from Romanes, 1901).


Randy then claims:

"Those concepts remain cemented in contemporary evolutionary thinking. During medical school in 1992, my graduate-level human development textbook contained the same drawings and concepts.4"​

That 4 refers to:
Moore, K. L. 1989. Before We Are Born, 3rd Ed. Philadelphia, PA: W. B. Saunders Company, 70.

The Internet Archive only has the 5th Ed, but I have been using Moore and Persaud's human embryology texts for 25 years, and I know that their new editions generally only have new photos..

Anyway, let's see if Moore's 5th edition has the 'same drawings' and 'same concepts' as the other text he lied about...

Going to be tough... 'Haeckel' does not show up in a search or in the index... Nor does 'ontogeny' or 'phylogeny'... Going to have to do this the old fashioned way.
Maybe in the "historical highlights"? Randy says p. 70, but he biffed the page number with the other text.. and... nope. Nothing on p. 70. It is a different edition, so I will cut him some slack. Back to 'historical highlights'... No drawings or pictures of 'Haeckel's embryos' in the entire chapter. No mention of him or his ideas in the entire chapter.
Maybe in the chapter on the Pharyngeal Apparatus? You know, where the 'gill slits' are? Nope... Here we go! Chapter 6:

Nope.

Oh - wait - there it is, in the back, at the end of the chapter... In the 'clinically oriented questions' section...

1: I have heard that the early human embryo could be confused with the offspring of several other species, such as a mouse or chick. Is this true? What is the distinctive feature of early human embryos?​

And then - WAYYYY back at the end of the book, on p. 500, in the section with the answers to those questions, the answer:

1. During the first few weeks, human embryos resemble the embryos of several other species because of common characteristics (e.g., large head, pharyngeal arches, and tail); thereafter, embryos acquire characteristics that are distinctly human...​

Oh, the INDOCTRINATION! Those CONCEPTS! Those drawings!
Oh the humanity!
Oh, wait -

p. 501, there are some drawings of a bunch of embryos at early and later stages. No mention of Haeckel. No mention of 'ontogeny'. No mention even of evolution.

Oh the humanity!

Looks like Randy is just another carnival barker for Jesus, not to be trusted.

Most interesting - again even the professional creationists fib about these things.

 

[Halbhh]

....a professional propagandist for Christ...

Good catch to track down the real source and the interesting "95-96%", but there is very important distinction to use as you write on all this!

Important distinction -- as you worded it "...professional propagandist for Christ claims..." -- notice that propaganda (regarding creationist details/evolution) was not for Christ!

To be for Christ, the message would be about Christ. About His Words, His teaching, the Good News.

An argument for or against evolution is none of these, not even the slightest bit.

A creationist argument about whatever small details of creation, like degree of similarity of various primates, etc., is simply a separate topic entirely. Unconnected to actual Christianity as found in the New Testament. We are told God created all things through Christ. We are not told how in detail. Not at all, not in the Bible. Genesis chapter 1 is intentionally not telling us mere details like mere quantity of time durations (during verse 1, and between the days, in any indication one way or the other), biochemistry, etc. -- none -- because that is not the message (mere detail), but instead the message is profound. Instead of mere concrete history exposition, the message is meaningful in a deep and profound way, and can change a person (if they let it by being quiet (putting aside their arguments and theories), and just listen).

Pet theories about small details of creation not only compete with other Christian ideas about creation...

...but when presented as if being Christian faith itself are really a kind of competition to Christianity -- competition against the gospel even, at worst.

So, a correct wording then would be "...propagandist for his pet theory..."

You'll need this clear distinction.

 

[tas8831]

Good catch to track down the real source and the interesting "95-96%", but there is very important distinction to use as you write on all this!

Important distinction -- as you worded it "...professional propagandist for Christ claims..." -- notice that propaganda (regarding creationist details/evolution) was not for Christ!

To be for Christ, the message would be about Christ. About His Words, His teaching, the Good News.

An argument for or against evolution is none of these, not even the slightest bit.

I understand your position, but in my usage/opinion of that phrase, the one writing the fib probably DOES think they are doing what they are doing 'for' Christ.
Or probably more accurately, they do what they do/write what they write in the hope and belief that they will be seen as 'doing God's work'.

No deeper meaning intended by me.

 

[Halbhh]

I understand your position, but in my usage/opinion of that phrase, the one writing the fib probably DOES think they are doing what they are doing 'for' Christ.
Or probably more accurately, they do what they do/write what they write in the hope and belief that they will be seen as 'doing God's work'.

No deeper meaning intended by me.

With the ' quotation mark you just used -- propagandist 'for' Christ -- then you'd be correctly signaling they pretend/imagine (if they even do!) that they are for Christ in some sense, but are not in reality. As such pet theories are extra-biblical (not in scripture) but instead only a personal theory/viewpoint (even while plenty will mistakenly think they have Truth in their mere assumptions and extra ideas they dogmatically preach). In effects, such theories presented as if biblical aren't for Christ at all, but block some people from even finding Him because of their outlandish qualities. Odd notions wrongly associated to Christianity suggest to outsiders that faith is all imagined stuff also. Christ can tell you (not just me, but also you) how to know if someone is following Him (!).... He said specific and clear things to look for.

 

[Brightmoon]

The problem is that scientific facts don’t give a rat’s behind about what you believe about any deity. Evolution has so much evidence for all of its major theories that it’s treated like a simple fact. Biologists just say evolution happens, period ! Some Creationists don’t like that !

 

[juvenissun]

Or probably more accurately, they do what they do/write what they write in the hope and belief that they will be seen as 'doing God's work'.

What is wrong with that?

 

[mark kennedy]

This is a compilation of 3 posts I had made in other threads, presented here to remind readers that quote-bombing plagiarist trolls and their YEC sources are not to be trusted...

Over here, our current quote-bomb-spammer presented this quote in response to an abstract I had presented that mentioned human-chimp % similarities:

“It is clear that the genetic differences between humans and chimpanzees are far more excessive than previously thought, their genomes are not 98-99% identical”
-Todd Press Human Brain evaluation PNAS 109 20121 10709-16​

That is verbatim. Googling the quote returned several hits - all only to places where the quote-bomber had spammed before. So I searched for the citation:

-Todd Press Human Brain evaluation PNAS 109 20121 10709-16

Nothing. Well, except for the quote-bomber's footprint. Long story short, I finally found the source:

Human brain evolution: From gene discovery to phenotype discovery
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2012 Jun 26; 109(Suppl 1): 10709–10716.
Todd M. Preuss​

So you can see why it was so hard to find - misspelled name... erroneous title.... garbled citation...

And even the quote was not correct- a comma where a semi-colon belonged:

"It is now clear that the genetic differences between humans and chimpanzees are far more extensive than previously thought; their genomes are not 98% or 99% identical."​

Now, that statement is unwarranted hyperbole in my opinion, especially when we consider what the author explains later in the paper:

Humans possess species-specific genes, as a result of the numerous tandem duplications of chromosome segments that occurred in human evolution, and also recombination events (46, 47). One consequence of the numerous duplications, insertions, and deletions, is that the total DNA sequence similarity between humans and chimpanzees is not 98% to 99%, but instead closer to 95% to 96% (41, 48, 49), although the rearrangements are so extensive as to render one-dimensional comparisons overly simplistic.​

Wow - 2-4% = extensive! Who knew?

Hmmm.... It is almost as if the creationist source of Tokien's copying hadn't read the paper (they usually don't). It is obvious that Tolkien didn't read it - or any of the quotes he copies from other creationists.
I had only checked 2 other quotes that this fellow has presented, 1 turned out to be a creationist lie and the other was a misrepresentation like this one.


********

This quote is from a creationist engineer and, amazingly, doctor, ranting about the coccyx. As one with graduate training and professional experience in teaching human and vertebrate anatomy at the college level, I cringe (but I love it!) when I see creationists with no business discussing this sort of thing pontificating like they were Vesalius himself. The quote as per our pal Tolkien, ellipses and all*:


“Shouldent students be skeptical when they're told that evolutionist can simply look at folds in embyoes and see gill slits? The truth is those are only folds of tissue in the pharynx region of vertebrates during the pharyngula stage of development....they never develop into a structure that is in any way like fish gills....the human tail is another misnomer born of evolutionist “look- imagine- see” methodology. What we actually see through time are early precursors to the spine forming the axial skeleton....so when evolutionist see a lower portion of the afial skeleton where the embryo is yet to grow, they “see” a transient “tail” in their imaginations. Human embroyes are recapitulating their reptilian past. But there never is a tail. The embryo grows down to its coccyx, which begins anchoring devolving muscles of the pelvic floor.”
-Randy Guliuzza P.E M.D Haeckel's Embryos Born of Evolutionary Imagination

Let's go though this point by point.


“Shouldent students be skeptical when they're told that evolutionist can simply look at folds in embyoes and see gill slits?"


Creationists should be skeptical when a professional propagandist for Christ claims that any such thing is taught. In fact, very few modern texts use the phrase "gill slits" except in historical reviews, and those that do use the term (I have a book from the 1990s that uses the term) indicate very clearly that they are not actually gills, or that they only become gills in fish. Interestingly, I am betting our engineer creationist friend Randy has no problem looking at something and seeing Creation!
And as an aside, it was never merely looking at them and calling them gill slits - Haeckel observed these structures in fish embryos and other vertebrate embryos, and erroneously concluded that they were gills. I guess Randy forgot that Haeckel wrote his treatise more than 100 years ago, and did not have the imaging technology we do today.


"The truth is those are only folds of tissue in the pharynx region of vertebrates during the pharyngula stage of development....they never develop into a structure that is in any way like fish gills...."

They are not even really "folds" as such - they contain bundles of primordia that are 'encased' in a thin layer of tissue, and this produces the appearance of folds (I guess we can attack Randy for calling these structures folds?). In fish, they DO develop into gills. Amphibians also, at least in some stages of their life cycle. The creationist only seems to be focusing on humans, of course, neglecting or being ignorant of the fact that ALL vertebrate embyos contain this pharyngeal apparatus. They all contain the same primordia (aortic arch, cartilage, mesoderm, etc.). In fish, they become gills and parts of their face and neck (if they had necks - the area behind the mouth), and in mammals and reptiles, they become parts of the face and neck and associated structures.

"the human tail is another misnomer born of evolutionist “look- imagine- see” methodology. What we actually see through time are early precursors to the spine forming the axial skeleton....so when evolutionist see a lower portion of the afial skeleton where the embryo is yet to grow, "

What? The embryo IS growing there, too. When one looks at other vertebrate embryos, one sees something very similar, hence the connection.

"they “see” a transient “tail” in their imaginations. Human embroyes are recapitulating their reptilian past."

This is Haeckel's thesis, and it is wrong and is not taught in textbooks anywhere since maybe 1915 (as seen in the movie "Flock of Dodos").

But there never is a tail. The embryo grows down to its coccyx, which begins anchoring devolving muscles of the pelvic floor.”
-Randy Guliuzza P.E M.D Haeckel's Embryos Born of Evolutionary Imagination

I do enjoy this creationist claim about how the coccyx "anchors" things. Pshun2404 claimed the coccyx "anchored" the nervous system. I have seen creationists claim that it 'anchors' the spinal cord and such. And now this guy is claiming that it 'anchors' the muscles of the pelvic floor.
Anchoring something, in my view, means that it is very strong and holds something in place. Fair? The coccyx does not do anything like that. It happens to be in a place where the tendons of several pelvic floor muscles pass. People born without a coccyx have those muscles simply joining to the perineal body. Be very skeptical when creationists ascribe all manner of superlative function to the coccyx.


Haeckel was wrong in his interpretation, but the universality of the pharyngeal apparatus in vertebrates (even in the lungless, gill-less groups of salamanders) is very good evidence for common descent, creationist desperation or ignorance-based dismissal/rejections notwithstanding.

*2 things - 1. I noticed something - this quote seems to contain typos not in the original (horrible) article - does Tolkien actually re-type these collected quotes? Does he not know how to use the copy-paste function? He must! Maybe he typed them by hand into his quote-bomb archive, then just copy-pastes from there?
2. The engineer creationist also declares that students are still taught the errors that Haeckel made as fact. Which means that even professional creationists are liars.

********

I went to that den of simpletons, "The Institute for Creation Research" to see the essay that Tolkien quotes.

This is the essay by the creationist engineer:

"Major Evolutionary Blunders: Haeckel's Embryos Born of Evolutionary Imagination"

In it, we see creationist engineer Randy Guliuzza write:

I didn’t escape being misled. In 1975 my sophomore biology textbook referred to a drawing very similar to Haeckel’s. Like most students absorbing this information for their first—and possibly only—time, I was somewhat shocked by the incredible fish-like similarity of all early embryos…especially humans. The visual evidence looked undeniable.

These drawings persuasively promoted three powerful evolutionary concepts. First, life evolved from “primitive” animals to complex humans. This “fact” is seen in the supposedly nonhuman structures that humans possess during development. My textbook commented, “For example, the early human embryo has a well-developed tail and also a series of gill pouches in the pharyngeal region.”3

Second, as my textbook went on to say, “Human and fish embryos resemble each other because human beings and fish share a common remote ancestry.”3 It presented the remarkable similarity of the embryos in the illustration as strong evidence for a universal common ancestor.

Third, a synopsis of the evolutionary history of life on Earth emerges as scientists map out all stages of embryonic development for every species. Remarkably, the stages of embryonic development for organisms, called ontogeny, supposedly reenacted or “recapitulated” their evolutionary history through time, which was called their phylogeny. Haeckel’s embryos were clearly time-lapse pictures of evolution itself.

Those concepts remain cemented in contemporary evolutionary thinking.​

That number 3 citation is:
Keeton, W. T. 1972. Biological Science, 2nd Ed. New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 550.

I'm betting ol' Randy was betting that nobody would be able to read this book. I bet he didn't think it was still available anywhere.

Poor Randy didn't know that it is available for free (to borrow electronically via The Internet Archive). Which I just did.
First, recall, Randy writes:

"This “fact” is seen in the supposedly nonhuman structures that humans possess during development. My textbook commented, “For example, the early human embryo has a well-developed tail and also a series of gill pouches in the pharyngeal region.”3"​

Ok. That is on p. 344. But Randy only writes "550" in his citation. Weird... But not uncommon for creationist authors to try to trick skeptics.

Then on p.345, we see:

"The modern view is that Haeckel's idea was an oversimplification. Ontogeny does not repeat phylogeny in any strict or literal sense."

Which is odd, because ol' Randy claims:

"Third, a synopsis of the evolutionary history of life on Earth emerges as scientists map out all stages of embryonic development for every species. Remarkably, the stages of embryonic development for organisms, called ontogeny, supposedly reenacted or “recapitulated” their evolutionary history through time, which was called their phylogeny. Haeckel’s embryos were clearly time-lapse pictures of evolution itself."​

DIRECT contradiction of what Randy the creationist at ICR claims the text indicates!

It is odd - Randy cites p. 550 of the text, but p. 550 does not mention Haeckel at all. And the drawing of embryos (p. 344)? NOT Haeckel's (they are from Romanes, 1901).


Randy then claims:

"Those concepts remain cemented in contemporary evolutionary thinking. During medical school in 1992, my graduate-level human development textbook contained the same drawings and concepts.4"​

That 4 refers to:
Moore, K. L. 1989. Before We Are Born, 3rd Ed. Philadelphia, PA: W. B. Saunders Company, 70.

The Internet Archive only has the 5th Ed, but I have been using Moore and Persaud's human embryology texts for 25 years, and I know that their new editions generally only have new photos..

Anyway, let's see if Moore's 5th edition has the 'same drawings' and 'same concepts' as the other text he lied about...

Going to be tough... 'Haeckel' does not show up in a search or in the index... Nor does 'ontogeny' or 'phylogeny'... Going to have to do this the old fashioned way.
Maybe in the "historical highlights"? Randy says p. 70, but he biffed the page number with the other text.. and... nope. Nothing on p. 70. It is a different edition, so I will cut him some slack. Back to 'historical highlights'... No drawings or pictures of 'Haeckel's embryos' in the entire chapter. No mention of him or his ideas in the entire chapter.
Maybe in the chapter on the Pharyngeal Apparatus? You know, where the 'gill slits' are? Nope... Here we go! Chapter 6:

Nope.

Oh - wait - there it is, in the back, at the end of the chapter... In the 'clinically oriented questions' section...

1: I have heard that the early human embryo could be confused with the offspring of several other species, such as a mouse or chick. Is this true? What is the distinctive feature of early human embryos?​

And then - WAYYYY back at the end of the book, on p. 500, in the section with the answers to those questions, the answer:

1. During the first few weeks, human embryos resemble the embryos of several other species because of common characteristics (e.g., large head, pharyngeal arches, and tail); thereafter, embryos acquire characteristics that are distinctly human...​

Oh, the INDOCTRINATION! Those CONCEPTS! Those drawings!
Oh the humanity!
Oh, wait -

p. 501, there are some drawings of a bunch of embryos at early and later stages. No mention of Haeckel. No mention of 'ontogeny'. No mention even of evolution.

Oh the humanity!

Looks like Randy is just another carnival barker for Jesus, not to be trusted.

Most interesting - again even the professional creationists fib about these things.

Nonsense, the the divergence between chimpanzees is easily 96% when you include indels. Is 1% and some change counting single base substitutation and another 2% to 3% based on indels, some as millions of base pairs in length. Try the, 'Initial Sequence of the Chimpanzee Genome", Nature 2005.

As far as those absurd slits in the embryos, they are ear hole dude. Your trolling, I've yet to see a serious argument from you and don't expect to see one.

 

[Strathos]

What is wrong with that?

God doesn't appreciate it when people lie in His name.

 

[mark kennedy]

God doesn't appreciate it when people lie in His name.

I dont appreciate it when people misrepresent facts I'm we acquainted with. The OP is a load of baloney.

 

[tas8831]

Nonsense, the the divergence between chimpanzees is easily 96% when you include indels. Is 1% and some change counting single base substitutation and another 2% to 3% based on indels, some as millions of base pairs in length. Try the, 'Initial Sequence of the Chimpanzee Genome", Nature 2005.

So you are content to ignore the fact that your fellow creationist distorted and misrepresented a quote, because you think the 'meat' of the quote had merit?

Tell me - as you have unwittingly admitted that you think all of the nucleotides in an indel count as mutational events, if I take 3 short steps, each of 1 foot stride each, than take 3 giant steps, each of 3 foot strides, do you claim that I have taken 12 short steps?

As far as those absurd slits in the embryos, they are ear hole dude.

No, they really are not, dude. What makes a physical feature "absurd"? The fact that you don't know what it is?

A portion of one of those 'slits' does give rise to the 'ear hole' - broken clock deal, I suppose - but the others do not. I suggest perusing even the Wiki entry on the pharyngeal apparatus - it is not too late to correct your current state of knowledge.

Your trolling, I've yet to see a serious argument from you and don't expect to see one.

Why is the OP so hard for you to understand?

I was not making arguments, just documenting the absurdity of arguing via quote, especially when the source of your quotes are documented liars. You do this a lot - ignore the actual topic and run off on your tried -and-already-falsified tangents.

Are you really so incapable of seeing past your "one big thing"-style arguments?

I notice that you are continuing to run away from my questions in other threads, I will take that as an admission of your ignorance on that topic, despite pontificating on it.
Typical.

 

[tas8831]

I dont appreciate it when people misrepresent facts I'm we acquainted with. The OP is a load of baloney.

I find it hilarious when creationist non-scientists pretend to possess knowledge that they do not - especially when they ignore context to support what amounts to the lying of their a couple of their brothers in Christ.

As you seem immune to it, the title of this thread is
"Creationists caught lying for their religion - quote bombing".

In the OP, I DOCUMENT the failures of a creationist's use of quote-bombing, and show an example of a "professional" creationist obviously fabricating references.

I guess you missed all that to remind people that you are a poor student of genetics and a complete dunce re: embryology.

 

[mark kennedy]

So you are content to ignore the fact that your fellow creationist distorted and misrepresented a quote, because you think the 'meat' of the quote had merit?

Tell me - as you have unwittingly admitted that you think all of the nucleotides in an indel count as mutational events, if I take 3 short steps, each of 1 foot stride each, than take 3 giant steps, each of 3 foot strides, do you claim that I have taken 12 short steps?




No, they really are not, dude. What makes a physical feature "absurd"? The fact that you don't know what it is?

A portion of one of those 'slits' does give rise to the 'ear hole' - broken clock deal, I suppose - but the others do not. I suggest perusing even the Wiki entry on the pharyngeal apparatus - it is not too late to correct your current state of knowledge.


Why is the OP so hard for you to understand?

I was not making arguments, just documenting the absurdity of arguing via quote, especially when the source of your quotes are documented liars. You do this a lot - ignore the actual topic and run off on your tried -and-already-falsified tangents.

Are you really so incapable of seeing past your "one big thing"-style arguments?

I notice that you are continuing to run away from my questions in other threads, I will take that as an admission of your ignorance on that topic, despite pontificating on it.
Typical.

Your being ridiculous again and dont think I missed the childish mockery. Read the Chimpanze Genome paper and honestly admit that the divergence is hundreds of millions of base pairs more then you suggested in the OP. If you cant get the actual facts straight you got a nerve moralizing. As a matter of fact only 30% of the genes are identical, across the board there is one base pair (or coden) divergent in the respective genomes. If you had bothered to learn the current research findings you would know that. The statement that we are 98% the same is patently false, your trolling, nothing more.

 

[tas8831]

Nonsense, the the divergence between chimpanzees is easily 96% when you include indels. Is 1% and some change counting single base substitutation and another 2% to 3% based on indels, some as millions of base pairs in length. Try the, 'Initial Sequence of the Chimpanzee Genome", Nature 2005.

As far as those absurd slits in the embryos, they are ear hole dude. Your trolling, I've yet to see a serious argument from you and don't expect to see one.

And just for clarification -

"It is now clear that the genetic differences between humans and chimpanzees are far more extensive than previously thought; their genomes are not 98% or 99% identical."
Now, that statement is unwarranted hyperbole in my opinion, especially when we consider what the author explains later in the paper:

Humans possess species-specific genes, as a result of the numerous tandem duplications of chromosome segments that occurred in human evolution, and also recombination events (46, 47). One consequence of the numerous duplications, insertions, and deletions, is that the total DNA sequence similarity between humans and chimpanzees is not 98% to 99%, but instead closer to 95% to 96%​

Maybe some color coding will help you grasp what I considered 'unwarranted hyperbole'?

Maybe? Probably not?

 

[mark kennedy]

And just for clarification -

"It is now clear that the genetic differences between humans and chimpanzees are far more extensive than previously thought; their genomes are not 98% or 99% identical."
Now, that statement is unwarranted hyperbole in my opinion, especially when we consider what the author explains later in the paper:

Humans possess species-specific genes, as a result of the numerous tandem duplications of chromosome segments that occurred in human evolution, and also recombination events (46, 47). One consequence of the numerous duplications, insertions, and deletions, is that the total DNA sequence similarity between humans and chimpanzees is not 98% to 99%, but instead closer to 95% to 96%​

Maybe some color coding will help you grasp what I considered 'unwarranted hyperbole'?

Maybe? Probably not?

Maybe you should consider reading the actual reaearch, rather then making obscure and obviously misleading quote. The Initial Sequence of the Chimpanzee Genome, Nature 2005. Look it up and do the math because your argument is disingenuous at best.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Your being ridiculous again and dont think I missed the childish mockery. Read the Chimpanze Genome paper and honestly admit that the divergence is hundreds of millions of base pairs more then you suggested in the OP. If you cant get the actual facts straight you got a nerve moralizing. As a matter of fact only 30% of the genes are identical, across the board there is one base pair (or coden) divergent in the respective genomes. If you had bothered to learn the current research findings you would know that. The statement that we are 98% the same is patently false, your trolling, nothing more.

Are you aware that one of the people who worked on the chimp genome sequencing, is actually a member of this forum? I'm sure he'll be able to clear all this up for you.

Isn't that right, @sfs

 

[sfs]

Are you aware that one of the people who worked on the chimp genome sequencing, is actually a member of this forum? I'm sure he'll be able to clear all this up for you.

Yeah, he knows.

 

[tas8831]

As far as those absurd slits in the embryos, they are ear hole dude. Your trolling, I've yet to see a serious argument from you and don't expect to see one.

As more evidence that you unteachable, I note that I had already tried to correct your errors on that in April:

https://www.christianforums.com/threads/gill-slits-ear-holes.8058737/

Possible of course that you just missed it, but the title should have gotten your attention. You made that claim in 2016. Still using it now. Sad.

 

[tas8831]

Maybe you should consider reading the actual reaearch, rather then making obscure and obviously misleading quote. The Initial Sequence of the Chimpanzee Genome, Nature 2005. Look it up and do the math because your argument is disingenuous at best.

You seem determined to ignore not only the very topic of this thread, but the very obvious reason I wrote what I did about that % figure.
I know you need to ego gratification, but on this it is undeserved.

And I have read the research, just not for creation-saving out-of-context quotes.

 

[tas8831]

Your being ridiculous again and dont think I missed the childish mockery.Read the Chimpanze Genome paper and honestly admit that the divergence is hundreds of millions of base pairs more then you suggested in the OP. If you cant get the actual facts straight you got a nerve moralizing. As a matter of fact only 30% of the genes are identical, across the board there is one base pair (or coden) divergent in the respective genomes. If you had bothered to learn the current research findings you would know that. The statement that we are 98% the same is patently false, your trolling, nothing more.

You are out of your depth and desperate to save face.

I can't help you.

Move along.

 

[juvenissun]

God doesn't appreciate it when people lie in His name.

You said he lied. God may not say that.
It is his God, not yours. So, who's word counts?