• Welcome to Christian Forums
  1. Welcome to Christian Forums, a forum to discuss Christianity in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

  2. The forums in the Christian Congregations category are now open only to Christian members. Please review our current Faith Groups list for information on which faith groups are considered to be Christian faiths. Christian members please remember to read the Statement of Purpose threads for each forum within Christian Congregations before posting in the forum.
  3. Please note there is a new rule regarding the posting of videos. It reads, "Post a summary of the videos you post . An exception can be made for music videos.". Unless you are simply sharing music, please post a summary, or the gist, of the video you wish to share.
  4. There have been some changes in the Life Stages section involving the following forums: Roaring 20s, Terrific Thirties, Fabulous Forties, and Golden Eagles. They are changed to Gen Z, Millennials, Gen X, and Golden Eagles will have a slight change.
  5. CF Staff, Angels and Ambassadors; ask that you join us in praying for the world in this difficult time, asking our Holy Father to stop the spread of the virus, and for healing of all affected.

Dissecting one of Tolkien's quotes

Discussion in 'Physical & Life Sciences' started by tas8831, Aug 3, 2018.

  1. tas8831

    tas8831 Well-Known Member

    +3,432
    United States
    Atheist
    Married
    Been quite a week. A new creationist on the scene thinks that regurgiposting dozens of quotes that he had copied from creationist websites helps his cause (they don't). He started a thread with 5 or 6 posts oozing with dozens of quotes and no commentary at all (which I thought was against the rules?). I've learned to ignore most of them, as they are of dubious accuracy and relevance.
    But I thought I would take one and go to town.

    This one is from a creationist engineer 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.
     
    Last edited: Aug 3, 2018
    • Winner Winner x 2
    • Like Like x 1
    • Informative Informative x 1
    • List
    We teamed up with Faith Counseling. Can they help you today?
  2. ~Anastasia~

    ~Anastasia~ † Handmaid of God † CF Senior Ambassador Supporter

    +16,380
    United States
    Eastern Orthodox
    Married
    Just FWIW - Haekel's "Ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny" did not disappear by 1915. It was alive and well and being taught around the 1980s and into early 1990s that I witnessed. And being that textbooks were generally required to be repurchased new every 2 years or less it wouldn't have been a particularly old one.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • Informative Informative x 1
    • List
  3. Justatruthseeker

    Justatruthseeker Newbie Supporter

    +965
    United States
    Non-Denom
    Widowed
    US-Others
    So basically what you said is that for years they taught that evolution was true as we could see the evolution from fish-like to man-like in the embryo, which turned out to be wrong.

    But now your saying that you have everything else correct?

    Let's see who really is lying, shall we?????

    https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evodevo_02

    "For example, both chick and human embryos go through a stage where they have slits and arches in their necks like the gill slits and gill arches of fish. These structures are not gills and do not develop into gills in chicks and humans, but the fact that they are so similar to gill structures in fish at this point in development supports the idea that chicks and humans share a common ancestor with fish."

    http://necsi.edu/projects/evolution/evidence/embryos/evidence_embryo.html

    "For example, fish embryos and human embryos both have gill slits. In fish they develop into gills, but in humans they disappear before birth.

    This shows that the animals are similar and that they develop similarly, implying that they are related, have common ancestors and that they started out the same, gradually evolving different traits, but that the basic plan for a creature's beginning remains the same."

    Enough said I believe.....
     
    Last edited: Aug 3, 2018
  4. tas8831

    tas8831 Well-Known Member

    +3,432
    United States
    Atheist
    Married
    I am sorry, I do not believe that. As I have mentioned, Haeckel and his drawings are often referred in an historical context, but not taught as truth.
     
    Last edited: Aug 3, 2018
  5. tas8831

    tas8831 Well-Known Member

    +3,432
    United States
    Atheist
    Married
    Wait! There is more!

    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.
     
    • Winner Winner x 2
    • Like Like x 1
    • List
  6. tas8831

    tas8831 Well-Known Member

    +3,432
    United States
    Atheist
    Married
    It is truly amazing how the creationist brain operates.
    Um...

    No...

    If I had crayons, this might be easier -

    You see, the whole Haeckel thing was that his hypothesis was that embryos go through the adult stages of their ancestors, what he referred to as "Ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny."
    THAT was Haeckel's thing. He also removed the yolk sacs from embryos to make the other parts of the embryos clearer - as he actually explained in early additions of his book. And yes, mammalian (to include human) embryos DO have yolk sacs (but we have mutated yolk genes, so no yolk material).
    So, he was "busted" as a "fraud" for removing the yolk sacs from his drawings. And few bought into his ORP idea.

    As indicated in the textbook from 1972 that the creationist at ICR claimed referred to Haeckel's claims as true.
    OK.

    Yes, and? That is using Haeckel's claims and Haeckel's drawings how?
    Let us try that with different bolding:

    "For example, both chick and human embryos go through a stage where they have slits and arches in their necks like the gill slits and gill arches of fish. These structures are not gills and do not develop into gills in chicks and humans, but the fact that they are so similar to gill structures in fish at this point in development supports the idea that chicks and humans share a common ancestor with fish."

    Unfortunate that they used the term "gill slits", but here - let me bold the parts that went over your head:

    "For example, fish embryos and human embryos both have gill slits. In fish they develop into gills, but in humans they disappear before birth.

    This shows that the animals are similar and that they develop similarly, implying that they are related, have common ancestors and that they started out the same, gradually evolving different traits, but that the basic plan for a creature's beginning remains the same."

    Haeckel's thesis, as claimed in the essay by Randy the creationist to be used as proof of evolution:

    https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/history_15

    "The evolutionary study of embryos reached a peak in the late 1800s thanks primarily to the efforts of one extraordinarily gifted, though not entirely honest, scientist named Ernst Haeckel (left). Haeckel was a champion of Darwin, but he also embraced the pre-Darwinian notion that life formed a series of successively higher forms, with embryos of higher forms "recapitulating" the lower ones. Haeckel believed that, over the course of time, evolution added new stages to produce new life forms. Thus, embryonic development was actually a record of evolutionary history. The single cell corresponded to amoeba-like ancestors, developing eventually into a sea squirt, a fish, and so on. Haeckel, who was adept at packaging and promoting his ideas, coined both a name for the process — "the Biogenetic Law" — as well as a catchy motto: "Ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny." Haeckel was so convinced of his Biogenetic Law that he was willing to bend evidence to support it. The truth is that the development of embryos does not fit into the strict progression that Haeckel claimed...

    Embryos do reflect the course of evolution, but that course is far more intricate and quirky than Haeckel claimed. Different parts of the same embryo can even evolve in different directions. As a result, the Biogenetic Law was abandoned, and its fall freed scientists to appreciate the full range of embryonic changes that evolution can produce — an appreciation that has yielded spectacular results in recent years as scientists have discovered some of the specific genes that control development."

    Enough said - for the honest people out there - I believe...
     
    • Winner Winner x 1
    • Informative Informative x 1
    • List
  7. USincognito

    USincognito Milk-Bones for Cerberus is a cool album name Supporter

    +13,597
    United States
    Atheist
    Private
    Recapitulation theory was not in the textbooks until then. It's possible that some misinformed teacher mentioned it or alluded to it during class, and that you're confusing drawings similar to Haeckel's (since his weren't that inaccurate) that have been used in textbooks since the 1960s with his (or Romanes') drawings, but I am doubtful of your anecdote.
     
  8. USincognito

    USincognito Milk-Bones for Cerberus is a cool album name Supporter

    +13,597
    United States
    Atheist
    Private
    Boom.
    ron-burgundy drop the mic.jpg
     
  9. Doctor.Sphinx

    Doctor.Sphinx Well-Known Member

    +2,891
    Egypt
    Christian
    Private
    US-Constitution
    I remember Haeckel's drawings being taught in schools in the 80s and 90s as evidence of evolution. You can put this down to teachers, professors, scholars etc. being uninformed (probably 90% of the evolution-believing population), but this is exactly the issue - most of evolution's adherents are misinformed, which is why they are still evolutionists.
     
  10. Jimmy D

    Jimmy D Well-Known Member

    +5,641
    Atheist
    Married
    Don’t forget people, any picture of an embryo = “Haeckel’s Drawings!” In the bizarre mind of the creationist.

    “I remember back in the 80’s every textbook showed Haeckel’s drawings, Math, English Lit, the lot!”

    Etc.
     
    • Funny Funny x 2
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • List
  11. ~Anastasia~

    ~Anastasia~ † Handmaid of God † CF Senior Ambassador Supporter

    +16,380
    United States
    Eastern Orthodox
    Married
    You may doubt of course.

    And I'm not invested in arguing with you. But you realize it's a bit cavalier to claim that "it existed in no textbooks" when that's impossible to prove unless you present them all? Be that as it may, I was involved in different institutions with different professors and at least two of them quoted "ontology recapitulates phylogeny" along with various illustrations. I cannot honestly recall if Haeckel was mentioned or not. But it wasn't in the context of refuting the teaching either.

    Carry on. This isn't my circus. Just offering a point of honesty. :)
     
  12. tas8831

    tas8831 Well-Known Member

    +3,432
    United States
    Atheist
    Married
    Isn't it sickening how professional creationists will lie and distort to fool their target audience? They seem to be very confident that none of their flock will bother to check their citations to ensure that they are being reasonably represented. How sad.
     
  13. tas8831

    tas8831 Well-Known Member

    +3,432
    United States
    Atheist
    Married
    No you don't.
    Projection is one of the few things you seem to excel at.

    What did you think of the fact that I just proved that yet another professional creationist lied?

    I'm sure you are cool with it.
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
    • Prayers Prayers x 1
    • List
  14. tas8831

    tas8831 Well-Known Member

    +3,432
    United States
    Atheist
    Married
    I am unconvinced. Even in the text from 1972 in which the professional creationist claimed Haeckel's drawings and views were presented as truth, they are NOT presented as truth, and are in fact claimed NOT to be.

    Unless you have more than a recollection, given the actual available evidence, then I can only conclude a mis-remembering.
     
  15. 2PhiloVoid

    2PhiloVoid Why do I feel like I've been Kahned? Supporter

    +6,548
    United States
    Christian
    Married
    US-Others
    Yes, it can be irritating to me as well, but only if they insist to the rest of us that we all have to adopt their viewpoint in order to be "good people" or "good Christians," or whatever.
     
    Last edited: Aug 5, 2018
  16. ~Anastasia~

    ~Anastasia~ † Handmaid of God † CF Senior Ambassador Supporter

    +16,380
    United States
    Eastern Orthodox
    Married
    Well I kept all my textbooks for a while but no longer have them. I doubt they are easily available - but perhaps. I can assure you I'm not mis-remembering. It's a catchy little phrase after all - "ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny". ;)

    But as I said, I'm not invested in making the argument. Even if I proved that there were such textbooks in use, there would a thousand other points to follow. If it actually "proved" anything to anyone, I might be willing. But as it is, what profit is there in wasting hours of my time when it would amount to less than nothing?

    I find it interesting that you are willing to insist on a negative you can't prove either.

    No ill intent toward you at all. I would think there might be better use of your efforts also. But that's not my business. :)

    I do believe that God created ... however, many of the claims of creation "science" make me shudder and I'm generally willing to call them out. I thought it only fair to do the same when another view pulled out an equally wrong charge.

    I'm on the side of intellectual honesty, that's all. But I wish you peace. If I felt someone was truly interested I can check to see if the departments maintained copies of past textbooks. But I doubt it matters enough to anyone.
     
  17. tas8831

    tas8831 Well-Known Member

    +3,432
    United States
    Atheist
    Married
    And that phrase appears in the books that point out that it was wrong, just like the textbook in question.

    So why should anyone think that your texts said anything different, especially when they are about a decade newer than the one the professional creationist lied about?
    Well, it would verify your unlikely claim, first of all.
    I am on firmer ground than remembering something that seems to counter what we know. I have little doubt that the text you refer to mentioned the phrase "ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny'. What I doubt is that this was presented as fact or that it was presented to support evolution. I have been teaching evolution for about 15 years in college, and have used 5 different textbooks. All of them mention Haeckel. All of them mention "ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny". All of them do so for historical purposes. Not one mentions it as support for evolution. Not one mentions it as being true.
    I purchased an evolution text as a reference when I was a first year graduate student. It was published in 1992. Mentions Haeckel. Even had his original drawings. Pointed out that he was wrong. Pointed out that his drawings were not entirely accurate.
    All well and good. Cheers.
     
  18. Justatruthseeker

    Justatruthseeker Newbie Supporter

    +965
    United States
    Non-Denom
    Widowed
    US-Others
    If you had crayons we would be about up to your speed. If you want to go the ad hominem remark route you'll loose in the battle of wits although I hate terribly to fight an unarmed opponent. So civilized or ad hominem, the choice is yours little child that thinks insults prove his point....

    So heckel presented a false idea which the scientific community accepted and presented as true in their textbooks for years, until later it was shown to be false. I understand, apparently it is you that does not and merely attempts to double-talk his way around it....

    Here's the thing about ad-hominem remarks, it just shows you already lost...

    "When people have actual reasons for disagreeing with you, they offer those reasons without hesitation. Strangers on social media will cheerfully check your facts, your logic, and your assumptions. But when you start seeing ad hominem attacks that offer no reasons at all, that might be a sign that people in the mass hysteria bubble don’t understand what is wrong with your point of view except that it sounds more sensible than their own." Scott Adams

    So they are not apparently similar to gills at all in function, just appear similar, which they then conclude that even tho they do not become gills, supports the idea that we came from fish anyways. Heckel's idea, just ignoring that there is in reality no similarity at all......

    Right, they are not similar in function, but this similarity that isn't similar is why it supports we evolved from fish.

    No, no, no. if they started out the same, they would be gills. Take your deluded irrational attempts to double-talk your way out of the problem somewhere where only illogical people reside. Maybe an evolutionist forum......

    Agreed, what was a false belief was abandoned. Apparently you missed that part. In order to be abandoned, it must once have been believed and taught as truth..... Just like you continue to teach the conclusion as truth (fish to man), you just admit the reason to the conclusion was false (similar gill slits that are not similar at all nor have any function related to gill slits).......

    I read through double-talk quite well, so you are going to have to do better than that.

    You've yet to show one proof anything has evolved, let alone fish to man.....
     
  19. ~Anastasia~

    ~Anastasia~ † Handmaid of God † CF Senior Ambassador Supporter

    +16,380
    United States
    Eastern Orthodox
    Married
    Well, I was "somebody" in my department - more than 15 years ago. My interest was actually in setting forth "proof" for evolution, at least to a greater degree than simply setting forth lots of facts and associated interpretations that students were expected to memorize and regurgitate. To be honest when I went through (and did so under some eminent persons in the field) - that's all anyone had time to do. Most couldn't do that much but washed out.

    It's not a casual memory. Some academics were openly refuting it at that time - some were not.

    But this seems to be very important to you. Like I said, if you want to know I'll try to get the info for you. If not we can drop it.

    Have a good day.
     
  20. tas8831

    tas8831 Well-Known Member

    +3,432
    United States
    Atheist
    Married
    Hoooo boy.... Some people just cannot admit they were wrong.
    Perhaps between 1892 when he first published it until maybe 1915ish. You seem to be implying that Haeckel knew it was false. He did not. He thought he had a good argument. Many disagreed at the time. His, for example. I don't know how long or even if it was in textbooks, but I doubt it was in all of them, and I do know that even creationist John Calvert's collection of biology textbooks did not show that it was taught after 1915 (see the film 'Flock of Dodos").
    Of note, Aggie started a thread showing that creationists now accept that dinosaurs had feathers.
    Understand what? You are just engaging in your usual attempts at well poisoning or whatever it is.
    Except that you don't seem to know what an ad hominem is (snark is not an ad hominem).
    Not even close. The structures that become gills in fish are present in creatures that do not have them.
    What do you suppose the grand design scheme may have been that produced that?

    You do not understand the difference between anatomy and physiology? They are similar in form in early embryological development. At that point, they do not possess the adult function. Fish embryos do not use their "gill slits" for gas exchange at this early stage of development. Did you not know that? They then diverge in form AND function as development proceeds in fish and mammals.
    Why? You are now some kind of expert on embryonic development by virtue of posting a Scott Adams' quote?
    The pharyngeal apparatus is not 'gills'.
    https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipe...alArchHuman.jpg/250px-PharyngealArchHuman.jpg
    The apparatus is a primordial structure(s). They follow different developmental trajectories based on the genes that are activated during development. In fish, the aortic arches develop into the gill arches. In mammals, they anastomose with other vessels and form the vasculature of the face and neck or they are resorbed. I don't expect you to understand this, it takes students months to straighten it all out, and they actually want to understand it, not dismiss it because it conflicts with what their minister told them.
    I get you are angry - it must be hard to want so badly to take part in the educated, grown-up discussions, but you have to realize that you are not there yet.
    Perhaps when you realize that keyword-searches are not the best way to actually understand complex topics, you will stop being so frustrated.
    Yes, the part where Haeckel believed that embryos went through the adult stages of their ancestors was 'abandoned.'
    By some, it was. What you are just being you about is the extent of acceptance and the length of time involved.
    And you seem hung up on one descriptive term based on the constraints of early low resolution microscopy.
    If only Haeckel's drawings were really all we had to go on.
    Hmmmm... I wonder which "allies" were in the original fish kind that, via hybridization, made non-fish...

    And you cannot even make accurate accusations - it is not "fish to man", but fish and man sharing a common ancestry. If you are convinced that humans and fish do not share this ancestry, then please, with your amazing computer graphics background or whatever you do, tell us why we both possess the same primordial structures during development, despite the fact that in the adult form they produce very different things?
    Your inability to understand the material does not mean it is "double talk."
    So you are OK with Randy the creationist lying about his textbook presenting Haeckel's claims as fact?
     
    Last edited: Aug 5, 2018
Loading...