Dissecting one of Tolkien's quotes

tas8831

Well-Known Member
May 5, 2017
5,611
4,000
55
Northeast
✟101,040.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
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.
Wait - are you saying that as recently as maybe 20 years ago there were people pushing "ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny" as described by Haeckel?

What is important to me is implying that^^^ when it is pretty clear that 50 years ago it was considered old news that Haeckel's ideas were not correct.
 
Upvote 0

sfs

Senior Member
Jun 30, 2003
10,679
7,745
64
Massachusetts
✟339,555.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
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.
You're saying that professors and scholars -- the ones who study biology for their entire lives -- are misinformed about evolution. The real facts about evolution are to be found by reading some guy on the internet?
 
Upvote 0

USincognito

a post by Alan Smithee
Supporter
Dec 25, 2003
42,058
16,810
Dallas
✟870,741.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
You're saying that professors and scholars -- the ones who study biology for their entire lives -- are misinformed about evolution. The real facts about evolution are to be found by reading some guy on the internet?

Who is also a flat earther and thinks NASA won't let anyone go to Antarctica.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Doctor.Sphinx

Well-Known Member
Dec 10, 2017
2,317
2,900
De Nile
✟20,762.00
Country
Egypt
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Constitution
You're saying that professors and scholars -- the ones who study biology for their entire lives -- are misinformed about evolution. The real facts about evolution are to be found by reading some guy on the internet?
So long as that guy is me, or someone who believes the same as me, that would be fine. They could also come to the same conclusion the long way (i.e. independent research), but if they wanted to short-cut all the time-consuming studies which they're clearly no good at anyway, the answer is essentially "yes".

Who is also a flat earther and thinks NASA won't let anyone go to Antarctica.
Correct. Although it's not strictly NASA, but the governments of the Antarctic treaty, who prevent free access to Antarctica.
 
Upvote 0

USincognito

a post by Alan Smithee
Supporter
Dec 25, 2003
42,058
16,810
Dallas
✟870,741.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
  • Like
Reactions: tas8831
Upvote 0

Doctor.Sphinx

Well-Known Member
Dec 10, 2017
2,317
2,900
De Nile
✟20,762.00
Country
Egypt
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Constitution
It's not a casual memory. Some academics were openly refuting it at that time - some were not.
It's kind of obvious he's fighting a losing argument when the guy even has to tell people what they remember and what they don't. Lol.
 
Upvote 0

~Anastasia~

† Handmaid of God †
Dec 1, 2013
31,133
17,452
Florida panhandle, USA
✟922,745.00
Country
United States
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
Wait - are you saying that as recently as maybe 20 years ago there were people pushing "ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny" as described by Haeckel?

What is important to me is implying that^^^ when it is pretty clear that 50 years ago it was considered old news that Haeckel's ideas were not correct.
If you trace back to my opening statement, I am speaking mostly of the 1980s, so no, not really quite as recently as 20 years ago. But then, and into the early 90s, yes, some academics were teaching it to their students. This was in response to your claim that it was never presented after 1915 (iirc).

And I'm not implying it. I'm stating it plainly.

Apparently not everyone was so quick to jump onto the bandwagon.

FWIW, I was not one of them. And I was a proponent of evolution at that point.

Like I said, I'm just trying to stand for a little intellectual honesty.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Doctor.Sphinx
Upvote 0

~Anastasia~

† Handmaid of God †
Dec 1, 2013
31,133
17,452
Florida panhandle, USA
✟922,745.00
Country
United States
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
It's kind of obvious he's fighting a losing argument when the guy even has to tell people what they remember and what they don't. Lol.

I must admit, telling me that I don't remember what I remember when it was my field at that time made me chuckle.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Doctor.Sphinx
Upvote 0

Brightmoon

Apes and humans are all in family Hominidae.
Mar 2, 2018
6,297
5,539
NYC
✟151,950.00
Country
United States
Faith
Episcopalian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
I was in high school 50 years ago and they did NOT teach Haeckel’s theory of recapitulation nor did they use his drawings . They used photos of the pharyngula stage of fetal development and that IS evidence for common descent
 
  • Like
Reactions: tas8831
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Doctor.Sphinx

Well-Known Member
Dec 10, 2017
2,317
2,900
De Nile
✟20,762.00
Country
Egypt
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Constitution
That response does not address my debunking of your claim. Please actually address what I posted.
Probably address it in the other thread. This one is for Creation, rather than Flat Earth.
 
Upvote 0

tas8831

Well-Known Member
May 5, 2017
5,611
4,000
55
Northeast
✟101,040.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
So long as that guy is me, or someone who believes the same as me, that would be fine. They could also come to the same conclusion the long way (i.e. independent research), but if they wanted to short-cut all the time-consuming studies which they're clearly no good at anyway, the answer is essentially "yes".

Correct. Although it's not strictly NASA, but the governments of the Antarctic treaty, who prevent free access to Antarctica.
Are you OK with a professional creationist lying about his textbook?

And what is it like to live in a paranoid fantasy world?
 
Upvote 0

USincognito

a post by Alan Smithee
Supporter
Dec 25, 2003
42,058
16,810
Dallas
✟870,741.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Probably address it in the other thread. This one is for Creation, rather than Flat Earth.
It's been several weeks. Were you planning on addressing that post any time soon?
 
  • Like
Reactions: tas8831
Upvote 0

Doctor.Sphinx

Well-Known Member
Dec 10, 2017
2,317
2,900
De Nile
✟20,762.00
Country
Egypt
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Constitution
It's been several weeks. Were you planning on addressing that post any time soon?
If it's been several weeks, chances are the answer was already provided previously in the thread, or if not, maybe your question wasn't phrased very well?

Are you OK with a professional creationist lying about his textbook?
No. But if it's you who's accusing this creationist of lying, I have to admit the accusation doesn't mean much to me. In this thread alone, you've already told several people what they remember about events 20 - 30 years ago. Reality doesn't work like that.

And what is it like to live in a paranoid fantasy world?
You tell me! ;)
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

tas8831

Well-Known Member
May 5, 2017
5,611
4,000
55
Northeast
✟101,040.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Are you OK with a professional creationist lying about his textbook?

No. But if it's you who's accusing this creationist of lying, I have to admit the accusation doesn't mean much to me.
My accusation was supported with verifiable documentation - did you not bother to read it?

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.​

I know, I know - lots of reading...

In this thread alone, you've already told several people what they remember about events 20 - 30 years ago. Reality doesn't work like that.
Misrepresentation.
I indicated that I do not believe that their recollections are accurate based on what is known, and they are asking me to accept their memories at face value, without evidence.
Reality DOES work like that.
You tell me! ;)
I'm not a paranoid snowflake, how would I know?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ophiolite
Upvote 0

tas8831

Well-Known Member
May 5, 2017
5,611
4,000
55
Northeast
✟101,040.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
If you trace back to my opening statement, I am speaking mostly of the 1980s, so no, not really quite as recently as 20 years ago. But then, and into the early 90s, yes, some academics were teaching it to their students.

Teaching that it was correct?
This was in response to your claim that it was never presented after 1915 (iirc).

And I'm not implying it. I'm stating it plainly.
Can you name the textbooks that indicated this?
Apparently not everyone was so quick to jump onto the bandwagon.
Right - His rejected it pretty much when it was originally published.
FWIW, I was not one of them. And I was a proponent of evolution at that point.

Like I said, I'm just trying to stand for a little intellectual honesty.
Right.

So what do you think about Randy misrepresenting his textbook as I demonstrated? Regarding intellectual honesty, why do you suppose so many creationists engage in so much intellectual DIShonesty? Plagiarism, repetition of false claims,misrepresentation, etc.
 
Upvote 0

~Anastasia~

† Handmaid of God †
Dec 1, 2013
31,133
17,452
Florida panhandle, USA
✟922,745.00
Country
United States
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
I kind of chuckled when you didn't present the title of the textbook.
It goes back 25-35 years ago ... sorry I don't remember it. But I offered to contact the dept and see if they kept records, if you were actually interested.

But - no offense - I'm actually not interested in being sent on errands that don't matter.

And whether or not Haekel's theories were still being presented in the 1980s and 90s ... does it really matter to you? If it does I'll inquire. I'm just not convinced it does.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Doctor.Sphinx
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

~Anastasia~

† Handmaid of God †
Dec 1, 2013
31,133
17,452
Florida panhandle, USA
✟922,745.00
Country
United States
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
Teaching that it was correct?

Can you name the textbooks that indicated this?

Right - His rejected it pretty much when it was originally published.

Right.

So what do you think about Randy misrepresenting his textbook as I demonstrated? Regarding intellectual honesty, why do you suppose so many creationists engage in so much intellectual DIShonesty? Plagiarism, repetition of false claims,misrepresentation, etc.
Ah you're going out of order and our replies are crossing.

I disagree with intellectual dishonesty wherever it happens. Some of the theories and evidence presented by "creation scientists" make me cringe. I know I've said that at least once in one of your two threads.

Randy - I don't know. To be honest, I'm not following what every person says in every thread. This really isn't something I'm invested in arguing.

It just seems to me that this thread is mostly about "someone on the other side said something wrong." Yes ... that's certainly true and not hard to demonstrate. Many "creationists" would serve their cause better by not speaking. But as I'm sure you know, that demonstrates nothing beyond invalidating that particular statement. To me it seems a waste of time.

But if you like, I'll look for info on those textbooks. I'm just wondering does it really matter (to you) that it was taught at that point in time? By the reasoning of "the other side taught/sad something wrong" ... I doubt you'd be convinced if the shoe was on the other foot regarding one small fact.

I'm not trying to be antagonistic towards you. I just think there are lots of things more worthwhile to pursue.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2PhiloVoid
Upvote 0