Genesis is a lie. Question for christians...

[shernren]

If one can't even be critical of these mistakes without apologists offering all manner of re-working of argument and ignoring of evidence it's just a tip of the iceberg to much larger problems in education on evolution.

Let me first ask this: What would you teach in biology class? What pictures would you show them?

I've never gotten a coherent answer to this question. And that's because most creationists have never tried to teach science themselves (while I have). It's the easiest thing in the world to rant about how something's being done wrong, but unless you can show how to do it right, your criticism bears little weight.

Also, is there any possible response that would satisfy you at this stage? After all, consider the options. Either I don't defend evolution, in which case you'll think you're right, or I do, in which case you'll think you're right because it's just "all manner of re-working of argument and ignoring of evidence". The fact of the matter is that I haven't ignored evidence. I've said that your biology teacher was wrong to use a faulty graphic of Haeckel's embryos, and I'll say even beyond that that it was wrong for textbooks to include a faulty graphic of Haeckel's embryos.

But what do you expect beyond that? If you present evidence of evolution being wrongly taught, I'll be the first to admit that it's wrongly taught sometimes. But expecting me to abandon evolution because of that is like you expecting me to abandon Christianity just because some pastors are frauds or expecting me to call Australia racist just because some kids beat up Indian students in their spare time (and I've personally studied in Australia before, and loved my time there, so I know what I'm talking about).

As for "re-working of argument and ignoring of evidence", let me just quote you your own posts:

I went to a Catholic boys school. We were taught evolution in high school - in Biology.

Many of the so-called proofs for it I found out to be false. In fact, they were widely known to be frauds well before I even started school

Such as Haeckel's embryonic drawings.

And the Miller-Urey experiment - which was supposed to demonstrate abiogenesis.

Long after he was shown to be a fraud we were still given his drawings as a demonstration.

(oh, the irony of the next one)

The world doesn't revolve around you and your observations.
...

In case you missed: Darwin addressed it, and it was what I was taught as part of High School Biology.

No. I'm right. They're frauds. And they were shown to be before I had even started school - let alone got into high school ...

Firstly, his lack of knowledge does not negate my statement that I learnt this in High School.

I am older than he, I did Biology in 1984, and 1985. I also did a year of pre-History at university in 1986. Haeckel's drawings were already known to be fake.

I don't get why this is re-worked to be some kind of lone-wolf teacher. It was in our text books!

I suggest you deal with evidence and acknowledge mistakes were made, and who made them. ...

a) Abiogensis was taught as part of evolution. It's totally irrelevant that people here think it has nothing to do with it. The point is I was taught it. I evidenced that it's still on the curicula AND none have addressed the fraud of the Miller-Urey experiments at all... which did not show the formation of the building blocks of life.

b) Haeckel's drawings were used as a tool. They are full of errors and misnomers. This too wasn't a case of a single teacher teaching this.

You've done absolutely nothing but repeat hysterically almost verbatim: Yes, but I was taught these things in school! In case you didn't get it the first time, the world doesn't revolve around you and your observations about the high school syllabus and textbooks of 1986. And I've already shown that by showing that evolutionists themselves (not creationists) only updated our knowledge of comparative embryology in 1997 enough to systematically show what was wrong with Haeckel's drawings.

But then again, you'll just dismiss this as more evolutionary argumentation. I know that much. This is really just for any lurkers who are still watching this horrifying slugfest.

 

[Montalban]

You've done absolutely nothing but repeat hysterically almost verbatim

I evidenced abiogensis on the curciculum and you didn't address that.

 

[shernren]

Because I believe in tackling one thing at a time, especially when you also equally harped on Haeckel.

 

[Montalban]

Because I believe in tackling one thing at a time, especially when you also equally harped on Haeckel.

You replied to the entire post. Now you're saying I should disregard most of it, except that dealing with Haeckel???

Fair enough.

 

[Montalban]

Gould described Haeckel as the "primary enthusiast and popularizer" of Darwin's theory of evolution in the late Nineteenth Century, "exert[ing] more influence than the works of any other scientist, including Darwin and [T. H.] Huxley." (Emphasis added.) Gould also admitted that Haeckel built his successful promotion of Darwin's theory in part on the fraudulent claims made in Haeckel's embryo drawings.
Lessons Learned from Haeckel and His Drawings: We Shouldn't Always Believe What the "Leading Experts" Tell Us about Evolution - Evolution News & Views

 

[Smidlee]

Gould described Haeckel as the "primary enthusiast and popularizer" of Darwin's theory of evolution in the late Nineteenth Century, "exert[ing] more influence than the works of any other scientist, including Darwin and [T. H.] Huxley." (Emphasis added.) Gould also admitted that Haeckel built his successful promotion of Darwin's theory in part on the fraudulent claims made in Haeckel's embryo drawings.
Lessons Learned from Haeckel and His Drawings: We Shouldn't Always Believe What the "Leading Experts" Tell Us about Evolution - Evolution News & Views

Gould is a good example of admitting Haeckel drawings were fake but only as damage control. Evolutionist will admit they are wrong and make correction on the details (which are ever changing) but they will never bring any doubt of evolution dogma itself. "evolution did it" no matter where the evidence points.

 

[Montalban]

Gould is a good example of admitting Haeckel drawings were fake but only as damage control. Evolutionist will admit they are wrong and make correction on the details (which are ever changing) but they will never bring any doubt of evolution dogma itself. "evolution did it" no matter where the evidence points.

That's what I found.

When I did pre-history we were taught the evolution of man (using a text "In Search of Ourselves" by Frank E. Poirier.

In dealing with the rise of modern man there were at the time four schools of thought. Unilinear School
Polyphyletic School
Preneanderthal School
Presapiens School

They were ALL based on the evidence at hand. However if one was true then the other's couldn't be – as they were all mutually exclusive theories.

Those four have been thrown away and more recently two others (also mutually exclusive) have appeared; the Di-regional (aka Multi-regional) and the "Out of Africa"

Wolpoff (whose book I have) – a supporter of the former theory has this frank admission
"The current controversy is largely a reflection of different scientific philosophies, linked to ideas about race through their treatment of variation. But there is more to it. Even if they have no conscious social agenda, scientists are bound by the same preconceptions as everyone else - their social, religious, and educational backgrounds influence their choices of theories and, perhaps more important, their philosophies of science. Karl Popper noted more than once that it doesn't matter where hypotheses come from, only whether they explain the evidence they are based on, whether they are subject to disproof, and whether they can hold up to enthusiastic attempts to disprove them. This philosophy forms the basis of deductive science. But hypothesis do come from somewhere, often the underlying assumptions of society. Moreover, not only the differences in sources of ideas, but also different premises scientists have held about evolution, human nature, God, and how science should be done, have always underscored the controversies about human evolution."
Wolpoff, M & Caspari, R, (1997) Race and Human Evolution: A Fatal Attraction, p12.

 

[shernren]

You replied to the entire post. Now you're saying I should disregard most of it, except that dealing with Haeckel???

Fair enough.

Actually, I don't recall having said anything much about the Miller-Urey experiment yet in this thread. I did give an analogy relating abiogenesis to nucleosynthesis but all you said was, in a single word, "irrelevant". Without explaining why or how.

Gould described Haeckel as the "primary enthusiast and popularizer" of Darwin's theory of evolution in the late Nineteenth Century, "exert[ing] more influence than the works of any other scientist, including Darwin and [T. H.] Huxley." (Emphasis added.) Gould also admitted that Haeckel built his successful promotion of Darwin's theory in part on the fraudulent claims made in Haeckel's embryo drawings.
Lessons Learned from Haeckel and His Drawings: We Shouldn't Always Believe What the "Leading Experts" Tell Us about Evolution - Evolution News & Views

Now, if you will go on to read the rest of what Gould wrote:

2. Haeckel's forgeries as irrelevant to the validity of evolution or Darwinian mechanisms (von Baer's contribution): From the very beginning of this frenzied discussion two years ago, I have been thoroughly mystified as to what, beyond simple ignorance or self-serving design, could ever have inspired the creators of the sensationalized version to claim that Haeckel's exposure challenges Darwinian theory or even evolution itself. After all, Haeckel used these drawings to support his theory of recapitulation--the claim that embryos repeat successive adult stages of their ancestry. For reasons elaborated at excruciating length in my Ontogeny and Phylogeny, Darwinian science conclusively disproved and abandoned this idea by 1910 or so, despite its persistence in popular culture. Obviously, neither evolution nor Darwinian theory needs the support of a doctrine so conclusively disconfirmed from within.​

Abscheulich! | Natural History | Find Articles - see page 5.

 

[Kirkwhisper]

I evidenced abiogensis on the curciculum and you didn't address that. .

He doesn't care. He's a nit picker.

You wouldn't have to repeat yourself if the 'scientist' had grasped what you were saying to begin with.

I made the statement that I saw the same Haeckel nonsense when I was in school a la 1965-1969. But the problem has been documented repeatedly in other sources.

For instance:

Textbook I. Peter H Raven & George B Johnson, Biology (5th ed, McGraw Hill, 1999), pgs. 416, 1181:


Analysis:(1) As seen here, the textbook uses a colorized and slightly edited version of Haeckel’s original fraudulent drawings. This version obscures the differences between the earliest stages of embryos as egregiously as Haeckel’s original drawings did.

(2) The drawings are presented as valid evidence for the modern theory of evolution, and are not merely used to provide historical context. They come from a section entitled "Embryonic Development and Vertebrate Evolution." The caption reads: “Embryonic development of vertebrates. Notice that the early embryonic stages of these vertebrates bear a striking resemblance to each other, even though the individuals are from different classes (fish, amphibians, reptiles, birds, and mammals). All vertebrates start out with an enlarged head region, gill slits, and a tail regardless of whether these characteristics are retained in the adult.” (pg. 1181) The text states: “The patterns of development in the vertebrate groups that evolved most recently reflect in many ways the simpler patterns occurring among earlier forms. Thus, mammalian development and bird development are elaborations of reptile development, which is an elaboration of amphibian development, and so forth (figure 58.16).” (pg. 1180) Although Haeckel is mentioned, it is clear that the textbook authors regard these drawing as evidence apart from Haeckel’s interpretation."

CSC - What do Modern Textbooks Really Say about Haeckel's Embryos?

And that's just one example.

 

[Kirkwhisper]

Montalban. And here is yet another one:

Textbook III. Douglas J. Futuyma, Evolutionary Biology (3rd ed, Sinauer, 1998), pg. 653:


Analysis:(1) Haeckel’s original faked drawings are shown with a caption implying that vertebrate embryos are very similar at early stages: "An illustration of von Baer's law: three stages in the development of several vertebrates. All the vertebrates share many common features early in development; many distinguishing features of the classes and orders appear later." (pg. 653) There is no indication that the drawings are fraudulent.

(2) The caption states that the picture supports common descent and evolution. There is no indication in the caption that this is merely a part of history, but there is every indication that this is how embryos really look and that the drawings provide evidence for the modern theory of evolution.

 

[Montalban]

You wouldn't have to repeat yourself if the 'scientist' had grasped what you were saying to begin with.

I don't know what the problem is. The use of these drawings was a mistake. It'd be intellectually honest if the scientific community just admitted this.

By the way, I do believe in evolution - I'm decended from Piltdown Man

 

[shernren]

Amazing, Kirkwhisper, you've discovered the clipboard!

I don't know what the problem is. The use of these drawings was a mistake. It'd be intellectually honest if the scientific community just admitted this.

By the way, I do believe in evolution - I'm decended from Piltdown Man

Go back and look at your own post #228. Has the scientific community admitted that Haeckel's drawings are mistakenly used, or not?

I'll add to that renowned science blogger PZ Myers:

In the case of Haeckel, though, I have to begin by admitting that Wells has got the core of the story right. Haeckel was wrong. His theory was invalid, some of his drawings were faked, and he willfully over-interpreted the data to prop up a false thesis. Furthermore, he was influential, both in the sciences and the popular press; his theory still gets echoed in the latter today. Wells is also correct in criticizing textbook authors for perpetuating Haeckel's infamous diagram without commenting on its inaccuracies or the way it was misused to support a falsified theory.
​

Wells and Haeckel's Embryos : Pharyngula

What's my problem?

Unfortunately, what Wells tries to do in this chapter is to take this invalid, discredited theory and tar modern (and even not so modern) evolutionary biology with it. The biogenetic law is not Darwinism or neo-Darwinism, however. It is not part of any modern evolutionary theory. Wells is carrying out a bait-and-switch here, marshalling the evidence and citations that properly demolish the Haeckelian dogma, and then claiming that this is part of "our best evidence for Darwin's theory."​

Exactly that.

Once again, Montalban, how would you teach evolutionary biology? Or are you so hung up with what your teacher got wrong all those years ago that you're too paralyzed to learn what we've learned since then?

 

[chris4243]

Darwin chose as the best descriptor for his theory a tautology; 'survival of the fittest'

If his chosen term was a meaningless phrase then the basis of his argument isn't very good... this isn't to say that evolution did not happen, only that the argument given to support it was flawed.

Do you believe that the tautology, "survival of the fittest", is an accurate descriptor of evolutionary theory?

 

[chris4243]

But they don't deal with the evidence, not honestly. They deal in lies. They believe lies and spout them as lies; [...] They nit-pick, twist, mangle, and otherwise play semantics to get around [...] Not accepting their utter failure to meet the challenge of providing observed/observable evidence for

Another fraud [...]

They can't give what was asked for [...]

Does it only matter when it's the "enemy team" that is doing this? Are creationists exempt, because they're doing it for a good cause?

What is interesting is that your new Mendel quote goes on to say:

Although this opinion cannot be adjudged unconditionally valid, considerable confirmation of the earlier expressed conjecture on the variability of cultivated plants is to be found in the experiments performed by Gartner."
​

It is Gartner who thought he found unequivocal proof, Mendel has reservations and was unsure how wide the validity of Gartners findings was. Oddly, both you and Mark crop the quotation in the same place and leave this out. Again if you had read your original Mendel link you would have seen this very quote discussed.

The whole issue is one of history and the history of science, rather than science itself, creationists want to claim Mendel as one of their own, and seem to play fast and loose with history to do so, but even if they were right it is irrelevant to modern science.

So, we are still waiting for Kirkwhisper to admit that he:

• posted something that Mendel never said nor wrote, saying that it was a quote from Mendel,
• and then repeated it over and over, insisting that we take that bogus "quote" seriously,
• and then, when pressured repeatedly for a source, cited a page that didn't even have it anyway on that page,
• and that even now, when the whole situation is exposed, hasn't owned up to it.

I'll avoid the otherwise impending generalization.

Perhaps he admires Haeckel's methods?

I too am waiting for something from Kirkwhisper; he has yet to give me an example of some evidence that the theory of evolution/common descent predicts, but is not found. He has managed to suggest that he actually knows much less about the subject than he thinks he does; I don't think he yet knows enough about it to present an honest to goodness prediction of evolutionary theory, for us to discuss whether or not the evidence supports it.

 

[chris4243]

Why should multicellularity have to happen multiple times for ToE to be true?

Multicellularity is, per evolutionary theory, an example of parallel evolution in that multicellularity evolved independently in multiple different lineages, including plants, animals, and bacteria. (a few of the cases depend on how you define multicellularity).

 

[Montalban]

Do you believe that the tautology, "survival of the fittest", is an accurate descriptor of evolutionary theory?

It's not up to me. Darwin said he preferred it

 

[chris4243]

It's not up to me. Darwin said he preferred it

Darwin knows what you believe better than you yourself do?

 

[Montalban]

Darwin knows what you believe better than you yourself do?

Does he? I thought I was talking about evolutionists and their bogus arguments.

If you want to know what I feel - PM me. I don't see how it's relevant to anything unless you're just interested for some curiosity sake.

 

[Montalban]

Once again, Montalban, how would you teach evolutionary biology? Or are you so hung up with what your teacher got wrong all those years ago that you're too paralyzed to learn what we've learned since then?

I cited Gould's opinion. You ignored that and instead choose to address a particular person based on some hang-up you think he has. You insist on reducing my argument to some personal issue for me. Funny that.

I guess some can't handle the truth.

Perhaps it's just easier to handle?

 

[Keachian]

Now, if you will go on to read the rest of what Gould wrote:

2. Haeckel's forgeries as irrelevant to the validity of evolution or Darwinian mechanisms (von Baer's contribution): From the very beginning of this frenzied discussion two years ago, I have been thoroughly mystified as to what, beyond simple ignorance or self-serving design, could ever have inspired the creators of the sensationalized version to claim that Haeckel's exposure challenges Darwinian theory or even evolution itself. After all, Haeckel used these drawings to support his theory of recapitulation--the claim that embryos repeat successive adult stages of their ancestry. For reasons elaborated at excruciating length in my Ontogeny and Phylogeny, Darwinian science conclusively disproved and abandoned this idea by 1910 or so, despite its persistence in popular culture. Obviously, neither evolution nor Darwinian theory needs the support of a doctrine so conclusively disconfirmed from within.​

Abscheulich! | Natural History | Find Articles - see page 5.

And Shernren gave you the rest of Gould's discussion on Haeckel's drawings, which says that your conclusion that them being false proves the invalidity of evolution is wrong, the ball's in your court Mantalban