Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Montalban. And here is yet another one:
Apparently though all this evidence is simply me having a personal hang-up with one particular teacher!
It's a major misrepresentation of the argument put, but I guess it's more manageable than to deal with facts presented.
Cite Gould then!
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.
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.
Amazing, Kirkwhisper, you've discovered the clipboard!
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?
What I did say was it is suspect that people would resort to frauds.
The fact that people are here defending the use of frauds, by misrepresenting argument simply shows problems with people having closed minds
I'm not arguing that evolution didn't happen.I fail to see how this is different to saying that fraudulent behaviour falsifies a theory, could you explain how it differs? Because I'm lost.
So, we are still waiting for Kirkwhisper to admit that he:
I'll avoid the otherwise impending generalization.
- 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.
Papias
I've noticed that Kirkwhisper has posted several times on this thread and on other threads after being asked by Assyrian (in post #235) about his Mendel quote (which Kirkwhisper had reposted at least 4 times demanding a response to).
Like others on this thread who are waiting for Kirkwhisper's response, I too am curious as to why he won't respond. Kirkwhisper? Here is what I wrote back in post #234:
But they don't deal with the evidence, not honestly. They deal in lies. They believe lies and spout them as lies; take for instance the denial of Mendel's quotes I posted from several different sources. They nit-pick, twist, mangle, and otherwise play semantics to get around the force of Mendel's position. Not accepting their utter failure to meet the challenge of providing observed/observable evidence for the transformation of one type of organism into another organism (over ANY length of time) they decide to attack the quotes of what Mendel said...knowing full well he was a creationist and did not believe in Darwin's theory of evolution. How can we know that Mendel said those things and that the quotes represent his true position? Answer: by the preponderance of information available on the subject. But you see, our critics have sold their souls to the devil....er, uh, Darwin in place of Moses as led by the Holy Spirit in Genesis and as supported by the Lord Jesus Christ Himself in the gospels. Even in that they don't care what Jesus said in support of the history that Genesis brings us & they even twist his words to justify their unbelief.
Not only so my friend, but (quote) " Mendel's experiments unambiguously showed that while variation occurred within species, it only occurred within limits. In documented lectures, he refuted thetheory of evolution, stating that the laws of inheritance did not permit limitless change, but only permitted change within definite parameters." Creation Wiki.
Best wishes to you and happy new year.
Look at what Exodus says...
We do not necessarily have to know how he did it, we just have to respect him as the almighty creator.
they decide to attack the quotes of what Mendel said...knowing full well he was a creationist and did not believe in Darwin's theory of evolution. How can we know that Mendel said those things and that the quotes represent his true position? Answer: by the preponderance of information available on the subject.
And here I was thinking you refused to discuss it with shernren.Montalban
He actually said this to you? Look at this, isn't it pathetic?
Ha, ha, ha, ha. The enemy team was was not challenged to produce observed evidence that one type of organism visibly transformed into a classifiably different type of organism over any time frame. This they totally failed in doing. Furthermore, they can't even demonstrate that such a thing is possible!
By comparison though; what is interesting is that we can trace the history of automobiles from all the way back to, say, Model-T Fords up to Lamborghini's in a neat, orderly, observed way. We can find them in textbooks and even in auto-salvage yards and all the step-by-step changes in between the old and the new. It's easy to do. But does that prove that the model-T Ford evolved into a Lamborghini...or even a Ford Bronco? Of course not. We know that they were all intelligently engineered. But what should be just as easy concerning living organisms with even more examples of evolution in the fossil record cannot be done. I only know of two questionable exceptions and even those exceptions have serious problems.
They utterly failed and yet don't have the humility to bow out gracefully and admit the failure. Pride does strange things...even to professing believers.
At your discretion, my dear friend down under.
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.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?