Human Evolution

[bhsmte]

Anyone want to consider spamming the word Acknowledge on all the threads where she starts to ignore people until she eventually either acknowledges them or the threads are closed? Because this is annoying enough that I would seriously consider it.

Judging by this thread, I highly doubt anything would be beneficial to make headway to acknowledging the evidence that has been presented.

Best to simply unsubscribe at this point.

 

[46AND2]

No I don't think so.

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

“Many modern biology textbooks inform students that Haeckel’s dictum, ‘ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny,’ has been discredited, but the same textbooks often use Haeckel’s drawings (or modern versions of them) to persuade students that human embryos provide clues to our evolutionary history and evidence for Darwin’s theory.” Therefore, what we are claiming is that various modern textbooks have used Haeckel’s embryo drawings in precisely the manner that Darwinists now deny:

• (1) They show embryo drawings that are essentially recapitulations of Haeckel's fraudulent drawings — drawings that downplay and misrepresent the actual differences between early stages of vertebrate embryos;


• (2) They have used these drawings as evidence for evolution — in the present day — and not simply to provide some kind of historical context for evolutionary thought;


• (3) Even if the textbooks do not completely endorse Haeckel’s false “recapitulation” theory, they have used their Haeckel-based drawings to overstate the actual similarities between early embryos, which is the key misrepresentation made by Haeckel. They then cite these overstated similarities as still-valid evidence for common ancestry.


The notion that Haeckel's drawings were fraudulent or fake did not originate with proponents of intelligent design. Those criticisms originated with evolutionary scientists like embryologist Michael Richardson, who called them "one of the most famous fakes in biology," or Stephen Jay Gould who said "Haeckel had exaggerated the similarities by idealizations and omissions," and that "in a procedure that can only be called fraudulent," Haeckel "simply copied the same figure over and over again." Likewise, in a 1997 article titled "Haeckel's Embryos: Fraud Rediscovered," the journal Science recognized that "[g]enerations of biology students may have been misled by a famous set of drawings of embryos published 123 years ago by the German biologist Ernst Haeckel." - See more at: Darwin Lobbyists Defend Using Fraudulent Embryo Drawings in the Classroom - Evolution News & Views

So even if we concede every point to Richards, we still have biology textbooks that use Haeckel's original inaccurate drawings, without disclaimers about their not being to scale, all to teach an inaccurate lesson that the early stages of vertebrate embryos are highly similar. How is that justified? These arguments might go a small way towards absolving Haeckel himself, but that's all. The fact remains that what many biology textbooks teach on this topic is wrong. - See more at: Darwin Lobbyists Defend Using Fraudulent Embryo Drawings in the Classroom - Evolution News & Views

What do you mean you don't think so? Your quote said the same thing I did. The drawings were EXAGGERATED, not fabricated. You even put it in bold.

 

[anyathesword]

What do you mean you don't think so? Your quote said the same thing I did. The drawings were EXAGGERATED, not fabricated. You even put it in bold.

Sometimes with more research, we find more insightful information that we thought did not exist.

You said his drawings are not in modern biology textbooks. Yes they are and they teach about the fact that all embroys are the same and help support common ancestry, when in fact, all he did was copy the same embryo over and over again.

It is a fraud and it is being taught in Universities, that is a fact. And I gave you proof.

 

[anyathesword]

Wow, this is something, alright.

Nothing predates Christianity, yes? So, Jesuses mother was a christian? She believed in the crucifiction and resurrection of her son, before he was even born?

The belief in One God, the Israelites' God predated Jesus way before. You should know that! (Old Testament)

Mary believed it after it happened, absolutly. Before Jesus was born, she knew He was some sort of King who will come to save mankind. Absolutely. The Angel told her (remember?)

 

[PsychoSarah]

Sometimes with more research, we find more insightful information that we thought did not exist.

You said his drawings are not in modern biology textbooks. Yes they are and they teach about the fact that all embroys are the same and help support common ancestry, when in fact, all he did was copy the same embryo over and over again.

It is a fraud and it is being taught in Universities, that is a fact. And I gave you proof.

They don't use his pictures, we literally can send in tiny cameras to take pictures of these embryos. As it turned out, despite his flawed methods, the guy was surprisingly accurate. That, and we remove animal fetuses for dissection (not from a living animal, mind you, but they are the unfortunate victims of the meat industry).

 

[PsychoSarah]

The belief in One God, the Israelites' God predated Jesus way before. You should know that! (Old Testament)

Mary believed it after it happened, absolutly. Before Jesus was born, she knew He was some sort of King who will come to save mankind. Absolutely. The Angel told her (remember?)

Doesn't stop Hinduism from being older.

 

[lasthero]

Yes they are and they teach about the fact that all embroys are the same and help support common ancestry

Haeckel - and, in fact, no one ever - said that all embryos are the same.

all he did was copy the same embryo over and over again.

He did not copy the same embryo over and over again.

While he did exaggerate the point, it is a fact embryological development shows sign of evolution. For instance, in development the blowhole of dolphins actually starts right where the nose would be in other animals...during development, it migrates upwards until it reaches above the head. This is about what we would expect if dolphins and whales descended from animals that had the nose in such a position.

 

[anyathesword]

You know, technically, evolution doesn't really contradict the bible. The bible never says that animals can't change over time, and for all you know that 6,000 years is talking about the world of humans, not the actual world, which, if you add on the 2-3 thousand years that the bible has existed, putting that at 8-9 thousand years, that would actually probably be pretty close to about the time humans began to keep records. Not particularly good or translatable ones, but they would perhaps be there. But then again, people choose to take the bible so literally that they can't see the reality of how significant a few choice things are (creationists get that 6 thousand using the ages of Adam and his descendants when they die in reference to each other up to the time of Jesus, which is a narrow enough time frame to approximate. This number is not stated anywhere in the bible).

You are right, no where in the Bible does it say how old the earth is. But I do not think that is the biggest issue, the Age of the Earth. For me at least, the biggest issue is the 'evolution of single cells to invertebrates, to vertebrates to humans'.

We were made on the sixth day of Creation with the animals. It is clear as pie, God made humans seperate for a reason.

And don't forget the phrase after each thing God creates. 'And it was good'.

There is no room for evolution, do not be decieved.

 

[lasthero]

There is no room for evolution, do not be decieved.

Speaking of deception, are you ever going to acknowledge the deceptions that you've posted in this thread?

 

[PsychoSarah]

You are right, no where in the Bible does it say how old the earth is. But I do not think that is the biggest issue, the Age of the Earth. For me at least, the biggest issue is the 'evolution of single cells to invertebrates, to vertebrates to humans'.

We were made on the sixth day of Creation with the animals. It is clear as pie, God made humans seperate for a reason.

And don't forget the phrase after each thing God creates. 'And it was good'.

There is no room for evolution, do not be decieved.

Um, humans are still vertebrates.

 

[anyathesword]

Doesn't stop Hinduism from being older.

ok? I believe that the belief in One God was first. (Adam and Eve)

 

[PsychoSarah]

ok? I believe that the belief in One God was first. (Adam and Eve)

If it was, there are no documents of it.

 

[lasthero]

ok? I believe that the belief in One God was first. (Adam and Eve)

Well...you're wrong. Sorry.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Well...you're wrong. Sorry.

Well, to be fair, Judaism is the oldest monotheistic religion still around.

 

[Jro]

I think it's a little bit hilarious that creationists get so caught up on disputing the validity of the drawings rather than demonstrating that there are not remarkable homologies between vertebrate embryos.

Anya, are you ready to admit that 1) Lucy's knee joint is a red herring, 2) Neanderthals were not arthritic humans and 3) speciation has been observed in recent human history?

 

[anyathesword]

If it was, there are no documents of it.

Really? Genesis is not a document?

 

[PsychoSarah]

Really? Genesis is not a document?

Not a document older than the Hindu religious texts/poems weird things.

 

[anyathesword]

Well...you're wrong. Sorry.

I'm always wrong, in fact I have never been right in this forum

 

[Jro]

I'm always wrong, in fact I have never been right in this forum

Does that mean you will not repeat these claims:

"1) Lucy's knee joint 2) Neanderthals were arthritic humans and 3) speciation has not been observed in recent human history"

I'm curious if you were lying about wanting to learn about evolution. Seems more like you wanted to preach against it.

 

[anyathesword]

Not a document older than the Hindu religious texts/poems weird things.

As you see, when it comes to comparing Scriptures, its too uncertain to assert a claim as to which view is oldest or who stole from who. It is certain, however, that the Hindu religion started without the belief of reincarnation and only the worship of one deity as the Jewish and Christian faith did. However, Hindu religion branched off to worship many deities or no deity at all whereas the Jewish and Christian faith remained consistent with the worship of only one God.

So, in all fairness, I have to say that both scriptures retain elements of the most ancient world view, but that it is far more clearly retained in the Old Testament.
Hinduism And Christianity: Far Different - Spirituality vs Skepticism - Unexplained Mysteries Discussion Forums