Neo-Darwinian evolution is in trouble INSIDE the scientific community

[Sanoy]

That has been explained to you. And how memories can fool yourself was explained to you too.

Seriously this is not rocket science. You made an error, it was a somewhat understandable error considering your biases, but it was still an error.

The only thing that has been explained to me is how my memory of something being in the text book is fraudulent, even though you claim it's in the text book anyway. This is good stuff man.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Your own people say it's fraud. LOL!

Nope, that was a claim that you were not able to support.

 

[Sanoy]

Nope, that was a claim that you were not able to support.

LOL!
Michael Richardson and his colleagues in a July 1997 issue of Anatomy and Embryology,[33] demonstrated that Haeckel fudged his drawings in order to exaggerate the similarity of the phylotypic stage. In a March 2000 issue of Natural History, Stephen Jay Gould argued that Haeckel "exaggerated the similarities by idealizations and omissions." As well, Gould argued that Haeckel’s drawings are simply inaccurate and falsified.[34] On the other hand, one of those who criticized Haeckel's drawings, Michael Richardson, has argued that "Haeckel's much-criticized drawings are important as phylogenetic hypotheses, teaching aids, and evidence for evolution".[35] But even Richardson admitted in Science Magazine in 1997 that his team's investigation of Haeckel's drawings were showing them to be "one of the most famous fakes in biology."[36]

Some version of Haeckel’s drawings can be found in many modern biology textbooks in discussions of the history of embryology, with clarification that these are no longer considered valid .[37]

Those darn lying creationists on Wikipedia amirite?

 

[pitabread]

Your own people say it's fraud. LOL!

But the Peppered Moths as evidence for evolution is not a fraud. It's a valid example of natural selection.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The only thing that has been explained to me is how my memory of something being in the text book is fraudulent, even though you claim it's in the text book anyway. This is good stuff man.

You cited two examples. Neither of which were fraudulent. Haeckel was somewhat wrong, but his principal was valid and is still studied today. You were wrong on both counts, especially the charge of "fraud".

 

[Sanoy]

But the Peppered Moths as evidence for evolution is not a fraud. It's a valid example of natural selection.

Yeah. FORTY YEARS LATER.

 

[Sanoy]

You cited two examples. Neither of which were fraudulent. Haeckel was somewhat wrong, but his principal was valid and is still studied today. You were wrong on both counts, especially the charge of "fraud".

LOL! Good stuff man.
Michael Richardson and his colleagues in a July 1997 issue of Anatomy and Embryology,[33] demonstrated that Haeckel fudged his drawings in order to exaggerate the similarity of the phylotypic stage. In a March 2000 issue of Natural History, Stephen Jay Gould argued that Haeckel "exaggerated the similarities by idealizations and omissions." As well, Gould argued that Haeckel’s drawings are simply inaccurate and falsified.[34] On the other hand, one of those who criticized Haeckel's drawings, Michael Richardson, has argued that "Haeckel's much-criticized drawings are important as phylogenetic hypotheses, teaching aids, and evidence for evolution".[35] But even Richardson admitted in Science Magazine in 1997 that his team's investigation of Haeckel's drawings were showing them to be "one of the most famous fakes in biology."[36]

Some version of Haeckel’s drawings can be found in many modern biology textbooks in discussions of the history of embryology, with clarification that these are no longer considered valid .[37]

Those darn lying creationists on wikipedia amirite?

 

[pitabread]

Some version of Haeckel’s drawings can be found in many modern biology textbooks in discussions of the history of embryology, with clarification that these are no longer considered valid .

Which was my point when I noticed you were only 37 and therefore likely had high school biology in the late 1990's. So unless your school was still using textbooks from the 1950's, it is likely that any use of Haeckel's drawings would have been historical in context.

That is even assuming you can remember Haeckel's drawings at all, which I doubt to begin with.

 

[Sanoy]

Which was my point when I noticed you were only 37 and therefore likely had high school biology in the late 1990's. So unless your school was still using textbooks from the 1950's, it is likely that any use of Haeckel's drawings would have been historical in context.

That is even assuming you can remember Haeckel's drawings at all, which I doubt to begin with.

It was still in there. I even recall the teacher telling us about the gills. I don't care if you believe me or not. I know what I experienced. What amazes me most is that you defended it as true to begin with.

 

[pitabread]

Yeah. FORTY YEARS LATER.

Irrelevant. Kettlewell's original experiments were validated and the peppered moth is an example of natural selection.

At this point I have no idea what you are even trying to argue.

 

[Sanoy]

Irrelevant. Kettlewell's original experiments were validated and the peppered moth is an example of natural selection.

At this point I have no idea what you are even trying to argue.

It is relevant. Lying to your face that I know that Rick stole something because I hate Rick doesn't make it not a lie if 40 years later if it's discovered Rick did steal something. It's possible to deceive and be right, but that doesn't make it right.

 

[pitabread]

It was still in there. I even recall the teacher telling us about the gills. I don't care if you believe me or not.

If you didn't care, you wouldn't be trying to defend your original (demonstrably false) claim any more.

I know what I experienced. What amazes me most is that you defended it as true to begin with.

"Defended" what as true? Haeckel's drawings? Nobody is defending those.

Or are you talking about the fact that developmental biology supports biological evolution? Because it does, even if Haeckel's original recapitulation theory wasn't true.

 

[pitabread]

is relevant. Lying to your face that I know that Rick stole something because I hate Rick doesn't make it not a lie if 40 years later if it's discovered Rick did steal something. It's possible to deceive and be right, but that doesn't make it right.

But there's no deception. Your point makes no sense.

 

[Sanoy]

If you didn't care, you wouldn't be trying to defend your original (demonstrably false) claim any more.



"Defended" what as true? Haeckel's drawings? Nobody is defending those.

Or are you talking about the fact that developmental biology supports biological evolution? Because it does, even if Haeckel's original recapitulation theory wasn't true.

You are right here. I was wrong to say you defended it as true. You defended it as "mostly true".

I haven't tried to defend my experience. I have nothing to defend it with but my memory. The only one defending, well asserting rather is you two.

 

[Sanoy]

But there's no deception. Your point makes no sense.

Gluing dead moths to tree trunks for a photo op because they don't show up there on their own isn't deception in your mind?....you know what? I can believe that. I'll vouch for you on that.

 

[bhsmte]

Great example of how academic freedom of thought is handled today. Thanks Subduction Zone.

TLDR: don't disagree with the group think otherwise they will label you as incompetent and loony.

The theory of evolution is one of the most evidenced theories in science. That is reality, whether certain people like it or not. Very few Phd level biologists, have much doubt about the theory being correct.

There are a handful who may have some different thoughts on the theory and they are welcome to demonstrate these thoughts, with evidence to support them.

 

[pitabread]

You are right here. I was wrong to say you defended it as true. YOu defended it as "mostly true".

Go back and re-read my original response. I never defended anything about Haeckel's drawing specifically. In fact, I pointed out that they've long been considered inaccurate.

I did mention that developmental biology does demonstrate evidence for evolution and gave the example of dolphin embryonic development.

 

[Sanoy]

Go back and re-read my original response. I never defended anything about Haeckel's drawing specifically. In fact, I pointed out that they've long been considered inaccurate.

I did mention that developmental biology does demonstrate evidence for evolution and gave the example of dolphin embryonic development.

No i'm giving you that. I fully conceded I was mistaken to say you defended it. You only defended it as mostly true. "Not entirely true."

It's my bed time now.

 

[pitabread]

Gluing dead moths to tree trunks for a photo op because they don't show up there on their own isn't deception in your mind?....you know what? I can believe that. I'll vouch for you on that.

There is no support for the claim that photos of dead moths were done so because the moths didn't show up on the trees. That's an unfounded claim.

Assuming dead moths were actually used for illustrative purposes, I'd wager it was because dead insects make much better photography subjects than live ones. As some with experience with insect photography, getting them to hold still can be a bit of a challenge.

Furthermore, the photos are entirely irrelevant to whether or not the peppered moths do show evidence of natural selection based on camouflage and predation, which in fact they do. And that's the real point here.

 

[Sanoy]

There is no support for the claim that photos of dead moths were done so because the moths didn't show up on the trees. That's an unfounded claim.

Assuming dead moths were actually used for illustrative purposes, I'd wager it was because dead insects make much better photography subjects than live ones. As some with experience with insect photography, getting them to hold still can be a bit of a challenge.

Furthermore, the photos are entirely irrelevant to whether or not the peppered moths do show evidence of natural selection based on camouflage and predation, which in fact they do. And that's the real point here.

It was studied later. They only fly at night and they couldn't figure out where they were in the day time. They only found 2 on a trunk and only 1 was camouflaged. Camouflage isn't much of an advantage if you are running round on a tree trunk.

Actually the were so lethargic the guy had to warm them up on his car to get them to move. Moths generally are, especially ones that are supposed to be camouflaged and hidden from prey.

It's my bed time.