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.
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.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.
Nope, that was a claim that you were not able to support.Your own people say it's fraud. LOL!
LOL!Nope, that was a claim that you were not able to support.
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".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.
LOL! 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".
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 .
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.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.
Yeah. FORTY YEARS LATER.
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.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 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.
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.
You are right here. I was wrong to say you defended it as true. You defended it as "mostly true".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.
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.But there's no deception. Your point makes no sense.
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.
You are right here. I was wrong to say you defended it as true. YOu defended it as "mostly true".
No i'm giving you that. I fully conceded I was mistaken to say you defended it. You only defended it asGo 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.
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.
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.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.
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?