Neo-Darwinian evolution is in trouble INSIDE the scientific community

[pitabread]

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."

Just to clarify, the context of that was in relation to recapitulation theory.

 

[Subduction Zone]

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?

Please, you are simply not being honest or consistent in your claims. Your own quote supports what we have been telling you. That Haeckel is not used as evidence for evolution. That he was wrong but still provided useful work as in the snippet that you provided:

"Michael Richardson, has argued that "Haeckel's much-criticized drawings are important as phylogenetic hypotheses, teaching aids, and evidence for evolution"

Sometimes even when a scientist is wrong his work helps advance an idea. I already told you that today. Haeckel was wrong. Calling his work "fakes" is a bit of a reach. And "fraud" is something that has not been proven as I showed with my earlier link.


Now you claimed to have seen those pictures in a textbook. That claim simply does not hold water.

From the linked article:

"Explore Evolution repeats another false claim from Wells.

This error even crept into the Encyclopedia Britannica, and remains in many modern high school and college biology textbooks.
Explore Evolution, p. 69"

"This is incorrect. A recent survey of 36 biology textbooks, dating from 1980 to the present and covering high school biology, college introductory biology, advanced college biology, and developmental biology books, found that only 8 of these textbooks mentioned Haeckel or the biogenetic law. Two of these 8 were creationist/ID books (Of Pandas and People, and Biology for Christian Schools from Bob Jones University Press). Of the 6 mainstream textbooks that mentioned Haeckel or the biogenetic law, two are advanced college-level books. In all cases where Haeckel is mentioned (except for the creationist/ID books), the text discussion does not reproduce Haeckel's mistakes.

Explore Evolution emphasizes data from the 1997 paper by Michael Richardson and colleagues that strongly challenged a literal interpretation of Haeckel's diagram."

Michael Richardson's photographs | NCSE

Did you see that? In the textbooks that mentioned Haeckel his errors were not reproduced. At best you are misremembering.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Just to clarify, the context of that was in relation to recapitulation theory.

Correct, but creationists can't seem to separate out recapitualtion theory, which was never part of the theory of evolution with the theory of evolution.

 

[Subduction Zone]

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.

Nope, it illustrates the principal involved. Even though the moths would be better hidden during the day, the difference between being on a light branch or a dark branch would still make them less noticeable to predators.

 

[Subduction Zone]

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.

Exactly. The insects would not be where they are easily seen, even if they were camouflaged. Hiding on a tree trunk is not a pro-survival trait, even if one blends in fairly well. But showing students pictures of a branch where even a non-camouflaged moth would be hard to see would be rather pointless.

And yes, dead insects are much easier to photograph, have you ever tried to get a living insect to say "cheese"?

 

[pitabread]

And yes, dead insects are much easier to photograph, have you ever tried to get a living insect to say "cheese"?

Oh, I have many a time. I find that arachnids make the best photo subjects, but fliers (especially dragonflies) are tougher. A lot of macro shots of insects tend to be of dead ones, especially where multiple shots are stitched together.

I did once have a very cooperative moth show up on my door window. Captured one of my favorite photos (taken at night with a flash, hence the bright lighting):

 

[Obliquinaut]

I'm not sure I get the question. Help me out by example, what is yours, and what did you say SZ;s was again?

Mine? Geochemistry.

I could say my area of science is anything I'm interested at the moment that involves science.

Well, being interested is one thing but often people don't have the discipline to actually follow through and dig into the hard stuff.

My area (chemistry) is what I spent 20 years working in. There were parts of it I didn't relish doing but had to learn how to do. That's one of the differences.

But also, when one actually has to DO science (and not just read fun articles online) it does tend to hone a deeper understanding of how science is done and what "evidence" means etc.

I'm ready, Hello?! Why in the world would you think you have to tell me that? show me the evidence and how it is proof.

You have been shown the evidence and people (certainly me) have explained to you the matter of "proof".

Now if you cannot prove inaythng, or say proof is dicy here, then you cannot, and threin lioes the problem.

I have already done those things and I'm certain others have as well on this thread alone.

You want to say here is the evic=dence, and then say you can't prove anyrthing. If you cannot prove anything then just say so, and stop claiming evolutoon is a fact.

Oh my. I see you are unable to understand the explanation. I am sorry. This is what it means to be a scientist. NOT just an amateur who finds fun articles on line that pique their interest. It means LEARNING AND UNDERSTANDING what is explained to you.

So I really need to put this on a lever for a 3yr old for you, like I do SZ?

You really need to pump your breaks there, dude. I have a PhD in geology. I have actually done paleontology stuff. (not that evolutionary biology was my area of expertise or anything. But one does tend to get that as an added bonus with the rest of the training.)

Note how you were confused about my question of your area of science. Well, I'm not because I AM a scientist.

To put an even finer point on a main point here, whether it's truly complicated or not to prove (and I don't think it should be), whether you like it or not, how can you not admit we HAVE to have PROOF in order to KNOW something is fact, and if we do not KNOW it is fact, we should STOP stating it as such. Is that too much to ask?

I believe I've wasted enough time trying to explain this crucial point to you. You clearly are not tracking on the technical language.

Take some science classes. Heck, get a degree in one of the sciences, then come back and tell us all about what you know as far as "proof".

(I like how people so blithely ignore my discussions of the p-value since that is at the heart of inferrential statistics and science in general. But I also understand...it's not an easy topic for people who are simply dilettantes in the sciences. I would point you to a nice introductory statistics textbook. A little further in you'll find "Inferential Statistics". It's pretty neat.)

 

[dmmesdale]

Mine? Geochemistry.



Well, being interested is one thing but often people don't have the discipline to actually follow through and dig into the hard stuff.

You mean like being distant cousins to bananas and turnips?

''It is a plain truth that we are cousins of chimpanzees, somewhat more distant cousins of monkeys, more distant cousins still of aardvarks and manatees, yet more distant cousins of bananas and turnips … continue the list as long as desired.” Pope Dawkins.

Blind watchmaker evolution is embraced more for the support it provides to atheistic history myth then it's supposed science value which is zilch. You are free to believe any nonsense you choose. Be careful not to eat your distant cousin and good luck with that.

 

[pitabread]

Oh nevermind, at this point it's beating a dead horse...

 

[Astrophile]

Doubt it all you want. What I said was true.

As pitabread pointed out, you were born in 1980 and you must have been in high school in the 1990s. Your textbooks should have contained more up-to-date information about evolution than the work of Haeckel (who died in 1919) and Kettlewell's peppered moth experiments, which were performed in the 1950s. Do you remember any other evidence for evolution that was in your textbooks and that has since been shown to be false or fraudulent?

 

[Subduction Zone]

You mean like being distant cousins to bananas and turnips?

''It is a plain truth that we are cousins of chimpanzees, somewhat more distant cousins of monkeys, more distant cousins still of aardvarks and manatees, yet more distant cousins of bananas and turnips … continue the list as long as desired.” Pope Dawkins.

Blind watchmaker evolution is embraced more for the support it provides to atheistic history myth then it's supposed science value which is zilch. You are free to believe any nonsense you choose. Be careful not to eat your distant cousin and good luck with that.

Nope, but no one has the time here to bring you up to even a high school level of science competence.

You need to want to learn. You seem to be more than happy to wallow in your lack of knowledge on this topic.

 

[Kenny'sID]

Oh my. I see you are unable to understand the explanation. I am sorry. This is what it means to be a scientist. NOT just an amateur who finds fun articles on line that pique their interest. It means LEARNING AND UNDERSTANDING what is explained to you.

Exactly where I thought you were headed with that to begin with, yet you denied it.

"You are not a scientist so you haven't a chance here" Don't you just wish I and the rest of the world were that gullible. As I already stated, if you are, you would believe anything you hear. Regardless of credentials and how highly one thinks of themselves, they still have to prove what they claim, and when all they have are excuses when it comes to doing so, that tells the whole story.

I think you had better take a pole now so those that don't meet your criteria know the score. And do ask SZ, for credentials as well.

Well, being interested is one thing but often people don't have the discipline to actually follow through and dig into the hard stuff.

Are you saying the layman cannot discern fact from fiction, proof from a lack there of? Did you happen to notice how I cannot get anything close to proof from someone who said they could prove it to even find out what I/we can do with it? Are you saying we have to have a degree to discern if it is proof? Would one of you like to prove this out, give us proof and lets see how it goes or are you now going to play the "Oh, you aren't scientists so you are incapable of anything here, because you don't understand", along with all the prior excuses? Don't ya' think someone should have made that criteria clear from the start if it's a problem? Did you actually assume we are all scientists?

Or in short, give me a break, another cop out because you cannot prove a thing..

I already have to laugh at the likelihood someone that thinks it all just fell together by itself would ever be too bright to begin with, much less they could even think about making a good case for evolution, but you guys add so much more to the fun factor of all this.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Exactly where I thought you were headed with that to begin with, yet you denied it.

"You are not a scientist so you haven't a chance here" Don't you just wish I and the rest of the world were that gullible. As I already stated, if you are, you would believe anything you hear. Regardless of credentials and how highly one thinks of themselves, they still have to prove what they claim, and when all they have are excuses when it comes to doing so, that tells the whole story.

I think you had better take a pole<sic> now so those that don't meet your criteria know the score. And do ask SZ, for credentials as well.

I have just a bachelors degree in geology and did not pursue a job in the field.

By the way, the word that you wanted to use was "poll".

The problem is that you do not even know the basics of science and don't wish to learn.

Are you saying the layman cannot discern fact from fiction, proof from a lack there of? Did you happen to notice how I cannot get anything close to proof from someone who said they could prove it to even find out what I/we can do with it? Are you saying we have to have a degree to discern if it is proof? Would one of you like to prove this out, give us proof and lets see how it goes or are you now going to play the "Oh, you aren't scientists so you are incapable of anything here, because you don't understand", along with all the prior excuses? Don't ya' think someone should have made that criteria clear from the start if it's a problem? Did you actually assume we are all scientists?

Or in short, give me a break, another cop out because you cannot prove a thing..

I already have to laugh at the likelihood someone that thinks it all just fell together by itself would ever be too bright to begin with, much less they could even think about making a good case for evolution, but you guys add so much more to the fun factor of all this.

Some can, some can't. If the person is not willing to learn to fix a basic misunderstanding of his then the answer is more that that person will not let himself learn.

By the way, your strawman argument at the end only demonstrates that what others, including me, have been saying about you.

Kenny, when I debate a topic I try to learn. You can't refute what you cannot understand. I recently debate AGW with a couple of deniers on another website. They kept insisting that the Greenhouse Effect was not possible due to the Stefan-Boltzmann Law. I had to review some basic physics for that topic. One finally ran away when he was shown to be wrong on every point, he was the one that claimed to understand physics. The other was left to only say "Nuh-uh".

By the way, I will be more than happy to help you understand the video that I linked for you.

 

[Kenny'sID]

Sanoy. notice how SZ is guilty of exactly what he is accusing you of in the paragraphs below.

Th paragraph following?...him to a tee...no question. So at the very least and this is assuming he has some reason to believe you are guilty, I'm not convinced. But at best, it's a 50/50 standoff so it makes his comment towards you, completely null. Same as with the second paragraph, where he holds and exact opposite view, making that comment worth just about nothing as well.

Point being, they offset so SZ might as well have said nothing to you....yet he cannot even see that. When ones/anyone's view of themselves is so arrogant, they can only see fault in the "other" person, and not the same fault in themselves, even if it's staring them right in the face, they really need to stop, go back to square one, and try to wake up to reality before they accuse others of anything.

You may believe your statement to be true, but that does not make it so. The human memory is amazingly unreliable at times, especially when your own personal biases enter the picture.

More than anything you WANT the theory of evolution to be wrong. Your mind is simply editing what you remember. Don't worry, it is only human nature.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Sanoy. notice how SZ is guilty of exactly what he is accusing you of in the paragraphs below.

Th paragraph following?...him to a tee...no question. So at the very least and this is assuming he has some reason to believe you are guilty, I'm not convinced. But at best, it's a 50/50 standoff so it makes his comment towards you, completely null. Same as with the second paragraph, where he holds and exact opposite view, making that comment worth just about nothing as well.

Point being, they offset so SZ might as well have said nothing to you....yet he cannot even see that. When ones/anyone's view of themselves is so arrogant, they can only see fault in the "other" person, and not the same fault in themselves, even if it's staring them right in the face, they really need to stop, go back to square one, and try to wake up to reality before they accuse others of anything.

Please, Kenny. Don't make false claims about others.

You have demonstrated countless times that you do not understand the nature of evidence. You are afraid to even answer a yes/no question that you know would prove your ignorance.

Yes, you lack education in the sciences. That much is obvious. That means you are unable to judge.

That does not mean that you cannot learn, but you seem to want to keep yourself ignorant about the basics as a defense mechanism.

Can you tell me why you are afraid to learn?

 

[Kenny'sID]

By the way, the word that you wanted to use was "poll".

Seriously? you're resorting to spell checking now? Things not going well at all here, eh?

Just want to comment on this, as far as I read... and even that is probably a waste of time, but oh well.

Kenny, when I debate a topic I try to learn. You can't refute what you cannot understand.

I cannot refute "nothing" in this case and that just what I got when I ask for the proof you claimed you had. End of story.

Wait a sec, I'm wrong, I did get excuse after excuse, to the point is was clear to everyone you have nothing. But don't feel bad, it's always the way here with the same question.
They all tell untruths, claim evolution a fact, accepted by most, blah blah blah, then when asked to back it up, they all fall to pieces.

Unfortunately their proof all just turned out to be opinion of what the natural meant...nothing substantial.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Seriously? you're resorting to spell checking now? Things not going well at all here, eh?

Just want to comment on this, as far as I read... and even that is probably a waste of time, but oh well.

No need of a spell checker. You are merely providing entertainment on multiple levels.

And what are you talking about? Your continual running away only means that you have lost.

I cannot refute "nothing" in this case and that just what I got when I ask for the proof you claimed you had. End of story.

Wait a sec, I'm wrong, I did get excuse after excuse, to the point is was clear to everyone you have nothing. But don't feel bad, it's always the way here with the same question.
They all tell untruths, claim evolution a fact, accepted by most, blah blah blah, then when asked to back it up, they all fall to pieces.

Unfortunately their proof all just turned out to be opinion of what the natural meant...nothing substantial.

I gave you all the proof that you get for now. It was more than enough. I can help you to understand the difficult parts.

By the way, if you could not understand that video there is no way at all that you could understand actual evidence.

By the way, I will just keep posting that video every time you ask for evidence until you either learn what is and what is not evidence or you watch it and discuss it with me.

 

[Kenny'sID]

You are afraid to even answer a yes/no question that you know would prove your ignorance.

You can claim that till the cows come home, the reader only need see I answered the question the best I could and that I refuse to give an answer yes/no on anything without knowing the details or having all the information. See most people get that as very viable a reason, you on the other hand choose to pretend it's not a thing. But we get it, you need to unfairly accuse here a every opportunity to save face. That's what people do when they are desperate for something to defend themselves with.

Are you able to, and will you post the proof of evolution you claimed a fact...Yes or No, please.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You can claim that till the cows come home, the reader only need see I answered the question the best I could and that I refuse to give an answer yes/no on anything without knowing the details or having all the information. See most people get that as very viable a reason, you on the other hand choose to pretend it's not a thing. But we get it, you need to unfairly accuse here a every opportunity to save face. That's what people do when they are desperate for something to defend themselves with.

Are you able to, and will you post the proof of evolution you claimed a fact...Yes or No, please.

Sorry Kenny, but it was a "Yes/No" question. You tried to skate around it. Skating around it is the same as saying no, so let's take it that way.

And that means that you do not understand the nature of evidence. We don't care about your obfuscations or misrepresentations of what has been found in the fossil record.

Every single fossil found to date has fit the evolutionary paradigm. Worse yet you know it. And of course creationists have no explanation for the fossil record that has not been thoroughly refuted. So that means like it or not the fossil record is evidence for the theory of evolution and only for the theory of evolution.

If a an observed datum supports a scientific theory or hypothesis, then by definition it is evidence for that theory or hypothesis. Guess what every fossil found to date does?

ETA:

 

[Job 33:6]

Sorry Kenny, but it was a "Yes/No" question. You tried to skate around it. Skating around it is the same as saying no, so let's take it that way.

And that means that you do not understand the nature of evidence. We don't care about your obfuscations or misrepresentations of what has been found in the fossil record.

Every single fossil found to date has fit the evolutionary paradigm. Worse yet you know it. And of course creationists have no explanation for the fossil record that has not been thoroughly refuted. So that means like it or not the fossil record is evidence for the theory of evolution and only for the theory of evolution.

If a an observed datum supports a scientific theory or hypothesis, then by definition it is evidence for that theory or hypothesis. Guess what every fossil found to date does?

ETA:

Don Exodus, thats old school. I do remember him making these videos. You know Ted Daeschler and Niel Shubin are looking for more Devonian transitionals in antarctica right now.