Neo-Darwinian evolution is in trouble INSIDE the scientific community

[Sanoy]

Nope, at worse he deliberately exaggerated features so that others could see them. In those days pictures were not available. Now we can take clear pictures where one can see those traits. You will see the original Haeckel drawings next to pictures. How is that "fraud"?

Here we have a Darwinian Apologists trying to draw a line between deliberate exageration and fraud. I see you share the same schooling. Like I said your own Apologists call him a fraud, you know, the other apologists with some actual credibility. Gould "Haeckel had exaggerated the similarities by idealizations and omissions,”... “in a procedure that can only be called fraudulent.

You know that Z button on your camera? It's called a zoom. You don't need to climb a tree. They had to put dead ones the tree trunks because they have no inclination to land on tree trunks.

Yeah I know about that article. You haven't even read it yourself. You just found it on google and linked it. Any monkey, evolved or not, can search stuff on google and link it.

 

[Subduction Zone]

What I wrote suggests creative intelligence. The pattern of evolution being simply a reaction to changing environments is completely blown out of the water with humans. I even know atheists who argue that our presence on this planet is so strange compared to everything else in nature, that they believe aliens dropped us off here as an experiment.

What? No.

You simply are making up nonsense now.

 

[Kenny'sID]

No, I want an answer to a simple question.

You got your answer, but either way, it's clear you are actually saying, "see things my way or you don't understand evidence and if you don't understand evidence, I cannot prove evolution to you". Convenient if you can pull that one off, and still hilarious you think you can.

Kenny, you don't get any "proof" until you understand the nature of evidence.

Like I said, I think it's pretty safe to say you're not going to provide that proof, so I would expect a few more excuses to crop up in order for you to try to cover your failure to produce. Nothing new there

Oops, you are projecting again. I did no such thing.

Of course you did, it's right there in black and white.

You mean because I am tired of dishonesty and will not help you until you show just a shred of honesty and decency?

You mean dishonesty like claiming evolution is a fact and not standing behind that claim? Or dishonesty like the following:

There is no real doubt about evolution in the world of science today.

Of course there is real doubt. See you are going to have a problem here when you continually make false statements. Not only do they show you as dishonest and make anything else you spout harder to believe, but it if you need to be untruthful in order to pad your stance, it shows you aren't very secure with that stance. And if you aren't secure with what you "say" is a fact, how in the world are you going to get anyone to take you seriously?

But Kenny, all that people can see is you running away from an obligation that you have.

Didn't I already ask you where i ran away? I could certainly keep claiming the same of you, but after seeing it over and over again, and how repeating something that there is really nothing to in doter to attempt to demean instead of simply proving evolution..well,. let's just say it looks bad, and I don't wan to look bad. It tends to show how desperate you are here.

They can see that the "proof" is not forthcoming because you can't even bother to learn about evidence.

LOL, proof is not forthcoming because you refuse to come forth with proof...that's all.

I already told you, put your evidence down with your proof. Anyone with any sense at all knows that evidence is going to have to be part of your proof, so let's stop pretending that is an excuse, when indeed you have the floor to show that evidence and explain how it is proof...I've all bui begged you. You you also wan to pretend I don't understand that evidence even before you put it down. Uncanny the nonsense you are trying to rely on in order to avoid backing up your claim of evolution.

Simply show your evidence, and tell us how that proves evolution, and stop stalling. For the second time, If I don't understand something or something is not right we can talk about it, but it has to be there before us in order to do that. Someone said you may be a scientists, and if so, I would certainly question that if you cannot grasp the concept of put it on the table so we have something to work with.

Honestly, I handled this already in a post that went way over the line in explaining what most are able to understand. Went through a lot of trouble there trying to explain simple concepts such as "You have to tell us your proof before we can get anywhere." Or we have to see your proof in order to have your proof" But you still appear to be in the dark, and I don't know how best to help you.

They can see that the "proof" is not forthcoming because you can't even bother to learn about evidence.

LOL, oh, they can see alright, and I don't even have to steer them.

Nope. No questions from you right now. You are in no position to ask any.

That was great!

Yes, I already proved that long ago. I will do so again for you if you learn what is and what is not evidence.

Please show me where? Or again, am I to simply take your word for it? You do realize by now you do't exactly instill a want to take your word for anything...right? Seems to me you'd a just pointed our where you did that, and be done with it, but instead i have to chase you around again for answers I know I'm never going to get, because they really are bogus claims....precisely why you didn't tell me "where" to begin with.

I'll await that evidence now that you should be clear on why we have to actually have it in order to know what it is.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Here we have a Darwinian Apologists trying to draw a line between deliberate exageration and fraud. I see you share the same schooling. Like I said your own Apologists call him a fraud, you know, the other apologists with some actual credibility. Gould "Haeckel had exaggerated the similarities by idealizations and omissions,”... “in a procedure that can only be called fraudulent.

They had to put dead ones there because they don't land on tree trunks.

Sorry, but quotes without links to the original source are worthless. Creationist sources lie quite often by quote mining so a link to a creationist source is worthless.

Try again.

And of course the moths land on tree trunks. Where do you think that they land?

I cna just see a moth in your mind . . . "ooh, I better not land there, that's a tree trunk".

 

[Sanoy]

Sorry, but quotes without links to the original source are worthless. Creationist sources lie quite often by quote mining so a link to a creationist source is worthless.

Try again.

And of course the moths land on tree trunks. Where do you think that they land?

I cna just see a moth in your mind . . . "ooh, I better not land there, that's a tree trunk".

It's funny. Here we are listing Darwinian lies, with you trying to draw a line of distinction between deliberate exaggeration and fraud, but you know those creationist...they lie. The good thing is that if the creationist lies about something, they will at least feel bad about it.

They don't know where the land. Cause someone actually studied it and found only 1 of the right kind on the right kind of trunk. They are glued there because they can't get any to land their on their own.

 

[Dirk1540]

What? No.

You simply are making up nonsense now.

You are not disagreeing with the position that humans are completely unparalleled on this planet when it comes to creative intelligence and destructive tendencies towards mother nature?? Wow this thread is on a whole new level of refusing to call a spade a spade!!

...by the way the 'Nonsense' alien theory was not my own, I was just saying that I know people who believe that as their explanation of what I wrote previously.

 

[pitabread]

I am referring to the fake embryo chart that is supposed to show a particular similarity to other species of embryo during development. He deliberately exaggerated the drawings to give the ostensible appearance of evolution. It's a fake.

Ah, you're talking about Haeckel's embryo drawings.

The story around that is a bit more complex than so-called "fake" drawings. Haeckel was a proponent of recapitulation theory, or the idea that embryos underwent stages of development based on evolutionary history. This is not entirely true as we know now, although embryonic develop can demonstrate traces of a species evolutionary history. A great example are dolphin embryos which begin to develop hind-limb 'buds'. However, the genes for hind limb development get 'switched off' during the development process and those hindlimb 'buds' get reabsorbed.

Haeckel's embryo drawings may not be entirely accurate, and recapitulation theory is false, but what we do know of developmental biology now does still point to evolutionary origins for species.

The peppered moths in the photograph are dead moths. They had to put dead ones because the live ones had no inclination to rest there. They had to place them onto tree trunks just to get the birds to eat them.

Using dead moths for photographs doesn't suggest fraud, especially if we're talking about photos meant for illustrative purposes.

Regardless, you appear to be talking about Kettlewell experiment (Kettlewell's experiment - Wikipedia), and that experiment has been validated by more recent data as I already linked in my prior post.

So no, this is neither a case of fraud nor something that was found to be "false".

 

[Subduction Zone]

You got your answer, but either way, it's clear you are actually saying, "see things my way or you don't understand evidence and if you don't understand evidence, I cannot prove evolution to you". Convenient if you can pull that one off, and still hilarious you think you can.

Nope, I just want what you can't seem to supply, an honest answer.

If you give a wrong answer, and I know that you are tempted to, I will explain why it is wrong. But then you probably know that so once again you run away.

Like I said, I think it's pretty safe to say you're not going to provide that proof, so I would expect a few more excuses to crop up in order for you to try to cover your failure to produce. Nothing new there

No excuses. You were given a simple task. You are making a demand and I am demanding a "payment" first. You don't go to a person selling a car and demand it from him. You pay first. Same goes here.

Of course you did, it's right there in black and white.

Nope, please don't make false claims about me.

You mean dishonesty like claiming evolution is a fact and not standing behind that claim? Or dishonesty like the following:

Oh I am standing behind that claim. You want something that you won't pay for and are complaining when you don't get it.

Of course there is real doubt. See you are going to have a problem here when you continually make false statements. Not only do they show you as dishonest and make anything else you spout harder to believe, but it if you need to be untruthful in order to pad your stance, it shows you aren't very secure with that stance. And if you aren't secure with what you "say" is a fact, how in the world are you going to get anyone to take you seriously?

Nope, there isn't. If there was you would find some. Check the peer reviewed literature, no one is trying to refute the theory.

Didn't I already ask you where i ran away? I could certainly keep claiming the same of you, but after seeing it over and over again, and how repeating something that there is really nothing to in doter to attempt to demean instead of simply proving evolution..well,. let's just say it looks bad, and I don't wan to look bad. It tends to show how desperate you are here.

Of course you are running away. You have yet to learn what is and what is not evidence. It would take you an hour tops. Far less time than you have invested in running away.

LOL, proof is not forthcoming because you refuse to come forth with proof...that's all.

Nope, in fact I will give you "proof" at the end of this post. I doubt if you will understand it. But we can discuss it if you like.

I already told you, put your evidence down with your proof. Anyone with any sense at all knows that evidence is going to have to be part of your proof, so let's stop pretending that is an excuse, when indeed you have the floor to show that evidence and explain how it is proof...I've all bui begged you. You you also wan to pretend I don't understand that evidence even before you put it down. Uncanny the nonsense you are trying to rely on in order to avoid backing up your claim of evolution.

Of course, the problem is that you don't know what is and what is not evidence. You have confirmed that countless times. What good will it do?

Simply show your evidence, and tell us how that proves evolution, and stop stalling. For the second time, If I don't understand something or something is not right we can talk about it, but it has to be there before us in order to do that. Someone said you may be a scientists, and if so, I would certainly question that if you cannot grasp the concept of put it on the table so we have something to work with.

That's enough of that. Here you go Kenny, all that you asked for:

That one is simple and direct. Watch it and we can discuss it. That is all that you get until you learn what is and what is not evidence.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You are not disagreeing with the position that humans are completely unparalleled on this planet when it comes to creative intelligence and destructive tendencies towards mother nature?? Wow this thread is on a whole new level of refusing to call a spade a spade!!

But they aren't. We have been beaten by natural processes about 5 times, at least when it comes to being destructive. You are trying to make a special case for our intelligence. But that does not support your claim in any way at all.

What you are doing is making up nonsense when you claim that evolution should have found a cure for us. That is not how evolution works.

 

[Sanoy]

Ah, you're talking about Haeckel's embryo drawings.

The story around that is a bit more complex than so-called "fake" drawings. Haeckel was a proponent of recapitulation theory, or the idea that embryos underwent stages of development based on evolutionary history. This is not entirely true as we know now, although embryonic develop can demonstrate traces of a species evolutionary history. A great example are dolphin embryos which begin to develop hind-limb 'buds'. However, the genes for hind limb development get 'switched off' during the development process and those hindlimb 'buds' get reabsorbed.

Haeckel's embryo drawings make not be entirely accurate, and recapitulation theory is false, but what we do know of developmental biology now does still point to evolutionary origins for species.



Using dead moths for photographs doesn't suggest fraud, especially if we're talking about photos meant for illustrative purposes.

Regardless, you appear to be talking about Kettlewell experiment (Kettlewell's experiment - Wikipedia), and that experiment has been validated by more recent data as I already linked in my prior post.

So no, this is neither a case of fraud nor something that was found to be "false".

"Not entirely false" is kind of a big problem. It's one thing to go back and look at it and say "oh well some of these are conceptually true, but not literally true." Or "well, we went back and looked at it 40 years later and we can still go with the conclusions". What is in the text book, is not what is being said now. What was in the text book were misleading truths to make evolution look convincing before it could be convincing. That is end justifies the means mentality. That should worry you, because someone wants you to believe in a world view and it doesn't matter to them how they get you to believe it.

There is no legitimate way to defend that type of behavior. Certainly not retroactively. If I lie to your face that I know Rick stole something, and it turns out 40 years later I was right it doesn't change the fact that I lied to your face 40 years ago because I hated Rick.

 

[Subduction Zone]

"Not entirely false" is kind of a big problem. It's one thing to go back and look at it and say "oh well some of these are conceptually true, but not literally true." Or "well, we went back and looked at it 40 years later and we can still go with the conclusions". What is in the text book, is not what is being said now. What was in the text book were misleading truths to make evolution look convincing before it could be convincing. That is end justifies the means mentality. That should worry you, because someone wants you to believe in a world view and it doesn't matter to them how they get you to believe it.

You keep forgetting that Haeckel is accused of "fraud". One can be wrong in the world of science. That happens all of the time. Often advances are made because of how a person is "wrong". Fraud is different. Fraud is purposefully trying to mislead people and that is unforgivable and Haeckle was never shown to be fraudulent.

 

[Sanoy]

You keep forgetting that Haeckel is accused of "fraud". One can be wrong in the world of science. That happens all of the time. Often advances are made because of how a person is "wrong". Fraud is different. Fraud is purposefully trying to mislead people and that is unforgivable and Haeckle was never shown to be fraudulent.

Don't tell me, tell your own Darwinian apologists.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Don't tell me, tell your own Darwinian apologists.

Once again in English please.

 

[Sanoy]

Once again in English please.

Good one! I put it in my notebook of witty remarks. Don't worry, I'll credit you.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Good one! I put it in my notebook of witty remarks. Don't worry, I'll credit you.

Your post made no sense. But then your claims have been refuted so you have to grasp at straws.

 

[pitabread]

"Not entirely false" is kind of a big problem. It's one thing to go back and look at it and say "oh well some of these are conceptually true, but not literally true." Or "well, we went back and looked at it 40 years later and we can still go with the conclusions". What is in the text book, is not what is being said now. What was in the text book were misleading truths to make evolution look convincing before it could be convincing.

I'm kind of curious now which textbook you actually used in school. Your profile says you are only 37, which makes you younger than me and would mean high school biology for you was in the late 90's.

Meanwhile, Haeckel's drawings were most prominently used in the early to mid 20th century in textbooks. Unless you were using textbooks that were about 40-50 years old, any use of Haeckel's drawings in more modern textbooks would likely be in a historical context and not necessarily as "proof" of evolution.

That is end justifies the means mentality. That should worry you, because someone wants you to believe in a world view and it doesn't matter to them how they get you to believe it.

To be perfectly honest, I don't even believe your textbook story. Certainly your original claim is untenable and the examples you've cited are creationist soundbites straight from Jonathan Wells's infamous book, Icons of Evolution.

 

[Sanoy]

Your post made no sense. But then your claims have been refuted so you have to grasp at straws.

I'll put that in a new section called semi witty remarks.

 

[Sanoy]

I'm kind of curious now which textbook you actually used in school. Your profile says you are only 37, which makes you younger than me and would mean high school biology for you was in the late 90's.

Meanwhile, Haeckel's drawings were most prominently used in the early to mid 20th century in textbooks. Unless you were using textbooks that were about 40-50 years old, any use of Haeckel's drawings in more modern textbooks would likely be in a historical context and not necessarily as "proof" of evolution.



To be perfectly honest, I don't even believe your textbook story. Certainly your original claim is untenable and the examples you've cited are creationist soundbites straight from Jonathan Wells's infamous book, Icons of Evolution.

Oh so now you move from disbelief in the falsehood to the belief that I'm the falsehood. Look. I don't care if you believe me or not. My statement is true. I know what I experienced.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I'll put that in a new section called semi witty remarks.

Seriously, getting mad just because your claims were shown to be totally fallacious is nothing to get angry about. Simple admit that you are wrong and no one will mention your errors again.

 

[Kenny'sID]

Nope, I just want what you can't seem to supply, an honest answer.

If you give a wrong answer, and I know that you are tempted to, I will explain why it is wrong. But then you probably know that so once again you run away.

Claiming I gave no answer is not honest, that or you lost your way here and are confused what post is what.

Anyway, pretty senseless to even rest of your post, you know it, I know it and they know it.

Once you have posted your proof or answers to questions you keep avoiding (Oh, I get it now, that why you accused me of not answering so you could have an excuse not to yourself...you don't. ) I'll respond, and to save me the time going through the mud looking for it, just start any post to me with "here it the proof", if you actually posted proof so I can know how to deal with the post. Thanks.