Which came first, the fang or the poison?

[Van]

Jesterforkicks, lets go over it again.

It almost seems like you want teachers to lecture kids on flaws with one particular theory that may not even exist.

In response I say: Next he ascribes to me unsavory behavior. LOL

Next, JFKS says, (1) I don't believe I have "ascribed" any "unsavory behavior" to you.

So I want teachers to present false information to kids, but that is not unsavory. Fine

Next, I pointed out an error in Darwinism, Embryos do not have branchial slits as Darwin asserted, and JFKS says I did not answer is question which was "What was he [Darwin] specifically wrong about?"

Next he denies he said snakes learn from the parents. Here is what he said: Does a bear automatically know how to catch fish? Or do they learn the skill from their parent? Now he seeks to deny he was offering an alternate idea to snakes developing genetic instincts to avoid brightly colored frogs. As Joe Louis said, he can run but he cannot hide.

Next he charges me with putting words in his mouth and then says Van has the impression the theory of evolution is still taught has Darwin envisioned it. LOL, I am the one saying Darwinism was discarded and neo-Darwinism was adoped about 50 years ago.

Last point, Mallon is not an empty suit, he actually presents for the most part accurate posts. But Embryos do not have branchial slits as Darwin asserted. They do not have slits which are openings from inside to outside. They do have structure, but that is not what Darwin indicated. So there is no need for use to "marvel" at them, they do not exist. Error is error.

 

[Jester4kicks]

In response I say: Next he ascribes to me unsavory behavior. LOL

Next, JFKS says, (1) I don't believe I have "ascribed" any "unsavory behavior" to you.

So I want teachers to present false information to kids, but that is not unsavory. Fine

See how easy it is to break up a response so that you're addressing the points?

In regard to the quote above; You really have a way of distorting things. First of all, I didn't realize you what you were referring to with the whole "unsavory" bit. Second, I never said you wanted teachers to present false information to students. What I said was the it seemed like you wanted teachers to lecture on flaws in a theory that may not even exist. To clarify, that means that you seem to want teachers to lecture their students on all of the possible problems a theory may have, not matter how inconsequential or improbable those flaws may be. That's not necessarily presenting false information... it's devoting too much time to irrelevant tangents.

Next, I pointed out an error in Darwinism, Embryos do not have branchial slits as Darwin asserted, and JFKS says I did not answer is question which was "What was he [Darwin] specifically wrong about?"

If you read back, the answer I have been trying to get from you is to the question "How has the theory of evolution 'radically changed'".

Next he denies he said snakes learn from the parents. Here is what he said: Does a bear automatically know how to catch fish? Or do they learn the skill from their parent? Now he seeks to deny he was offering an alternate idea to snakes developing genetic instincts to avoid brightly colored frogs. As Joe Louis said, he can run but he cannot hide.

I'm sorry, but I must have missed the part where I was trying to confirm OR deny either idea. It's an unknown. Once again, thanks for trying to put words in my mouth.

Next he charges me with putting words in his mouth and then says Van has the impression the theory of evolution is still taught has Darwin envisioned it. LOL, I am the one saying Darwinism was discarded and neo-Darwinism was adoped about 50 years ago.

Excuse me, but I didn't say that you definitely had the impression, nor did I say that you specifically said you had such an impression. What I said was that it seemed as though that was the position you were arguing from.

Last point, Mallon is not an empty suit, he actually presents for the most part accurate posts. But Embryos do not have branchial slits as Darwin asserted. They do not have slits which are openings from inside to outside. They do have structure, but that is not what Darwin indicated. So there is no need for use to "marvel" at them, they do not exist. Error is error.

Nit-picking. Darwin was making that argument to show the ancient link between the species. The "depth" of the slit is immaterial, its presence is the basis for the concept.

 

[gluadys]

Van must have a point. I visited an evolutionist website which advised that Darwin's ideas were so out of date that they should not be referred to by his name anymore, and that creationists should be made to sound stupid if they use the terms "Darwinian evolution" or "Darwinism".

The theory that Darwin proposed has a name: the theory of evolution. Darwin himself called it a theory of descent with modification.

Note that we do not call the theory of gravity Newtonianism or Einsteinism. We do not call the basic rules of genetics Mendelism. We do not call the study of fossil anatomy Cuvierism, the geological study of glaciation, Agassiism or the study of the expanding universe Hubbleism. So why call Darwin's theory Darwinism?

The use of "Darwinism" in the place of "evolution" or "theory of evolution" is almost always pejorative and used to imply that evolution is a philosophy or faith rather than science.

It is true the theory of evolution has changed considerably since Darwin, but not in a manner that would suggest his principle ideas have been discarded. Mostly, what has happened is that Darwin's work still forms the basic skeleton of the theory, but it has been fleshed out with a lot more detail about aspects Darwin himself could have known nothing about.

 

[Chesterton]

You need to fix up your sig line then.

 

[Mallon]

Last point, Mallon is not an empty suit, he actually presents for the most part accurate posts. But Embryos do not have branchial slits as Darwin asserted. They do not have slits which are openings from inside to outside. They do have structure, but that is not what Darwin indicated. So there is no need for use to "marvel" at them, they do not exist. Error is error.

You're right. Human embryos do not have branchial slits (or "gill slits"). They have pharyngeal pouches. Darwin's point in bringing attention to these features wasn't to argue for their synonymy, but for their homology. That disparate organisms share similar developmental pathways is strong evidence for common ancestry. This commonality makes sense only in the light of evolution.

 

[gluadys]

You need to fix up your sig line then.

Touche. But it is Ruse's vocabulary, not mine. And it does make the point that those maligned "Darwinians" can be Christians. And the fact they can be Christians convinces others who accept evolution that they can be Christians too.

By contrast an anti-evolution interpretation of scripture not only means non-Christians pass the Christian option by, it also drives many young Christians away from the faith when they are convinced by the evidence of the truth of evolution.

 

[USincognito]

Van must have a point. I visited an evolutionist website which advised that Darwin's ideas were so out of date that they should not be referred to by his name anymore, and that creationists should be made to sound stupid if they use the terms "Darwinian evolution" or "Darwinism".

Do you happen to recall what that website was? The last bit there tells me you might have been misinterpreting what they were saying. Many on the evolution side have stopped using "Darwinism" or other words and phrases derived from his name since Creationists use them pejoratively and is a dead give away as to their position.

Gah, gluadys already covered it. That'll teach me to not read the entire thread before replying.

 

[Van]

LOL, there is no slit period. Neo-Darwinism is very different, because it radically changed, from Darwinism. The change is the inclusion of genetics and the discard of false evidence such as branchial slits. Although some seem reluctant to let go.

Next, it was asserted that Darwin's point about "branchial slits" was common ancestry.
Nope. The claim was gill silts like fish. And the point, utter erroneous, was that since we come from common ancesstry, and at latter stages of our life are very different, we still share common features early in our development. So embryos have gill slits because we share early on the features of our common ancestory. Utterly bogus. Recapitulation is laughable nonsense. The DNA that governs the development of the air apparatus breathing of humans is not coded the same as the DNA that governs the development of the breathing apparatus of fish. The variation does always supervene at the earilest stage of development. I am not interested in the deconstruction of Darwinism, that is like shooting fish in a barrel, but I am interested in folks understanding science is a process, and what was our best understanding in the past will not necessarily be our best understanding in the future.

 

[Jester4kicks]

LOL, there is no slit period. Neo-Darwinism is very different, because it radically changed, from Darwinism. The change is the inclusion of genetics and the discard of false evidence such as branchial slits. Although some seem reluctant to let go.

Next, it was asserted that Darwin's point about "branchial slits" was common ancestry.
Nope. The claim was gill silts like fish. And the point, utter erroneous, was that since we come from common ancesstry, and at latter stages of our life are very different, we still share common features early in our development. So embryos have gill slits because we share early on the features of our common ancestory. Utterly bogus. Recapitulation is laughable nonsense. The DNA that governs the development of the air apparatus breathing of humans is not coded the same as the DNA that governs the development of the breathing apparatus of fish. The variation does always supervene at the earilest stage of development. I am not interested in the deconstruction of Darwinism, that is like shooting fish in a barrel, but I am interested in folks understanding science is a process, and what was our best understanding in the past will not necessarily be our best understanding in the future.

So... to summarize... "Nuh uh! You guys are just wrong! I don't have to defend my position or backup my claims because I just know I'm right."



Good luck with that kind of attitude. Hope it works out for you.

 

[Van]

(The Library of Alexandria) questioned the permanence of the stars, but did not question the justice of slavery - Carl Sagan in Cosmos

Many stars are no longer with us, but slavery in the form of tyranny over the mind of man is still with us. Van

 

[Assyrian]

LOL, there is no slit period. Neo-Darwinism is very different, because it radically changed, from Darwinism. The change is the inclusion of genetics and the discard of false evidence such as branchial slits. Although some seem reluctant to let go.

Next, it was asserted that Darwin's point about "branchial slits" was common ancestry.
Nope. The claim was gill silts like fish. And the point, utter erroneous, was that since we come from common ancesstry, and at latter stages of our life are very different, we still share common features early in our development. So embryos have gill slits because we share early on the features of our common ancestory. Utterly bogus. Recapitulation is laughable nonsense.

Recapitulation? You are confusing Haeckel and Darwin. Haeckel's recapitulation theory came after Origin of Species. Darwin didn't get his information about embryology from Haeckel but from research that dated back to the 1820s.

The DNA that governs the development of the air apparatus breathing of humans is not coded the same as the DNA that governs the development of the breathing apparatus of fish.

Why should it? Did anyone claim lungs evolved from gills, or that our pharangeal arches become lungs?

The variation does always supervene at the earilest stage of development.

Like male pattern baldness? Or not having tails?

But you are closer to Darwin's view here. It is not recapitulating a 'fish stage' of our development but changes that arise in a later stage of embryonic development, will leave the earlier stages looking very similar to other species.

On the origin of species by means of natural selection p 479The framework of bones being the same in the hand of a man, wing of a bat, fin of the porpoise, and leg of the horse,—the same number of vertebræ forming the neck of the giraffe and of the elephant,—and innumerable other such facts, at once explain themselves on the theory of descent with slow and slight successive modifications. The similarity of pattern in the wing and leg of a bat, though used for such different purpose,—in the jaws and legs of a crab,—in the petals, stamens, and pistils of a flower, is likewise intelligible on the view of the gradual modification of parts or organs, which were alike in the early progenitor of each class. On the principle of successive variations not always supervening at an early age, and being inherited at a corresponding not early period of life, we can clearly see why the embryos of mammals, birds, reptiles, and fishes should be so closely alike, and should be so unlike the adult forms. We may cease marvelling at the embryo of an air-breathing mammal or bird having branchial slits and arteries running in loops, like those in a fish which has to breathe the air dissolved in water, by the aid of well-developed branchiæ.

I am not interested in the deconstruction of Darwinism, that is like shooting fish in a barrel, but I am interested in folks understanding science is a process, and what was our best understanding in the past will not necessarily be our best understanding in the future.

I think people here understand that. It seems that it is creationists who keep trying to shoot holes in 150 year old science in the hope that if they succeed, it can be replaced by a much older debunked view.

 

[Van]

Yet another myth, Darwin actually presented bogus evidence for the concept of recapitulation, no matter if the concept had not been labeled recapitulation at that time.

Yes, Darwin said embryos had branchial slits, and that during our life cycle in its early stage, our later differences did not exist. LOL They all exist within our DNA code.

My position which you say is closer to Darwin is the exact opposite of Darwin.

If people understand it, why all the effort to find fault and ascribe unsavory behavior? The only hole I am shooting in Neo-Darwinism is that it contains errors that will be revealed in the future. I have provided no argument against genetics and the commonality and overlap found in DNA analysis. Me thinks the group protests too much.

 

[Jester4kicks]

If people understand it, why all the effort to find fault and ascribe unsavory behavior? The only hole I am shooting in Neo-Darwinism is that it contains errors that will be revealed in the future. I have provided no argument against genetics and the commonality and overlap found in DNA analysis. Me thinks the group protests too much.

No, you're not. You're trying to say that Neo-Darwinism contains errors because of previous (and relatively minor) errors in previous theories.

You've already ducked and dodged numerous issues, so I'm not expecting much at this point. If you seriously think the current Theory of Evolution contains errors, you really should be specific.

 

[Assyrian]

Yet another myth, Darwin actually presented bogus evidence for the concept of recapitulation, no matter if the concept had not been labeled recapitulation at that time.

The concept of recapitulation was though up by Haeckel. The similarity between embryos was known about when Haeckel was an embryo and it still exists.

Yes, Darwin said embryos had branchial slits, and that during our life cycle in its early stage, our later differences did not exist. LOL They all exist within our DNA code.

Like we have tails that exist within our DNA code?

My position which you say is closer to Darwin is the exact opposite of Darwin.

No I was saying your attempt at rebuttal was coming closer to what Darwin said. Instead of mistaking Haeckel for Darwin and taking pot shots at that, you were actually contradicting Darwin's view.

Ernst Haeckel: "ontogenesis is a brief and rapid recapitulation of phylogenesis, determined by the physiological functions of heredity (generation) and adaptation (maintenance)."
Charles Darwin: "On the principle of successive variations not always supervening at an early age, and being inherited at a corresponding not early period of life, we can clearly see why the embryos of mammals, birds, reptiles, and fishes should be so closely alike, and should be so unlike the adult forms."

Whose views were you contradicting here,
Van: Utterly bogus. Recapitulation is laughable nonsense.
And here,
Van: The variation does always supervene at the earilest stage of development.

If people understand it, why all the effort to find fault and ascribe unsavory behavior? The only hole I am shooting in Neo-Darwinism is that it contains errors that will be revealed in the future. I have provided no argument against genetics and the commonality and overlap found in DNA analysis. Me thinks the group protests too much.

As has been pointed out to you, really good foundational theories like Copernicus, Newton, Atomic theory and Darwin are not thrown out as a bad idea when they are superseded and the holes filled in. They become part of our understanding of later model. We still accept Copernicus' idea the earth goes round the sun, even if we know it doesn't go in a circle and we understand more about the force that keep it moving. Physicists and engineers still use Newtons laws of motion, even though they know relativistic speeds show up the gaps.

That is the difference between a good scientific theory that is superseded and a bad theory that is thrownout. Flat earth and geocentrism are treated very differently to Copernicus Newton and Bohr. I am pretty sure science will discover errors in our present understanding of the structure of the earth and its motion in space but that will not lead us back to geocentrism or a flat earth.

Anyway who called you unsavoury?

 

[USincognito]

(The Library of Alexandria) questioned the permanence of the stars, but did not question the justice of slavery - Carl Sagan in Cosmos

Many stars are no longer with us, but slavery in the form of tyranny over the mind of man is still with us. Van

Wow. That was random.

---------------------------------

Anyway, if anyone is interested, check out the 29 Evidences essays. Each of them begins with a prediction made my Darwin in Origin and shows how the evidence verifies them.

 

[Van]

Will someone please explain to Assyrian that Darwin's sentence is consistent with recapitulation? And my statement that the variations in our DNA supervene from the beginning?

USincognito, thanks for the compliment. (I think?)

If the rest of you want to assert Darwinism contained only "minor errors" fine. As for me, I assert he had no clue as to how evolution came about. That is why we have neo-Darwinism today.

If I take a 1932 Ford and remove its engine which does not work, and replace it with a Chrysler Hemi, I can say I adopted a new drive engine, but it is the same car. But in fact it is not the same car, and saying it is so, does not make it so. I radically changed it.

Folks, the theory of evolution, or how the changes came about, has, uh ... evolved. And we are talking macroevolution here, folks. Big changes. An engine swap.

 

[gluadys]

If I take a 1932 Ford and remove its engine which does not work, and replace it with a Chrysler Hemi, I can say I adopted a new drive engine, but it is the same car. But in fact it is not the same car, and saying it is so, does not make it so. I radically changed it.

Folks, the theory of evolution, or how the changes came about, has, uh ... evolved. And we are talking macroevolution here, folks. Big changes. An engine swap.

I think the one thing Darwin did have was the engine: natural selection.

What he did not know was the mechanism of inheritance and the source of variation.

If you use the car analogy, I think you have to say that Darwin gave us the engine, neo-Darwinism added the fuel (genetic changes) and the drive train (genetic inheritance).

 

[Jester4kicks]

If the rest of you want to assert Darwinism contained only "minor errors" fine. As for me, I assert he had no clue as to how evolution came about. That is why we have neo-Darwinism today.

If I take a 1932 Ford and remove its engine which does not work, and replace it with a Chrysler Hemi, I can say I adopted a new drive engine, but it is the same car. But in fact it is not the same car, and saying it is so, does not make it so. I radically changed it.

Folks, the theory of evolution, or how the changes came about, has, uh ... evolved. And we are talking macroevolution here, folks. Big changes. An engine swap.

I love it! Tell me, do you take your fingers out of your ears when you type, or do you have to use your toes?

Seriously though... we've said it over and over again; the "core" of Darwin's idea was that natural selection acted upon minor variations and mutations over a long period of time and produced cumulative changes and differences between species. "Neo-darwinism" has not changed that.

Did you catch it that time? Let me say it again.

Neo-darwinism has not made any changes to the central principle of evolution, whereby natural selection acts upon minor variations and mutations to gradually produce cumulative change.

That's not replacing an engine... at best, it's swapping out the rims, upgrading the [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse], and maybe throwing on some chrome.


Oh... and you have yet to explain what problems exist within the current Theory of Evolution.

 

[Assyrian]

Will someone please explain to Assyrian that Darwin's sentence is consistent with recapitulation? And my statement that the variations in our DNA supervene from the beginning?

Hey I'd be more than happy to have someone explain my mistakes here. This is a great place to learn.

However, to supply a bit more rope in the meantime, I would say two things, 1) Darwin's statement is not consistent with Haeckel's recapitulation theory and 2) even if it was it would make no difference.

You can build junk science on the top of good, and because it is built on the basis of good science, you can always claim the good science is consistent with it. But it is the junk science that is flawed. You can get a horoscope based on the latest astronomical observations. Those observations will be perfectly consistent with the astrological predictions, but it is only the astrology that is bunk. Even if Haeckels recapitulation was consistent with what Darwin said, recapitulation is still Haeckel's idea not Darwin's.

However Haeckel's recapitulation was not consistent with what Darwin said. For recapitulation to be true, successive variations to an organism would have to take effect at successively later ages, all the variation that made up our fish ancestors would take effect first, followed by all the changes that came in with amphibians, then early reptiles, then mammals. But there is no reason for this, a new mutation can have its effect at any stage in embryonic development.

Darwin recognised that variations can come in at different stages. "On the principle of successive variations not always supervening at an early age..." Haeckel's fish and amphibian stages required successive variations to always supervene at successively later and later stages. Darwin just said they don't always supervene early, and his statement admitted that some variations can come in early. That realisation contradicted Haeckel. Darwin did not need them all to kick in later, he realised that as long as some of the variations came in later, it would still leave early embryos looking more similar than later forms and the adults.

If the rest of you want to assert Darwinism contained only "minor errors" fine. As for me, I assert he had no clue as to how evolution came about. That is why we have neo-Darwinism today.

If I take a 1932 Ford and remove its engine which does not work, and replace it with a Chrysler Hemi, I can say I adopted a new drive engine, but it is the same car. But in fact it is not the same car, and saying it is so, does not make it so. I radically changed it.

Folks, the theory of evolution, or how the changes came about, has, uh ... evolved. And we are talking macroevolution here, folks. Big changes. An engine swap.

The flaw in the analogy is that the theory of evolution is about explaining something already there rather than building something new. If you want a closer analogy, Darwin was studying cars that were already there, and told us about the engine, transmission and steering wheels. The new synthesis added in an understanding of combustion chemical energy and gas laws.

It is like Newton adding gravity to Copernicus and Kepler's understanding of planetary motion, or an understanding of protons, neutrons and electrons to the periodic table.

 

[Assyrian]

Will someone please explain to Assyrian that Darwin's sentence is consistent with recapitulation? And my statement that the variations in our DNA supervene from the beginning?

Hey I'd be more than happy to have someone explain my mistakes here. This is a great place to learn and I am certainly still learning.

However, to supply a bit more rope in the meantime, I would say two things, 1) Darwin's statement is not consistent with Haeckel's recapitulation theory and 2) even if it was it would make no difference.

You can build junk science on the top of good, and because it is built on the basis of good science, you can always claim the good science is consistent with it. But it is the junk science that is flawed. You can get a horoscope based on the latest astronomical observations. Those observations will be perfectly consistent with the astrological predictions, but it is only the astrology that is bunk. Even if Haeckels recapitulation was consistent with what Darwin said, recapitulation is still Haeckel's idea not Darwin's.

However Haeckel's recapitulation was not consistent with what Darwin said. For recapitulation to be true, successive variations to an organism would have to take effect at successively later ages, all the variation that made up our fish ancestors would take effect first, followed by all the changes that came in with amphibians, then early reptiles, then mammals. But there is no reason for this, a new mutation can have its effect at any stage in embryonic development.

Darwin recognised that variations can come in at different stages. "On the principle of successive variations not always supervening at an early age..." Haeckel's fish and amphibian stages required successive variations to always supervene at successively later and later stages. Darwin just said they don't always supervene early, and his statement admitted that some variations do come in early. That realisation contradicted Haeckel. Darwin did not need them all to kick in later, he realised that as long as some of the variations came in later, it would still leave early embryos looking more similar than later forms and the adults.

If the rest of you want to assert Darwinism contained only "minor errors" fine. As for me, I assert he had no clue as to how evolution came about. That is why we have neo-Darwinism today.

If I take a 1932 Ford and remove its engine which does not work, and replace it with a Chrysler Hemi, I can say I adopted a new drive engine, but it is the same car. But in fact it is not the same car, and saying it is so, does not make it so. I radically changed it.

Folks, the theory of evolution, or how the changes came about, has, uh ... evolved. And we are talking macroevolution here, folks. Big changes. An engine swap.

The flaw in the analogy is that the theory of evolution is about explaining something already there rather than building something new. If you want a closer analogy, Darwin was studying cars that were already there, and told us about the engine, transmission and steering wheels. The new synthesis added in an understanding of combustion, chemical energy and gas laws.

It is like Newton adding gravity to Copernicus and Kepler's understanding of planetary motion, or an understanding of protons, neutrons and electrons to the periodic table.