Evidence for God from Science

bizzt wrote:

SLP wrote:

two_phat wrote:I remember being taught that the drawings were fact. And the text book that we used, although it didn't say it, it implied it. It was only till I did research later that I found that the drawings were nowhere near what is actually true.

When and where were you taught this?

Do you really mean 'nowhere near'?

Of course Haeckel embellished his drawings. But that does nto mean that the entire science of comparative embryology or the ToE is affected at all. Just another red herring.



What I am finding interesting is that amidst all these claims, nobody seems to be able to tell the name of the text, when or where this occurred.

Page 223 of the Lion Book (BIOLOGY - The Living Science) and page 283 of the Elephant Book (BIOLOGY by Miller and Levine)
*Edward O. Dodson, Evolution (1960), pp. 46-47;
*William Bloom and *Carl Krekeler, General Biology (1962), p. 442;
*Tracy Storer and *Robert Usinger, General Zoology (1965), p. 244; *Tracy Storer, *Robert Usinger, and *James Nybakken, Elements of Zoology (1968), p. 216;
*Claude Ville, *Warren Walker, Jr., and *Frederick Smith, General Zoology (1968), p. 677;
*Richard Leakey, Illustrated Origin (1971).

I couldn't help but notice the dates on these texts. Anything form, say, the last 15-20 years?



Which one do you have?

Or are you just cut-and-pasting some laundry liost form some creationist book or website?

I'll even quote a Famous site that most Atheists will Quote
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/wells/haeckel.html

I'm not sure why you would do that. Did you actually read the link?

I would be glad to discuss the powerful evidence for evolution seen in comparative embryology. I must say, poor Jon Wells did not know the difference between a pharyngeal pouch and a pharyngeal arch just a few short years ago, so he is not really in a position to complain (I encountered hium through an intermediary on a discussion board a few years ago).

Plus there is his dishonest quoting in his book, but that is another story.

SLP you just asked for Books... I was not being rude to you in any way except I was just trying to give what you asked for. As for 15-20 years I can't think of any and I cannot find any on the Net... I am really not superior in Science but know the Basics. I just enjoy reading what everyone has to say and usually stay out of these types of conversations however I noticed your question and thought I would just throw in those books. As for the website to Talkorigins I just thought it would be noteworthy to put that in my post.

The thing I wanted to show from Talkorgins was this

In the case of Haeckel, though, I have to begin by admitting that Wells has got the core of the story right. Haeckel was wrong. His theory was invalid, some of his drawings were faked, and he willfully over-interpreted the data to prop up a false thesis. Furthermore, he was influential, both in the sciences and the popular press; his theory still gets echoed in the latter today. Wells is also correct in criticizing textbook authors for perpetuating Haeckel's infamous diagram without commenting on its inaccuracies or the way it was misused to support a falsified theory.

Thanks for Responding

Tim

bizzt wrote:SLP you just asked for Books..

Yes, I asked for the books that two_phat and Kmart claimed to have been taught from in which Haeckel's drawings were presented as facts.

. I was not being rude to you in any way except I was just trying to give what you asked for. As for 15-20 years I can't think of any and I cannot find any on the Net... I am really not superior in Science but know the Basics. I just enjoy reading what everyone has to say and usually stay out of these types of conversations however I noticed your question and thought I would just throw in those books. As for the website to Talkorigins I just thought it would be noteworthy to put that in my post.

The thing I wanted to show from Talkorgins was this

In the case of Haeckel, though, I have to begin by admitting that Wells has got the core of the story right. Haeckel was wrong. His theory was invalid, some of his drawings were faked, and he willfully over-interpreted the data to prop up a false thesis. Furthermore, he was influential, both in the sciences and the popular press; his theory still gets echoed in the latter today. Wells is also correct in criticizing textbook authors for perpetuating Haeckel's infamous diagram without commenting on its inaccuracies or the way it was misused to support a falsified theory.

Thanks for Responding

Tim

Which authors? I suspect the TO article's author was being generous here. None of the several texts I have do any such thing. Several state explicitly that his ideas were wrong, and at least one of them shows actual photos for comparison.

To the great SLP, keeper of the biology books, I bringeth you, from page 1228-1229, of the Biology, 6th ed book, by Raven and Johnson:

ONTOGENY RECAPITULATES PHYLOGENY

The patterns of development in the vertebrate groups that evolved most recently reflect in many ways the simpler patterns occurring among earlier forms. Thus, mammalian development and bird development are elaborations of reptile development, which is an elaboration of amphibian development, and so forth. During the development of a mammalian embryo, traces can be seen of appendages and organs that are apparently relics of more primitive chordates. For example, at certain stages a human embryo possesses pharyngleal slits, which occur in all chordates and are homologous to the gill slits of fish. At later stages, a human embryo also has a tail (NOTE FROM THE EDITOR-ME-FIRST, THE "TAIL" IS A BULDGE OF THE SPINAL CORD, AND THE PHARYNGLEAL SLITS TURN INTO PARTS OF THE RESPIRATORY SYSTEM AND LOWER FACE OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT, BUT THEY WEREN'T GILLS)
In a sense, the patters of development in chordate groups has built up in incremental steps over the evolutionary history of those groups. The developmental instructions for each new form seem to have been layered on top of the previous instructions, contributing additional steps in the developmental journey. This hypothesis, proposed in the nineteenthy century by Ernst Haeckel, is referred to as the "biogenic law." It is usually stated as an aphorism: ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny; that is, embryologocial development (ontogeny) involves the same progression of changes that have occurred during evolution (phylogeny). Hoever, the biogenic law is not literally true when stated in this way because embryonic states are not reflections of adult ancestors. Instead, the embryonic stages of a particular vertebrate often reflect the embryonic stages of that vertebrates' ancestors. Thus, the pharyngeal slits of a mammalian embryo are not like the gill slits its ancestors had when they were adults. Rather, they are like the pharyngeal slits its ancestors had when then were embryos.
________
Vertebrates seem to have evolved largely by the addition of new instructions to the developmental program. Development of a mammal thus proceeds through a series of stages, and the earlier stages are unchanged from those that occur in the development of more primitive vertebrates.
_______
On page 1229, there is three levels of progress of the fish, salamander, tortuoise, chicken, human-and on the first level, they all look basically the same, except for different sized bulges and tails, and in the second, the fish and salamander stretch out, but the rest stay the same, except for size of head, and, in the third stage, the human fetus is finally looking normal.

Notice that the early embryonic stages of these vertebreates bear a striking resemblance to each other, even though the individuals are from different classes (fish, amphibians, reptiles, birds, and mammals). All vertebreates start out with an enlarged head region, gill slits, and a tail regardless of whether these characteristics are retained in the adults.

OK, I don't wanna type that more (and that's all there is on those two pages, didn't dare flip the page and type more).

Is the bookeeper pleased?

And the book (that edition at least) came out in 2002. And I used it in 2003 or 2004, can't remember which. That was my college book. Can't remember my elementary and junior high days.

AttentionKMartShoppers wrote:To the great SLP, keeper of the biology books, I bringeth you, from page 1228-1229, of the Biology, 6th ed book, by Raven and Johnson:

ONTOGENY RECAPITULATES PHYLOGENY

The patterns of development in the vertebrate groups that evolved most recently reflect in many ways the simpler patterns occurring among earlier forms. Thus, mammalian development and bird development are elaborations of reptile development, which is an elaboration of amphibian development, and so forth. During the development of a mammalian embryo, traces can be seen of appendages and organs that are apparently relics of more primitive chordates. For example, at certain stages a human embryo possesses pharyngleal slits, which occur in all chordates and are homologous to the gill slits of fish. At later stages, a human embryo also has a tail (NOTE FROM THE EDITOR-ME-FIRST, THE "TAIL" IS A BULDGE OF THE SPINAL CORD, AND THE PHARYNGLEAL SLITS TURN INTO PARTS OF THE RESPIRATORY SYSTEM AND LOWER FACE OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT, BUT THEY WEREN'T GILLS)

Allow me to correct 'the editor' - The tail is not a 'bulge' of the spinal cord. It is the vertebral column, and it is not a bulge. Also, the text explicitly states that there were no gills, rather that the pharyngeal slits are homologous to gill slits. But thanks for trying.

In a sense, the patters of development in chordate groups has built up in incremental steps over the evolutionary history of those groups. The developmental instructions for each new form seem to have been layered on top of the previous instructions, contributing additional steps in the developmental journey. This hypothesis, proposed in the nineteenthy century by Ernst Haeckel, is referred to as the "biogenic law." It is usually stated as an aphorism: ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny; that is, embryologocial development (ontogeny) involves the same progression of changes that have occurred during evolution (phylogeny). Hoever, the biogenic law is not literally true when stated in this way because embryonic states are not reflections of adult ancestors. Instead, the embryonic stages of a particular vertebrate often reflect the embryonic stages of that vertebrates' ancestors. Thus, the pharyngeal slits of a mammalian embryo are not like the gill slits its ancestors had when they were adults. Rather, they are like the pharyngeal slits its ancestors had when then were embryos.
________
Vertebrates seem to have evolved largely by the addition of new instructions to the developmental program. Development of a mammal thus proceeds through a series of stages, and the earlier stages are unchanged from those that occur in the development of more primitive vertebrates.
_______
On page 1229, there is three levels of progress of the fish, salamander, tortuoise, chicken, human-and on the first level, they all look basically the same, except for different sized bulges and tails, and in the second, the fish and salamander stretch out, but the rest stay the same, except for size of head, and, in the third stage, the human fetus is finally looking normal.

Notice that the early embryonic stages of these vertebreates bear a striking resemblance to each other, even though the individuals are from different classes (fish, amphibians, reptiles, birds, and mammals). All vertebreates start out with an enlarged head region, gill slits, and a tail regardless of whether these characteristics are retained in the adults.

OK, I don't wanna type that more (and that's all there is on those two pages, didn't dare flip the page and type more).

Is the bookeeper pleased?

Yes, I am pleased that through your arrogant overconfidence, you failed to notice that you proved me right (see bold text).

You really should think things through a bit more before you jump to silly conclusions.

It's amazing, it's you who don't seem capable of thinking. I haven't proven you right, not in the least. The argument was that Haekel's drawing are used as examples of evolution, and you were opposed to that. I have proven that the stuff is still taught, and in college. They are, if you read anything of the copied text, to prove man evolved from mammals which evolved from reptiles which evolved from amphibians.... All you have done is figured out how to use the bold icon. Everyone is a hypocrite, but must we go for the #1 spot SLP?

so very funny!

AttentionKMartShoppers wrote:It's amazing, it's you who don't seem capable of thinking. I haven't proven you right, not in the least. The argument was that Haekel's drawing are used as examples of evolution, and you were opposed to that. I have proven that the stuff is still taught, and in college. They are, if you read anything of the copied text, to prove man evolved from mammals which evolved from reptiles which evolved from amphibians.... All you have done is figured out how to use the bold icon. Everyone is a hypocrite, but must we go for the #1 spot SLP?

So are Haekel's drawings used in that textbook?

So are Haekel's drawings used in that textbook?

If not his actual drawings, then his drawings brought into the modern day-they follow the same flaw, they're the same size, they're the same size for one they, look the same to begin with, and only look different in the last stage (well, the salemander and fish elongate...), which they shouldn't be, and if you ask the right guy, he'll probably find the rest of the flaws copied. If they're just colored versions of Haekel's, I think so. And I only needed one example to win this argument, ooh, so excited, I might have one .

AttentionKMartShoppers wrote:It's amazing, it's you who don't seem capable of thinking. I haven't proven you right, not in the least. The argument was that Haekel's drawing are used as examples of evolution, and you were opposed to that. I have proven that the stuff is still taught, and in college. They are, if you read anything of the copied text, to prove man evolved from mammals which evolved from reptiles which evolved from amphibians.... All you have done is figured out how to use the bold icon. Everyone is a hypocrite, but must we go for the #1 spot SLP?

Actually, you appear to have posted the quote you did to "prove" that Haeckel's drawings (and by extension, his ideas) were being 'taught.'

The bolded portion does indeed prove that were overstating your position.

The rest is just hyperbole.