Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   human tails and the midriff - hiccups, what are the creatonist theories about them?
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 46 of 79 (520222)
08-19-2009 11:51 PM
Reply to: Message 45 by themasterdebator
08-19-2009 11:11 PM


Predictions of creationism
What predictions does Creationism make?
How have these predictions been tested against reality?
Creationism has made a lot of predictions--they're a dime a dozen ($19.95 for the whole book) in the various creationist literature and websites.
Problem is, those predictions (based entirely on religious beliefs) fare poorly when tested against empirical evidence. That doesn't deter creationists, as more predictions (or the same refuted ones) are easy to come by ("Get our next book, only $29.95, and see how evolution has failed!").
Examples of major failed predictions: global flood; young earth; geocentrism; devolution based on "the fall;" and "kinds."
Do those failures effect TRVE Believers? Not a whit. Empirical evidence has no effect on their religious beliefs.

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by themasterdebator, posted 08-19-2009 11:11 PM themasterdebator has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(1)
Message 47 of 79 (520329)
08-20-2009 8:23 PM
Reply to: Message 37 by slevesque
08-17-2009 10:35 PM


The Post-Anal Gut: A Case Study
I'd like to raise this point one more time for slevesque's benefit.
Slevesque, you brought to my attention a fact of which I was not aware --- the development and then loss of a post-anal gut in human embryos. (By the way, may I ask where you found out about this? Thanks.)
Now, to me this embryological feature immediately made sense. Let me talk you through my reasoning.
First, I knew that whatever you asserted, this feature would turn out to be ancestral. The theory of evolution implies this, and I have always found it to be very reliable in such matters.
Second, I knew that in a standard bilaterian, such as a worm, the mouth is at one end and the anus at the other, and that this feature is so widely spread amongst bilaterian clades other than our own that this feature must be basal. (Again, this is a conclusion reached by applying the theory of evolution.)
Third, I knew that, by contrast, chordates and our closest cousins the tunicates (in their laval stage) are distinguished by a post-anal tail.
This led me to see where the post-anal gut had to fit into all this. Surely the most parsimonious explanation is that the development of the post-anal tail was the result, not of the tail being tacked on behind and dorsal to the anus, but that the anus migrated forward along the ventral surface of the body of the ancestral line, so that (so to speak) chordates don't so much have a post-anal tail as a pre-tail anus (if you see what I mean).
Is this just a "just-so-story"? No. For it leads to certain predictions.
* The position of the post-anal gut: If the evolutionary conclusion is correct, then the post-anal gut in chordate embryos should lie inside the tail ventral to the notochord. And that's just where it is (see the book on embryology I linked you to).
* The taxonomy of the post-anal gut: If the evolutionary conclusion is correct, then this feature should by no means be confined to human embryos. On the contrary, it should be basal not just to the chordates, but even to the tunicates. And the evidence I have found supports this: the post-anal gut, as you will see from the references and quotations in my previous post, appears in chick embryos; it appears in adult sharks; and it has a homologue in tunicate larvae. It is hardly necessary to do a complete survey of the phyla in question to conclude that the evidence is indeed consistent with the proposition that the feature is basal to chordates.
So, that was my reasoning, and that's how the evidence supported it.
* * *
Now let us compare the creationist take on the same feature. Learning that human embryos acquire and then lose a post-anal gut, you immediately, without evidence or reasoning, declared that it could not have been a mature feature of an ancestral form. In maintaining that it could not be so you were completely wrong, for, as I have shown, the post-anal gut is present in some living adult chordates. So it could have been an adult feature of a chordate ancestral to us, and, as I have shown, the evidence is strongly consistent with the proposition that it was.
Furthermore, challenged to produce a good reason why a creator God should have produced this quirk of embryology, you have maintained a discreet silence. And, after all, what can you say? What can any creationist say, except: "Well, because God wanted it that way ... for reasons whereof we know not."
* * *
Contrast, then, our two very different positions. You brought me this information about the post-anal gut in human embryos --- a new piece of the jigsaw, and one that I had never seen before. You chose this jigsaw piece yourself in the hope and belief that it would be impossible to fit into the evolutionary jigsaw. I immediately saw where it fitted, and it allowed me to infer the existence of other pieces, all of which turned out to exist and to fit together in the grand evolutionary picture.
Meanwhile, you are left with a bunch of disconnected jigsaw pieces --- and a devout hope that God knows how to fit them together to make a picture quite different from the one that biologists are constructing.
Perhaps this allows you to see the appeal of evolution. Everything fits. In the famous words of Dobzhansky, nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution. Meanwhile, what can you creationists do, presented with the facts of embryology --- or, for that matter, morphology or biogeography or the fossil record or molecular phylogeny --- but throw up your hands and declare that God moves in mysterious ways?
And that's not the end of your troubles. For the most mysterious of God's ways (if we were to accept the creationist hypothesis) would be this: that he has mysteriously created living things in such a way that everything fits the evolutionary picture. It was, you must claim, his will or whim to provide the human embryo with a post-anal gut, and a notochord, and a tail, and a coat of fur --- all of which is compatible with evolution. But he could have blown the whole thing apart by giving human embryos feathers.
So this, for creationists, should be the mystery of mysteries --- why did God so create the world that every detail of it is consistent with evolution? Creationists do not spend much time contemplating this mystery, preferring instead to degrade themselves with squalid and stupid arguments that it is not so. But so it is: and this is why biologists favor evolutionary biology over fiat creationism.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by slevesque, posted 08-17-2009 10:35 PM slevesque has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by slevesque, posted 08-22-2009 1:08 AM Dr Adequate has replied

  
slevesque
Member (Idle past 4640 days)
Posts: 1456
Joined: 05-14-2009


Message 48 of 79 (520541)
08-22-2009 1:08 AM
Reply to: Message 47 by Dr Adequate
08-20-2009 8:23 PM


Re: The Post-Anal Gut: A Case Study
I'll have to say that this is starting to go beyond my scope of bilinguilism, especially since biology is not my strong point.
I'd like to raise this point one more time for slevesque's benefit.
Slevesque, you brought to my attention a fact of which I was not aware --- the development and then loss of a post-anal gut in human embryos. (By the way, may I ask where you found out about this? Thanks.)
I had typed 'Human tail' in the search section of creation.com, and it gave me this article: The human umbilical vesicle ('yolk sac') and pronephrosAre they vestigial? - creation.com. Which said this:
quote:
There are just too many anomalies for the recapitulation idea to work: The tail in the human embryo does not mean that we descended from tailed animals. In fact, the human embryo also has a post-anal gut. Does this mean that we descended from an animal with such a thing?
Now, to me this embryological feature immediately made sense. Let me talk you through my reasoning.
First, I knew that whatever you asserted, this feature would turn out to be ancestral. The theory of evolution implies this, and I have always found it to be very reliable in such matters.
I have to disagree that the Theory of Evolution implies this. What we are discussing here is Embryonic recapitulation, it is the theory that states that evolutionary changes tend to occur in the later stages of development and are gradually pushed back into embryogenesis, with the result that embryonic development bears the imprint of past evolution (in Ernst Haeckel’s words, ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny). Darwin believed this to be true.
I do not find this to be a necessary to Evolution. NeoDarwinism can do without it.
Second, I knew that in a standard bilaterian, such as a worm, the mouth is at one end and the anus at the other, and that this feature is so widely spread amongst bilaterian clades other than our own that this feature must be basal. (Again, this is a conclusion reached by applying the theory of evolution.)
I agree, and of course humans also have a mouth at one end and an anus at the other, without a post-anal gut. [/qs]Third, I knew that, by contrast, chordates and our closest cousins the tunicates (in their laval stage) are distinguished by a post-anal tail.
This led me to see where the post-anal gut had to fit into all this. Surely the most parsimonious explanation is that the development of the post-anal tail was the result, not of the tail being tacked on behind and dorsal to the anus, but that the anus migrated forward along the ventral surface of the body of the ancestral line, so that (so to speak) chordates don't so much have a post-anal tail as a pre-tail anus (if you see what I mean).[/qs]
This is a bit unclear to me; are you suggesting that chordates have a tail next to their anus, or directly connected into, or on, their anus ?
Because maybe it is my understanding of post-anal gut that is wrong, but I understand it as that in the embryological stage the embryo has mouth-stomach-anus-gut, and that along the development it becomes mouth-stomach-gut-anus. (Or maybe it is Mouth-stomach-gut-anus-gut). And so saying they have a post-anal tail gives me the image of an embryo with mouth-stomach-anus-tail ...
I'll have wait for a bit of a clarification on all this. It may sound stupid, but I'm very visual when speaking biology and so maybe a good image of what a post-anal gut is would be helpful.
Edited by slevesque, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-20-2009 8:23 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-22-2009 6:54 PM slevesque has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 49 of 79 (520639)
08-22-2009 6:54 PM
Reply to: Message 48 by slevesque
08-22-2009 1:08 AM


Re: The Post-Anal Gut: A Case Study
I'll have to say that this is starting to go beyond my scope of bilinguilism, especially since biology is not my strong point.
Well, I suspect that the words I'm using would be equally foreign to you if I'd written them in French. I'm also going to guess that the French words would look almost exactly the same as the English words. The foreign language I'm talking isn't English, it's biology.
There is a lot of technical jargon in science. It isn't there to baffle and confuse you, it's there because scientists need precise words for the precise concepts they're talking about.
And if you want to join in the debate --- if you want to talk about morphology and taxonomy --- then you're just going to have to learn the words: just as if you want to talk about basketball you'll have to learn what "slam-dunk" means, and if you want to talk about music theory you're going to have to learn what "diminished seventh" means.
Here are the definitions of the words I've used.
Clade : A clade is any group of species which are more closely related to one another than any species outside that group.
For example, the "cat family" (lions, tigers, housecats and so forth) are a clade. They are all more closely related to one another than they are to anything outside that clade (whales, baboons, bats, or whetever).
By contrast, the non-human apes (chimps, gorillas, orang-utans) are not a clade. Why? Because there is a species outside this group (humans) that are more closely related to a species inside that group (chimps) than chimps are to another species in that group (gorillas, for example).
From an evolutionary point of view, this is the only really sensible way of grouping organisms.
Basal : A feature is said to be basal to a clade if an ancestor of that clade had that feature. For example, we would say that having a tail is basal to the primates.
You will find people writing "primitive" to mean the same thing. But the word "basal" is better, because "primitive" has the connotations of "crude, simple, unsophisticated". This can only cause confusion.
Dorsal : Dorsal literally means "having to do with the back". So the dorsal side of a human is the back side of a human. The dorsal side of a fish is the top of the fish. Unless it swims upside-down, which some fish do. Or unless it's a flatfish.
These qualifications should make it clear why we need a special technical word for it.
Ventral : The opposite side from "dorsal". The front of a human, the bottom of a fish.
Chordates : A clade including all vertebrates, plus some fish-like creatures such as lampreys and hagfish and Amphioxus and Pikaia
Tunicates : A weird clade. They start off as tadpoles (the "larval form") that look much like chordates. Then, when they grow up, they anchor themselves to the sea-bed and develop into a form that looks nothing like an tunicate larva or an adult chordate (the "sessile form").
It is generally agreed that tunicates are the closest relatives to chordates --- that is, tunicates and chordates are a clade.
You will usually see it claimed that the tunicate lifestyle is basal to the clade, so that in effect chordates are tunicates that don't become sessile. But this may not be true. I myself regard it as an open question.
Notochord : The notochord is a rod running down the spine of tunicate tadpoles and chordate embryos. In vertebrates, such as humans, this is another of those features that appears during embryological development and then vanishes. In chordates that aren't vertebrates, such as lampreys, the notochord persists into adulthood.
I think that that's all the jargon I've used. But feel free to get back to me if there's some word I've used with which you're unfamiliar.
Or, now I come to think of it, you could look it up. I'm not inventing these words as I go along, they are used by all biologists and are precisely defined.
Really, like I say, if you want to argue about morphology and taxonomy --- if you want to "play with the big boys" --- then at some point you're going to have to learn the language in which the debate is framed.
You say that biology is "not your strong point". And yet, for some reason, you've come on this forum to argue on biological grounds that the world's greatest biologists are all wrong about biology. Well then, it's time you learned some biology.
I had typed 'Human tail' in the search section of creation.com, and it gave me this article: The human umbilical vesicle ('yolk sac') and pronephrosAre they vestigial? - creation.com. Which said this:
quote:
There are just too many anomalies for the recapitulation idea to work: The tail in the human embryo does not mean that we descended from tailed animals. In fact, the human embryo also has a post-anal gut. Does this mean that we descended from an animal with such a thing?
Ah. In short, it's a piece of creationist ignorance.
I like the use of the rhetorical question. "Does this mean that we descended from an animal with such a thing?" Yes. Yes, Mr Creationist, it does.
I have to disagree that the Theory of Evolution implies this. What we are discussing here is Embryonic recapitulation ...
We are not discussing embryonic recapitulation.
Creationists are discussing embryological recapitulation, because ever since some biologist told them that this doesn't happen, they've been pretending that this is what biologists say happens.
I am not discussing embryological recapitulation. I am discussing the predictions made by the theory of evolution.
I agree, and of course humans also have a mouth at one end and an anus at the other, without a post-anal gut.
This is true, but only because we lose our tails during embryological development. When you were an embryo, what was at the other end of you was the tip of your tail. And you had a post-anal gut.
I'll have wait for a bit of a clarification on all this. It may sound stupid, but I'm very visual when speaking biology and so maybe a good image of what a post-anal gut is would be helpful.
As I understand the descriptions in the books, we're talking about something like this. Imagine that this is a cutaway diagram of a shark. It's not a good picture of a shark, I'm better at biology than art.
That's probably not completely anatomically accurate, but you get the point.
A question occurs to me. You said that "clearly" this could not be an ancestral feature. And now you say that you don't even know what that feature is.
So why was it so "clear" to you that it wasn't ancestral, if you didn't even know what it was?
Oh, right, because you read it on some creationist website.
Let me tell you something about creationists. When they give you a piece of information about biology, that information will either be true or false. You can, of course, ignore anything they tell you that is false. And everything they tell you that is true is, of course, known to biologists. How else do creationists know true things about biology except that biologists told them?
Biologists know that Haeckel was wrong about recapitulation. Biologists know about the post-anal gut. And the only reason that creationists know about these things is 'cos biologists told them.
So if there was any fact in biology that refuted evolution, biologists would be the first to know, wouldn't they? If the facts of biology refuted evolution, then biologists would be its most vehement opponents, rather than its biggest supporters, wouldn't they?
But you insist that biologists are wrong about the most fundamental fact of biology, when, as you say, biology is "not your strong point".
What is wrong with this picture?
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by slevesque, posted 08-22-2009 1:08 AM slevesque has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by slevesque, posted 08-23-2009 3:13 AM Dr Adequate has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 50 of 79 (520661)
08-22-2009 8:50 PM
Reply to: Message 37 by slevesque
08-17-2009 10:35 PM


Honesty
A further question occurs to me. Looking back at your posts, I find that you wrote:
Embryos develop many structures that are not representative of structures possessed by our ancestors, such as a post-anal gut, which clearly none of our ancestors had.
Now, why did you write "many"? Be honest here. Off the top of your head, how many can you think of? You were completely wrong about the one instance that you actually cited, namely the post-anal gut.
Tell me, truthfully, did you have anything else in mind?
No?
Then what impudent brazen cheek led you to write that there were many such instances?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by slevesque, posted 08-17-2009 10:35 PM slevesque has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by slevesque, posted 08-23-2009 3:22 AM Dr Adequate has replied

  
slevesque
Member (Idle past 4640 days)
Posts: 1456
Joined: 05-14-2009


Message 51 of 79 (520678)
08-23-2009 3:13 AM
Reply to: Message 49 by Dr Adequate
08-22-2009 6:54 PM


Re: The Post-Anal Gut: A Case Study
Well, I suspect that the words I'm using would be equally foreign to you if I'd written them in French. I'm also going to guess that the French words would look almost exactly the same as the English words. The foreign language I'm talking isn't English, it's biology.
There is a lot of technical jargon in science. It isn't there to baffle and confuse you, it's there because scientists need precise words for the precise concepts they're talking about.
And if you want to join in the debate --- if you want to talk about morphology and taxonomy --- then you're just going to have to learn the words: just as if you want to talk about basketball you'll have to learn what "slam-dunk" means, and if you want to talk about music theory you're going to have to learn what "diminished seventh" means.
My previous statement was not to say ''Stop using compicated words!''. While typing my response, I did look up every words I did not understand, because I totally agree with you that if we are discussing a certain topic, then we have to use the right words.
My previous statement was more to say ''While discussing this, their may be some misunderstandings from my part''.
We are not discussing embryonic recapitulation.
Creationists are discussing embryological recapitulation, because ever since some biologist told them that this doesn't happen, they've been pretending that this is what biologists say happens.
I am not discussing embryological recapitulation. I am discussing the predictions made by the theory of evolution
Neo-Darwinian evolution does not predict that if my ancestor has a tail, then my embryo should have a tail. Neither does it predict that if I observe that my embryo has a post-anal gut, then my ancestor should have a post-anal gut. These are predictions of an auxiliary hypothesis which is in relation with Darwins Thoery of evolution, namely embryonic recapitulation.
A question occurs to me. You said that "clearly" this could not be an ancestral feature. And now you say that you don't even know what that feature is.
So why was it so "clear" to you that it wasn't ancestral, if you didn't even know what it was?
Oh, right, because you read it on some creationist website.
The answer to your question is right in my previous post. I did have an idea of what a post-anal gut was. When I read about it, I had the image that is was attached directly after the anus in the digestive system; as in if anything was to go out of the anus, it would end up in the post-anal gut.
Now I asked what was your image of what it was because, when reading your post, it did not seem to fit with what I had in mind.
Anyhow, my brother is in MedSchool and so I'll probably ask him if he can explain to me what it is or if he has a book from one of his Medicine classes that talks about it.
Let me tell you something about creationists. When they give you a piece of information about biology, that information will either be true or false. You can, of course, ignore anything they tell you that is false. And everything they tell you that is true is, of course, known to biologists. How else do creationists know true things about biology except that biologists told them?
Biologists know that Haeckel was wrong about recapitulation. Biologists know about the post-anal gut. And the only reason that creationists know about these things is 'cos biologists told them.
So if there was any fact in biology that refuted evolution, biologists would be the first to know, wouldn't they? If the facts of biology refuted evolution, then biologists would be its most vehement opponents, rather than its biggest supporters, wouldn't they?
But you insist that biologists are wrong about the most fundamental fact of biology, when, as you say, biology is "not your strong point".
WHen I put in doubt the theory of evolution, I do not do it on my own authority. I do it based on statements made by biologists. Now the thing is, these biologists do not seem to be recognized as such by you. But in fact, when you look at it closely, there is but one difference between them: their view of the theory of evolution. So in fact, when you claim:
quote:
So if there was any fact in biology that refuted evolution, biologists would be the first to know, wouldn't they? If the facts of biology refuted evolution, then biologists would be its most vehement opponents, rather than its biggest supporters, wouldn't they?
It is fallacious, because the biologists that do think that Neo-Darwinian evolution doesn't fit the facts are in fact being redefined as not being biologists.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-22-2009 6:54 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 53 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-23-2009 4:12 AM slevesque has replied

  
slevesque
Member (Idle past 4640 days)
Posts: 1456
Joined: 05-14-2009


Message 52 of 79 (520679)
08-23-2009 3:22 AM
Reply to: Message 50 by Dr Adequate
08-22-2009 8:50 PM


Re: Honesty
A further question occurs to me. Looking back at your posts, I find that you wrote:
Embryos develop many structures that are not representative of structures possessed by our ancestors, such as a post-anal gut, which clearly none of our ancestors had.
Now, why did you write "many"? Be honest here. Off the top of your head, how many can you think of? You were completely wrong about the one instance that you actually cited, namely the post-anal gut.
Tell me, truthfully, did you have anything else in mind?
No?
Then what impudent brazen cheek led you to write that there were many such instances?
I'm not an embryologist by any stretch of the imagination, but I do know that each major group of animals have a distinct cleavage pattern, and so my ancestors of another group could not have had the same cleavage pattern as my ebryo had. (Of course, you can argue that this is not a 'structure', which was the word I used. Nevertheless, this is a feature of our embryo)
O have no doubt an embryologists would probably have more examples of features our embryos have which are not to be found in our evolutionnary lineage.
On a side note, I know you did your best with that drawing of a post-anal gut, but I'll ask my brother about it before discussing this particular case in more detail ...
Edited by slevesque, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-22-2009 8:50 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 55 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-23-2009 5:05 AM slevesque has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 53 of 79 (520682)
08-23-2009 4:12 AM
Reply to: Message 51 by slevesque
08-23-2009 3:13 AM


Re: The Post-Anal Gut: A Case Study
Neo-Darwinian evolution does not predict that if my ancestor has a tail, then my embryo should have a tail.
You are right. The theory of evolution does not predict that recapitulation must occur.
Neither does it predict that if I observe that my embryo has a post-anal gut, then my ancestor should have a post-anal gut.
You are wrong. That is exactly what it predicts.
These are predictions of an auxiliary hypothesis which is in relation with Darwins Thoery of evolution, namely embryonic recapitulation.
You are wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong and wrong. You are hopelessly wrong because creationists have been lying to you.
The theory of evolution makes some very definite predictions about embryology. These are completely different from Haeckel's concept of recapitulation, which is wrong.
Creationists, because they are either liars or idiots, try to mix up what the theory of evolution says about embryology with what Haeckel said about embryology.
The theory of evolution makes some very precise predictions about embryology. These, on examination, always turn out to be correct.
WHen I put in doubt the theory of evolution, I do not do it on my own authority. I do it based on statements made by biologists.
But this isn't actually true, is it?
When you said that "clearly" the post-anal gut couldn't be an ancestral feature, this was not based on statements made by biologists. It was because you'd read some dumb creationist website asking a dumb rhetorical question that implied that the post-anal gut wasn't ancestral, and you fell for it hook line and sinker.
Of the two of us, only one of us, and that would be me, has quoted and cited papers and books written by biologists. You picked up some completely false idea fed to you on a creationist website, and you believed it.
WHen I put in doubt the theory of evolution, I do not do it on my own authority. I do it based on statements made by biologists. Now the thing is, these biologists do not seem to be recognized as such by you. But in fact, when you look at it closely, there is but one difference between them: their view of the theory of evolution ... It is fallacious, because the biologists that do think that Neo-Darwinian evolution doesn't fit the facts are in fact being redefined as not being biologists.
But you are misrepresenting my case. I do not claim that it is impossible to be a biologist and a creationist. This is indeed possible.
My point is that every true statement about biology is, of course, known by biologists. This thing about the post-anal gut, for example --- it's not like the existence of a post-anal gut in human embryos is something that only creationists know, is it? It's not like you guys have special knowledge which, if you could just bring it to the attention of the 99.99% of biologists who are evolutionists, would cause them to slap their foreheads and exclaim: "Oh, I see now! Obviously the doctrine of fiat creation is correct! What a fool I've been!"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by slevesque, posted 08-23-2009 3:13 AM slevesque has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 54 by slevesque, posted 08-23-2009 4:51 AM Dr Adequate has replied

  
slevesque
Member (Idle past 4640 days)
Posts: 1456
Joined: 05-14-2009


Message 54 of 79 (520683)
08-23-2009 4:51 AM
Reply to: Message 53 by Dr Adequate
08-23-2009 4:12 AM


Re: The Post-Anal Gut: A Case Study
You are right. The theory of evolution does not predict that recapitulation must occur.
Does it say why it sometimes occur and sometimes it doesn't ?
You are wrong. That is exactly what it predicts.
So, according to evolution, every feature and structure of the embryo should also be found in it's ancestors ?
You are wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong and wrong. You are hopelessly wrong because creationists have been lying to you.
The theory of evolution makes some very definite predictions about embryology. These are completely different from Haeckel's concept of recapitulation, which is wrong.
Creationists, because they are either liars or idiots, try to mix up what the theory of evolution says about embryology with what Haeckel said about embryology.
The theory of evolution makes some very precise predictions about embryology. These, on examination, always turn out to be correct.
What is the theory of evolution's conception of embryonic recapitulation, and how is it different from Haeckel's conception of it ?
Because, what Darwin has said regarding embryo's and their relation to his theory of evolution seems strickingly familiar to the concept that Haeckel elaborated.
I'll let the discussion lead in that direction by not responding to the rest, which is a bit Off-topic.
Edited by slevesque, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-23-2009 4:12 AM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 56 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-23-2009 5:18 AM slevesque has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 55 of 79 (520685)
08-23-2009 5:05 AM
Reply to: Message 52 by slevesque
08-23-2009 3:22 AM


Re: Honesty
O have no doubt an embryologists would probably have more examples of features our embryos have which are not to be found in our evolutionnary lineage.
Oh, for heaven's sake.
This is why I despise creationists. It's not just that you make factual errors, which we all do from time to time, it's the whole way that you think. Or don't think.
Let's look again at your behavior.
You asserted very confidently that there were "many" embryological features that didn't fit with evolution.
When I ask you to list them, you can't produce any such features. Apart from this stuff about the post-anal gut, where you turned out to be completely wrong.
But you still maintain that you "have no doubt" that "many" such features exist.
Just think about what you did, will you? You confidently told us all that there were "many" such embryological features. But you don't actually know of any such features, do you?
So, let me put this as tactfully as I can ... you are a liar. Now, you're not a liar in the strongest sense --- you didn't assert something that you knew to be false. But you confidently asserted as a fact something that you did not know to be true.
So, two questions occur to me.
The first is how you can bring yourself to behave like that.
The second is why, if you're going to behave like that, anyone should bother to debate with you. If you're just going to say stuff without checking whether it's true or false, then your arguments are worthless.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by slevesque, posted 08-23-2009 3:22 AM slevesque has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 57 by slevesque, posted 08-23-2009 5:36 AM Dr Adequate has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 56 of 79 (520687)
08-23-2009 5:18 AM
Reply to: Message 54 by slevesque
08-23-2009 4:51 AM


Re: The Post-Anal Gut: A Case Study
Does it say why it sometimes occur and sometimes it doesn't ?
No. The theory of evolution makes no predictions in that respect.
So, according to evolution, every feature and structure of the embryo should also be found in it's ancestors ?
Yes, more or less.
Let's state it more precisely. If, during the course of embryological development, an embryo develops and then loses any significant structure, then the theory of evolution predicts that the other evidence as to ancestry will be consistent with the hypothesis that that is an ancestral feature. This is, for example, how I immediately knew that the evidence would be consistent with the proposition that the post-anal gut was ancestral. I was right.
What is the theory of evolution's conception of embryonic recapitulation, and how is it different from Haeckel's conception of it ?
See my previous paragraph on what the theory of evolution says.
Haeckel thought that every evolutionary development had to be recapitulated in the embryo, and in the same order in which they evolved. This is not at all true, nor is there any reason why this should be true, nor is there any reason why we should be discussing the obsolete ideas of Haeckel which no-one in the whole world believes, except that creationist liars are trying to mess with your head by mixing up what the theory of evolution says about embryology with what Haeckel said about embryology.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by slevesque, posted 08-23-2009 4:51 AM slevesque has not replied

  
slevesque
Member (Idle past 4640 days)
Posts: 1456
Joined: 05-14-2009


Message 57 of 79 (520688)
08-23-2009 5:36 AM
Reply to: Message 55 by Dr Adequate
08-23-2009 5:05 AM


Re: Honesty
No comment about the cleavage pattern in the early embryonic stage ??
I could also add, it seems, the embryonic step just after cleavage. The gastrulation patterns are very different in the major groups of animals, including the different classes of vertebrates.
And of course, we will be discussing the post-anal gut to see if it is really the representative of an ancestral structure.
There is also a very simple reason that justifies my belief that an embyologists could point out to many aspects of our embryology that do not represent our evolutionnary lineage: I have never heard of any embryologist that has endorsed any kind of embryonic recapitulation, either be it in Darwin's days or today. Simply put: if embryology would confirm evolution so much, then embryologist would promote it.
EDIT: From Dr. Wayne Fair, who has a M.A. in embryology:
For one year I taught science at Ben Lippen, a Christian middle and high school. Then I returned to the University of Massachusetts and completed an M.A. degree in embryology, writing a research thesis on the effects of 8-azaguanine (the first anti-cancer drug) during a chick’s embryology.2 My advisor, Dr. Gilbert Woodside, was chairman of the Department of Zoology at the University of Massachusetts and was an evolutionist with an international reputation in embryology. He apparently did not appreciate a scientific alternative to evolution, but he declared to me very clearly that evolution was not applicable in the field of embryology. It was obvious to him that evolution actually had hurt embryological disciplines, because many fine scientists had wasted their time trying to fit data from their studies into some illusionary evolutionary scheme.
Edited by slevesque, : No reason given.
Edited by slevesque, : No reason given.
Edited by slevesque, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-23-2009 5:05 AM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 58 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-23-2009 6:35 AM slevesque has not replied
 Message 59 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-23-2009 7:02 AM slevesque has replied
 Message 64 by Theodoric, posted 08-23-2009 2:08 PM slevesque has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 58 of 79 (520693)
08-23-2009 6:35 AM
Reply to: Message 57 by slevesque
08-23-2009 5:36 AM


Embryology
No comment about the cleavage pattern in the early embryonic stage ??
No, not unless you're going to mention any specific point.
For heaven's sake, slevesque. I talk in great detail about the post-anal gut, and I refer you to papers and books written by biologists, and I write you a glossary of biological terms, and I draw you a diagram, dammit, do you know how long that took me, and I explain to you what the evolutionary prediction is, and why this is different from what Haeckel was talking about ... and every time you ask a question then I waste precious moments of my life answering it ...
... and, dammit, slevesque, I've done a lot of work for you. I've done your homework. I've found the papers that you should have read. I've defined the words that you didn't know. I drew the diagram to explain the facts that you couldn't grasp ...
... and then you just refer to this "cleavage pattern" and then act as though you've scored some sort of point if I don't know what you're talking about.
Well, I don't. What's your point? If there is some standard line of creationist bullshit about "the cleavage pattern in the early embryonic stage", then you're going to have to tell me what it is.
As it is, it seems that you're taunting me for not being able to read your mind and figure out what it is that you want to be wrong about.
What is it you want to be wrong about? You seem to think that there is some creationist argument about "cleavage patterns", but you won't tell us what it is.
Compare this with my behavior.
There is also a very simple reason that justifies my belief that an embyologists could point out to many aspects of our embryology that do not represent our evolutionnary lineage: I have never heard of any embryologist that has endorsed any kind of embryonic recapitulation, either be it in Darwin's days or today. Simply put: if embryology would confirm evolution so much, then embryologist would promote it.
And this is the kind of comment that makes me think that creationists are nuts in the head.
Where are all the embryologists who are not evolutionists?
Your call.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by slevesque, posted 08-23-2009 5:36 AM slevesque has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 59 of 79 (520694)
08-23-2009 7:02 AM
Reply to: Message 57 by slevesque
08-23-2009 5:36 AM


Re: Honesty
EDIT: From Dr. Wayne Fair, who has a M.A. in embryology:
Well the first thing that I have to think about is this. If Wayne Fair has an M.A. in embryology, in what subject does he have a doctorate?
Well done to him for getting an M.A, but he's never published any actual results in embryology, has he?
I'm going to guess that his doctorate is in theology. I might be wrong.
Now, let's look at what "Dr" Fair has to say.
quote:
My advisor, Dr. Gilbert Woodside, was chairman of the Department of Zoology at the University of Massachusetts and was an evolutionist with an international reputation in embryology. He apparently did not appreciate a scientific alternative to evolution, but he declared to me very clearly that evolution was not applicable in the field of embryology. It was obvious to him that evolution actually had hurt embryological disciplines, because many fine scientists had wasted their time trying to fit data from their studies into some illusionary evolutionary scheme.
So, he does not quote Dr Woodside saying this nutty stuff. He says that it was "clear" and "apparent" that Woodside thought that "evolution actually had hurt embryological disciplines".
I don't want to break your heart, but creationists lie a lot. Even if they don't lie deliberately, they are so stupid that you can't believe anything they say.
Let me give you an example. The biologist Stephen Jay Gould, a professor at Harvard, once saw a creationist pamphlet saying that "Harvard Scientists Agree Evolution Is a Hoax". Since he was at Harvard, he was kind of keen to see which of his colleagues had said anything that crazy and dumb.
What do you know ... it was him. The creationists had so lied about what he'd said that he didn't even recognize himself until he saw his name in their pamphlet, and realized to his horror that they were lying about him.
So when creationists say: "I heard such-and-such a professor say such-and-such a thing", then, frankly, I don't believe them. My experience of creationists is that this is the respect in which they lie the most. I want to see an actual sourced quotation, or else I shall assume that they're lying.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by slevesque, posted 08-23-2009 5:36 AM slevesque has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 60 by slevesque, posted 08-23-2009 7:39 AM Dr Adequate has replied
 Message 63 by Theodoric, posted 08-23-2009 2:05 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
slevesque
Member (Idle past 4640 days)
Posts: 1456
Joined: 05-14-2009


Message 60 of 79 (520699)
08-23-2009 7:39 AM
Reply to: Message 59 by Dr Adequate
08-23-2009 7:02 AM


Re: Honesty
We'll have to continue this discussion later on this week, or maybe next week even. because I'm moving to my new appartment in montreal. (university starts next week)
Well the first thing that I have to think about is this. If Wayne Fair has an M.A. in embryology, in what subject does he have a doctorate?
Well done to him for getting an M.A, but he's never published any actual results in embryology, has he?
I'm going to guess that his doctorate is in theology. I might be wrong.
Don't know how many articles he published in embryology, but his MA research thesis was published (W. Frair and G.L. Woodside, Effects of 8-azaguanine on Early Chick Embryos Grown in Vitro, Growth 20:9—18, 1956.)
And his PhD is in biochemical taxonomy, not theology hehe
So, he does not quote Dr Woodside saying this nutty stuff. He says that it was "clear" and "apparent" that Woodside thought that "evolution actually had hurt embryological disciplines".
That's not exactly what Dr. Fair says. He says that Dr. Woodside 'declared' to him. It is not just an impression from Dr. Faire, as you imply.
I don't want to break your heart, but creationists lie a lot. Even if they don't lie deliberately, they are so stupid that you can't believe anything they say.
Let me give you an example. The evolutionist Stephen Jay Gould, a professor at Harvard, once saw a creationist pamphlet saying that "Harvard Scientists Agree Evolution Is a Hoax". Since he was at Harvard, he was kind of keen to see which of his colleagues had said anything that crazy and dumb.
What do you know ... it was him. The creationists had so lied about what he'd said that he didn't even recognize himself until he saw his name in their pamphlet, and realized to his horror that they were lying about him.
So when creationists say: "I heard such-and-such a professor say such-and-such a thing", then, frankly, I don't believe them. My experience of creationists is that this is the respect in which they lie the most. I want to see an actual sourced quotation, or else I shall assume that they're lying.
If we were talking about Kent Hovind, I would agree that he is both an idiot and a liar. However, just because some creationists lie, does not mean all creationist have a tendency to lie. Furthermore, I can also provide examples:
Bora Zivkovic, Online Community Manager at PLoS-ONE. evolutionary True Believer and educator:
quote:
You cannot bludgeon kids with truth (or insult their religion, i.e., their parents and friends) and hope they will smile and believe you. Yes, NOMA is wrong, but is a good first tool for gaining trust. You have to bring them over to your side, gain their trust, and then hold their hands and help them step by step. And on that slow journey, which will be painful for many of them, it is OK to use some inaccuracies temporarily if they help you reach the students.
quote:
If a student, like Natalie Wright who I quoted above, goes on to study biology, then he or she will unlearn the inaccuracies in time. If most of the students do not, but those cutesy examples help them accept evolution, then it is OK if they keep some of those little inaccuracies for the rest of their lives. It is perfectly fine if they keep thinking that Mickey Mouse evolved as long as they think evolution is fine and dandy overall. Without Mickey, they may have become Creationist activists instead. Without belief in NOMA they would have never accepted anything, and well, so be it. Better NOMA-believers than Creationists, don’t you think?
Here is an evolutionists saying that it is OK to lie if it gets them to believe in evolution. How disgusting is that ?
Of course, the point is that generalisations are rarely good. CMI is a serious creationist organization which takes much care in not perpetrating false claims.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-23-2009 7:02 AM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 61 by PaulK, posted 08-23-2009 8:33 AM slevesque has not replied
 Message 62 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-23-2009 8:38 AM slevesque has replied
 Message 65 by Theodoric, posted 08-23-2009 2:11 PM slevesque has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024