Great Debate: Nuggin v. Randman

Well, it took 170 posts, but I have officially won the argument. Godwin's Law Yay for me!

Hehe, touchewe'll call that the Randman Law

How many times do I have to answer this. Yes, Haeckel's drawings do not accurately reflect reality. Some of the mistakes reinforced his theory. Weither or not this is an intentional fraud on his part or an unintentional inkblot situation where he sees what he wants to see, I do not know. Were? Yes. Sometimes still are? That depends on what you mean by "highly conserved stage". I seriously doubt that anyone is doing research based solely on Haeckel's original drawings. In the strictest sense, yes. His Biogenetic Law, if taken verbatim with no accounting for additional data, is not valid. Just like Newton's Laws do not hold up when you run them by particle physics. However, that does not mean that the spark of the idea present in Newton's laws is therefore false. Knowingly using false data is morally wrong. Using data which you believe to be correct is not morally wrong, even if the end result is actually incorrect. Here's where you are over reaching. What you are trying to imply is that evolutionists have intentionally mislead the public by knowingly presenting false data. However, you have not shown that.Additionally, a sub-implication here is that all evolutionists knew/should have known about Haeckel's drawings. That's an unreasonable assumption to make.Further, you have completely left out whole other fields of science that Haeckel influenced. Are you willing to say that all of Freud's work is invalid, or that he deliberately mislead people, because he was a believer in Haeckel's Biogenetic law?Additionally, you are implying is that Haeckel's Law is a cornerstone (and necessary part) of evolutionary theory. Frankly, it isn't. You could strike Haeckel and embryology from textbooks completely and still teach evolution without a hitch.Lastly, you are trying to suggest that a theory which had rocky beginnings is automatically invalid no matter what additional evidence is discovered.As I showed with geocentric astronomy vs modern astronomy, several core assumptions were wrong, while several other core assumptions were correct.By your accounting, Venus is not a planet and does not follow an orbit because it was once though that Venus orbitted the Earth.How many years was geocentric astronomy the law of the land (and church)? I'm gonna bet it was more than 100. Not so, at the very core is weither or not recapitulation is true.If recapitulation is 100% false, then everything you claim above is absolutely correct.If recapitulation is even partially true, then your demands are draconian and unrealistic.Additionally, you have failed to suggest an answer which accounts for the data. Nothing you have presented answers both what we see in embryos, living species and the fossil record.If you can not present a different theory which unifies that data, there's no reason to discard the one which does. They were fakes? You mean they weren't drawn by Haeckel? Who drew them then and when?Or do you mean, "the diagrams used to illustrate those ideas were erroneous"? I am not doubting this assumption on your part, but I'm having trouble finding an example. Can you post some embryo pictures of closely related species which look more like distantly related species.The only thing I can come up with in my imagination at the moment is that an eel embryo probably looks very snake like and vice versa, but snakes are more closely related to turtles than to eels.However, obviously, snakes are more morphologically similiar to eels than to turtles, so it stands to reason that we'd expect similiar physical development in snakes and eels than either when compaired to a turtle.I assume there are other examples, just having trouble guessing what they are.

I admit (for the 12th time?) that Haeckel's work contains mistakes. Those mistakes often (not always) cut in his favor. Is this suspicious? Yes. Was I there when he did it? No. Were you there when he did it? No. Was Richardson there when he did it? No.Is it possible that Haeckel intentionally drew the embryos different than he was seeing them? Yes.Is it possible that Haeckel believed that what he was drawing was accurate? Yes.You are trying to paint Haeckel as P.T. Barnum (which may in fact be the case) but it's not something you can prove.If there is a quote from Haeckel along the lines of, "Yup, I fooled you all! Ha ha!" then bingo, you've got it. I'm not ruling out the existance of such a quote. But without it, you have a hell of a time proving intent.

If I were writing a book about American History, do you expect me to go back to the source material on every event I included? Check the election results for Jefferson? Read the court transcripts for Dread Scott? No.If I was writing a book about Jefferson's presidency, it might be a good idea. If I was writing a book about the Dread Scott decision. It would be a very good idea.The books you've linked are not books on embryology. They are books on biology. Yes, they mention Haeckel. Should the authors of a book on biology go back and study Haeckel for that page of their 400 page book? Given that there were errors, would have been smart. But, do you likewise expect them to double check the Krebs cycle? Or the mechanics of sonar? Or the spores of a mushroom?Authors crib from earlier material. If earlier material contains a mistake, it's likely that the cribbed material would contain a mistake. See our earlier discussions about Columbus.Just because someone has found the mistake doesn't automatically correct the mistake everywhere. This is clearly evident with IDers. Many ID ideas have been shown to be complete fantasy. Yet, those ideas keep on appearing in books like "Pandas and People" or whatever it was called.Would it be great if all information ever published was completely checked, rechecked and constantly kept up to date? Sure would.Has that been the case for the last 100 years? No.

By this reasoning, The Law of Gravity doesn't hold up for sub atomic particles. It's wrong. Therefore we shouldn't mention gravity at all in our text books. Is that what I am suggesting? No. What I am saying is that the modern use of the term recapitulation is different than Haeckel's use of the term. Just like the modern use of the term atom is different than Aristotle's use of the term.Just because Aristotle's idea about what an atom is doesn't include protons and electrons, doesn't mean that we should completely disregard any understanding of atoms.If you were saying - "Hey, let's not use Haeckel's pictures in books" that would be one thing.What you are saying is - "Let's not teach that some features from earlier stages appear in the embryos of species which no longer have those features, because Haeckel's original idea that a baby human is a baby pig at one point is wrong."That's draconian and unrealistic. Further, it holds evolutionary science to a standard that you are not applying to history, physics, etc. And which you certainly aren't applying to Intelligent Design. Untrue. Simply because you disregard information that you can not explain away, doesn't mean the information is not there.You've repeatedly ducked the question of fossils and chronology. You've proposed a theory that modern whales have little legs so that they can potentially grow big legs, but refuse to accept the inverse of the theory (as it documented in the fossil record) that modern whale descended from species which had hind legs.

Let's test this:
If recapiulation is true then we'd expect snakes and turtle which share a common ancestor to have more in common than a snake and an eel do.If recapitulation is false, we'd expect the snake and eel to have more in common.Let's look at what we've got:Snakes - long, worm-like. Eels - Long, worm-like. Turtles - boxy.Score 1 for anti-recapSnakes - lungs. Turtles - lungs. Eels - gills.1 for RecapSnakes - vestigial hind legs. Turtles - hind legs. Eels - No legs at all.2 for recap.Snakes - end of embryo is same as adult form. Turtles - end of embryo is same as adult form. Eels - end of embryo is larval form of eel, not very similiar to adult form.3 for recap.Snakes - fins? None. Turtles - fins? None. Eels - Fins? Big4 for recap.Snake - no yolk sac. Turtles - no yolk sac. Eels - Big yolk sac.5 for recap.Let's take a look at the morphology Now, no cheating. Can you tell which is an eel.I'll give you a hint, it's head looks extremely different than the other two. In fact, the snake head is at an angle, like the turtles, while the eels is more in a straight line. Hrmm. Where have I seen a head like that? Fish embryo.So, your own suggested test shows recapitulation. So, since recapiulation is true, you think that evolution is true? Well, pun heavily intended, I kind of fished you in.But, I'm willing to give you that I picked the 3 animals. I asked you to pick different ones, since these we the three I came up with off the top of my head based on morphology.I'm willing to look at any three animals, so long as we can get photos of the embryos.

Jumping back to astonomy, would this group that you've listed above be the same group that executing people for heresy for disagreeing with their geocentric astronomy.Does that therefore mean that Jesus never existed? After all, this group sites the Bible as evidence for geocentric astronomy and for the birth and teachings of Jesus.Do you discount everything because one piece is mistaken?You seem to be implying that the theory of evolution arose from and is restricted to embryolic evidence. Not the case.

So much so that pakicetus fits well within their variety? After all, by your own account, whales can have legs if they want them.

Then do. Not true. What I am saying is this:There are features that exist in a species of animal in the past. That animal has subsequently evolved into a species of animal which exists today. Some of the features that existed in the species in the past are present in the species today. Some of the features are not present in the species today.The cause of those missing features could be several different things.Here are some examples:A mutation(s) could have changed so much that it is almost unrecognizable as the original feature.A mutation(s) could have caused the feature to completely fail to develop.A mutation(s) could have caused the feature to stop developing in the first place.A mutation(s) could have occured which takes effect after the feature starts developing, but which stops that development.In some of those cases we wouldn't expect to see the feature in the embryo or adult.In other cases, we'd expect to see the feature develop, remain small and still appear in the adult (snake legs, for example)And in some cases, we'd expect to see the feature appear in the embryo, then not be visible in the adult. (Whale legs).But, how would we test this last scenario.Well, perhaps one of the mutations which caused the legs to stop developing might get knocked back. In that case, we'd expect to see an adult whale with avatistic legs. Or a human with a tail.Both of which I've shown examples of.Your argument that we'd have to see, or even expect to see, every feature is no more reasonable than people (you?) suggesting that every animal that ever lived should have left behind fossils.

I looked at the pictures and I've never been more convinced that embryologists are very weird people.I find it incredibly hard to assign two which are "more similiar" so each other.It's hard to judge relative size and angle in the photographs. For example F seems to be at a 45 degree angle. Also, are B and H photographs or x-rays?If B is an x-ray (which explains the transparentness) then I would think that B and G are more similair than G and D. D has that bulb on it's tail and a sort of two bump top area versus the thick top area we see in B and G.By that same account I would say that J also has a somewhat thick upper region.All of these I distinguish from the much more bumpy top regions you see in E and F, I.And very very bumpy - K.Is this scientific? Hardly! I have no idea what the bumps equate to. I may be saying that a sheeps hind limbs look like the human liver (though I don't suspect that what I'm saying).No, let's take a look at the two I picked. B and G.
B) Brush Tail Possum
G) Scaly AnteaterLooking at the names of the animals, I assume that B and C are more closely related since both are marsupial (I assume).So, I see your point about morphological similiarities. However, you must concede that neither you nor I can point to the various lumbs and explain what they are. That's for expert embryologists.So, while B and G may be morphologically similiar, it may in fact be that B and C have more features in common.Certainly those photos aren't going to answer that question.

I'm refering to the group you brought up. You said that the scientists had ignored a group that was jumping up and down screaming that the pictures were wrong. I was merely bringing up that groups not so stellar history of scientific observation. Then what are you asking to be done? Are you asking that Haeckel's pictures no longer be used in textbooks? Are you asking that Evolution no longer be taught in schools? What are you trying to accomplish? Every time you get close to sounding reasonable you trot out something like this. It's a total crap accusation.The "basic approach" of evolutionists is the "basic approach" of scientific observation.Even if you were 100% right about Haeckel and the secret conspiracy of ivy league textbook authors, that still wouldn't change the "basic approach" of scientific observation.

By your standards? Sure.You are the one that suggested that whales had a built in genetic variablity so great that it could include hind legs. Why not hind legs and front legs? Why not a long thin tail?Hell, from your suggestion, it wouldn't be surprising to see a pakicetus born from an existing whale tomorrow.Of course, that's not likely to happen. Why? Because your theory of whale's massive genetic variability is based on hocus pocus, not a scientific theory.

Buahhahahhaha! LOL! That's just too good. Randman, you're offering up magic as the answer and accusing me of unfalsifiability? Or maybe the causes of fossilization are not as consistantly available.Or maybe there is punctuated evolution so that a species may exist for a million years unchanged, then a period of rapid change happens over a short stretch of time, leaving fewer fossils.Or maybe we haven't gotten access to all the fossils.Or maybe its a combination of the three.A reasonable explaination should deal with functions we can see and test. I can explain to you in detail how a volcanic eruption can cause a 10 square mile area to be covered in ash and perserved as fossils.Can you explain in detail how fully formed whales simply popped into existance out of thin air?

That's insane! I can not tell a cancer cell from a liver cell under a microscope because I know nothing about either one. However, that doesn't mean that no one knows anything about either one. If I have cancer, you better bet your ass that I'm going to head to someone who knows the difference.Just because neither you nor I know much about embryo morphology doesn't mean that there isn't anyone out there that does know. If you've got a better name for it than recapitulation, I'll use that instead. As for Haeckel's drawings, I'd never have brought them up in the first place - as I had completely forgetten about them until you picked the topic. Not very effectively anyway. I'd much perfer a time lapse development of several different types of embryos so that we can see what becomes of this bump or that bump. Unfortunately, we don't have those for every embryo out there, and until recently, it would have been really hard to have that in a book. I agree. But, now we're headed back to my original point about book publishers. Their decesions are not always based on what is best science, or clearest data. They may decide something based on how expensive it is to print this picture vs that picture. Or which picts they have the rights to. Or what the other textbook guy is printing. This we clearly both agree with.