|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,915 Year: 4,172/9,624 Month: 1,043/974 Week: 2/368 Day: 2/11 Hour: 1/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Is talkorigins.org a propoganda site? | |||||||||||||||||||||||
randman  Suspended Member (Idle past 4929 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: |
I think it advances it concerning TO, but I would need to provide a quote of TO claims. I will see if I can do that.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
SuperNintendo Chalmers Member (Idle past 5864 days) Posts: 772 From: Bartlett, IL, USA Joined: |
What is biogenetic law?
biogenetic law, in biology, a law stating that the earlier stages of embryos of species advanced in the evolutionary process, such as humans, resemble the embryos of ancestral species, such as fish. The law refers only to embryonic development and not to adult stages; as development proceeds, the embryos of different species become more and more dissimilar. An early form of the law was devised by the 19th-century Estonian zoologist K. E. von Baer, who observed that embryos resemble the embryos, but not the adults, of other species. A later, but incorrect, theory of the 19th-century German zoologist Ernst Heinrich Haeckel states that the embryonic development (ontogeny) of an animal recapitulates the evolutionary development of the animal's ancestors (phylogeny). biogenetic law | Infoplease Answers - The Most Trusted Place for Answering Life's Questions Please read these randman and then NEVER post about this again.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5 |
Daewin's finches are all closely related. Unless you can confirm otherwise this would appear to be a small-scale speciation event.
As for Gould's views:
An isolated population may take a thousand years to speciate, and its transformation would therefore appear glacially slow if measured by the irrelevant scale of our personal lives.
Top Cash Earning Games in India 2022 | Best Online Games to earn real money(attributed to Life in a Punctuation," Natural History 101 (October 1992): 12-14.)o
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
randman  Suspended Member (Idle past 4929 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: |
I suggest you do a bit more reading on the subject. The Biogenetic Law was thoroughly discarded and never advocated by Von Baer, a creationist by the way.
Now, it could be that some evos want to resurrect it out of embarassment of their history in promoting it, and thus advance some watered-down version of it, but all that shows is how far removed from intellectual honesty those particular evos are, or that they are misinformed.
23.2 Haeckel's Biogenetic Law Ernst Haeckel and the Biogenetic Law (An informed opinion)In the early 1900s, a fusion of evolution and embryology was wrongly interpreted to support a linear (as opposed to a branched) model of evolution. The interpretation of Ernst Haeckel was that every organism evolved by the terminal addition of a new stage to the end of the last "highest" organism. Thus, he saw the entire animal kingdom as representing truncated steps of human development. Sorry, no page could be found at this address (404) - Learning Link This message has been edited by randman, 02-17-2006 04:13 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5 |
The reference to the biogenetic law is a red herring because - as I explicitly stated I am not challenging the point that cretionist views have changed.
It is ONLY YECs that support rapid evolution (to get around the fact that Noah's Ark is - according to the Bible - too small for their liking). And their views have not been confirmed - neither on the rapidity they need nor the limits they insist on.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
randman  Suspended Member (Idle past 4929 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: |
Paulk, uh what's your point. The creationist say they are closely related as well, and even more closely related then the evos do in some respects.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
SuperNintendo Chalmers Member (Idle past 5864 days) Posts: 772 From: Bartlett, IL, USA Joined: |
Deleted.... As an admin would probably remind me this is probably the most overdiscussed, stupid and irrelevant subject on the board.
I've thought better of it This message has been edited by SuperNintendo Chalmers, 02-17-2006 04:22 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5 |
THe point is that the rapid evolution proposed by creationists is typically within the family level - notrestricted to within a genus, and if their timescales often allow a whole 1200 years I would be surprised. The Flood is typically dated at around 2500 BC, so 1200 years takes us to 1300 BC - far too recent.
You are right that the creationists try to minimise the differences between the various "Darwin's Finches" - but what you miss is that such a view is directly at odds with using them as an example of the hyper-evolution their views requires.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
randman  Suspended Member (Idle past 4929 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: |
Firstly there is nothing in creationism itself that requires any degree of evolution. Well, it sure seems for folks that were insisting that creationists don't believe in speciation, rapid evolution, just a little while ago, that evidently some of you are aware that YECers do incorporate speciation in their models. Maybe it would do the board good if you guys kept your story straight on what creationists do and do not believe.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
randman  Suspended Member (Idle past 4929 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: |
You are right that the creationists try to minimise the differences between the various "Darwin's Finches" - but what you miss is that such a view is directly at odds with using them as an example of the hyper-evolution their views requires.
I think the creationists are just following the evidence where it leads, not trying to skew it to one side. They say there is evidence some species are actually merging back together. They, of course, feel this is possible since they see this as variation more than mutation, and so it is consistent with their claims. You are right that if they were trying to lie or overstate their case, they might be inclinded to exagerrate the differences as that would be stronger evidence for even more rapid evolution, but as it is, the data is still congruent with their models. The fact they do not resort to overstating the case, as imo many evos do, is something to their credit.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5 |
My point has consistenly been that creationism in itself does not require any degree of evolution.
Some creationists have accepted a degree of evolution as a result of the evidence for evolution. Others propose unrealistic hyper evolution to fit in with their views of the Flood myth but fail to explain why, if this were so, the limits to evolution they demand are even plausible. If anyone claimed otherwise then they were not doing much worse than you, since your posts also failed to give credit to the range of views within creationism.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
randman  Suspended Member (Idle past 4929 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: |
My point has consistenly been that creationism in itself does not require any degree of evolution. And the relevance of this is? Shouldn't we be discussing what creationists do believe, not a hypothetical form of creationism than no creationist scientist advocates or believes? The fact of the matter is you guys define "evolution" in a lot of different ways (to suit your argument?). If evolution is defined as heritable change, then creationists have always beleived in evolution. If evolution is defined as speciation, all creationist scientists that I know of in the past 40 years have incorporated speciation in various degrees to their models. If evolution as defined as microbe to man, universal common descent, then no creationist I know of believes that, but a few IDers do.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5 |
The relevance of pointing out that creationism can accept a wide range of positions on evolution is that it shows that the "prediction" is not a prediction of creationism. If creationists accept a degree of evolution simply because evolutionists have provided strong enough evidence to convince even then then that is no credit to creationism. It's still evolution.
And I see no good reason to accuse evolutionists of misusing the term "evolution" and indulging in equivocation. If a creationist claims that evolution has not been observed then surely it is reasonable to assume that he refers to the processes of evolution - because if he does not mean that he is creating a strawman. There is of course a bad reason - and that is that such accusatiosn are a staple of creationist propaganda.e
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
randman  Suspended Member (Idle past 4929 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: |
The relevance of pointing out that creationism can accept a wide range of positions on evolution is that it shows that the "prediction" is not a prediction of creationism. PaulK, that makes no sense. it is a prediction of Young Earth Creationism. It may well be one could think of a form of creationism that does not predict that, but so what? Some of you have advanced PE as a way to explain the fossil record, right? So I suppose that you will agree then that the Theory of Evolution's predictions of the fossil record are at odds with the evidence, correct? And in fact, that is true. The fossil record is inconsistent with evo claims, which is why some evos came up with PE. So let's be clear here. The fossil record is at odds with evolution, and speciation is at odds with forms of creationism that deny equate species with kind instead of "kinds" with a larger group. Are you going to concede that at least non-PE forms of evolutionary theory are inconsistent with fossils? Lastly, I think in your general reference to creationism, you cloud the issue. The simple fact is creationists for a long time now have stated that variation within a kind occurs. The idea of fixity of species was illogical to a certain extent with or without evolution because we see things like horses and donkeys mating to produce a mule. So with or without Darwin, it is highly likely that concept from over 100 years ago would have been modified. YECers are also more detailed in your claims than you are admitting to. They have highly specific claims about mechanisms within organisms being able to produce a remarkable range of variation quickly, and they have been proven right. They predicted the strange phenomena of "adaptive mutations" (mutations that occur seemingly in response to the need rather than purely random mutations being selected for), and the creationists were once again right and evos wrong.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5 |
No, the evolution referred to is not a prediction of creationism as such. It is a "prediction" of their reading of the Noah's Ark story.
And I will not agree that the fossil record is in disagreement with the predictions of evolutionary theory. And I beleive you have already been referred to the fact that PE was invented by applying evolutionary theory to the fossil record - so we might more justly call the pattern predcted by PE a prediction of evolutionary theory than the "phyletic gradualism" Eldredge and Gould opposed. I don't know what non-PE theories of evolution you refer to, but even if you are correct you still fail to make a valid point. Further you are wrong to say that I cloud the issue - after all you are the one trying to label examples of evolution examples of creation simply because some creationists accept a degree of evolution. Perhaps if you could show examples where evolutionists invoke special creation and call it evolution you wuld have a point.
quote: This has not been born out by the actual examples produced. For isntance showing that one species within a genus could tehoretically evolve to another within 1200 years does not support the idea that a signifciantly greater amount of evolution could happen in a singificantly shorter time. Nor have the Creationist claims of limits been substantiated as shown by the failure of creatinists to provided an adeqaute biological basis for the identification of "kinds". Your invocation of "adaptive mutations" is also unfortunate because there is considerable doubt that they occur. It is more likely that the effect is due to a greatly increased mutation rate in bacteria under stress conditions (see "SOS Response").n
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024