Great Debate: Nuggin v. Randman

Hey there,Noticed that Moose and Faith are trying to do a 1 on 1. I'd like to do the same with Randman.Often when Rand posts a point he gets shouted down with (unreasonable?) demands, and "answer my question" posts. Which usually (inevitably) leads to the thread spiraling off topic.While I disagree with Randman on many things, he's at least willing to engage in debate, and his points have a basis in reality (ie he's talking about science, as opposed to talking about religion).So, I'd like to make this offer: I'd like to have a civil debate on anyone of the many topics that Randman frequently gets shouted down about - Web footed whales, Giant skulls, Dinos and People living together, Neandertal v. Cro-magnon, etc.Your choice Rand I'm game for anything.I'd like to keep it to just us two, so we can at least make a go of it being on topic.What do you say?

Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.Randman couldn't respond in your Proposed New Topic version of this topic.We shall now see what Randman thinks of your proposal.AdminnemooseusThis message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 11-24-2005 10:11 AM

Hey all,
In case you're wondering. Been talking to Rand off board. We're both having busy real lives at the moment. Expect the debate to kick off maybe sometime next week.

Great idea, nuggins, and thanks for suggesting it.How about something that never seemed to get resolved awhile back, the historical and present use of evolutionist claims of embryonic evidence for ToE. My basic points are as follows:1. Historically and even today, embryonic evidence has been given great weight as primary evidence for evolution (ToE). (Note: I will follow up with supporting date later for this point and the others).2. Early on this included questionable practices in making those claims, using Von Baer's claims in a manner which he felt misrepresented his work (which is not necessarily wrong) and Haeckel's forged data and false theory, ontologeny recapitulates phylogeny.3. Even after Haeckel's drawings were exposed, they were made standard fare in evolutionist textbooks and arguments from the 1880s until 1999. This occurred despite critics of evolution pointing out these errors, that drawings were faked, over the decades. Evos nonetheless did not remove these depictions as standard evidence for evolution within classes and textbooks until after the internet and the creationist movement was able to more widely publicize the fraud, and even then, only after an evolutionist, Richardson, conducted a study publicized in an evo journal confirming what creationists had maintained for decades. Even during this period, some evolutionists defended Haeckel and his false depictions.4. After Haeckel's initial theory was shown to be wrong, evos not only kept using his false data, but also kept using the slogan, "ontologeny recapitulates phylogeny", and basically kept teaching "recapitulation." I have heard the term recapitulation even being taught in materials today, and discussing this with a doctor educated in the 50s, he remembers that term, as well as I recall the idea from the 70s. This indicated that evolutionists maintained a conceptual link with a disproven theory by calling a revised theory by the same name, a practice that I think is indicative of a pattern we can discuss in later debates, such as using the word "evolution" to mean "all change" and the Theory of Evolution at the same time and thus suggesting that since evolution is proven (change occurs), that this proved ToE. This is the use of propaganda to present and reinforce false logic via semantics, and that's what occured or occurs with the use of the "recapitulation".5. The new recapitulation theory was that it was an observed fact that although embryos do not recapitulate adult forms, that they all share highly conserved earlier stages, also known as a phylotypic stage. This was also a false claim because they did not and do not know if this is true or not. In fact, there is considerable evidence this is not true, and so the claim of recapitulation was false on the face of it, but more importantly imo, it was a false claim because it claimed a mere unproven hypothesis was an observed fact. This sort of muddled thinking, confusing assertations with facts, has characterized evolutionist claims in this area of comparing embryos and as such, shows a serious flaw within the logic and reasoning process of how evolution became accepted. In other words, one of the primary pieces of evidence was fabricated and evos were slow to correct it, and therefore it may be reasonable to question evolution as a whole considering the faulty logic and use of data characterizing the period of evolution gaining acceptance in the scientific community.6. This pattern of false use of data should be closely examined in light of other areas of evolutionist claims to see if there is not some sort of faulty reasoning within the basic approach to data as a whole.Note to all: it may be a little slower pace than it was a couple of weeks ago. I've got a lot of work in the real world.

moving to Great Debates

---

Thread moved here from the Suggestions and Questions forum.

Sounds like a good topic. Lots of info here. Let's address this in two ways.The first is the scientific/historic aspects of "ontologeny recapitulates phylogeny". Which, I promise, I will address in due time.The second is the teaching/textbook aspect of this, which I'll touch on now.Your complaint seems to be that this theory, which for the time being we'll assume is utterly false, is being taught in textbooks. And that the Haeckel drawings are being used to teach it. Further, that this is somehow a part of the evolutionist movement at large.While I agree that textbooks in general should not teach false science (or history, or grammar, etc), the forces which drive textbook creation and selection are often opposed to the forces the drive science.The local committees which select textbooks are often doing compair and contrasts to other books on sale, or their remembered education. If the Haeckel drawings help the publisher sell their book, it's a good bet that the Haeckel drawings are going to stay. It has little or nothing to do with the publishers desire to express evolutionist views.Now, on a more specific scale, there are times when teaching false information in textbooks is useful. It is unlikely that a 3rd grader is mentally capable of understanding the genocidal history of the European conquest of the Americas - instead they get the storybook version of Thanksgiving which has little or nothing to do with the reality. Why? Because one of the things that early education does is prepare the child for their role in society. Many people never get any deeper into American history than the Thanksgiving story. And, it has little to no effect on their lives as Chemists/Plumbers/Architects/whatever.Similiarly, the broad concepts behind evolution help prepare those students for theories which will come along later in education. So the 6th grader (I'm guessing) that learns about Haeckel's drawings is being preped for later, more complex, and sometimes contradictory theories further down the line. Those that don't pursue the education are no more hurt by Haeckel than the plumber who doesn't know about the real Thanksgiving.Again, your point that this could be lies on top of lies is taken, and will be addressed in an upcoming post.

Haeckel's original theory is not being taught and was discredited decades ago. But evolutionists maintained a watered-down version of the theory in claiming a phylotypic stage and called it by the same name, and used Haeckel's data to teach the watered-down version. So:1. Initial error in overstating embryonic data wildly.2. Maintained an overstatement with the same name, recapitulation, and same false data until 1999.3. The use of the same false data and same name suggest a serious flaw in the way evolution has historically been presented and believed.Note also: I think we need to stay away from the idea that false data can be useful here. Darwin claimed the embryonic evidence was primary, and if the primary data is false, it reasons that what happened was not useful but led to gross distortions of what we can reasonably conclude, and indeed if Haeckel's claims and the watered down claims of a phylotypic stage are wrong, and they are considered strong evidence for evolution, then does it not reason that finding the data to be different would be evidence against evolution.In other words, if all along, no matter what the embryonic data is, evolutionists are going to claim it as support for evolution, then evo claims are not falsfiable. Shouldn't the theory of recapitulation properly be considered a failed prediction of Darwin and the theory of evolution?This message has been edited by randman, 11-28-2005 03:46 PM

Not necessarily. For example - the "Face on Mars" was considered by many to be strong evidence for the existance of extra-terrestrial life. However, a closer look reveals that it is nothing more than a collection of rocks and shadows.This revelation about "the face" doesn't make ETs and UFOs less likely. It just means that this particular thing is not evidence for them.While you are correct that the drawings and theory have been used in the teaching of evolution, they are not the only source of data. If the embrionic evidence turns out to be completely useless, it doesn't necessarily contradict other sources of evidence.Again, haven't had time to find sources / links for the debate on the validity of the actual debate here - whether or not embrionic evidence supports evolutionary theory - we're still just talking about the surrounding issues.

Help me out, RandI've been looking around for a biology textbook which is being used in schools that mentions Haeckel other than as a historical reference. I'm having trouble finding any that mention him at all. (I'm neither a parent nor teacher, so I don't have easy access to this stuff). I've also jumped around the web a bit. There seem to be a lot of sites putting down Haeckel, or explaining the theory in a historical context, etc. But I'm not finding legitimate sites that put Haeckel's theory forward as proof of evolution.I didfind an anti Haeckel site that showed the full chart. I don't think I've ever seen the full scale Haeckel chart before only bits and pieces of it. That chart is silly. I'm refering to the one with the chicken and the pig on it. I'd hate to think that that was in modern text books as I think that most kids would simply laugh at it.Remember that Haeckel's theory predates sonograms by quite a bit.I'm wondering if this is a moot point? If Haeckel's theory is not being taught at evidence for evolution, what's the problem.Which beggers the question - "Should this theory be taught at all?"I'm going to say yes and here's why:Haeckel's theory was an important contribution not only to biology (where he was misleading) but to the many other fields who bought into the theory. Psychology, politics, sociology - many fields were effected by this theory. It's important to teach the history of science as you teach the science.Also, while Haeckel is clearly reaching with his theory, he's not entirely insane. When you look at an adult chicken, an adult human and an adult pig, they are very easy to distinguish. When you look at the embryos of each, it's not so easy. How can three very different things grow from such similiar looking embryos? That's a very good question - and one that Haeckel's limited understanding of fetal-biology (did I just make that term up?), genetics, etc. couldn't possibly answer.So, if you can find a textbook that points to Haeckel as proof of evolution - I'm with you in the "let's edit this" committee. But, if it's just using Haeckel-ish drawings of fetuses to show where the eyes/hands/wings/tails would be, I think that's a little easier to get across to a 10 year old than a fuzzy gray picture of a blob of cells.

Unfortunately, most kids did not laugh at it, nor professors.But I hear you. I will go back and post the data for each point. We can go over one at a time. I let myself get busy on other threads. Give me a little time, and I will provide the data.

No prob. I'm busy, too. I'm trying to find books in real life since the online stuff isn't much help. Too hard to tell what's really being used vs. what's old news rehashed

Nuggin, I am primarily discussing stuff that is old news; how this subject was treated from the 1800s until about 1999, and then looking at current presentations.

Note: I am looking for a pattern here as well as specifics, and so the historical aspects of this debate are important from my perspective. First, I'd like to establish my first point, which may not necessarily be an issue for you (I don't know). It is true that internet stuff is somewhat scanty. So there may be some references that would not be the best, but are just the easiest to cut and paste, to establish certain facts. As a reference; Darwin first placed great emphasis on embryology as evidence. Sorry, no page could be found at this address (404) - Learning LinkThe, of course, we have Haeckel. Ernst Haeckel - WikipediaNote that the Wikipedia still tries to say some of Haeckel's theory is accurate. It's hard for some to just let it go. Recapitulation theory - WikipediaHere is the author of modern textbooks making similar claims, though watered down. http://www.txtwriter.com/...rounders/Evolution/EVpage11.htmlI am eager to get more into the debate, but as a first stop, can we agree that embryonic evidence has been some of the primary evidence evolutionists have used to verify and support evolutionary theory, from Darwin until today.I will concede among more current evolutionist discussions, after the Richardson paper in 1999, that there is some drop-off here in usage.If we can agree on this, we can move to other points, or we can look for more supporting data, etc,...This message has been edited by randman, 11-30-2005 11:17 PM

Nice post. Clearly outlined. Let's take it a piece at a time -On Darwin: Darwin's initial theory of evolution was not based on a study of embryology, but on the differences he saw in adult animals. The fact that he felt embryology supported evolution doesn't change where the theory itself comes from. Let's assume that embryology holds absolutely no evidence for evolution (I'll cover that later) and that Darwin was completely wrong in siting embryology as evidence for evolution - that wouldn't change evolution as a theory.Here's an extremely silly example: What if Newton had said, "Clearly, apple cider is important proof of gravity." Obviously, apple cider, stemming from falling apples, is not support of gravity. But the fact that it doesn't support gravity doesn't mean that gravity doesn't exist.I don't know for certain what the state of embryology was in 1860, but I suspect it consisted primarily of bearded men staring at glass jars full of alcohol and fetuses.On Haeckel:
There are three things going on with Haeckel.The first is a catch phrase. "ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny" is catchy, if wrong. "The proof is in the pudding" means nothing, but it's catchier than "the proof of the pudding is in the tasting" which is the original phrase. People like catch phrases, then tend to live well beyond their usefulness. It's hard to stomp put this one because not only is it catchy, it also makes you sound smart.The second thing is a man who is over reaching. Haeckel made his theory without enough observation (or by falsifying observation). His diagrams are good evidence of this. While some of the pictures are accurate dipictions of various stages of fetal development, others are clearly works of pure fiction. He had a theory, he falsified data to prove his theory, he got caught.The third thing is the real bugger - Haeckel isn't 100% wrong. His theory that human fetuses are at one stage piglets is completely bogus. However, the observation that at early stages human fetuses have the same characteristics as pig fetuses (and fish, and newts, etc) is an important one.The fact is that human fetuses have tails. Some babies have tails, though it's rare. Features which were present in more primative forms of our species still make an appearence in the fetuses.Note: I don't know about the fish gill thing, I think that's over reaching. But, I'm not a fetus expert either.On Wikipedia:Actually Wiki says that Haeckel's theory has fallen from favor in it's first sentence on the subject. It then goes on to make the point that parts of his theory are still valid. (See my above paragraph for the thinking on that).On modern textbooks:I disagree with textbooks saying that the fetuses have gill slits. I think that's over reaching. I think it's a result of the fact that the people doing the embryological research are not the people who are writing textbooks. The textbook writers are regurgitating what they picked up in school back on the page. It's just like other textbook myths about George Washington, or Columbus, etc. I agree whole heartedly that we should do our best to stomp out the stuff that's factually incorrect.However, the tail part of that paragraph is accurate. Unlike the gill slits, you can see the tail. I can see the tail. There's a tail.On your broader point:The thrust of your argument, as I understand it, is that evolution is a chair build one a couple of legs and that "recapitulation" is one of those legs. Therefore, take away the leg, the chair doesn't stand as firmly.I disagree on a number of fronts.First is that, even though Haeckel was reaching, the theory of recapitulation isn't 100% wrong.Second is that, in my opinion, embryology is not a strong part of the evidence of evolution - meaning, when I try to explain evolution to someone, I don't talk about embryos. In fact, even if recapitulation didn't occur at all -(ie if all embryos were just tiny perfectly formed adults), evolution could still be active, selecting for the DNA which made those tiny adults.Third, evolution is a chair with many, many legs. If you took a leg off a three legged bar stool, that'd be a problem. But evolution has legs to spare - some thicker than others.