|
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 |
Member (Idle past 4658 days) Posts: 175 From: Klamath Falls, OR Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Science, dogmas, and AiG Creation Museum statement of faith | ||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
ApostateAbe writes:
quote: You have missed the point: The NCSE reviewed the books that Wells was using to justify his claim and found that those books did not use Haeckel's drawings as Wells claims they did. This goes back to the back-and-forth I had with mike the wiz regarding this very subject: What is the complete context of any such comparative embryology image? Haeckel developed his image to push forward his claim of "ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny." He wasn't simply saying that embryos look alike in early stages. That is obviously true by simple inspection and was established long before Haeckel came on the scene. No, what Haeckel was trying to say is that during embryogenesis of "higher" animals, they go through a stage where they are actually the "lower" animal from which they evolved. That is, at some point during the development of a human fetus, it goes through a stage where it is an actual fish. Not merely looking like a fish embryo at a similar stage in development but an actual fish. You seem to be sharing the same complaint mike the wiz had: That the mere existence of the picture is proof that the text is trying to advocate "ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny." Damn any explanatory copy that accompanies the picture...high school students are being lied to, right? But what if that's not what the text is trying to do? Do you deny the science of embryology? Do you deny that close biological relatives have very similar embryological development paths with divergences that show up later in the process? Yes, Haeckel enhanced his drawings. Yes, it would be much better if the textbook publishers would use photographs to show the very real truth that vertebrate embryos go through remarkably similar developmental processes early on and diverge later. But since this fact of embryological development was known nigh on 200 years ago, it is hardly surprising to find that a survey of evolutionary theory would mention this fact and present what was found then. But to claim that the use of the drawing in and of itself is a sign of hoaxing is to "mangle the facts," as you put it. His drawing isn't that far off:
Rrhain Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time. Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
ApostateAbe responds to me:
quote: Huh? Just what do you think was the point they were trying to make? Wells made a claim about specific books. NCSE looked at those books and found that Wells' claim was false. How is that not the point?
quote: You meant "completely false," right? That was a massive typo on your part, right? Wells' claim was completely false. You did read the NCSE's report, right? You quoted it, so you must have read it, right? You didn't just copy it from a creationist web site as proof of "evil, lying scientists" but rather actually read it and used it as supporting evidence for an argument of your own creation, right?
For any textbook to show Haeckel's drawings themselves as unqualified statements of developmental anatomy or to advocate "recapitulation" in a Haeckelian sense would be inexcusable, but none of the textbooks reviewed by Wells appear to do so. What part of "none" is escaping you? It appears that you are having the very reaction I predicted: The mere existence of the photo in a book is sufficient cause to claim that scientists are lying to students. You did read the NCSE report, yes?
Wells gleefully excoriates Futuyma for using Haeckel's drawings, but apparently in his fit of righteous indignation, he forgot to read the text, in which the drawings are discussed in a historical context stating why Haeckel is wrong and Futuyma has an entire chapter devoted to development and evolution. You do understand what the word "wrong" means, yes? Wells is claiming that Futuyama is part of this, "evil, lying scientist" conspiracy simply because the book contains Haeckel's drawings... ...completely missing the fact that Futuyama includes them specifically to show the errors. Is it your position that a science textbook cannot discuss previous errors made in analysis? That it is bad science to talk about the past and mistakes that were made in an attempt to show how more accurate models were developed?
quote: Same demand to you as to mike the wiz: Which ones? Titles and full quotes in complete context, please. Otherwise, you're talking out of your ass. Or is your position that the mere existence of the drawings is sufficient to claim "evil, lying scientist"?
quote: Again, which books? Full quotes in complete context, please. Otherwise, they're talking out of their asses, too. What? The DI would lie to people? Surely you jest! They're the epitome of objectivity and rationality! (Hint: The default position is that if the DI says it, most likely the opposite is true.)
quote: That was another typo, right? You meant to say that Wells was wrong, misleading the reader, correct? That the NCSE showed that Wells actually claimed the exact opposite of reality, right?
quote: Indeed, that is all there is to it. Wells said something that wasn't true. The NCSE called him on it.
quote: But they didn't mean to say something slightly different. What part of "none" and "wrong" are you having trouble with? Rrhain Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time. Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
ApostateAbe responds to me:
quote: But it appears that you didn't look at them, because they are not what you claim. Here is Haeckel's drawing:
Here is what is in the first book from your link (Peter H Raven & George B Johnson, Biology (5th ed, McGraw Hill, 1999), pgs. 416, 1181):
This is not Haeckel's drawing. And here is the text that accompanies the drawing:
This hypothesis, proposed in the nineteenth century by Ernst Haeckel, is referred to as the "biogenic law." It is usually stated as an aphorism: ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny; that is, embryological development (ontogeny) involves the same progression of changes that have occurred during evolution (phylogeny). However, the biogenic law is not literally true when stated this way because embryonic stages are not reflections of adult ancestors. Instead, the embryonic stages of a particular vertebrate often reflect the embryonic stages of that vertebrate's ancestors. Thus, the pharyngel slits of a mammalian embryo are not like the gill slits its ancestors had when they were adults. Rather, they are like the pharyngeal slits its ancestors had when they were embryos. Vertebrates seem to have evolved largely by the addition of new instructions to the developmental program. Development of a mammal thus proceeds through a series of stages, and the earlier stages are unchanged from those that occur in the development of more primitive vertebrates. Thus, the claim that this textbook "uses Haeckel's drawings" or in any way promotes what Haeckel was trying to prove with his drawings is trivially shown to be false. The drawings are completely new and the accompanying text specifically denies Haeckel's claim. Why is this problematic for you? If we go through all of the textbooks, we find that the only one that actually uses Haeckel's drawing is the Futuyama text which, as we have previously seen, was used to specifically point out the erroneous conclusions of Haeckel. In short, your description is outrageously false and trivially shown to be so. Did you actually look at the drawings and compare them to Haeckel's? Or did you just assume the validity of what the Discovery Institute said? It appears that your assumption is that comparative embryology is part of the "evil, lying scientist" conspiracy. Direct question for you. I really want to know your answer to this: Is comparative embryology an actual science? Your own description of your personal experience is not borne out by any facts. You claimed (Message 14):
The image was contained in my own high school biology textbook. It was the Miller & Levine "Elephant book." The authors caught flack for this, largely because of the creationists, so they corrected it, and they put a page online explaining the correction (millerandlevine.com). But following your link, we find this actual description:
Page 223 of the Lion Book (BIOLOGY - The Living Science) and page 283 of the Elephant Book (BIOLOGY by Miller and Levine) each contain drawings of the early stages of embryonic development in several vertebrates. Although neither of these drawings are identical to his, they are based on the work of Ernst Haeckel (portrait at left), a 19th century German Biologist who was a pioneer in the study of embryonic development. So no, they weren't Haeckel's drawings as you claimed, though they were based upon them. But you still haven't responded to the point: What was the lesson being taught? Was it "ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny"? Because that's what Haeckel was trying to say. Or were you being taught the actual lesson we have learned from comparative embryology that embryogenesis follows a common original process that diversifies later in the process?
quote: But they don't show what you claim they did. In fact, they show the exact opposite. They show precisely what the NCSE claims they do: 1a) Haeckel's drawings are not used except in one book.1b) In that one book, they are used to point out the flaws in Haeckel's claim. 2) Comparative embryology shows that embryogenesis for closely-related species follows a common process that later diversifies. Or are you saying that comparative embryology is a fraud? I really want to know your answer to that.
quote: Then how do you know that the NCSE's description of Wells' claims are flawed? The DI's list is completely fraudulent. What makes you think Wells fared any better?
quote: Except you haven't shown a single one. Every single example you have given shows the exact opposite. None of them use Haeckel except for one to use a specific example of an error. Is comparative embryology a fraud?
quote: Um, how the hell did you manage to do that when you admit that you didn't investigate the examples from Wells? NCSE's study was of Wells' examples. So how did you find their results to be faulty when you didn't examine Wells' examples? Methinks I've discovered a quote miner. The DI link you provided was an article by Luskin describing the Wells' results. If you had read it, you would have known that the examples provided are the texts Wells claims use Haeckel's drawings. But simple inspection shows that they're not using Haeckel's drawings except for a single book which only does so to prove Haeckel wrong. So it would appear that you didn't actually read your own source. You simply went mining for information, thought you had something, and blindly attached it without considering it. So it would seem that the NCSE was correct, as you quoted:
No textbook discusses embryology in any way that could be considered strongly "recapitulationist." Once again, the direct question: Is comparative embryology a fraud? Rrhain Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time. Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
ApostateAbe responds to me:
quote: Then why are you complaining about textbooks that discuss comparative embryology using pictures of embryos? None of the texts mentioned used Haeckel's drawings except for one and that one only did it to point out where Haeckel went wrong. All the rest of them do not advocate Haeckel's "biogenetic law" but rather discuss results of modern embryology. So you need to explain why you described this as a failure on the NCSE's part and not a failure on Wells'. You said (Message 1):
I have seen the NCSE mangle the facts in favor of their conclusions. But where? Where is this mangling of facts? Your own source of these texts shows precisely what the NCSE stated:
For any textbook to show Haeckel's drawings themselves as unqualified statements of developmental anatomy or to advocate "recapitulation" in a Haeckelian sense would be inexcusable, but none of the textbooks reviewed by Wells appear to do so. Explain yourself. Where is this "mangling of facts" you asserted?
quote: Except they're not. You seem to be saying that any drawing of an embryo is a "redrawn version of Haeckel's sketches." Is it possible to draw an embryo as a visual aid for the discussion of embryology without it being declared a "redrawn version of Haeckel's sketches"? Here is a comparison of Haeckel's drawing and then what all the other texts use:
None of them are "redrawn." Again, is it possible to draw a picture of embryos as a visual aid to a discussion of comparative embryology without it being a "redrawn version of Haeckel's sketches"?
quote: (*blink!*) You did not just say that, did you? The main text has no bearing on the point of including the picture? Are you truly serious?
quote: Incorrect. The information presented is exactly true. You're not about to have a hissy fit over the use of the phrase "gill slit," are you? That's what those structures have been called for quite some time. More recently, some biologists have started calling them "pharyngeal slits," but whether we call them "gill slits," "pharyngeal slits," or "William Shakespeare" is irrelevant. All vertebrates have them as embryos. They are one of the three defining characteristics of all chordates.
quote: (*blink!*) You did not just say that, did you? The explanatory caption is absolutely correct. Where is your evidence that it isn't? Be specific.
quote: That's because it isn't! Again, is it possible to draw a picture of embryos as a visual aid to a discussion of comparative embryology without it being a "redrawn version of Haeckel's sketches"?
quote: Has anybody said otherwise? As Von Baer mentioned (and he was 30 years before Origin of Species, mammals develop the extraembryonic membranes (which only mammals have) early. Are you saying that the statement from Raven and Johnson
Vertebrates seem to have evolved largely by the addition of new instructions to the developmental program. Development of a mammal thus proceeds through a series of stages, and the earlier stages are unchanged from those that occur in the development of more primitive vertebrates. Is false?
quote: Oh? How? Be specific. Again, here is a direct comparison of actual Haeckel drawings to micrographs of actual embryos:
Now, Haeckel got it wrong, but please do tell how this:
Is "radically different." Be specific.
quote: Did you bother to read your own source?
Certainly, the early embryos of certain vertebrate classes are very similar (for instance, the chick and mouse twenty-somite embryos), and the processes of somitogenesis, limb formation, axis generation, etc. are probably conserved throughout the vertebrate groups). Your source seems to be complaining about something that isn't actually advocated. Specifically, it said:
Until this new paper appeared, it was assumed that Haeckel was correct and that there was a particular stage of development that was identical in all vertebrates. But as mentioned previously, even Von Baer knew this wasn't true. Your source goes on:
The 1990s has seen a remarkable celebration of the similarity of molecular processes throughout the animal kingdom. Homologous genes abound (the Hox genes, fringe, tinman, and Pax6 being seen to specify the anterior-posterior axis, the limb, the heart, and the eye, respectively, of organisms as diverse as insects and flies). Even signalling pathways are seen as being homologous both within a developing organism and between organisms. Thus, the neural tube in vertebrates and insects are seen as being formed through the same interactions of the "same" proteins, even though one neural tube is dorsal and the other ventral. So yes, it's warnings that "differences are also important" are quite true, but where is there anybody not aware of those differences? And how does that change the underlying accuracy of embryogenesis?
quote: And what do I think you are? When you read my mind, do my thoughts just pop into your head or do you have to concentrate to drown out all the other voices?
quote: Huh? Your own sources contradict you and it is somehow not kosher to point that out? It is beyond the pale to wonder if you actually bothered to look at the very data you were presenting but rather started with your conclusion, did a quote mine to find something to justify it, and didn't bother to check it out. Prove me wrong. What are the specific problems? Where is this "mangling of facts" that you claim exists? Rrhain Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time. Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
ApostateAbe responds to me:
quote: Then we have a fundamental difference regarding what the term "context" means and there is very little point in continuing. If a direct statement of "the biogenetic law is not literally true" does not provide any information with regard to a picture of comparative embryos, simply because it is not part of the caption, then there is nothing to discuss. That's your argument? It wasn't part of the caption so therefore it doesn't count?
quote: Doesn't that tell you something? You're already complaining that because a direct denial of Haeckel wasn't part of the caption, that isn't sufficient to declare that the text denies Haeckel. And now you're trying to say that your opinion should be accepted without explaining why.
quote: Incorrect. From your own quotation (and you did read it before you quoted it, yes?)
The Richardson et al. paper does not dispute that there is a highly conserved embryonic stage among the vertebrate classes. What part of "highly conserved embryonic stage" are you having trouble with? My guess is that your problem is with the following statement:
However, these authors do criticise the notion that this stage is nearly identical in all species and that differences between the classes can be resolved only after subsequent development. OK...but who is saying this? Again, back at the origin of comparative embryology, with Van Baer, it was seen that there are differences between the species in their embryogenesis. Your own source indicates that it is considered "old hat" in one group they investigated. So where are these other groups that don't understand this? And in the end, you still haven't shown that which originally claimed: Where did the NCSE "mangle the facts"? Be specific. Wells claimed that these books used Haeckel's drawings. They didn't. So where is your evidence that NCSE "manged the facts" regarding this?
quote: Indeed. Someone who complains that "the biogenetic law is not literally true" doesn't actually count as a denial of the biogenetic law because it's not part of a caption is being disingenuous at best and there is no hope of having any productive conversation.
quote: Then stop arguing like a creationist. Stop pretending that a direct denial is actually an example of advocacy. I asked you a direct question. Would you please answer it? Is it possible to draw a picture of embryos as a visual aid to a discussion of comparative embryology without it being a "redrawn version of Haeckel's sketches"? Is there any point in continuing this? Rrhain Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time. Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024