Does Darwinism Equal "No God"?

I do remember ******* being briefly mentioned in my biology lessons at school in the mid-1970s (in England rather than the US of course).We were taught his claims had pretty much turned out to be wrong.By the way, when I say 'briefly' I really mean briefly. I don't think ******* and his drawings got more than a passing mention in one - yes one single - lesson.Edit: Ok, very clever - who set the board up to convert Heackel to be converted to asterisks when spelled correctly?This message has been edited by MangyTiger, 12-23-2005 08:45 PM

---

I wish I didn't know now what I didn't know then

Could you please provide specific support for this claim?Something in a published paper which directly relies on H's work would be good.

---

I wish I didn't know now what I didn't know then

Nwr, yep, it was discredited very early on, but evos kept using it well until at least 1997, and I suspect some still do. That's the whole point. They refused to accept the facts and kept inisting the law of recapitulation was true, first the Biogenetic law which was standard fare in textbooks well into the 50s. My Dad was taught it in college in the late 50s.Then, the law of recapitulation was taught, but a watered down form consisting of claims of a highly conserved embryonic stage called the phylotypic stage. I think some evos still advance that concept, but Richardson claims in 19997 that it was widely accepted among evos and that Hae ckel's data was accepted as evidence.So we have 125 years of evos insisting something was true despite it being debunked early on. The truth is the myth is far from dead. Evos relied so heavily on this claim that they are already backtracking and insisting there is some merit to the claims.Heck, Richardson has been so widely quoted as referring to this as one of "the biggest hoaxes in biology" that it looks like he has buckled some, and now has written Hae ckel's drawings can be "good teaching aides." History may well repeat itself with evos back in business asserting the law of recapitulation in all it's glory.This message has been edited by randman, 12-23-2005 09:06 PM

What does this have to do with the topic?, can you post anything outside of a teaching textbook, that shows evos use this from day to day?if you can't, give it up fine a new horse to beat *******, is old newsThis message has been edited by ReverendDG, 12-23-2005 09:17 PM

I already have ad nauseum, but just for you. MK Rich Ardson - MK Blog Rich

It was used until at least 1997 in embryology. I haven't seen the evidence of it being recently used in evolution. I think part of your confusion, is that you are unable to clearly distinguish between evolution and embryology.Aren't we way off topic here?

---

Impeach Bush.

It is used in embryology as an example of evolution. It's directly related to evolutionary claims.

Embryology is a separate subfield of biology.Sure, embryology depends on evolution. Just about everything in biology is connected to evolution. But evolution does not depend on embryology.This is still off-topic. I won't respond to further on this diversion.

---

Impeach Bush.

Yes, it is treated as proof of evolution or simply taken for granted as an expression of evolution. But they are just going to continue to insist you are wrong. That's our job here, RM, to be wrong, never get anything right, always be accused of all kinds of violations of some rules known only to them. It's a high calling really.

If you are talking about *******, my book shows some drawings by him.

If you are talking about *******, my book shows some drawings by him.

Actually, ******* made two mistakes. One was to equate embryological stages with adult phylogenetic history, when even today, embryologists accept similarities of embryological stages. THe other mistake ******* made was to fake his drawings to support his contention. This was a contentious issue at the time of ******* and he was under pressure to support his idea.Now, we have photographs to show the sequence of development including pharyngeal pouches, webbed digits, the juxtaposition of jaw and auditory bones, the reduction of the tail to vestigial remnants and separate bones becoming fused, among others. These are stages of early development and NOT related to adult forms, which was *******'s hypothesis.While YECs ridicule the idea of development through stages, embryologists deal with it every day.

Good point, Faith. There rarely appears to be a genuine effort on the evo side to engage the topics honestly.This message has been edited by randman, 12-23-2005 09:55 PM

I'm sorry you feel that way.

I am too, but just being honest about most exchanges I see here, though not all.