Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 60 (9209 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: Skylink
Post Volume: Total: 919,452 Year: 6,709/9,624 Month: 49/238 Week: 49/22 Day: 4/12 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Why are Haeckel's drawings being taught in school?
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5152 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 241 of 306 (221575)
07-04-2005 1:59 AM
Reply to: Message 234 by Chiroptera
07-03-2005 11:17 AM


Re: Manners maketh the man
What makes you think these are gill pouches or pharyngeal or branchial pouches?
Ever looked into it for yourself?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 234 by Chiroptera, posted 07-03-2005 11:17 AM Chiroptera has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 253 by Chiroptera, posted 07-04-2005 3:23 PM randman has not replied

randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5152 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 242 of 306 (221577)
07-04-2005 2:04 AM
Reply to: Message 237 by hitchy
07-04-2005 12:45 AM


Re: Let's take a look!
They may be called gill pouches, but they certainly are not gill pouches. Calling something that it isn't is called not telling the truth.
As far as the tailbone, of course, we humans do have tail bones, but to call the spine a tail is a misrepresentation, and the fact some people are born with deformities is neither here nor there for evidence of humans evolving from apes or some such. It's just more overstatements and misrepresentations, which in my experience is what evolutionists generally rely on for evidentiary claims.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 237 by hitchy, posted 07-04-2005 12:45 AM hitchy has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 243 by NosyNed, posted 07-04-2005 2:13 AM randman has replied
 Message 254 by RAZD, posted 07-04-2005 3:55 PM randman has not replied

NosyNed
Member
Posts: 9011
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 243 of 306 (221580)
07-04-2005 2:13 AM
Reply to: Message 242 by randman
07-04-2005 2:04 AM


pharygeal pouchs
They may be called gill pouches, but they certainly are not gill pouches. Calling something that it isn't is called not telling the truth.
Care to comment on:
homologous structures
quote:
So, what we have here is multiple lines of evidencelocation, function, several molecular markers, and developmental origins and processesthat converge to show that parathyroid glands and the gills of fishes have a common evolutionary origin.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 242 by randman, posted 07-04-2005 2:04 AM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 244 by randman, posted 07-04-2005 3:05 AM NosyNed has replied

randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5152 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 244 of 306 (221592)
07-04-2005 3:05 AM
Reply to: Message 243 by NosyNed
07-04-2005 2:13 AM


Re: pharygeal pouchs
I think the claim is merely trying to revive a dead concept in part, to resurrect the longstanding claim of human gill slits.
Now, as far as the details on the parathyroid being related to gills, I would need to see more details than mere claims, especially in area where in the past evolutionists have made claims, and still do sometimes, which have been proven false and at times just unproven.
I certainly would not accept any factual claim of a site like Panda's Thumb.
As far as molecular markers, what other "markers" exist in the parathyroid? Where is the peer-reviewed discussion of this? Finding one genetic marker hardly seems like a definitive argument. Maybe the gene is involved in any organ related to salt regulation, or related to salt regulation?
The idea that the location is that meaningful is not persuasive either, and once again appears to be just resurrecting a dead argument. We have eyes in our heads too. That must mean we all evolved eyes from a common ancestor, eh?
Except that, well, it doesn't mean that.
None of the arguments in that article are persuasive, and neither are of such a comprehensive nature as to commend the article.
For example, have any of these claims been criticized, and if so, what are the arguments of the critics and how are they wrong? I didn't notice that, and in general it just is a very weak argument and presentation once you look into the details a bit more.
Do you care to comment on the claims posted earlier that the folds described as gill slits are really just biomechanical folds growing as the head grows near the heart in the embryo and are not in fact branchial?
Also, I found an article which expresses my sentiments here, and edited to add the link. One significant point is that if the glands were located somewhere else, evolutionist could just argue either it evolved from something else, or that it was moved in evolution. The claims are not falsifiable because regardless of where you would place the glands in humans, evolutionists would just find some way to fit them into the concept of common descent, and that's because common descent is a presumption. It's not that this is evidence for common descent, but a circular logic takes place where one tries to make something fit into the belief, exactly what evolutionists insist their critics do in fact.
Note too the claims of functional similarity are bogus since they are not functional similar since one is more or less a filter and another a production center.
Functional similarity may be only superficial because although the parathyroid glands are a production centre, gills are merely an entry point. The parathyroid gland is like a pump that constantly monitors the chemical composition of the water in a building’s system and that emits special secretions when necessary. Gills, on the other hand, are like an ordinary tap. The similarity in location between the two proves nothing. The bird wing and the human arm are in similar positions, for instance, but this does not demonstrate that the human arm evolved from the wing. Therefore, had the parathyroid gland been in a different position in relation to fish gills, Graham, whose aim is to pull the wool over people’s eyes by telling tall tales, could then easily have resorted to saying, that means that the parathyroid glands changed position in humans during the evolutionary process.
http://www.darwinism-watch.com/bbc_2004_12_b.php
This message has been edited by randman, 07-04-2005 03:13 AM
This message has been edited by randman, 07-04-2005 03:30 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 243 by NosyNed, posted 07-04-2005 2:13 AM NosyNed has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 245 by Wounded King, posted 07-04-2005 4:31 AM randman has not replied
 Message 255 by NosyNed, posted 07-05-2005 1:12 AM randman has replied

Wounded King
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 4149
From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 245 of 306 (221600)
07-04-2005 4:31 AM
Reply to: Message 244 by randman
07-04-2005 3:05 AM


Re: pharygeal pouchs
The bird wing and the human arm are in similar positions, for instance, but this does not demonstrate that the human arm evolved from the wing.
Here is the problem, the critics you quote have as poor a concept of the principles involved as you do.
The point of a structure being homologous is not that it evolved from whichever structure it is homologous to but that they both evolved from a common ancestral structure. Therefore the human arm and bird wing are considered homologous both being thought to derive from the ancestral tetrapod limb.
Do you have absoloutely any credible source that agrees with your quotes claim that a gill is essentially just a 'tap' rather than a 'pump that constantly monitors the chemical composition of the water'. On the opposing hand we have a number of references.
Calcitonin, a major gill hormone.
G Milhaud, L Bolis, and A A Benson
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1980 November; 77(11): 6935-6936.
Which shows that the gills can both extract calicum and export it.
Which details a number of ion pumping activites in the gills.
You could always read the original research article upon which the Pharyngula piece was based (Okabe and Graham,2004).
Why on Earth do you credit the 'factual' claims of the people at Darwin-Watch?
TTFN,
WK
This message has been edited by Wounded King, 07-04-2005 09:04 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 244 by randman, posted 07-04-2005 3:05 AM randman has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 256 by lfen, posted 07-05-2005 2:08 AM Wounded King has not replied

Modulous
Member (Idle past 237 days)
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 246 of 306 (221617)
07-04-2005 8:03 AM
Reply to: Message 239 by randman
07-04-2005 1:34 AM


Re: Pharyngeal pouches
Modulous, this came from post 122.
Perhaps you didn't read it?
I did read that discussion, but it is irrelevant to this one, since that seemed to be discussing the nomenclature of pharyngeal pouches, not the existence of pharyngeal pouches. Where the existence of pharyngeal pouches was questioned, it is still irrelevant. My point is that the very source you cited, discusses the existence of pharyngeal pouches as being very real.
Humans never have gill slits. That's just wrong. You believe it because you were taught that, and never really looked into the evidence for yourself.
How do you know what I believe? I never used the word gill slit in the entirety of the post you are replying to, perhaps you didn't read it? Let me recap for you:
You said:
They are not gill pouches, nor pharyngeal pouches. Thanks for posting that, but it just serves to show how deeply rooted the error has been, and how even after 1997 and the subsequent removal of Haeckel's drawings, many textbooks try to maintain some of the same errors, but just watered down.
...
Again, that's totally bogus since humans never have pharyngeal pouches, nor gill pouches.
I replied by saying that Richardson specifically refers to structures known as pharyngeal pouches:
"Vertebrates show many common features at this stage. These include the presence of somites, neural tube, optic anlagen, notochord and pharyngeal pouches" Richardson et al 1997
So why on earth are rambling on to me about gill slits?
This message has been edited by Modulous, Mon, 04-July-2005 02:59 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 239 by randman, posted 07-04-2005 1:34 AM randman has not replied

Modulous
Member (Idle past 237 days)
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 247 of 306 (221625)
07-04-2005 8:44 AM
Reply to: Message 238 by randman
07-04-2005 1:29 AM


Textbook makers are not a representative sample of the community they write about
That's the problem with evolutionists. Evolutionists have taught the phylotypic stage for well over a 100 years, and when evidence is put forth that indicates it is a false claim, you guys insist it's not falsified.
That's the problem with creationists. Creationists see one paper in a sea of papers that criticizes and falsifies one model of the phylotypic stage, you guys insist that all models are falsified. So what?
Imo, it is falsified, but it doesn't really matter. Evolutionists have still created a lie by claiming it is a proven piece of data when it is not.
Well, your opinion is fine, but not relevant. I have shown you data that demonstrates a phylotypic stage. Evolutionists rarely say something is a proven piece of data. Phylotypic stage: when a vertebrate has a notochord, somites, neural tube and perhaps pharyngeal pouches.
In the small data set that was used, all vertebrates did share some kind of phylotypic stage by those definitions. When the definition gets more specific and larger data sets are used, some models fall, as Richardson showed.
On a civil tone, I suggest you reread your own posts as well!
I have done, why?
Moreover, quit misrepresenting my claims here, please.
I wasn't intending to, I was merely pointing out what I have learned, in the hope that you would explicitly list what your claims actually were so that we could discuss them, without misrepresentation. Which is why I said
quote:
You briefly outline the claims you are making, with one or two sources that back up them up. From what I have learned so far:
I am not sure the magnitude was known at all. What I am sure is that evolutionists should have known their claims they presented for decades were false. There is no excuse in that, especially since plenty of people showed the claims were false.
Why should they have known these things? Who showed these things? To whom did they show them? When did they show them? Let's compile the strongest critic from each approximate decade and see what they did to show that evolutionists claims were false. So far we have von Baer. Can we shoot forwards 10-20 years and find out what someone actually said about the images that were appearing in textbooks?
Now, did they know the magnitude of how false the claims and drawings were?
All I can say is they knew and stated it was very false, faked data, without any real coorealation to the facts at all.
Anti-evolutionists are always saying that evolutionist claims are very false, wheat from chaff, spaghetti on the wall, boy crying wolf...just saying it isn't good enough, they have to actually show it. And not ust to one another, not just in self published books, not just in small public debates...in the scientific literature. You can't seriously have said to have pressented a critique which should be seriously considered by the scientific community unless you present it to them in scientific terms.
I guess it's like an organized crime figure busted for several murders, decades ago, and then long after his death someone does more research and finds he was worse than imagined.
To me its more like finding out that the Mona Lisa was not only a simplified copy of the original, but years later discovering that whilst it has some similar points to the original, it was wildly different in some important areas.
How that equates to a defense of the evolutionist establishment is frankly beyond me. Imo, there is no valid defense for the way evolutionists continually used, and still use, deceptive data in this area.
You are once again conflating textbook makers with evolutionists. And you have yet to present any major attack. I agree that it was a travesty that this happened, and textbook makers are notoriously bad at getting things wrong, and that this is a bad thing.
This happens all over the place, notably in history books which repeat claims which are known to have been shown as false. The apatosaurus/brontosaurus incident springs to mind also. Your mistake, randman, is to take textbook gaffs as being indicative of something else entirely. You seem to think it is a symptom of some self-delusional disease, of evolutionists refusing to release the grip on them...despite the fact that one of the most famous evolutionists publically spoke out against them in the 70s.
If you wish to tar all evolutionists with the same brush, then that is your affair. If, however, you want to use your tarring brush to conflate us evcers or scientists, or teachers with the same brush as incompetent textbook makers then I will likewise tar you with the same brush I tar Hovind with. Which would be silly.
I condemn textbook makers and their slack quality research. Their trade is that of chinese whispers, parroting the phrases their predecessors did. I will join you in the condemnation of those idiots. If you want to convince me there is more to it that stupidity and crapness, you have to do some work, which you have so far failed to do. I applaud what work you have done to date, but it is only enough to demonstrate that a problem exists, not the reason for that problem. After that it becomes your opinion and your own theories, with no historical support.
This message has been edited by Modulous, Mon, 04-July-2005 03:07 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 238 by randman, posted 07-04-2005 1:29 AM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 248 by randman, posted 07-04-2005 12:48 PM Modulous has replied

randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5152 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 248 of 306 (221671)
07-04-2005 12:48 PM
Reply to: Message 247 by Modulous
07-04-2005 8:44 AM


Re: Textbook makers are not a representative sample of the community they write about
our mistake, randman, is to take textbook gaffs as being indicative of something else entirely. You seem to think it is a symptom of some self-delusional disease, of evolutionists refusing to release the grip on them...
The problem is that it's not just the textbooks, but what was taught in high school and college classrooms, and presented as a major piece of evidence since Darwin. It was a fundamental argument and standard practice for evolutionists to overstate the embryonic case for evolution, and imo, the overstatements are still on-going.
Let me put it this way. This is one of the major reasons people believed evolution to be true, and allowed the premise of common descent to color their perception of the evidence. It affected everyone because all Phds at one point had to learn this, and so it wasn't just a textbook error of a minor proportion that maybe some teachers corrected, but a systematic deception passed on and believed by the evolutionist community as a whole, so much so the evolutionist community has had a difficult time completely abandoning the claims, wanting to somehow still make a link between fish gills and humans for example.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 247 by Modulous, posted 07-04-2005 8:44 AM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 249 by Modulous, posted 07-04-2005 1:40 PM randman has not replied
 Message 250 by edge, posted 07-04-2005 2:22 PM randman has not replied

Modulous
Member (Idle past 237 days)
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 249 of 306 (221685)
07-04-2005 1:40 PM
Reply to: Message 248 by randman
07-04-2005 12:48 PM


Re: Textbook makers are not a representative sample of the community they write about
The problem is that it's not just the textbooks, but what was taught in high school and college classrooms, and presented as a major piece of evidence since Darwin.
OK, so what was taught in high school and college classrooms? Was it just what was in the text books? I honestly never had this presented to me as a major piece of evidence, and I've never regarded it as a particularly good piece of evidence at that. I though that the fossil record, combined with morphology, DNA mutations and the existence of natural selection all provide the more fundamental lines of evidence taught at school.
Let me put it this way. This is one of the major reasons people believed evolution to be true, and allowed the premise of common descent to color their perception of the evidence.
I'm not saying you are wrong, but I question this. I reckon most people think evolution is true because of the fossil record.
It affected everyone because all Phds at one point had to learn this, and so it wasn't just a textbook error of a minor proportion that maybe some teachers corrected, but a systematic deception passed on and believed by the evolutionist community as a whole, so much so the evolutionist community has had a difficult time completely abandoning the claims, wanting to somehow still make a link between fish gills and humans for example.
Let me reword your paragraph slightly so that I am more inclined to accept it.
It affected everyone because all Phds at one point had to learn this; it was a textbook error that maybe some teachers corrected. Because it was taught by the teachers of the early 20th century, the people that would become biology teachers would teach it to their students. Because the evidence was so widely accepted as being true, there was little future in its further study, which contributed to it remaining in the textbooks. Due to the evidence, it is still taught that there is a link between the pharyngeal pouches in mammals and the pharyngeal pouches in fish (which go on to form gills).
Until such time as you can demonstrate that it was a 'systematic deception', it remains an opinion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 248 by randman, posted 07-04-2005 12:48 PM randman has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 252 by Chiroptera, posted 07-04-2005 3:01 PM Modulous has not replied

edge
Member (Idle past 1959 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 250 of 306 (221691)
07-04-2005 2:22 PM
Reply to: Message 248 by randman
07-04-2005 12:48 PM


Re: Textbook makers are not a representative sample of the community they write about
The problem is that it's not just the textbooks, but what was taught in high school and college classrooms, and presented as a major piece of evidence since Darwin.
First of all, it is not what is in (all of) the textbooks, as you have been shown previously. Why do you ignore responses to your posts, other than the fact that you are not debating in good faith? Second, when were you last in a high school or college biology class? How do you know what is taught?
It was a fundamental argument and standard practice for evolutionists to overstate the embryonic case for evolution, and imo, the overstatements are still on-going.
I'm glad that we have your opinion on this. It is not shared by many, however.
Let me put it this way. This is one of the major reasons people believed evolution to be true, and allowed the premise of common descent to color their perception of the evidence.
Nonsense. The major reason is the preponderance of evidence for common descent.
It affected everyone because all Phds at one point had to learn this, ...
And as we all know, all PhD's are credulous sheep when it comes to thinking.
... and so it wasn't just a textbook error of a minor proportion that maybe some teachers corrected, but a systematic deception passed on and believed by the evolutionist community as a whole, ...
So, this is part of the great evolutionist plot!
... so much so the evolutionist community has had a difficult time completely abandoning the claims, wanting to somehow still make a link between fish gills and humans for example.
But, as you have been shown, there is a link. I can see what your problem is here, Rantman. You are completely impervious to anyt facts that are inconvenient for you. For you, they literally do not exist.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 248 by randman, posted 07-04-2005 12:48 PM randman has not replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1658 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 251 of 306 (221692)
07-04-2005 2:42 PM
Reply to: Message 240 by randman
07-04-2005 1:45 AM


Re: another unsubstantiated assertion
randman writes:
He was an anti-evolutionist, and in general that makes him a creationist, or maybe an ID theorist, or something along those lines, but he was clearly against Darwin and evolution.
2+2 does not equal 3 therefore it equals 5??
Obviously an absolutely FALSE argument. What it makes him is a scientist that does not accept the theory of evolution. period. Given the time period not a big surprise.
Let's not play word-games here.
Then I suggest you stop doing so and substantiate your claims or admit that they are assumptions on your part, with no credibility.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

This message is a reply to:
 Message 240 by randman, posted 07-04-2005 1:45 AM randman has not replied

Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 252 of 306 (221693)
07-04-2005 3:01 PM
Reply to: Message 249 by Modulous
07-04-2005 1:40 PM


Side comment.
quote:
I reckon most people think evolution is true because of the fossil record.
Maybe most people, but to me the most compelling evidence for evolution is the hierarchical classification of life. Not that this changes your point any. Carry on.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 249 by Modulous, posted 07-04-2005 1:40 PM Modulous has not replied

Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 253 of 306 (221695)
07-04-2005 3:23 PM
Reply to: Message 241 by randman
07-04-2005 1:59 AM


Re: Manners maketh the man
The same thing that makes me thing the two things I stand on are legs -- that's what they are called.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 241 by randman, posted 07-04-2005 1:59 AM randman has not replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1658 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 254 of 306 (221696)
07-04-2005 3:55 PM
Reply to: Message 242 by randman
07-04-2005 2:04 AM


tails
I leave your answer on gill pouches to ned, as his post adequately questions your word games on that issue.
randman writes:
... we humans do have tail bones, but to call the spine a tail is a misrepresentation, and the fact some people are born with deformities is neither here nor there for evidence of humans evolving from apes or some such.
Ummm ... apes also do not have tails, but do have very similar tailbones to those that humans have. In fact this structure is more consistent to apes than to other families of species. As such it is an argument for common descent from a tailboned (but tailless) common ancestor.
Regardless, the whole fleshy appendage south of the hind leg buds is a tail in the human embryo. The other curious thing about those "deformities" is that they occur in the tailbone region, and not, say on a knee or an elbow: they are an atavistic expression of an archaic feature, with muscles and nerves, and not some spontaneous deformity.
FROM: ScienceMuseum.org (click)
By four weeks, the embryo has a head, tail, backbone and limb buds - which will eventually become arms and legs. The beginnings of ears and eyes are also visible. Its heart is already beating, and the other organs are forming fast. An umbilical cord starts to grow between the embryo and the placenta.
Again, let's not play word games: the tailbone is not formed yet (heck neither the spine nor any other bones have formed yet), in animals with tails this structure grows into a tail with bones and muscles etcetera, while in apes (including humans) it (usually) gets absorbed during later development.
FROM: Pictures of human tails (click)
Occasionally, a child is born with a "soft tail," described by one embryologist as containing "no vertebrae, but blood vessels, muscles, and nerves, of the same consistency as the short tail of the Barbary ape."
FROM: TalkOrigins(click)
In contrast, the true atavistic tail of humans results from incomplete regression of the most distal end of the normal embryonic tail found in the developing human fetus (see Figure 2.4.1 and the discussion below on the development of the normal human embryonic tail; Belzberg et al. 1991; Dao and Netsky 1984; Grange et al. 2001; Keith 1921). Though formally a malformation, the true human tail is usually benign in nature (Dubrow et al. 1988; Spiegelmann et al. 1985). The true human tail is characterized by a complex arrangement of adipose and connective tissue, central bundles of longitudinally arranged striated muscle in the core, blood vessels, nerve fibres, nerve ganglion cells, and specialized pressure sensing nerve organs (Vater-Pacini corpuscles). It is covered by normal skin, replete with hair follicles, sweat glands, and sebaceous glands (Dao and Netsky 1984; Dubrow et al. 1988; Spiegelmann et al. 1985). True human tails range in length from about one inch to over 5 inches long (on a newborn baby), and they can move via voluntary striped muscle contractions in response to various emotional states (Baruchin et al. 1983; Dao and Netsky 1984; Harrison 1901; Keith 1921; Lundberg et al. 1962).
You have features that are the same in different embryos, yet which develop into different features in the fetal stages. Calling them different names and claiming that the {embryonic features} do not develop into the {fetal features} of a different species and that therefore the {embryonic feature} is not the {fetal feature} is playing word games.
And the features don't care what you call them.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

This message is a reply to:
 Message 242 by randman, posted 07-04-2005 2:04 AM randman has not replied

NosyNed
Member
Posts: 9011
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 255 of 306 (221814)
07-05-2005 1:12 AM
Reply to: Message 244 by randman
07-04-2005 3:05 AM


Re: pharygeal pouchs
Now, as far as the details on the parathyroid being related to gills, I would need to see more details than mere claims, especially in area where in the past evolutionists have made claims, and still do sometimes, which have been proven false and at times just unproven.
What details do you need? Exactly which claims do you believe are false? What reasons do you have to believe they are false?
As far as molecular markers, what other "markers" exist in the parathyroid? Where is the peer-reviewed discussion of this? Finding one genetic marker hardly seems like a definitive argument. Maybe the gene is involved in any organ related to salt regulation, or related to salt regulation?
So you agree that there are markers connecting them? How many do you need to be convinced? On what basis do you believe that what you have isn't enough to be strongly indicative if not definitive? Why isn't it reasonably definitive in light of the other data?
None of the arguments in that article are persuasive, and neither are of such a comprehensive nature as to commend the article.
Why not?
Do you disagree with the development shown from the 5 week old embryo? Why? Why isn't this useful information for coming to a tentative conclusion?
For example, have any of these claims been criticized, and if so, what are the arguments of the critics and how are they wrong? I didn't notice that, and in general it just is a very weak argument and presentation once you look into the details a bit more.
I don't know? Can't you find any criticisms? I think it is your turn to do so. This is an example of information that makes your claims seem to be a bit unfounded. Do you have arguments against it at the same level of detail?
Note too the claims of functional similarity are bogus since they are not functional similar since one is more or less a filter and another a production center.
Has WK's post Message 245 answered this point for you? If not why not?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 244 by randman, posted 07-04-2005 3:05 AM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 257 by randman, posted 07-05-2005 12:18 PM NosyNed has replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024