Great Debate: Nuggin v. Randman

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.

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

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.

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

My response is that he based his hypothesis on adult forms, but included evidence of embryology very much as part of his theory, if you catch my drift here. Embryology was used by Darwin, others like Haeckel and even sometimes today as primary evidence for the theory of evolution. The original hypothesis of course was based on ideas built up from other areas, but embryology very much was placed front and center among other pieces of evidence.That's what I am looking for here in terms of agreement to move forward, that this is part of the primary evidence argued for ToE for a very long time. I am not trying to make the claim that disproving these claims alone disproves evolution, but I do think they show how evolutionists have used data, which is my central conclusion. I certainly don't agree with that at all. We share some similarities as adults and embryos with other mammals, but there is no recapitulation whatsoever, not adult forms, nor embryonic forms, and there is no highly conserved stage. The claims of a phylotypic stage are unsubstantiated.Keep in mind the typical evo-method of claiming human embryos have gill slits, which is a total misrepresentation. There are folds on the embryo that develop into parts of the head and neck. They are never gill slits, and the whole thing claim is based on faulty superficial misreading of biomechanical folds that appear other places as well, but since they could appear gill-like superficially to the uninformed, the argument is presented. It's not a scientific claim at all. Human beings never possess gill slits. No, what we see evolutionists call a tail in fetuses is just the backbone and tailbone. The fact we have a spine that goes from our neck to our rear end is no more an argument for common descent in embryos than it is in adult forms. So what? Defects are to be expected. Evos make a mountain out of molehill here and are grossly inconsistent. Evos claim all features evolved, right? So if there is within species the ability to mutate certain forms, what is causing a rare defect of a human tail is just as easily, and I would argue more easily explained, by mutations. It's not some sort of recapitulation process that didn't complete itself. No, it's a mutation explained by medical science as such.There is absolutely no reason to invoke some sort of evo-magic called recapitulation to explain the mutation. What parts? The human tail argument, of which there are less than a 100 I think ever claimed much less documented, would carry weight if their parents had tails to maybe, or if it could be shown it wasn't a defect or mutation, but since we know the cause is medical and causing a malformation, it's not good evidence for recapitulation. I see it as a direct result of Haeckel's doctrines becoming enshrined, even if watered down, as an icon of evolution. It's not a tail. It's the spine; big difference. No, my real point is more subtle, namely to uncover what I believe is a faulty reasoning process governing the way evolution is taught and believed. It is 100% wrong. There is nothing right about it at all. In fact, look at adult forms and embryonic forms. The more similar the adult forms, the more similar the embryonic forms, pretty much opposite of the predictions of recapitulation. Before we go further, we need to establish some historical agreement here. You may not talk about emrbyology, but Darwin did; Haeckel did; the textbooks did, etc, etc,...This has been presented as primary evidence for evolution from the beginning. I've already said I am not trying to sandbag you and claim just because evos were wrong on embryology, they are wrong necessarily on evolution. I am arguing about how they are wrong; the way they have treated the date, etc,...So we can't proceed unless we come to some sort of agreement on what evolutionists have presented as evidence. I think it's clear they presented some form of recapitulation from the 1880s to 1999, and still some today.Agree or not?Btw, rereading my post, it comes off harsher in tone than I meant it. Some of the debates on other threads has affected me a little. I apologize for the harshness, but to save time, I am leaving it as-is (late at night and need to go to bed soon).This message has been edited by randman, 12-01-2005 02:21 AM

I understand that now evos don't put as much stock into embryonic evidence, although at times it is still presented as "strong evidence" as I showed above.However, Darwin and evolutionists for a long time afterwards, put great stock in the embryonic evidence, and what they beleived was wrong.Right or not?Also, to try to restart this, don't you think it odd that Haeckel's drawings were commonly used until 1999 even though critics of evolution had been blasting evos for using forgeries for decades?I think what makes the most sense is that once the internet came on the scene, evos were forced to deal with using such forgeries.This message has been edited by randman, 12-04-2005 02:08 AM

That's not evidence of evolution at all. The fact that 2 species that share similarities as adults also share similarities as embryos is evidence they share similar design and nothing more. I don't know how you can argue this as evidence for evolution at all.It's not like anyone would predict anything different. If people have spines, you would expect their embryos to have spines to, right?No, evolutionists claimed that embryos recapitulated, first as adult forms and when that was shown to be wrong; then embryonic stages, but now that's wrong too, and so ToE predictions completely failed in this regard, and we are left with evos actually arguing that they are right because, essentially, embryos should somehow not reflect adult forms unless evolved, that a human embryo, for example, having a spine is evidence for ToE, as if a creationist, IDer, or anyone else would not expect it to.I am sorry but merely pointing out similarities in biological life form is not evidence for evolution. It's evidence for similarities. Evolution is all about how those similarities and how species got here, and so just pointing out species exist and there similarities does nothing to substantiate evolution. Says who? Let's turn this around. Both fish and kangaroos have some similarities such as a backbone, right? So we should expect their embryos to contain those same features, the backbone. Are you claiming that we should not expect an embryo to have a backbone unless ToE is true. That's just absurd. The embryo has to develop a backbone or the adult won't have a backbone. OK, but later we can look at this in more depth. I think considering why it took well over a 100 years for evos to stop using Haeckel's forgeries is interesting and indicative of a pattern. Not theoritically, but thus far embryonic data offers no specific support of evolution that I can tell. Just showing that more similar adult forms have more similar embryonic forms is what one would expect, evolution or no evolution.

OK, let's look at that. Haeckel's EmbryosHere the book publisher admits he and nearly everyone else used a version of Haeckel's drawings. Note he tries to downplay it with the following comment. Haeckel's EmbryosIf you study this out, you will find that the only differences in the drawings were that textbooks generally colored Haeckel's drawings, and therefore in every subtantive way they are identical, but the authors don't reveal that.Who are these specific textbook authors? Hmmmm...a Brown professor of Biology, not exactly some yahoos on a school board as some evos have suggested in other threads. By all standards, he would be a well qualified evolutionist.Should he have known about the error? I will pick this up later, but considering creationists constant harping that they were forgeries, the only plausible explanation is that evos don't listen to their critics and generally don't critically examine the evidence before proclaiming it as supportive of evolution. In this instance, it took well over 100 years for evos to finally correct this false use of data.Why so long?

Interesting...Truthfully, this is what evos do in stating everything is evidence for evolution. I am not saying that everything is evidence for design on this thread, although it is. What I am saying is that everything is a design. There are similar designs between animals. Evolution claims this is because of random mutations and natural selection evolving from an original life form which rose via spontaneous generation.IDer and creationists offer different explanations, but the fact of similar designs is just a fact; it is what evolution tries to explain, not evidence for evolution. To claim it as evidence is circular reasoning. I guess you're right. You got me, but my original use of design in reference to similarities was not meant to equate Intelligent Design. So the point still stands. Similarities in design are not evidence for evolution anymore than anything else. I am not implying malicious intent, but basically that evolution is bad science because it uncritically accepts claims if those claims can be seen as evidence for evolution. My evidence on this thread is the fact that evos, and not just anyone but even college professors at Ivey League schools, continued to use false data well over 100 years after the data was shown to be wrong. They may have been unaware of that fact, but all that shows is they never properly subtantiated one of the main evidentiary arguments for evolution, something I see as a pattern in general with evolutionists.In other words, it's not maliciousness, but gullibility, close-mindedness, ineptness in terms of a scientific approach to basic data, treating a scientific subject as pseudo-religion and therefore continually overstating the evidence in order to get people to believe, basically doing exactly what they accuse their critics of. Except it took over 100 years. For over 100 years, evolutionists made false evidentiary claims, claiming as fact things they had not observed, and all during that time, creationists and others criticized the depictions as forgeries.How do you explain that?

You mentioned fish and kangaroos. I don't have data on kangaroos, but it seems pretty clear fish don't look very much like mammals when they are embryos, nor as adults.fish: chick: pig: human: This message has been edited by randman, 12-05-2005 06:18 PM

I don't see that as much better. Anyone with an open mind that bothered to listen to what critics of evolution were saying would have known the drawings were forgeries. I think it is. Evos, college profs at Ivey league schools, are passing off misinformation, even forgeries as solid evidence, over 100 years after those same depictions were exposed.You want to know when I heard they were forgeries? Way back in the 1980s from a creationist who was a college professor. I saw where he brought up these things to colleagues. It was pretty convincing. I believed in evolution at one time, but when I looked at the evidence with an open mind and questioned authority, frankly I felt lied to. If as a student, not even a biology major, I found out the drawings were faked, there's really no excuse for the scientific evolutionist community to pass off such shoddy evidence as real to the American public, and no good excuse for continuing to do so today. In some ways that's even worse. It shows you absolutely can put no trust in any scientific evidentiary claim by evos for evolution since Darwin's time.I think it's really part of a pattern, and evolution is as much evolutionism as real science. You think that's an excuse? Please understand that evolutionists proclaim they were presenting real science, but it was a forgery, and they didn't just use false drawings, but false ideas, and kept the same name, recapitulation. I am sorry but we're not dealing with real science here. It's propaganda.

First off, believers in the Bible don't claim to be teaching science, for the most part, when they discuss the Bible. Secondly, claiming things in the Bible are factually wrong is often highly speculative. There's not a lot of hard proof the Bible is factually wrong on anything.

Well, it's all done by evos. Are you saying they are still making forgeries?I don't think you are, but don't be silly. Haeckel's drawings were faked to make the data appear to fit recapitulation, and the ideas were wrong, as were the watered down versions of recapitulation and even the ideas that embryonic evidence in anyway is specifically supportive of evolution. It's all 100% bogus, but evos don't want to let it go, probably because it worked to convince people, and hey, that's what it seems to be all about for evolution, convincing people even if you have to use false data and overstate the case. It shows one cannot trust the evidentiary claims of the evolutionist community when they speak of evidence for evolution. It shows it's a big con game to a certain extent. Yea, there is some evidence for evolution and evidence against evolution, but the evolutionist community did not want a reasoned, rational, scientific approach the data, and so they allowed crap like Haeckel's forgeries and recapitulation theories, all of them, because they worked to fool a gullible public, and all the while maybe they really didn't know for sure the evidence they claimed was wrong. It didn't really matter anyway because they were so convinced evolution is true. It was, and is imo, a matter of faith with them, and so forget making sure the facts are right. That's not what this game has ever been about for evolutionism since the beginning.There are a few improvements, but much of the same old bogus game is being played and it's wrong. In some ways, I don't give a whit about whether evolution is true or not. I'm just disgusted with deception and propaganda being passed off as objective science.So for me, the point that evolution could be true even if evolutionists were totally wrong in all of there embryonic claims, which is pretty much the case, is an insignificant point. I don't care that much about that.What I care about is that this indoctrination propaganda game end, and so that's why I post about stuff like Haeckel.This message has been edited by randman, 12-05-2005 11:42 PM

What concept? The original theory of recapitulation, the recapitulation theory of the 20th century, or some newer version? I am just pointing out the fact that similar looking embryos look similar because they have similar design, similar features. You don't have to look at embryos to see that. My dog has a backbone, and so do my children, and so you should expect to see backbone forming in both embryos.What gives here?I am not saying embryos support ID more than just looking at adults, but it's clear they show no actual recapitulations, which is what evos claimed, and they don't even show an unusual level of similarity beyond what one would expect.In one sense, the evo argument is that because all of biological life is biological, it must all have evolved. It's just nonsense, totally falsifiable, and in respect to embryology, all of the evo claims have fallen short.Adult forms do not recapitulate.
Embryonic forms do not recapitulate. For example, humans never have gills or gill slits. Just doesn't happen no matter how much evolutionists claimed and some still claim happens. Just never happens.So what do you think?Why all the false claims by evos, and now retreating to just saying well, mammals look more alike than they do to fish, so there? Is there any rational explanation for the plethora of falsehoods perpetuated by the evolutionist community in this area?