Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,808 Year: 3,065/9,624 Month: 910/1,588 Week: 93/223 Day: 4/17 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Great Debate: Nuggin v. Randman
Nuggin
Member (Idle past 2492 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 196 of 221 (267970)
12-11-2005 11:40 PM
Reply to: Message 189 by randman
12-11-2005 9:53 PM


Re: embryonic similarities
I looked at the pictures and I've never been more convinced that embryologists are very weird people.
I find it incredibly hard to assign two which are "more similiar" so each other.
It's hard to judge relative size and angle in the photographs. For example F seems to be at a 45 degree angle. Also, are B and H photographs or x-rays?
If B is an x-ray (which explains the transparentness) then I would think that B and G are more similair than G and D. D has that bulb on it's tail and a sort of two bump top area versus the thick top area we see in B and G.
By that same account I would say that J also has a somewhat thick upper region.
All of these I distinguish from the much more bumpy top regions you see in E and F, I.
And very very bumpy - K.
Is this scientific? Hardly! I have no idea what the bumps equate to. I may be saying that a sheeps hind limbs look like the human liver (though I don't suspect that what I'm saying).
No, let's take a look at the two I picked. B and G.
B) Brush Tail Possum
G) Scaly Anteater
Looking at the names of the animals, I assume that B and C are more closely related since both are marsupial (I assume).
So, I see your point about morphological similiarities. However, you must concede that neither you nor I can point to the various lumbs and explain what they are. That's for expert embryologists.
So, while B and G may be morphologically similiar, it may in fact be that B and C have more features in common.
Certainly those photos aren't going to answer that question.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 189 by randman, posted 12-11-2005 9:53 PM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 199 by randman, posted 12-11-2005 11:50 PM Nuggin has replied

  
Nuggin
Member (Idle past 2492 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 197 of 221 (267973)
12-11-2005 11:47 PM
Reply to: Message 192 by randman
12-11-2005 11:02 PM


Re: embryonic similarities
No, but isn't this like the Hitler rule? You are going outside of science, not just for an analogy as I did, but as an evidentiary claim.
I'm refering to the group you brought up. You said that the scientists had ignored a group that was jumping up and down screaming that the pictures were wrong. I was merely bringing up that groups not so stellar history of scientific observation.
How often do I need to state that as far as this thread, it matters not one whit if evolution was true.
Then what are you asking to be done? Are you asking that Haeckel's pictures no longer be used in textbooks? Are you asking that Evolution no longer be taught in schools? What are you trying to accomplish?
The basic approach of evolutionists is deceptive.
Every time you get close to sounding reasonable you trot out something like this. It's a total crap accusation.
The "basic approach" of evolutionists is the "basic approach" of scientific observation.
Even if you were 100% right about Haeckel and the secret conspiracy of ivy league textbook authors, that still wouldn't change the "basic approach" of scientific observation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 192 by randman, posted 12-11-2005 11:02 PM randman has not replied

  
Nuggin
Member (Idle past 2492 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 198 of 221 (267974)
12-11-2005 11:50 PM
Reply to: Message 193 by randman
12-11-2005 11:09 PM


Re: embryonic similarities
Does that look like a whale to you?
By your standards? Sure.
You are the one that suggested that whales had a built in genetic variablity so great that it could include hind legs. Why not hind legs and front legs? Why not a long thin tail?
Hell, from your suggestion, it wouldn't be surprising to see a pakicetus born from an existing whale tomorrow.
Of course, that's not likely to happen. Why? Because your theory of whale's massive genetic variability is based on hocus pocus, not a scientific theory.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 193 by randman, posted 12-11-2005 11:09 PM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 200 by randman, posted 12-11-2005 11:55 PM Nuggin has replied

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4898 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 199 of 221 (267975)
12-11-2005 11:50 PM
Reply to: Message 196 by Nuggin
12-11-2005 11:40 PM


Re: embryonic similarities
I agree that studying embryos seems to show no real guiding principles here, but that's my point. They don't show recapitulation because if they did, it would be fairly clear.
I think the idea that some emerging features are vestigal may be beyond are expertise, but I will say that often the claims have been wrong (basically the gill slit thing which you agree with me on).
I think if you are going to make an argument based on some potential vestigal features, the name "recapitulation" and the comparitive side-by-side drawings of Haeckel are inappropiate.
The side-by-side illustrations, even if they were not doctored which they are, just are not the same thing as focussing on a bumb and saying it's a relic of an ancestral form within the embryonic development.
In other words, side by side pics don't actually show recapitulation. They only appear to in Haeckel's drawings because he doctored them and faked the data. So his drawings should be left out, as should the whole side by side drawings to make a claim of recapitulation.
The claims you want to make, concerning possible vestigal development, should be made by just showing them. Just show the little bumb, not doctored drawings.
I think it makes the case harder to sell for evos, but it makes their case more honest, and that's what we want for people, an honest approach to the data. It's not necessary that people believe evolution is true as much as it is necessary to instill an honest appraisal and approach to data.
This message has been edited by randman, 12-11-2005 11:51 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 196 by Nuggin, posted 12-11-2005 11:40 PM Nuggin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 203 by Nuggin, posted 12-12-2005 12:06 AM randman has replied

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4898 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 200 of 221 (267978)
12-11-2005 11:55 PM
Reply to: Message 198 by Nuggin
12-11-2005 11:50 PM


Re: embryonic similarities
You are the one that suggested that whales had a built in genetic variablity so great that it could include hind legs.
There you go again, slipping back into the evo habit of exaggerating the data. If you read my posts, I am pretty clear that I think the idea of hind "legs" is absurd, but use the term "legs" to illustrate a point.
More often, I refer to a flipper, and it could be whales have the ability to breed in such a way to produce a whale with a hind flipper.
But I also mention how "leg" bones do exist in some whales. Of course, they are not leg bones, but bones attached to the pelvis. So the fact is some whales sometimes do develop bones off the pelvis.
My pointing that out is just pointing out a fact, for your benefit, as you seemed unaware of it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 198 by Nuggin, posted 12-11-2005 11:50 PM Nuggin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 204 by Nuggin, posted 12-12-2005 12:12 AM randman has replied

  
Nuggin
Member (Idle past 2492 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 201 of 221 (267979)
12-11-2005 11:58 PM
Reply to: Message 195 by randman
12-11-2005 11:21 PM


Re: embryonic similarities
Your claims here are thus completely unfalsifiable
Buahhahahhaha! LOL! That's just too good. Randman, you're offering up magic as the answer and accusing me of unfalsifiability?
Maybe the most reasonable explanation ... is that, well, the process didn't happen as evos claim.
Or maybe the causes of fossilization are not as consistantly available.
Or maybe there is punctuated evolution so that a species may exist for a million years unchanged, then a period of rapid change happens over a short stretch of time, leaving fewer fossils.
Or maybe we haven't gotten access to all the fossils.
Or maybe its a combination of the three.
A reasonable explaination should deal with functions we can see and test. I can explain to you in detail how a volcanic eruption can cause a 10 square mile area to be covered in ash and perserved as fossils.
Can you explain in detail how fully formed whales simply popped into existance out of thin air?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 195 by randman, posted 12-11-2005 11:21 PM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 202 by randman, posted 12-12-2005 12:02 AM Nuggin has replied

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4898 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 202 of 221 (267981)
12-12-2005 12:02 AM
Reply to: Message 201 by Nuggin
12-11-2005 11:58 PM


Re: embryonic similarities
Nuggins, if you want to discuss potential evidence for ID and an ID mechanisms, you are welcome to address my points on those threads.
My stance is not to run from the data, but engage it, not by imagining 99.9% of the data is as I claim, but to actually look at what is verifiable and stick with that.
As we can see on this thread, evos tend to rely on fabrications such as Haeckel's recapitulation theory.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 201 by Nuggin, posted 12-11-2005 11:58 PM Nuggin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 205 by Nuggin, posted 12-12-2005 12:13 AM randman has not replied

  
Nuggin
Member (Idle past 2492 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 203 of 221 (267985)
12-12-2005 12:06 AM
Reply to: Message 199 by randman
12-11-2005 11:50 PM


Re: embryonic similarities
I agree that studying embryos seems to show no real guiding principles here, but that's my point. They don't show recapitulation because if they did, it would be fairly clear.
That's insane! I can not tell a cancer cell from a liver cell under a microscope because I know nothing about either one. However, that doesn't mean that no one knows anything about either one. If I have cancer, you better bet your ass that I'm going to head to someone who knows the difference.
Just because neither you nor I know much about embryo morphology doesn't mean that there isn't anyone out there that does know.
I think if you are going to make an argument based on some potential vestigal features, the name "recapitulation" and the comparitive side-by-side drawings of Haeckel are inappropiate.
If you've got a better name for it than recapitulation, I'll use that instead. As for Haeckel's drawings, I'd never have brought them up in the first place - as I had completely forgetten about them until you picked the topic.
In other words, side by side pics don't actually show recapitulation.
Not very effectively anyway. I'd much perfer a time lapse development of several different types of embryos so that we can see what becomes of this bump or that bump. Unfortunately, we don't have those for every embryo out there, and until recently, it would have been really hard to have that in a book.
The claims you want to make, concerning possible vestigal development, should be made by just showing them. Just show the little bumb, not doctored drawings.
I agree. But, now we're headed back to my original point about book publishers. Their decesions are not always based on what is best science, or clearest data. They may decide something based on how expensive it is to print this picture vs that picture. Or which picts they have the rights to. Or what the other textbook guy is printing.
I think it makes the case harder to sell for evos, but it makes their case more honest, and that's what we want for people, an honest approach to the data
This we clearly both agree with.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 199 by randman, posted 12-11-2005 11:50 PM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 207 by randman, posted 12-12-2005 12:46 AM Nuggin has replied

  
Nuggin
Member (Idle past 2492 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 204 of 221 (267989)
12-12-2005 12:12 AM
Reply to: Message 200 by randman
12-11-2005 11:55 PM


Re: embryonic similarities
But I also mention how "leg" bones do exist in some whales. Of course, they are not leg bones, but bones attached to the pelvis. So the fact is some whales sometimes do develop bones off the pelvis.
I'm concerned about your views on anatomy.
In whales these bones aren't "leg bones" even though the same/similiar bones which appear in thousands of other species in the same place are leg bones.
In humans it's not a tail, even though the same bones which appear in the same place on thousands of other species are tails.
By this reconning, are cows teeth teeth? Are cat's claws claws?
Why is it that whales and humans both have skulls? Why aren't our skulls something completely different than that of every other animal species out there? After all, our skulls are at the other end of the spine from our "not a tails". Shouldn't our skulls but "not a skull"?
Yes, I'm being ridiculous, because that's how this argument sounds to me.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 200 by randman, posted 12-11-2005 11:55 PM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 208 by randman, posted 12-12-2005 12:50 AM Nuggin has replied

  
Nuggin
Member (Idle past 2492 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 205 of 221 (267993)
12-12-2005 12:13 AM
Reply to: Message 202 by randman
12-12-2005 12:02 AM


Re: embryonic similarities
but to actually look at what is verifiable and stick with that.
But that is clearly not your standard. Not to stray too far off topic, but you won't doubt that the leg bone is a leg bone, but you'll take a long handled clay pot as proof positive of dinosaurs living in modern day Mexico?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 202 by randman, posted 12-12-2005 12:02 AM randman has not replied

  
Nuggin
Member (Idle past 2492 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 206 of 221 (267996)
12-12-2005 12:31 AM


Played out
Randman, let's move on. We've pounded this one to death.
Let's start a new thread on a topic that doesn't require dueling links to 86 page pdfs by post docs in fields that neither of us works in. It's all making my brain hurt!

Replies to this message:
 Message 209 by randman, posted 12-12-2005 12:53 AM Nuggin has replied

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4898 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 207 of 221 (268003)
12-12-2005 12:46 AM
Reply to: Message 203 by Nuggin
12-12-2005 12:06 AM


Re: embryonic similarities
Just because neither you nor I know much about embryo morphology doesn't mean that there isn't anyone out there that does know.
It seems to escape you that the 1997 study is titled "There is no highly conserved embryonic stage in the vertebrates:...".
The descriptions and illustrations taken together paint picture.
I'd much perfer a time lapse development of several different types of embryos
You can see them, some at least, but they still won't show any of Haeckel's claims as true.
I agree. But, now we're headed back to my original point about book publishers. Their decesions are not always based on what is best science, or clearest data.
Richardson said in 1997 that it's not just the book publishers, but evos were relying in Haeckel's data.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 203 by Nuggin, posted 12-12-2005 12:06 AM Nuggin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 210 by Nuggin, posted 12-12-2005 10:50 AM randman has not replied

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4898 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 208 of 221 (268007)
12-12-2005 12:50 AM
Reply to: Message 204 by Nuggin
12-12-2005 12:12 AM


Re: embryonic similarities
Mere similarity in species is not a strong argument for evolution, as it is also a strong argument for a common designer.
The problem is that if you use terms like tails, you are using a very specific term. Everyone knows humans have spines. That is nothing new, but evos act like by calling the base of the spine a tail, that some sort of real evidence is presented.
It's a semantic game. The tail of human beings is not actually a tail. It is just the base of the spine. All vertibrates have 2 ends to the spine, and that includes any vertibrates that never conceivably had a protruding tail at any point in thier suppossed evolutionary heritage.
It is just not scientific to claim humans have tails because the term, tail, in this context, refers to animal tails that protrude from the body, and we just don't have them.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 204 by Nuggin, posted 12-12-2005 12:12 AM Nuggin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 211 by Nuggin, posted 12-12-2005 10:57 AM randman has replied

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4898 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 209 of 221 (268009)
12-12-2005 12:53 AM
Reply to: Message 206 by Nuggin
12-12-2005 12:31 AM


ok
But we may need to wait a little bit, or we can start, but I won't be posting every day this week.
How about one that came up on here; should Pakicetus be called "a whale" (English term)?
Specifically, is that an overstatement?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 206 by Nuggin, posted 12-12-2005 12:31 AM Nuggin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 212 by Nuggin, posted 12-12-2005 11:01 AM randman has replied

  
Nuggin
Member (Idle past 2492 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 210 of 221 (268116)
12-12-2005 10:50 AM
Reply to: Message 207 by randman
12-12-2005 12:46 AM


Re: embryonic similarities
There is no highly conserved embryonic stage in the vertebrates
I'm not arguing that there was a highly conserved embryonic stage. In fact, with the processes that I've described, a single highly conserved stage would be counter-intuative.
What you are doing to is trying to disprove my points by disproving Haeckel original theory. Not a valid argument.
but they still won't show any of Haeckel's claims as true.
Ditto.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 207 by randman, posted 12-12-2005 12:46 AM randman has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024