Great Debate: Nuggin v. Randman

I pulled this one onto a seperate post special.Let's think of a few shall we....Chimps? Gorillas? Bonobos?Wait a second, those are our closest relatives. That's weird! Why would the animals which we most resemble genetically have a similiar shrunken tailbone?It's almost as if we all decended from common ancestors.But, that can't be right? Can it? Since that implies something other than "magic".

It's your bias that calls the base of the spine a shrunken tailbone.But tell you what. Can you show me any human fossils in the past where people had tails?Didn't think so. You have to realize that the human imagination is not a substitute for science.

The question is demonstrably based on a false premise.Since higher primates all lack tails visable tails, then we'd have to go back to a pre-higher primate ancestor to find one. That pre-chimp, pre-bonobo, pre-human would by definition be non-human. Therefore, finding a human fossil with a tail would not be expected.Now, can you show me when, how and why the shrunken tailbone was designed? By who? How it was implimented? Why failures in the design happen? Why those failures are allowed? How those failures are corrected? Why all higher primates share the same design? Can you explain why humans (who are designed to look exactly like God) share any features with higher primates?Who's talking about imagination now?

Really nuggins. Darwin himself said his theory was incomplete until we knew for sure how traits were acquired, and moreover basically accepted Lamarckism and expanded upon it. Jean-Baptiste Lamarck - WikipediaSo Darwin had a major hole just as I stated, and in fact, natural selection is all the more powerful if Lamarckism was true because the environment would more help shape not only the species that lived, but the traits directly that developed within and passed on in the genes. In fact, this idea was a big reason evolution was accepted, decades later I might add, because it fit well with concepts of social engineering that the elite became infatuated with. Nuggins, you've gone over the edge....sure sign of defeat in a debate when one side resorts to attacking religious terminology in a science debate. Doesn't matter. The material is still false. If one of the fundamental "proofs" in layman's terms for over 100 years consists of false evidentiary claims, then don't you think that suggests there is a serious problem. Keep in mind we are not talking theory here, but a factual evidentiary claim. If evos had said we think such and such, maybe that would be OK, but they said this is a fact we are using to support our theory, and the fact is false. What part of recapitulation is not false? Keep in mind the theory is that there is some sort of additional similarities, a clear recapitulation of earlier stages, in embryos more than what one would expect from just comparing the same similarities in the adult forms. That claim is false or unproven. Either way, it cannot be solid evidence.

The subject is the debate is not things like how Christianity refers to the people of God as sheep of the Lord; nor is it Intelligent Design; nor George Bush and the neocons.

Adult humans do not have tails. Human embryos clearly show tails. The fact that you don't recognize them as tails does not make them disappear. Yes, Lamark had a theory which sounded good. It's the sort of thing which on it's face seems reasonable. Sort of like "All people on welfare are poor and lazy". A deeper look into the theory showed that it was wrong.String theory is very popular right now. As a theory it sounds plausible. A deeper look into the theory may reveal that it's incorrect. People are working on proving it / disproving it. That's how science works.Your problem here seems to be that certain parts of science move faster than others. My response is that all parts of science move faster than religion. Clean up your own yard. I don't feel like you've earned the right to determine what is or is not scientific debate. You don't get to say "Hey we're talking science." and also get to offer up magic as your solution. Pick one and stick to it.If you want to argue that the processes of self correction within the scientific community are not up to your high standards. Then argue that. But don't argue that science would be better served by believing in magic. It matters a great deal. If you tell me that both sky and grass are the same color because you are blue/green color blind, you aren't "deliberately falsifying" the data. You are giving me your interprition of it. I can go out and make my own observations and come to my own conclusions.Have you actually read the proof on addition? I certainly haven't. I couldn't be less interested in trying to decode a 10 page, highly theoretical proof, that proves that 1+1 in fact does equal 2. I take it for granted.You want the entire world to grind to a halt. No one should be allowed to do math until every single person researches the proof of addition. That's silly.

The subject of the debate, as I understand it, is this:In the past mistakes were made. Some of them were corrected very quickly, some were corrected more slowly. Therefore, there is a vast conspiracy of scientists who are trying to mislead people away from a belief in magic and towards a belief in the observable world.But for this debate we have to accept that 1) There is vast conspiracy of scientists all working together, 2) That the magic world is the correct world, 3) that any movement away from the magic world is the result of wicked propaganda.That's not a debate.If you want to discuss recapitulation, then you have to be willing to DISCUSS recapitulation. You are not willing to do so."People don't have tails. And people who do have tails don't count."Give me a break.

No, they don't and this is something you are glossing over here. The embryo does not develop a tail that disappears, as evos claim. The area that evos claim as a tail is the end of the spine and tailbone. It doesn't disappear as if some sort of recapitulation process occurred, but continues to develop in a normal manner, and we all have those bones and features within us of a spine, and there is no instance of recapitulation whatsoever in the process. The point is Darwin did not understand, nor put forth the notion that it was clearly understood, all of the mechanisms for evolution. He posited natural selection, but tended to think traits could be acquired from the environment. So he admitted his theory was incomplete.You guys are demanding of ID things you never demanded of evos, and truthfully, evos still don't understand if their proposed mechanisms are correct. Take the dubious claim that mutations are random. That concept is poorly defined and increasingly appears to be largely incorrect in some respects. I think pretty near anyone is qualified to point out that bashing "fundies", George Bush, neocons, religion, etc,...is a pretty poor argument for defending evolutionists' use of data, but hey, it's OK if you want to stand by your position and insist otherwise.Keep preaching the virtues of evolution so those darn neocons don't take over. Personally, I think it's quite telling that you could even consider such political and religious ideas within the scope of a science debate. So are we to think evo professors at universities all these years are essentially mentally color-blind when it comes to science, handicapped somehow?Good point! Nah. I'd just like evolutionists to quit presenting overstatements, forgeries, hoaxes, etc,..as observed facts.

Then, you don't seem to understand what the debate is about. I suggest you offer some definitions of what the term recapitulation mean, and what it meant prior. On this thread, I explained those definitions.1. Original theory was that embryos recapitulate adult forms.
2. Next theory is they recapitulate embryonic forms, most noted in a single phylotypic stage.Neither theory is correct.

I think since you have agreed with some of my central conclusions and observations, as detailed below, and now are brining up areas not within the debate like neocons, the idea of Christians as sheep, Bush, and Intelligent Design, that we need to start another Great Debate thread because this has run it's course, or is close to doing so.The following is an attempt to get back to identifying what we agree or disagree on in terms of this debate. You agree Darwin and others put great weight on this, but you think it doesn't matter anyway as in your opinion, this evidence could just as easily be wrong and evolution be true.Correct, or missing something? We never got into Van Baer and the curious fact the wikapedia claims he was an evolutionist even though he was actually a staunch critic of Darwin and evolution until he died. But you admit Haeckel forged data and his theory was wrong.Agree or need to debate issue here? My original lengthier analysis got cut, but I think we agree here. I think you agree that evos kept using the same phrases and terminology that they were using to describe Haeckel's wrong theory. This is where the discussion should probably be, imo. What do you think recapitulation means? I lay out the new theory that replaced the old one above, and how it is wrong.Do you agree or disagree with my analysis on recapitulation? You and I totally disagree here. Basically your position is that it is an innocent mistake, and mine is that it reflects the way evos handle and present data, and there is no viable excuse here for maintaining this as an insignificant mistake.This message has been edited by randman, 12-06-2005 05:52 PM

So, it's your theory that in humans the additional vertibrae which extend down below the pelvis are not a tail, while in every single other member of Cordata, they are a tail. What possible reason do you have for making that distinction? Is it likewise true that our teeth are not teeth, but instead something magical that just happen to look like teeth? Here's what Darwin had vs what he lacked.Differences in offspring occur (observable fact)
Traits can be passed down (observable fact)
Natural selection makes some traits more suitable than others (observable fact)Here's what he didn't know - How genetic mutations occur.By contrast here's what ID has to offer.All creatures living or extinct were created as it, in status and never change (not observable, not a fact, counter to observable fact)Here's what the miss
The are created by a magic being (not observable)
Using magic powers (not observable)
based on some magic blueprint (not observable)Yet you want us to cut you some slack and say you are a science? That's ridiculous. Way to either miss the point or deliberately rewrite history. I am not defending evolutionist data with those points. I am commenting on your draconian dialog.You were the one that first brought up words like forgary, gullible, propaganda. I'm just trying to put those words in perspective.What you say was a maliciously misleading propaganda campain by a cabal of sinister all powerful Ivy League scientists, I call a crutch of lazy book publishers trying to meet market demands rather than upholding fact.It's all about the vocabulary. Evolution is a scientific debate between scientists. As soon as an IDer or Creationist shows up, it's no longer about science. Just like a stickball game stops being about stickball with a kid shows up with a flamethrower.If it's about the science, then it's about the science. In which case you don't get to say "It was magic!" as your answer to any question. And I'd like you creationists to present ANYTHING that is an observable fact.

So either you disagree that mistakes were made in the past, or you disagree that mistakes have been corrected. Both of which are easily provable.You sure you don't want to change your stance on this?

You know attacking ID and creationism is a sure sign you have lost the debate here. Well, it's not a tail, is it? When you claim humans have a tail as embryos in the context of recapitulation, you are saying embryos have tails that they lose, that people recapitulate tails, when that is patently false. The area you claim is a tail is no different than the base of the spine in adults, and is in fact, nothing but that area of the human body developing.It's no significant evidence that, like creatures that have tails, we have a backbone too. You don't need to look at an embryo to know that. It's a joke, and highly deceptive, imo, to claim human beings have tails when in reality, they just have what all of us recognixe a spine. Now if you evos want to preface your comments by admitting that humans don't have tails, but a self-contained spinal column, but that you evos are going to redefine "tail" as merely the base of the spine, go ahead, but unless you preface the claim explaining the redefinition, you are being deceptive, and such deception should have no place in education. So does that mean they get a pass and can make false evidentiary claims such as human tails, human gill slits and recapitulation?Gimme a break and come clean. Just answer some questions for once.Why did evos make these false claims for so long, and don't you think there is something pretty seriously wrong when evos claim something as a fact that they never properly substantiated?And what do you think recapitulation means?This message has been edited by randman, 12-06-2005 06:55 PM

The debate is not just about mistakes were made, but why those mistakes were made, and the significance of them.

If by "great weight" you mean some weight, no more or no less than what has been put on other fields, then yes, they did put weight on this concept. If by "great weight" you mean that it was the most important part of the theory, then no, you are absolutely incorrect here.And, yes, even if every embryo was simply a tiny version of the adult form in scale, that wouldn't disprove inheritable traits, natural selection or mutation.If you think that it does disprove those, please explain how. I agree that some of Haeckel's drawings do not reflect reality. "Forgery" implies that he knowingly mislead people. I don't believe that you have shown that (though I suspect it is true.)Additionally, I don't feel that every single drawing that Haeckel did is false. Some of his drawings are accurate depictions of various stages of embryo developement.So, the fact that a book publishes a picture which is, or looks like, one of Haeckel's, is not in and of itself damning. If they were to publish the "pig" picture, maybe you'd have a point. But, if I gave you an embryo and asked you to sketch it, it would be a "Haeckel-like" drawing when you are finished - because it's a sketch of an embryo. Are you creating a forgery? No. I absolutely agree that catchy phrases often live past their usefulness. "The proof is in the pudding" means nothing. It's not even the original statement which would mean something. "In 1492, Columbus sailed the ocean blue" has been used for hundreds of years to perpetrate the most heinous of frauds upon the world. "Shave and a haircut - two bits" is going to be around long after we've colonized Mars.Catchy phrases persist because they are catchy. I believe that recapitulation means that we can see in human embryos similiarities to other the embryos of other animals. That the closer related the two animal species are, the more in common their embryos have. That at certain stages of the embryo we can point out structures which, in the human embryo will go on to be one thing, and in the embryo of a different species will go on to become something different.The fact that a embryonic structure exists common to both forms, that that same structure morphs into X in one form or Y in another, is sort of like watch evolution in super high speed.We did not lose our tails be having the structure for a tail completely disappear from development. Instead, the parts of the genetic code that said "Tail grow now" were switched off. As a result, we have the start of a tail and no more. Relatives of ours who don't have the switch turned off, have the same beginning structure only theirs becomes a full blown tail.There is no reason for humans to have a tail structure if we were designed to never have a tail. It's counter intuative. Yes, I'll go over to the Big Board right now and change it, which will in turn automatically update all the books ever written and all the people ever taught. The mistake should be corrected momentarily.That's not how the world works. There are people out there who don't believe in evolution - not for the reasons that you give, but because they simply "ain't no monkeys".You can't expect information to get to everyone at the same rate. Some people are never going to understand particle physics. Others are "never gonna not be no monkey lovin', I'ma shoot you with my Bible gun" (direct quote from W. bygod Virginia).You seem to think, and you clearly imply, that the fact that there are different people with different degrees of understanding about Haeckel etc, is the direct result of some conspiracy. It's not.