Skeptic Friends Network

Username:
Password:
Save Password
Forgot your Password?
Home | Forums | Active Topics | Active Polls | Register | FAQ | Contact Us  
  Connect: Chat | SFN Messenger | Buddy List | Members
Personalize: Profile | My Page | Forum Bookmarks  
 All Forums
 Our Skeptic Forums
 Creation/Evolution
 Thyriod Gland developed from Gills?
 New Topic  Topic Locked
 Printer Friendly Bookmark this Topic BookMark Topic
Next Page
Author Previous Topic Topic Next Topic
Page: of 2

BigPapaSmurf
SFN Die Hard

3192 Posts

Posted - 12/07/2004 :  08:58:26  Show Profile Send BigPapaSmurf a Private Message
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/4067039.stm

Decent arguement, we'll see how it holds up to scrutiny.

"...things I have neither seen nor experienced nor heard tell of from anybody else; things, what is more, that do not in fact exist and could not ever exist at all. So my readers must not believe a word I say." -Lucian on his book True History

"...They accept such things on faith alone, without any evidence. So if a fraudulent and cunning person who knows how to take advantage of a situation comes among them, he can make himself rich in a short time." -Lucian critical of early Christians c.166 AD From his book, De Morte Peregrini

filthy
SFN Die Hard

USA
14408 Posts

Posted - 12/07/2004 :  09:33:21   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send filthy a Private Message
quote:
Originally posted by BigPapaSmurf

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/4067039.stm

Decent arguement, we'll see how it holds up to scrutiny.

A very interesting article. And the paper was published in a refereed and highly creditable journal.

Heh. The mere mention of Haeckel's pictures should tighten up the raw, little YEC tushies to the point that they could make diamonds from coal with their spincters.

I'll await furhter research and in the meantime, continue to monitor the major cults for reaction.




"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)

"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres


"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude

Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,

and Crypto-Communist!

Go to Top of Page

tkster
Skeptic Friend

USA
193 Posts

Posted - 12/07/2004 :  11:57:44   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send tkster a Private Message
There's some problems with that, however, as for what Creationists think:

Creationist Claim:
quote:
We do not have gill slits at the embryo stage


The truth is we have gill-like slits that do not serve the same function that gills do such as breathing. The term "like" is the key, as a gill-like slit is not the same as a gill slit. A gill slit would actually serve the same function (breathing), and these are more vestigial at this stage.

According to Dr. Held, a development biologist at TTU, these "gill-like" slits later develop into cavities in the skull.

Now as for this website however, it is obvious how the Creationists will respond:

quote:
Our work will have great resonance to all those people who have seen Haeckels' pictures, which show that we all go through a fish stage in our development.


Haeckel admitted to being dishonest, if the site had NOT mentioned his name it would have been fine. But throwing in a liar with science, not good. The Creationists are now going to claim since this news mentioned Haeckel that evolutionists are lying again, and people will believe them.

The better way to put this would have been:

quote:
Our work will have great resonance to people who have seen the embryological stages put forth by evolutionary biologists, which show that we go through fish stages in our development.


There's no reason put put Haeckel's name in your work trying to defend one who openly admitted fraud - unless you want to GIVE Creationists ammo.

tk
Go to Top of Page

BigPapaSmurf
SFN Die Hard

3192 Posts

Posted - 12/07/2004 :  12:10:54   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send BigPapaSmurf a Private Message
The big problem with that is most scientists are obsessed with thier feild and do not obsess with getting the Creation thwarting details right, many of them would not even see it as a problem if you pointed it out, they would dismiss you as going overboard.

"...things I have neither seen nor experienced nor heard tell of from anybody else; things, what is more, that do not in fact exist and could not ever exist at all. So my readers must not believe a word I say." -Lucian on his book True History

"...They accept such things on faith alone, without any evidence. So if a fraudulent and cunning person who knows how to take advantage of a situation comes among them, he can make himself rich in a short time." -Lucian critical of early Christians c.166 AD From his book, De Morte Peregrini
Go to Top of Page

filthy
SFN Die Hard

USA
14408 Posts

Posted - 12/07/2004 :  13:43:16   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send filthy a Private Message
Although The Guardian is a lot more honest than the media that spoon-feed us crap here in the states, it is still popular media. I suspect that the mention of Haeckel's drawings were an invention of their own, rather than the findings on the paper submitted to the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

Never the less, it will make for fundie fun.



"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)

"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres


"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude

Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,

and Crypto-Communist!

Go to Top of Page

tkster
Skeptic Friend

USA
193 Posts

Posted - 12/07/2004 :  14:47:18   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send tkster a Private Message
quote:
Originally posted by BigPapaSmurf

The big problem with that is most scientists are obsessed with thier feild and do not obsess with getting the Creation thwarting details right, many of them would not even see it as a problem if you pointed it out, they would dismiss you as going overboard.



Of course, however, as a Journalist and a Biologist, I realize there's no need to throw in a fraudulant person in that statement. Establishing credibility to all audiences is about learning how to do so. Despite what some scientists may think, Creationists are an audience as well as the average person. And putting someone like Haeckel in there is just BEGGING for trouble.

If the scientists don't want to do that fine, but they deserve everything the Creationists are going to throw back in their face and believe me people WILL believe the Creationists.

tk
Go to Top of Page

BigPapaSmurf
SFN Die Hard

3192 Posts

Posted - 12/09/2004 :  10:09:49   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send BigPapaSmurf a Private Message
Im not totally familiar with that case, did the gill claim come from insufficient data or fraud? Because if it was the former then claiming this guy is a liar is moot. (Im aware that it wouldnt matter to most)

"...things I have neither seen nor experienced nor heard tell of from anybody else; things, what is more, that do not in fact exist and could not ever exist at all. So my readers must not believe a word I say." -Lucian on his book True History

"...They accept such things on faith alone, without any evidence. So if a fraudulent and cunning person who knows how to take advantage of a situation comes among them, he can make himself rich in a short time." -Lucian critical of early Christians c.166 AD From his book, De Morte Peregrini
Go to Top of Page

filthy
SFN Die Hard

USA
14408 Posts

Posted - 12/09/2004 :  11:32:40   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send filthy a Private Message
From EvoWiki:

Haeckel's pictures are irrelevant to the question of whether the embryos are similar. What matters are the embryos themselves. Within a group, early embryos do show many similarities. For example, all vertebrates develop a notochord, body segments, pharyngeal gill pouches, and a post-anal tail. These fundamental similarities indicate a common evolutionary history. Other embryological similarities are found in other lineages such as molluscs, arthropods, and annelids. These similarities have been long known.

Professor Agassiz in 1849, for example, said,
We find, too, that the young bat, or bird, or the young serpent, in certain periods of their growth, resemble one another so much that he would defy any one to tell one from the other--or distinguish between a bat and a snake. [Anon, 1999]


Hacekel's drawings


"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)

"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres


"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude

Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,

and Crypto-Communist!

Go to Top of Page

tkster
Skeptic Friend

USA
193 Posts

Posted - 12/09/2004 :  15:40:22   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send tkster a Private Message
quote:
Originally posted by BigPapaSmurf

Im not totally familiar with that case, did the gill claim come from insufficient data or fraud? Because if it was the former then claiming this guy is a liar is moot. (Im aware that it wouldnt matter to most)



Haeckel admitted to lying in court. He was clearly a liar.

My point is that modern embryology is not made up by a liar, but is accurate and therefore there is no need to mention a name that admitted to lying in his work. One could easily say "this evidence back modern evolutionary embryologists ..." See what I mean? No need to throw in a liar in the midst of it, just establish credibility and the truth.

quote:
In the March 2000 issue of Natural History magazine, Stephen Jay Gould responded to Michael Behe, a [biochemist] who had criticized Haeckel's embryo's in the August 13,1999, New York Times. Gould acknowledged that Haeckel faked his drawings. "To cut to the quick of this drama," Gould wrote, "Haeckel had exaggerated the similarities by idealizations and omissions. He also in some cases - in a procedure that can only be called fraudulant - simply copied the same figure over and over again" (Wells, 108)


Source: Wells, Jonathan. Icons of Evolution; Science or Myth? Why much of what we teach about evolution is wrong. Washington DC: Regenery Publishing, Inc., 2000.

Dr. Wells does an excellent job about the errors that Haeckel had and the obvious fraud. I've heard the actual University has it on file the trial that Haeckel was convicted in, but have never been there.

take care,
tk
Edited by - tkster on 12/09/2004 16:56:35
Go to Top of Page

Ricky
SFN Die Hard

USA
4907 Posts

Posted - 12/09/2004 :  16:41:52   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Send Ricky an AOL message Send Ricky a Private Message
There is another example in biology which is exactly like this.

Leeuwenhoek, when looking into a bead of water, first discovered microorganisms. He saw little "animals" floating around in the water. He took this, and drew what he saw, or at least what he thought he saw. But what exactly did he draw? He drew little feet, wings, and heads, even though they weren't there.

Leeuwenhoek lied, so the obvious conclusion is that microorganisms don't exist. Right?

Why continue? Because we must. Because we have the call. Because it is nobler to fight for rationality without winning than to give up in the face of continued defeats. Because whatever true progress humanity makes is through the rationality of the occasional individual and because any one individual we may win for the cause may do more for humanity than a hundred thousand who hug their superstitions to their breast.
- Isaac Asimov
Go to Top of Page

tkster
Skeptic Friend

USA
193 Posts

Posted - 12/09/2004 :  16:56:09   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send tkster a Private Message
quote:
Originally posted by Ricky

There is another example in biology which is exactly like this.

Leeuwenhoek, when looking into a bead of water, first discovered microorganisms. He saw little "animals" floating around in the water. He took this, and drew what he saw, or at least what he thought he saw. But what exactly did he draw? He drew little feet, wings, and heads, even though they weren't there.

Leeuwenhoek lied, so the obvious conclusion is that microorganisms don't exist. Right?




No. And I didn't say that embryology wasn't a valid argument, I said that trying to defend Haeckel, when he admitted to lying, is ignorant. Defend embryology with MODERN evolutionary teaching on it, not out-dated, fraudulant material.

And the conclusions on microorganisms would be what modern biologists say about microorganisms, not what Leeuwenhoek said. You wouldn't have to mention his name, but rather the modern biologists who've shown it to be true.

Part of being honest is about staying up to date, and promoting new ideas when others are wrong, and also pointing out liars when they are exposed. Haeckel lied, why do evolutionists try to defend them? If someone wants to portray the truth, they need to admit that Haeckel was a liar, but that embryology is based on modern, accurate, and current data, not on Haeckel's fraudulant data.

tk
Edited by - tkster on 12/09/2004 17:01:42
Go to Top of Page

Ricky
SFN Die Hard

USA
4907 Posts

Posted - 12/09/2004 :  17:24:53   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Send Ricky an AOL message Send Ricky a Private Message
Haeckel may have lied. But its not lying in the sense that everything he said was completely wrong. He over exaggerated. Some of what he said was true. Its like me saying:

1 + 1 = 2
2 + 2 = 5

Now I lied when I said that 2 + 2 = 5. Does that mean 1 + 1 does not = 2? Absolutely not, you can be wrong at times and right at others.

Haeckel was on the mark when he said that you can see evolutionary steps in a fetus. However, he was wrong when he tried to portray it to be more clear than it actually was.

Why continue? Because we must. Because we have the call. Because it is nobler to fight for rationality without winning than to give up in the face of continued defeats. Because whatever true progress humanity makes is through the rationality of the occasional individual and because any one individual we may win for the cause may do more for humanity than a hundred thousand who hug their superstitions to their breast.
- Isaac Asimov
Go to Top of Page

tkster
Skeptic Friend

USA
193 Posts

Posted - 12/09/2004 :  17:33:20   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send tkster a Private Message
quote:
Originally posted by Ricky

Haeckel may have lied. But its not lying in the sense that everything he said was completely wrong. He over exaggerated. Some of what he said was true. Its like me saying:

1 + 1 = 2
2 + 2 = 5

Now I lied when I said that 2 + 2 = 5. Does that mean 1 + 1 does not = 2? Absolutely not, you can be wrong at times and right at others.

Haeckel was on the mark when he said that you can see evolutionary steps in a fetus. However, he was wrong when he tried to portray it to be more clear than it actually was.



And still, we have modern evolutionary embryologists who have the accurate and detailed information without the fraudulant claims. So there's no need to ever mention Haeckel's name unless you are ASKING for Creationists to go crazy over it and call you a liar.

If I ever write a paper on Development Biology, I want it to where the Creationists get NO ammo. That paper gave the Creationists some, and they are going to use it. All it takes is proper thinking to know how your opponent is going to respond. Don't give him ammo and refute him.

tk
Go to Top of Page

Ricky
SFN Die Hard

USA
4907 Posts

Posted - 12/09/2004 :  18:07:42   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Send Ricky an AOL message Send Ricky a Private Message
When we talk about scientists, we talk about the one who first put forth the theory, or who made that particular theory the most popular. Was Darwin wrong in some aspects? Yes, but he is still the father of Evolution. Was Leeuwenhoek wrong in some aspects? Yes, but he is still credited with finding microorganisms. Was Haeckel wrong in some aspects? Yes, but he is still credited with putting forth the theory.

Science has always been about being "more right". Just because you don't get it in your first shot doesn't mean that you shouldn't get credit.

Why continue? Because we must. Because we have the call. Because it is nobler to fight for rationality without winning than to give up in the face of continued defeats. Because whatever true progress humanity makes is through the rationality of the occasional individual and because any one individual we may win for the cause may do more for humanity than a hundred thousand who hug their superstitions to their breast.
- Isaac Asimov
Go to Top of Page

filthy
SFN Die Hard

USA
14408 Posts

Posted - 12/09/2004 :  18:11:37   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send filthy a Private Message
Ernst Haeckel was a child of his times, as was Darwin. Like Dawwin, he is now a historical figure and should be looked upon as such, no more, no less.

quote:
An extremely common misperception is that natural selection and evolution are the same thing. In fact, Haeckel is one of many thinkers who believed that all species were historical entities (lineages) but did not share Darwin's enthusiasm for natural selection as the main mechanism for generating the diversity of the biological world. Haeckel instead believed that the environment acted directly on organisms, producing new races (a version of Lamarckism). The survival of the races did depend on their interaction with the environment, a weak form of natural selection. Haeckel's mechanism of change required that formation of new characters diagnostic of new species occured through progressive addition to the developmental trajectory. For example, most metazoans go through a developmental stage called a gastrula -- a ball of cells with an infolding that later forms the gut. Haeckel thought that at one time an organism called a "gastraea" existed that looked much like the gastrula stage of ontogeny. This hypothesized ancestral metazoan gave rise to the rest of the multi-celled animals.

The "law of recapitulation" has been discredited since the beginning of the twentieth century. Experimental morphologists and biologists have shown that there is not a one-to-one correspondence between phylogeny and ontogeny. Although a strong form of recapitulation is not correct, phylogeny and ontogeny are intertwined, and many biologists are beginning to both explore and understand the basis for this connection.

As has been mentioned, wrong now doesn't mean always wrong. In his lifetime, not all that much was known about the mechanics of evolution. In his day, he was an very good, if a little impulsive, scientist.

And, I like to piss the fundies off, now and again. I do it as a favor to them. It keeps their hearts beating and their attention in focus.


"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)

"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres


"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude

Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,

and Crypto-Communist!

Go to Top of Page

Starman
SFN Regular

Sweden
1613 Posts

Posted - 12/10/2004 :  05:31:32   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send Starman a Private Message
quote:
Originally posted by tkster

I've heard the actual University has it on file the trial that Haeckel was convicted in, but have never been there.


There is no historical documentation for Haeckel having ever been tried much less convicted of fraud. This story appears to be a myth.

From antievolution.org
quote:
There appears to be no evidence that Haeckel was ever tried for fraud in the Jena university court, much less that he was convicted of it. This appears to be a persistent creationist myth, like Darwin's supposed deathbed conversion. If the anti-evolutionists want to use this claim, it is incumbent upon them to produce references to primary material that would substantiate it. None to our knowledge have ever done so.

"Any religion that makes a form of torture into an icon that they worship seems to me a pretty sick sort of religion quite honestly"
-- Terry Jones
Go to Top of Page
Page: of 2 Previous Topic Topic Next Topic  
Next Page
 New Topic  Topic Locked
 Printer Friendly Bookmark this Topic BookMark Topic
Jump To:

The mission of the Skeptic Friends Network is to promote skepticism, critical thinking, science and logic as the best methods for evaluating all claims of fact, and we invite active participation by our members to create a skeptical community with a wide variety of viewpoints and expertise.


Home | Skeptic Forums | Skeptic Summary | The Kil Report | Creation/Evolution | Rationally Speaking | Skeptillaneous | About Skepticism | Fan Mail | Claims List | Calendar & Events | Skeptic Links | Book Reviews | Gift Shop | SFN on Facebook | Staff | Contact Us

Skeptic Friends Network
© 2008 Skeptic Friends Network Go To Top Of Page
This page was generated in 0.27 seconds.
Powered by @tomic Studio
Snitz Forums 2000