Do creationists accept biology?

[Subduction Zone]

Here is an interesting piece of evidence from Stephen Jay Gould, although dead, his writings live on. So let's see what HE said, in part, at:
Natural History:
I quote: "To cut to the quick of this drama: Haeckel had exaggerated the similarities by idealizations and omissions. He also, in some cases--in a procedure that can only be called fraudulent --simply copied the same figure over and over again."
What?? A procedure that can only be called FRAUDULENT??? What? Stephen Jay Gould said that? (A very interesting article, by the way.)

That is not what dad was ranting about.

And I see that you did not understand the article that you linked.

 

[dianaiad]

Yes, they do, since 1950. What is their stance on abiogenesis, though?

abiogenesis is NOT evolution. Abiogenesis is, er...spontaneous generation, (or you can use another term if you want) but evolution is what happens after life shows up from 'non-life.'

If you want to argue abiogenesis v biogenesis, an evolution thread ain't the place.

 

[YoursTrue]

Purposefully trying to misunderstand is a form of lying.

Can you be honest? The proper thing to do when you do not understand is to ask questions without any false assumptions.

Here's the thing. You said it. And then because I quoted what you said you are saying I'm not honest. If I misunderstood you, perhaps you can say what you meant when you said: ""That Haeckel was wrong does not get rid of the evidence." HOW was Haeckel wrong? I'm thinking somehow you are subverting the essence of truth. Which sadly to say, I can see happening with zealous minds such as yours. So please do the favor of backing up your statement with further explanation or reasoning as to if you really think that Haeckel was wrong, since you said, "That Haeckel was wrong does not get rid of the evidence." Perhaps I am wrong, but I mean at this point I can see you cannot even admit the basics. OK. Either Haeckel was wrong (consider Dr. Gould's statements as well) or he was not wrong. So if you meant what you said, please explain how or if Haeckel was wrong.

 

[Subduction Zone]

abiogenesis is NOT evolution. Abiogenesis is, er...spontaneous generation, (or you can use another term if you want) but evolution is what happens after life shows up from 'non-life.'

If you want to argue abiogenesis v biogenesis, an evolution thread ain't the place.

Mostly correct. Except abiogenesis is NOT spontaneous generation. Spontaneous generation is closer to creationism than to science.

 

[YoursTrue]

That is not what dad was ranting about.

And I see that you did not understand the article that you linked.

Did you read it? I doubt it. Gould explicitly and distinctly said that Haeckel was wrong, in fact the word fraudulent was used. Again -- thanks for the responses.
Sad to say, you're making yourself into the liar. Sad. Because here is more from Gould's statements about Haeckel:
"To cut to the quick of this drama: Haeckel had exaggerated the similarities by idealizations and omissions. He also, in some cases--in a procedure that can only be called fraudulent --simply copied the same figure over and over again. At certain stages in early development, vertebrate embryos do look more alike, at least in gross anatomical features easily observed with the human eye, than do the adult tortoises, chickens, cows, and humans that will develop from them. But these early embryos also differ far more substantially, one from the other, than Haeckel's figures show. Moreover, Haeckel's drawings never fooled expert embryologists, who recognized his fudgings right from the start."

(Recognized fudgings right from the start, he said. Imagine that. At least he was honest, Dr. Gould was, about that. I am amazed, but not surprised, that you refuse to see what is before you.)

 

[Subduction Zone]

Here's the thing. You said it. And then because I quoted what you said you are saying I'm not honest. If I misunderstood you, perhaps you can say what you meant when you said: ""That Haeckel was wrong does not get rid of the evidence." HOW was Haeckel wrong? I'm thinking somehow you are subverting the essence of truth. Which sadly to say, I can see happening with zealous minds such as yours. So please do the favor of backing up your statement with further explanation or reasoning as to if you really think that Haeckel was wrong, since you said, "That Haeckel was wrong does not get rid of the evidence." Perhaps I am wrong, but I mean at this point I can see you cannot even admit the basics. OK. Either Haeckel was wrong (consider Dr. Gould's statements as well) or he was not wrong. So if you meant what you said, please explain how or if Haeckel was wrong.

Haeckel was wrong in his claim of "ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny" . You do not appear to understand what that means. Can you try to explain that in your own words?

 

[YoursTrue]

Mostly correct. Except abiogenesis is NOT spontaneous generation. Spontaneous generation is closer to creationism than to science.

So when something just happens in biology without human tampering or outside influences if such can occur, that is not spontaneous generation? And is it not spontaneous when something emerges from chemicals as far as you're concerned?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Did you read it? I doubt it. Gould explicitly and distinctly said that Haeckel was wrong, in fact the word fraudulent was used. Again -- thanks for the responses.
Sad to say, you're making yourself into the liar. Sad. Because here is more from Gould's statements about Haeckel:
"To cut to the quick of this drama: Haeckel had exaggerated the similarities by idealizations and omissions. He also, in some cases--in a procedure that can only be called fraudulent --simply copied the same figure over and over again. At certain stages in early development, vertebrate embryos do look more alike, at least in gross anatomical features easily observed with the human eye, than do the adult tortoises, chickens, cows, and humans that will develop from them. But these early embryos also differ far more substantially, one from the other, than Haeckel's figures show. Moreover, Haeckel's drawings never fooled expert embryologists, who recognized his fudgings right from the start."

(Recognized fudgings right from the start, he said. Imagine that. At least he was honest, Dr. Gould was, about that. I am amazed, but not surprised, that you refuse to see what is before you.)

Yes, he overstated his case. He agrees with me, aside from the fraud claims.

 

[YoursTrue]

Haeckel was wrong in his claim of "ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny" . You do not appear to understand what that means. Can you try to explain that in your own words?

I am not talking about that, in case you haven't noticed, although the phrase absolutely encompasses Haeckel's ideas as represented in the drawings. It is those representations (drawings) which have been replicated decade after decade as truth (evidence, perhaps?) in textbooks as detailing the progression of so-called recapitulation in the womb. I guess you didn't understand what I meant, so I just tried to explain. And, as Dr. Gould stated, Haeckel's drawings and subsequent copying of them were fraudulent. Now if you need the background for his use of the word fraudulent, please ask. I'll do my best to accommodate you. Thank you.

 

[YoursTrue]

Yes, he overstated his case. He agrees with me, aside from the fraud claims.

You mean that he was an avid evolutionist, yet had the integrity to call Haeckel's drawings and subsequent promotion of them as truth really FRAUDULENT?? If so, I know that Dr. Gould was an avid evolutionist. At least he had the temerity and wisdom to call out Haeckel's drawings fraudulent although they were used as "proof" taught to decades of students as the truth.

 

[Subduction Zone]

So when something just happens in biology without human tampering or outside influences if such can occur, that is not spontaneous generation? And is it not spontaneous when something emerges from chemicals as far as you're concerned?

No, that is not spontaneous generation. Spontaneous Generation relied on a "life force" .

 

[Subduction Zone]

I am not talking about that, in case you haven't noticed, although the phrase absolutely encompasses Haeckel's ideas as represented in the drawings. It is those representations (drawings) which have been replicated decade after decade as truth (evidence, perhaps?) in textbooks as detailing the progression of so-called recapitulation in the womb. I guess you didn't understand what I meant, so I just tried to explain. And, as Dr. Gould stated, Haeckel's drawings and subsequent copying of them were fraudulent. Now if you need the background for his use of the word fraudulent, please ask. I'll do my best to accommodate you. Thank you.

No, they were part of the history of evolution. And though not evidence for Haeckel's ideas they are still evidence for embryology. It would help if you understood what the flaws were in his work.

 

[Thief]

I mean the observations, findings etc that are not explicitly within the field of evolution?

God has a technique we call evolution
He tweaks it now and then

 

[YoursTrue]

Yes, he overstated his case. He agrees with me, aside from the fraud claims.

He overstated his case? Gould did? He stated it exactly as it is (was). Haenkel not only lied (made things up), but the mischaracteristic was carried on by educators for decades, and taught as truth.

 

[Milton Platt]

abiogenesis is NOT evolution. Abiogenesis is, er...spontaneous generation, (or you can use another term if you want) but evolution is what happens after life shows up from 'non-life.'

If you want to argue abiogenesis v biogenesis, an evolution thread ain't the place.

The thread isn't about evolution...it's about biology.

 

[YoursTrue]

No, they were part of the history of evolution. And though not evidence for Haeckel's ideas they are still evidence for embryology. It would help if you understood what the flaws were in his work.

That's your take on it. (And, of course, others as well.) But Haeckel's ideas are not "evidence" for embryology, although I am sure (guessing) that human embryos resemble other embryos. OK, I take that back. They are not evidence for evolution.

 

[YoursTrue]

What part of I am not sure did you not understand? And why did you ignore the examples of clear vestigial organs that I gave to you?



What? No, those were not manufactured. That was a correct observation of his. This is what happens when you use lying resources. Haeckel's observations were fairly accurate. The one thing he did wrong was to use the same drawings a couple of times in an early edition for one of his books and he had an incorrect conclusion. Again, stop using sources that lie to you.



Sorry, but that is a lie. Your resources are lying to you again. He is largely responsible for embryology, and that is still studied and applied to evolution today. But his "ontogeny recapitulates physiology" was refuted rather early and was not part of textbooks. And you screwed up on the coccyx and demonstrated that you do not understand what vestigial means. Is it a tail?. Can you hang from a tree with it? If you answered no then it is vestigial. Vestigial does not mean useless.

Not only did he have what you call an "incorrect conclusion," but he imagined what some of the evolution of the fetuses in the womb were like. These were fraudulent imaginings, proven to be fraudulent by scientific research later on.

 

[YoursTrue]

Because I have a fully functioning brain.

Why do you believe that God is a liar?

How would you know, you don't believe in God but you somehow keep bringing God into the picture as if you think He will do something about what you say. You obviously think God is a liar.

 

[YoursTrue]

And you are wrong. But then you are afraid to learn what is and what is not evidence.

What happened with the Cambrian explosion? Are there signs of burgeoning newly evolving animals as in micro changes in whatever animal forms there were, resulting little by little in other forms? Please do elucidate, if you will, with evidence, not hearsay from others who make assumptions (draw conclusions as if the fossils "prove" evolution). Show the evidence of micro-macro changes, by that I mean the little changes leading to very big changes (differences) in organisms, thanks.

 

[dad]

Citation needed.

Unless you think they are using sticks or stones, you can be sure science based technology is involved six ways from Sunday.

Elementary.