Evidence For And Against Evolution

[YoursTrue]

@YoursTrue you keep claiming that Haeckel's drawings were erroneous. They were not. I explained to you what he did wrong. I could support that but you have not asked for support. But since you claimed they were erroneous that puts the burden of proof upon you. Find a specific error in his drawings. As explained earlier exaggerating observations was not an error. It was common back then. That was to help people find the objects since microscopic photographs did not exist back then. What specific errors did Haeckel make?

Do you hate the fact that regardless of Haeckel that embryology is still a study and still evidence for evolution?

By the way, if I recall correctly, one of the last things Einstein was working on was reversing the theory of relativity.

 

[Subduction Zone]

By the way, if I recall correctly, one of the last things Einstein was working on was reversing the theory of relativity.

Citation required.

Edit: Plus another dodge.

 

[YoursTrue]

No, there was no change in the evidence. But, yes, at times a judge may be wrong. But no judge is wrong millions of times.

Once again, you should really try to learn what is and what is not evidence.

Um, go back not that far to what was considered right and wrong in WW2 and the Vietnam war. Talk about millions of differing opinions or the same opinions, is that right?

 

[YoursTrue]

Seriously dude, you cannot blame others for your own ignorance. At this point you should be apologizing and trying to learn. When one refuses to learn, as you have been, that person no longer can blame poor teachers. The fault is that of the person refusing to learn.

and as a Christian you have no excuse. The fact that you are an ape and that all of Genesis is myth does not refute Christianity. It only refutes an overly literalistic interpretation of the Bible. Do you believe that the Earth is flat? If not, why not? The Bible only describes the Earth as flat in word and deed, yet most Christians have no problem rejecting that literal interpretation of the Bible.

You know interestingly, Albert Einstein is said to have penned these words just prior to his death: "Not one statesman in a position of responsibility has dared to pursue the only course that holds out any promise of peace..." he wrote. "For a statesman to follow such a course would be tantamount to political suicide. Political passions, once they have been fanned into flame, exact their victims."
I say, true enough.
The famous last words of 6 famous people

 

[Subduction Zone]

Um, go back not that far to what was considered right and wrong in WW2 and the Vietnam war. Talk about millions of differing opinions or the same opinions, is that right?

You appear to be very confused again. You were talking about judges, in case you forgot.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You know interestingly, Albert Einstein is said to have penned these words just prior to his death: "Not one statesman in a position of responsibility has dared to pursue the only course that holds out any promise of peace..." he wrote. "For a statesman to follow such a course would be tantamount to political suicide. Political passions, once they have been fanned into flame, exact their victims."
I say, true enough.
The famous last words of 6 famous people

Now that is an odd derail. Can you stay on topic?

 

[YoursTrue]

You appear to be very confused again. You were talking about judges, in case you forgot.

No, I did not forget. Now here's something further for you to argue about or disagree with:
"Since embryos also evolve in different ways, the shortcomings of the theory had been recognized by the early 20th century, and it had been relegated to "biological mythology"
Relegated to uh ... biological mythology. Isn't that something.
Recapitulation theory - Wikipedia

 

[YoursTrue]

Now that is an odd derail. Can you stay on topic?

Sure. Albert Einstein penned the following: "Not one statesman in a position of responsibility has dared to pursue the only course that holds out any promise of peace..." he wrote. "For a statesman to follow such a course would be tantamount to political suicide. Political passions, once they have been fanned into flame, exact their victims."

 

[YoursTrue]

You appear to be very confused again. You were talking about judges, in case you forgot.

Millions plus times judges and people in power (judges are included in political power holders) were wrong-o.

 

[Subduction Zone]

No, I did not forget. Now here's something further for you to argue about or disagree with:
"Since embryos also evolve in different ways, the shortcomings of the theory had been recognized by the early 20th century, and it had been relegated to "biological mythology"
Relegated to uh ... biological mythology. Isn't that something.
Recapitulation theory - Wikipedia

How did you screw up your links? The quote that you posted was from Recapitulation theory, which I already told you multiple times was shown to be incorrect. But recapitulation theory was only one attempt to explain evolution. Ironically the article that is linked by you had this to say about Haekel:

" Two of Haeckel's other ideas about the evolution of development have fared better than recapitulation: he argued in the 1870s that changes in the timing (heterochrony) and changes in the positioning within the body (heterotopy) of aspects of embryonic development would drive evolution by changing the shape of a descendant's body compared to an ancestor's. It took a century before these ideas were shown to be correct."

This is the article that you linked, by mistake:

Evolutionary developmental biology - Wikipedia

No one has been arguing that Recapitulation theory is accurate. You are trying to build a strawman. But you inadvertently shot yourself in the foot by trying to make your strawman. Your accidental link showed how Haekel was not entirely wrong, and that is what I have stated all along.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Sure. Albert Einstein penned the following: "Not one statesman in a position of responsibility has dared to pursue the only course that holds out any promise of peace..." he wrote. "For a statesman to follow such a course would be tantamount to political suicide. Political passions, once they have been fanned into flame, exact their victims."

Again, a detour. Einstein has very little to do with this except for the fact that he accepted evolution as most scientists do.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Millions plus times judges and people in power (judges are included in political power holders) were wrong-o.

Nope, try again. You made a silly vague claim and could not support it.

 

[YoursTrue]

How did you screw up your links? The quote that you posted was from Recapitulation theory, which I already told you multiple times was shown to be incorrect. But recapitulation theory was only one attempt to explain evolution. Ironically the article that is linked by you had this to say about Haekel:

" Two of Haeckel's other ideas about the evolution of development have fared better than recapitulation: he argued in the 1870s that changes in the timing (heterochrony) and changes in the positioning within the body (heterotopy) of aspects of embryonic development would drive evolution by changing the shape of a descendant's body compared to an ancestor's. It took a century before these ideas were shown to be correct."

This is the article that you linked, by mistake:

Evolutionary developmental biology - Wikipedia

No one has been arguing that Recapitulation theory is accurate. You are trying to build a strawman. But you inadvertently shot yourself in the foot by trying to make your strawman. Your accidental link showed how Haekel was not entirely wrong, and that is what I have stated all along.

Haeckel was wrong in his false pictures, and that is what I have been talking about, others maintained the recapitulation teaching about the embryos in the womb in textbooks to the unsuspecting. I'm beginning to think you don't read properly. Naturally anything will have its devotees overriding the significant truth.

 

[YoursTrue]

Nope, try again. You made a silly vague claim and could not support it.

So why not say why judgments by political powers are ok? OK?

 

[YoursTrue]

Again, a detour. Einstein has very little to do with this except for the fact that he accepted evolution as most scientists do.

Poor Einstein, as I read about his life, it really doesn't matter if he accepted evolution as you say "most scientists" do. Meantime, the sinkholes in the theory he believed in have disrupted the route. And -- he thought his life should not be extended by scientific means, plus he managed to think that he had the means (the brains) to know "God's thinking." That oughta be a good one.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Haeckel was wrong in his false pictures, and that is what I have been talking about, others maintained the recapitulation teaching about the embryos in the womb in textbooks to the unsuspecting. I'm beginning to think you don't read properly. Naturally anything will have its devotees overriding the significant truth.

You have not been able to show his pictures to be false. You have not found anyone that makes that claim. And no, as your article pointed out recapitulation was not taught after the 1920s. But like it or not Haeckel's drawings are still evidence for evolution.

There were two Wiki articles. The one about recapitulation explained why it was not a theory any longer. The one about embryology explained that Haeckel was not all wrong.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Poor Einstein, as I read about his life, it really doesn't matter if he accepted evolution as you say "most scientists" do. Meantime, the sinkholes in the theory he believed in have disrupted the route. And -- he thought his life should not be extended by scientific means, plus he managed to think that he had the means (the brains) to know "God's thinking." That oughta be a good one.

what "sinkholes"? You have as of yet to find one. All you have demonstrated is your lack of understanding of the sciences.

 

[Subduction Zone]

So why not say why judgments by political powers are ok? OK?

Because they are off topic and unsupported. They are just about as nonsensical as the rest of your posts.

 

[tayla]

Evidence For And Against Evolution

I believe in evolution.

But I must admit that sometimes (often) the evidence seems somewhat circumstantial. For example: you line up bones of horse fossils in dated sequence, notice the differences, and claim that evolution did it.

There is no other plausible explanation, so I agree that evolution did it. But this kind of proof is not as satisfying as performing repeatable experiments, including experiments designed to falsify the hypothesis.

Claiming that the dating methods result in wrong dates is disingenuous. But even if the dates were wrong, this doesn't support Christian creationism in the least.

But none of this is to say that the Christian creationism explanation is perhaps plausible. I agree that their arguments are absurd, ridiculous, disingenuous, provably false, and, well,... just plain stupid. (I am not saying that particular individual Christians are stupid. The ideas are stupid, not the believers in the stupid ideas. There are lots of explanations from psychology and sociology for why people believe such things.)

 

[Skwim]

I believe in evolution.

But I must admit that sometimes (often) the evidence seems somewhat circumstantial.

Quite true. Because we lack sufficient fossils to show smooth transitions from one stage of an organism to the next we make inferences to bridge them. And because each stage can be shown to belong, sequentially, to a different era, that they evolved is far more reasonable than the creationist contention that in each era god made sure only one stage would make itself available in fossil form.

​

For example: you line up bones of horse fossils in dated sequence, notice the differences, and claim that evolution did it.

There is no other plausible explanation, so I agree that evolution did it. But this kind of proof is not as satisfying as performing repeatable experiments, including experiments designed to falsify the hypothesis.

Of course not, because archeology doesn't lend itself to many repeatable experiments. To expect as much is like expecting history to be as exact as mathematics.,

Claiming that the dating methods result in wrong dates is disingenuous. But even if the dates were wrong, this doesn't support Christian creationism in the least.

And just to point out: Ever notice that creationists almost never argue for creation, but rather against evolution?

.