The creator did it.

[Hockeycowboy]

So then surely you can show us an example of Haeckel's drawings being used in textbooks TODAY as support for either Haeckel's ideas of the ToE.

I mean, you CAN CAN do that, right?

HINT: That is NOT the case in any of the 8 or 9 college level general biology or evolution-related texts I have, but I am sure you will know about several modern texts that do.

I don't care what PZ Myers said.

Those published between 1998 - 2004:

• Biggs, Kapicka & Lundgren, Biology: The Dynamics of Life (Glencoe, 1998)
• Johnson, Biology: Visualizing Life (Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 1998)
• Douglas J. Futuyma, Evolutionary Biology (Sinauer, 1998)
• Miller & Levine, Biology, 4th Edition (Prentice Hall, 1998)
• Miller & Levine, Biology: The Living Science (Prentice Hall, 1998)
• Raven & Johnson, Biology, 5th Edition (McGraw-Hill, 1999)
• Schraer & Stoltze, Biology: The Study of Life, 7th Edition (1999)
• Miller & Levine, Biology, 5th Edition (Prentice Hall, 2000)
• Padilla, Focus on Life Science, California Edition (Prentice Hall, 2001)
• Raven & Johnson, Biology, 6th Edition (McGraw-Hill, 2002)
• Donald & Judith Voet, Biochemistry, 3rd Edition (Wiley, 2004)
• Alberts, Bray, Lewis, Raff, Roberts & Watson, Molecular Biology of the Cell (Garland, 1994)
• Starr & Taggart, Biology: The Unity and Diversity of Life, 8th Edition (Wadsworth, 1998)
• Guttman, Biology (McGraw-Hill, 1999)

I’m aware that some authors said they would remove the drawings in later editions. Still, Myers & Gould were right... being persistent in publishing fraudulence, is not supporting genuine science.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Those published between 1998 - 2004:

• Biggs, Kapicka & Lundgren, Biology: The Dynamics of Life (Glencoe, 1998)
• Johnson, Biology: Visualizing Life (Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 1998)
• Douglas J. Futuyma, Evolutionary Biology (Sinauer, 1998)
• Miller & Levine, Biology, 4th Edition (Prentice Hall, 1998)
• Miller & Levine, Biology: The Living Science (Prentice Hall, 1998)
• Raven & Johnson, Biology, 5th Edition (McGraw-Hill, 1999)
• Schraer & Stoltze, Biology: The Study of Life, 7th Edition (1999)
• Miller & Levine, Biology, 5th Edition (Prentice Hall, 2000)
• Padilla, Focus on Life Science, California Edition (Prentice Hall, 2001)
• Raven & Johnson, Biology, 6th Edition (McGraw-Hill, 2002)
• Donald & Judith Voet, Biochemistry, 3rd Edition (Wiley, 2004)
• Alberts, Bray, Lewis, Raff, Roberts & Watson, Molecular Biology of the Cell (Garland, 1994)
• Starr & Taggart, Biology: The Unity and Diversity of Life, 8th Edition (Wadsworth, 1998)
• Guttman, Biology (McGraw-Hill, 1999)

I’m aware that some authors said they would remove the drawings in later editions. Still, Myers & Gould were right... being persistent in publishing fraudulence, is not supporting genuine science.

You really need to start citing your sources
https://iconsofevolution.com/haeckel-darwin-and-textbooks/

 

[Subduction Zone]

Those published between 1998 - 2004:

• Biggs, Kapicka & Lundgren, Biology: The Dynamics of Life (Glencoe, 1998)
• Johnson, Biology: Visualizing Life (Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 1998)
• Douglas J. Futuyma, Evolutionary Biology (Sinauer, 1998)
• Miller & Levine, Biology, 4th Edition (Prentice Hall, 1998)
• Miller & Levine, Biology: The Living Science (Prentice Hall, 1998)
• Raven & Johnson, Biology, 5th Edition (McGraw-Hill, 1999)
• Schraer & Stoltze, Biology: The Study of Life, 7th Edition (1999)
• Miller & Levine, Biology, 5th Edition (Prentice Hall, 2000)
• Padilla, Focus on Life Science, California Edition (Prentice Hall, 2001)
• Raven & Johnson, Biology, 6th Edition (McGraw-Hill, 2002)
• Donald & Judith Voet, Biochemistry, 3rd Edition (Wiley, 2004)
• Alberts, Bray, Lewis, Raff, Roberts & Watson, Molecular Biology of the Cell (Garland, 1994)
• Starr & Taggart, Biology: The Unity and Diversity of Life, 8th Edition (Wadsworth, 1998)
• Guttman, Biology (McGraw-Hill, 1999)

I’m aware that some authors said they would remove the drawings in later editions. Still, Myers & Gould were right... being persistent in publishing fraudulence, is not supporting genuine science.

And how are those drawings used? First you failed to show time after time that they were a hoax. By today's standards they would not make it, but then we have the advantage of being able to take photographs. What he meant to show was never shown to be a hoax, in fact it was correct so that for his points that were correct they tend to use photographs today. So how was Haeckel a fraud? Please be specific. What did he do that was wrong (hint he actually did do some wrong things), how did it affect the conclusions that he drew (this one may not be possible to show) and why does it matter?

Meanwhile for those that want to understand Haeckel's work a little better here is a handy article. One of the main reasons for differences was that he drew his images without yolk sack attached since that was not part of the embryo in his eyes and it distorted what one was looking for:
http://home.uchicago.edu/rjr6/articles/Haeckel--fraud not proven.pdf

 

[Hockeycowboy]

You really need to start citing your sources
https://iconsofevolution.com/haeckel-darwin-and-textbooks/

The listed books are the sources. Wouldn’t you think?

 

[tas8831]

Those published between 1998 - 2004:

• Biggs, Kapicka & Lundgren, Biology: The Dynamics of Life (Glencoe, 1998)
• Johnson, Biology: Visualizing Life (Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 1998)
• Douglas J. Futuyma, Evolutionary Biology (Sinauer, 1998)
• Miller & Levine, Biology, 4th Edition (Prentice Hall, 1998)
• Miller & Levine, Biology: The Living Science (Prentice Hall, 1998)
• Raven & Johnson, Biology, 5th Edition (McGraw-Hill, 1999)
• Schraer & Stoltze, Biology: The Study of Life, 7th Edition (1999)
• Miller & Levine, Biology, 5th Edition (Prentice Hall, 2000)
• Padilla, Focus on Life Science, California Edition (Prentice Hall, 2001)
• Raven & Johnson, Biology, 6th Edition (McGraw-Hill, 2002)
• Donald & Judith Voet, Biochemistry, 3rd Edition (Wiley, 2004)
• Alberts, Bray, Lewis, Raff, Roberts & Watson, Molecular Biology of the Cell (Garland, 1994)
• Starr & Taggart, Biology: The Unity and Diversity of Life, 8th Edition (Wadsworth, 1998)
• Guttman, Biology (McGraw-Hill, 1999)

I’m aware that some authors said they would remove the drawings in later editions. Still, Myers & Gould were right... being persistent in publishing fraudulence, is not supporting genuine science.

Yeah, wow, fraudulence... And to think that Haeckel's drawings are the only evidence for evolution!


You've seen all them, yes? Or are you just taking Wells' et al's word for it? Since you copy-pasted that list, I am sure you've not actually seen any of them.

Recall, I asked:

So then surely you can show us an example of Haeckel's drawings being used in textbooks TODAY as support for either Haeckel's ideas or the ToE.

Let me see...

I have:

Douglas J. Futuyma, Evolutionary Biology (Sinauer, 1998)

It is in my hands right now.

index...
Haeckel, Ernst, 728
on embryology and evolution,651, 652

p. 651
No drawings OR pictures.
"Darwin declared in a letter to the botanist Asa Gray that "embryologyis to me by far the strongest single class of facts in favor of a change of forms," and his followers, especially Ernst Haeckel, used embryological similarities as a major source of evidence for phylogenetic relationships."

p. 652
No drawings OR pictures
Section titled "Ontogeny and Phylogeny"
"...in 1866 he (Haeckel) issued his famous BIOGENETIC LAW: "Ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny." By this, Haeckel meant that in the course of its development, an individual successively passes through the adult forms of all of its ancestors..."
"But by the end of the 19th century, it was already clear that the law seldom holds. The real development of organisms differs in several different ways from Haeckel's simple scheme..."

On p. 653 there is a rendering of similar embryos - but the caption indicates that it is in reference to von Baer's law, not Haeckel's, and that the drawing is from Romanes (1901), not Haeckel, and explains that 'all vertebrate classes share many common features early in development...'

Which is true.

p. 728
Sole mention of Haeckel:

"... Ernst Haeckel in Germany and Thomas Huxley in England, described evidence for common ancestry with the apes."

That is it.I don't have any of the others, though I do have 5 other evolutionary biology texts, 3 general biology texts, several chemistry/embryology/anatomy texts... They are all roughly the same.

If the pathetically desperate Moonie Wells and his cohorts at the propaganda mill known as the Discovery Institute want to twist that into an example of 'Haeckel's drawings' still being used to support Haeckel's claims or evolution, then theirs is truly a house of cards.


Of course, I note that Wells has yet to write a book outlining positive evidence for creation or ID. Nor has Behe, Sarfati, etc.

One should wonder why that is.

Do YOU, Hockey?

 

[tas8831]

The listed books are the sources. Wouldn’t you think?

A copy-pasted list that you've not seen one of, right?

 

[tas8831]

And how are those drawings used? First you failed to show time after time that they were a hoax. By today's standards they would not make it, but then we have the advantage of being able to take photographs. What he meant to show was never shown to be a hoax, in fact it was correct so that for his points that were correct they tend to use photographs today. So how was Haeckel a fraud? Please be specific. What did he do that was wrong (hint he actually did do some wrong things), how did it affect the conclusions that he drew (this one may not be possible to show) and why does it matter?

Meanwhile for those that want to understand Haeckel's work a little better here is a handy article. One of the main reasons for differences was that he drew his images without yolk sack attached since that was not part of the embryo in his eyes and it distorted what one was looking for:
http://home.uchicago.edu/rjr6/articles/Haeckel--fraud not proven.pdf

Of note, Haeckel actually made clear in his book's first edition that he had altered some of the embryos for clarity in his drawings, such as removing the yolk sacs. So fraudulent!

This reminds me of Wells' desperation in claiming that Kettlewell has fudged his peppered moth data because he glued moths to tree trunks... you know, in an experiment.. and that subsequent pictures of moths on tree trunks are fraudulent because the moths don't always rest on tree trunks.

I've seen pictures of Jon Wells in a lab coat. I call fraud, since wells has not engaged in lab science in decades, and thus does not wear a lab coat all the time.

 

[SkepticThinker]

The listed books are the sources. Wouldn’t you think?

The source is the link I provided, that you should have provided. Lest people think you compiled that list of books yourself and/or that you've viewed all of them.
Source material is important.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Yeah, wow, fraudulence... And to think that Haeckel's drawings are the only evidence for evolution!


You've seen all them, yes? Or are you just taking Wells' et al's word for it? Since you copy-pasted that list, I am sure you've not actually seen any of them.

Recall, I asked:

So then surely you can show us an example of Haeckel's drawings being used in textbooks TODAY as support for either Haeckel's ideas or the ToE.

Let me see...

I have:

Douglas J. Futuyma, Evolutionary Biology (Sinauer, 1998)

It is in my hands right now.

index...
Haeckel, Ernst, 728
on embryology and evolution,651, 652

p. 651
No drawings OR pictures.
"Darwin declared in a letter to the botanist Asa Gray that "embryologyis to me by far the strongest single class of facts in favor of a change of forms," and his followers, especially Ernst Haeckel, used embryological similarities as a major source of evidence for phylogenetic relationships."

p. 652
No drawings OR pictures
Section titled "Ontogeny and Phylogeny"
"...in 1866 he (Haeckel) issued his famous BIOGENETIC LAW: "Ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny." By this, Haeckel meant that in the course of its development, an individual successively passes through the adult forms of all of its ancestors..."
"But by the end of the 19th century, it was already clear that the law seldom holds. The real development of organisms differs in several different ways from Haeckel's simple scheme..."

On p. 653 there is a rendering of similar embryos - but the caption indicates that it is in reference to von Baer's law, not Haeckel's, and that the drawing is from Romanes (1901), not Haeckel, and explains that 'all vertebrate classes share many common features early in development...'

Which is true.

p. 728
Sole mention of Haeckel:

"... Ernst Haeckel in Germany and Thomas Huxley in England, described evidence for common ancestry with the apes."

That is it.I don't have any of the others, though I do have 5 other evolutionary biology texts, 3 general biology texts, several chemistry/embryology/anatomy texts... They are all roughly the same.

If the pathetically desperate Moonie Wells and his cohorts at the propaganda mill known as the Discovery Institute want to twist that into an example of 'Haeckel's drawings' still being used to support Haeckel's claims or evolution, then theirs is truly a house of cards.


Of course, I note that Wells has yet to write a book outlining positive evidence for creation or ID. Nor has Behe, Sarfati, etc.

One should wonder why that is.

Do YOU, Hockey?

I made the point.


Honestly, I haven't read Wells.
But I've read Axe, "Undeniable ". And "Darwin's Doubt", by Meyer.

They present all kind of evidence for ID. You should broaden your knowledge.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I made the point.


Honestly, I haven't read Wells.
But I've read Axe, "Undeniable ". And "Darwin's Doubt", by Meyer.

They present all kind of evidence for ID. You should broaden your knowledge.

Really? Seriously what is this evidence for ID? I have a feeling that there is not any. Most creationists do not even understand what is and what is not evidence. The last time I checked there was no scientific evidence for ID at all.

 

[Darkstorn]

They present all kind of evidence for ID. You should broaden your knowledge.

Care to show us a tiny fraction of this evidence? Hell, even 1 is enough. "One evidence." That's all you need.

This should take you no longer than 4 years. I mean, during all your time here, you haven't even given one fraction of a single piece of evidence. This makes me "very hopeful" that you'll be able to perform such a mind bogglingly easy task. Eventually.

Maybe. Or else your presence here borders on being meaningless. So long a time, but not even one piece of evidence. So sad.

 

[paarsurrey]

Since science/observation has repeatedly shown that something does not come from nothing and life does not come from nonliving things can you blame someone for concluding that there is some sort if creator even of you dont believe that? Once this door is open why couldnt someone simply believe " my creator did it"? So what if someone is not interested in the exact processes used.

1. If we find something in which there is no human hand to produce, it has been customary during the ages to say, "G-d did it".There is nothing wrong in it.
2. The man in the street is neither interested in knowing nor can understand the intricate processes God adopted to produce things for us. This is the field of science and those who are associated with it (scientists), whether they believe in God or not, to explain to those who are interested in it.

Regards

 

[Subduction Zone]

Hockeycowboy,
They keep saying they want evidence, the evidence is in every living thing on the planet! Wake up! They are surrounded by evidence of creation that boggles the mind! But not their mind, they are so blind to the "EVIDENCE" it doesn't matter what you say. They are so brain washed in this idiotic evolutionary nonsense, they couldn't see the truth if it slapped them upside the head! Wasting your time bro, let em go, they'll find out for themselves in the end. The problem at that point will be irreversible! But hey, they'll get what the want! Only problem is, no one will care.
The scriptures proclaiming creation, the fall of man, and the world wide flood, the incarnate God, his Crucifixion and his overcoming death being risen from the grave on the third day just like he said, have been around for millennia! This evolutionary hokum has been brought about by men who want to explain our origins without God, and so they come up with this twaddle! They have no scientific evidence of life starting from non-life and so they make up these extravagant "theories" to try and support their ludicrous belief. But the bottom line to all of these theories is that they are empty! But they keep pushing this lie as if something remarkable is going to happen. But it hasn't in 160 years and it never will, why? Because its really really hard to prove something that never happened! They call themselves intellectuals, but they are fools! So, let em go, let em believe the lie because there is a day coming when they will be set straight, and what a horrifying day that will be! But that's what they want, and that is what they shall have!

[/QUOTE]
Jealous insults and an empty threat.

Perhaps you should learn what evidence is. I have yet to see a creationist that understands the term and yet strangely they are all afraid to learn what is and what is not evidence. Would you care to discuss the concept?

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Care to show us a tiny fraction of this evidence? Hell, even 1 is enough. "One evidence." That's all you need.

This should take you no longer than 4 years. I mean, during all your time here, you haven't even given one fraction of a single piece of evidence. This makes me "very hopeful" that you'll be able to perform such a mind bogglingly easy task. Eventually.

Maybe. Or else your presence here borders on being meaningless. So long a time, but not even one piece of evidence. So sad.

So funny!

Yes, it is Very easy. Empirical evidence in every field of science repeatedly discovers that the origin of functional and interacting information always has intelligence as it’s source. Some scientific projects, like SETI, were / are based on that proposition. It Never arises from chance! Never!

(Prove it wrong.)

 

[Subduction Zone]

So funny!

Yes, it is Very easy. Empirical evidence in every field of science repeatedly discovers that the origin of functional and interacting information always has intelligence as it’s source. Some scientific projects, like SETI, were / are based on that proposition. It Never arises from chance! Never!

(Prove it wrong.)

No, you just made the claim. You must support it, otherwise it is worthless. First you need a working definition of "information" no creationist has been able to come up with a working definition that helps them out yet. To be a working definition you must be able to specify how one tells the difference between "information" from an intelligence and "information" from a simply physical process. You would think that if what you claimed was the case that you could find paper after paper in a well respected, professional, peer reviewed journal (by the way the first requirement excludes all of the fake "journals" set up by creationists).

 

[gnostic]

If we find something in which there is no human hand to produce, it has been customary during the ages to say, "G-d did it".There is nothing wrong in it.

What’s wrong with it, is that it relies on belief in superstition...and worse, blind faith.

Saying “god did it”, don’t require logic and don’t require understanding WHAT it is or HOW does it work. And superstition and blind faith don’t require verifiable evidences.

There is nothing wrong with “god did it”, ONLY IF you are satisfied with make-believe and wallowing in your ignorant fantasy...or in your fairytale delusion. The “god did it” argument are only for those people who don’t want to understand how the world work.

 

[paarsurrey]

What’s wrong with it, is that it relies on belief in superstition...and worse, blind faith.

Saying “god did it”, don’t require logic and don’t require understanding WHAT it is or HOW does it work. And superstition and blind faith don’t require verifiable evidences.

There is nothing wrong with “god did it”, ONLY IF you are satisfied with make-believe and wallowing in your ignorant fantasy...or in your fairytale delusion. The “god did it” argument are only for those people who don’t want to understand how the world work.

"The 'God' did it” argument are only for those people who don’t want to understand how the world work." Unquote

If somebody asks me "Who created the Heavens and the Earth?". I will reply him that God did it. If one asks what processes were adopted in its creation. I will say that it was created by Big Bang as per the current science and life came into being as per Evolution.
I don't think there is anything wrong about it. Right, please?

Regards

 

[THE HOOD APOLOGIST]

Please provide evidence of your claim that science had had repeatedly shown something does not come from nothing.

Also the last one to claim life cannot come from nom living things was Pasteur over 100 years ago and his experiments were not only flawed but incomplete.

Regarding your first claim here is a paper showing it is false
Spontaneous creation of the universe from nothing

Too funny.
Here's a response from an Atheist Professor about this very topic concerning Lawrence Krauss, a scientist who promotes this nonsense.

David Albert is an atheist professor of philosophy at Columbia University with a Ph.D. in theoretical physics. In his book review, he writes,

Relativistic-quantum-field-theoretical vacuum states—no less than giraffes or refrigerators or solar systems—are particular arrangements of elementary physical stuff….. The fact that some arrangements of fields happen to correspond to the existence of particles and some don’t is not a whit more mysterious than the fact that some of the possible arrangements of my fingers happen to correspond to the existence of a fist and some don’t. And the fact that particles can pop in and out of existence, over time, as those fields rearrange themselves, is not a whit more mysterious than the fact that fists can pop in and out of existence, over time, as my fingers rearrange themselves. And none of these poppings—if you look at them aright—amount to anything even remotely in the neighbourhood of a creation from nothing.

Albert concludes his review by boldly asserting, “As far as I can see, Krauss is dead wrong and his religious and philosophical critics are absolutely right.”

This is total garbage.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Too funny.
Here's a response from an Atheist Professor about this very topic concerning Lawrence Krauss, a scientist who promotes this nonsense.

David Albert is an atheist professor of philosophy at Columbia University with a Ph.D. in theoretical physics. In his book review, he writes,

Relativistic-quantum-field-theoretical vacuum states—no less than giraffes or refrigerators or solar systems—are particular arrangements of elementary physical stuff….. The fact that some arrangements of fields happen to correspond to the existence of particles and some don’t is not a whit more mysterious than the fact that some of the possible arrangements of my fingers happen to correspond to the existence of a fist and some don’t. And the fact that particles can pop in and out of existence, over time, as those fields rearrange themselves, is not a whit more mysterious than the fact that fists can pop in and out of existence, over time, as my fingers rearrange themselves. And none of these poppings—if you look at them aright—amount to anything even remotely in the neighbourhood of a creation from nothing.

Albert concludes his review by boldly asserting, “As far as I can see, Krauss is dead wrong and his religious and philosophical critics are absolutely right.”

This is total garbage.

You should have provided a source. You do realize that he only disagrees with the conclusion of the fact that particles appear and disappear does not mean that the universe came form "nothing". Of course at that point you are only having disagreements on a minor scale. Did something always exist, or does the fact that the math works out as to give us a universe with a total energy of zero (which it does as closely as it can be measured) tell us that the universe came from nothing? He may not have liked how Krauss presented his topic but there are quite a few other physicists that agree with him that a universe from nothing does not violate any laws of physics. Here is a link to the review:

‘A Universe From Nothing,’ by Lawrence M. Krauss

Your paraphrased version technically has a spelling error in it. What site did you copy and paste that from?

 

[ChristineM]

Too funny.
Here's a response from an Atheist Professor about this very topic concerning Lawrence Krauss, a scientist who promotes this nonsense.

David Albert is an atheist professor of philosophy at Columbia University with a Ph.D. in theoretical physics. In his book review, he writes,

Relativistic-quantum-field-theoretical vacuum states—no less than giraffes or refrigerators or solar systems—are particular arrangements of elementary physical stuff….. The fact that some arrangements of fields happen to correspond to the existence of particles and some don’t is not a whit more mysterious than the fact that some of the possible arrangements of my fingers happen to correspond to the existence of a fist and some don’t. And the fact that particles can pop in and out of existence, over time, as those fields rearrange themselves, is not a whit more mysterious than the fact that fists can pop in and out of existence, over time, as my fingers rearrange themselves. And none of these poppings—if you look at them aright—amount to anything even remotely in the neighbourhood of a creation from nothing.

Albert concludes his review by boldly asserting, “As far as I can see, Krauss is dead wrong and his religious and philosophical critics are absolutely right.”

This is total garbage.

Interesting that you jump to conclusions as to what i was talking about. And why the emphasis on atheist? Sound like you have issues with atheism.

Anyway, i was not considering Krauss's work although it is considered a valid hypothesis by many prominent scientists. Even if you have found one who disagrees.

I was considering something far more recent, quantum vacuum bubbles

Spontaneous creation of the universe from nothing

Now all you have to do is find someone who disagrees with the maths and you can have another uninformed laugh.