Wednesday, June 8, 2011

Response to Comments: Avoiding the Obvious Evidence

Inquiring minds occasionally ask me why it is that evolutionists are evolutionists. How is it that a person can become so dogmatic about such a bizarre idea? It is because they are atheists, right? And of course they want to maintain their status in the scientific community, right? They need to publish papers, obtain funding, receive tenure and all these keep evolutionists in line, right?

Wrong. These are not the reasons why evolutionists are evolutionists. True, these can be important influences in science. Science is an endeavor that is, for better or for worse, done by humans. And so social pressures, funding requirements and post modern tendencies can all influence conclusions and beliefs. But if you think these are the key drivers behind evolution then you don’t understand evolution.

The common theme here is that all these reasons amount to ulterior motives. Like conspiracy theorists we imagine ulterior motives because we can’t believe that legitimate reasoning could be involved. But, in fact, that is the reason. Evolutionists are evolutionists because they are absolutely convinced of evolution. They have arguments and evidence, and they have reasoned it out. There are no simple, ulterior, motives driving people from widely differing backgrounds to subscribe to such dogma.

Believe it or not, if you want to understand evolutionists all you need to do is listen to them. If you read the evolution literature you will see why evolutionists are evolutionists. For they have explained it over and over and over again. People from different continents, cultures, and centuries have repeatedly given the arguments and evidences. And though the scientific evidence grows over time, evolution’s themes are quite consistent. Very simply put, evolution wins because the alternatives lose.

Evolution is mandated because the god(s) would never have intended for this world. They must have allowed the world to arise on its own. Perhaps they initiated motion and instituted the natural laws, but like Aristotle’s Prime Mover showed little interest thereafter.

Evolutionists will complain that they don’t recognize this description of their thinking. But when they make the scientific-sounding argument that duplicated errors in different species proves common descent they are, in fact, resting on an enormous metaphysical foundation. This is true of all the arguments and evidences that prove evolution to be a fact. Evolution fails to explain the biological world and is constantly surprised by the scientific evidence. But it must be a fact—our religion demands it.

Evolutionists insist that science must be free of subjective, metaphysical premises. Faulty scientific theories must not be protected, they warn, just because we prefer them. But these are precisely their practices. Evolutionists judge themselves, for they violate their own rules.

Evolution protected from the evidence

Because evolution is underwritten by metaphysical dictates it is not empirically vulnerable. Evolution is robust to contradictory evidence and failed expectations. All of the scientific problems—and they are enormous—are taken to be mere research problems. Evidence cannot question whether evolution occurred, only how it occurred.

Also, because evolution is proven by its underlying metaphysical dictates, it is to those dictates which evolutionists return when challenged. Every argument that proves evolution to be a fact is metaphysically laden. And so if you question the fact of evolution, you will be answered with one form or another of evolution’s metaphysics.

Consider, for example, the recent comments of one evolutionist. I suggested that scientific theories should at some point be discarded if they are excessively faulty. If a theory produces a long list of false predictions, then it should be rejected. Technically it is true that we can know for sure. No matter how many false predictions have been made, theories can always be rescued with patches, reinterpretations of data, and heroic assumptions. But in practice, when the probabilities become low, theories are no longer taken seriously. Certainly scientists are not shy about casting out the flat earth model or geocentrism.

But revealing just how well protected and impenetrable evolution is, the evolutionist appeals to this tiny ray of hope for his theory. And after having thus neutralized the devastating scientific evidence, he returns to his metaphysics. Sure there may be evidential challenges but, he insists, we must judge evolution by comparing it to the alternatives (for example, creation or design ideas):

What Cornelius fails to understand is that this complaint [of false predictions] still fails. To invoke modus tollens, the conclusion has to follow deductively from the premises. Having many predictions that were “probably bad,” would at best make the theory less probable. …

Theories make predictions using a set of several premises. For example:

If theory T and A and B and C and D and E and F then with some probability we expect X.

Not X.


What conclusion can we draw from this?

Is the theory improbable? Perhaps, but this also depends on how sound the premises A-F were. If X didn't happen and we find out that A was a bad assumption then we can now say that T and (new A) and B and C and D and E and F then with some probability we expect Y. In this way, theories can make bad predictions and still remain viable. Would the theory, after a certain number of bad predictions, become false by modus tollens? Obviously not, even though Cornelius likes to pretend so.

What I wrote above might seem like a cop-out, allowing any theory to survive any kind of test and, in a way, this is true. One can continue changing ones premises (but not inventing them out of thin air the way ID would have to do to make predictions) indefinitely and the theory would still not be false by modus tollens. This is why it’s important to COMPARE theories.

So in spite of the evidence evolution is a fact because it is better than the alternatives. After all, we must compare theories, not merely judge them according to the evidence. But evolutionists also say that creation and design theories do not qualify as science because they are not strictly naturalistic. So evolution can only be judged in comparison to the alternatives, and the alternatives are disqualified from the start.

And even if we were to compare evolution with creation and design, the victory would only mean that evolution wins over the particular theories of creation and design that were tested. It would not establish evolution as a fact as evolutionists claim.

Unless, that is, if we knew all the possible theories of creation and design. And in fact, evolutionists do assume just this. For example, when the evolutionist writes:

Odd arrangements and funny solutions are the proof of evolution—paths that a sensible God would never tread but that a natural process, constrained by history, follows perforce. No one understood this better than Darwin. Ernst Mayr has shown how Darwin, in defending evolution, consistently turned to organic parts and geographic distributions that make the least sense. —Stephen Jay Gould

he is deeply immersed in his metaphysics. There is nothing wrong with comparing theories. But when such comparisons are used to proclaim the winner to be a fact, then you know metaphysics are at work.

But why stop with comparisons? If even the best theory is scientifically lousy then shouldn’t we think harder about the problem? Shouldn’t we at least be tentative? Should we hide behind philosophical shenanigans or should we face the scientific evidence straight on?

98 comments:

  1. Dr Hunter, one thing you said:

    Perhaps they [the gods]initiated motion and instituted the natural laws, but like Aristotle’s Prime Mover showed little interest thereafter.

    Why not? What is your objection to that hypothesis?

    Newton’s laws of motion suggest that such was the case. Momentum was not within Aristotle’s purview.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Cornelius Hunter: Inquiring minds occasionally ask me why it is that evolutionists are evolutionists.

    As nearly all working biologists, geneticists, botanists, paleontologists, etc. are 'evolutionists,' it is apparently because of the support of the scientific evidence.

    Cornelius Hunter: So in spite of the evidence evolution is a fact because it is better than the alternatives.

    Evolution is a fact because it can be directly observed. But now you will say you mean **evolution** not *evolution*.

    Please don't confuse evolution, the observed process, with the Theory of Evolution, which is an explanatory framework consisting of a number of interrelated claims. If you object to a particular claim within the theory, then you should simply be specific.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Jeeze, here we go again.

    Cornelius' approach to discussion reminds me more and more of singer Wayne Newton. Newton is in his 80's but is still doing the same show in Las Vegas he's done for the last 50 years. Every night Newton takes his Geritol, dyes his hair black with shoe polish, and creaks out on stage. There he croaks out the same tired old songs to the same audience of cheering feeble gray-haired old ladies.

    So it is with CH. Every month we get the same old tired falsehood, deliberately conflating the observed fact of evolution with the theory of evolution that explains the observed fact.

    CH has been corrected on this canard dozens of times but doesn't care - intellectual honesty just isn't his thing. His small audience of room temperature IQ sycophants still hoot and holler, and CH gets his "Liar for Jesus" quota filled for another day.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Time for the IDC Parade of Fools to start.

    Tedford the Idiot will bellow about how evil evolution is on its last legs

    natschuster will take time from his busy schedule of screwing his students by skipping pages in their textbook to demand science list every last mutation that ever happened.

    Eocene will take his finger out of his nose long enough to post a few quote-mined quotes.

    Gary the cowardly little puppy will crawl out from under the sofa and piddle on the rug again.

    Wait for it.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I think evolutionists are evolutionists because they have been fooled into believing that evolutionism is a science. Nothing as shallow logically and empty of experimental verification as Darwinian evolution should be called a science. That's the problem right there.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Shubee said...

    I think evolutionists are evolutionists because they have been fooled into believing that evolutionism is a science. Nothing as shallow logically and empty of experimental verification as Darwinian evolution should be called a science. That's the problem right there.


    LOL! Says the guy who thought 'Mitochondrial Eve' data meant only one female was alive back then.

    Speaking of shallow logically and empty of experimental verification, did you ever figure out how to objectively determine genetic robustness without any reference to interaction with the environment? Or are you still hoping to let that big embarrassment for you die quietly too?

    ReplyDelete
  7. Stop lying Thorton. I never argued that there was evidence for the Biblical Adam or Eve. I said presupposing a first man and woman is a reasonable scientific axiom.

    Furthermore, Sanford's genomic degeneration theorem cleverly avoids having to define genetic robustness and interactions with the environment.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Shubee said...

    Stop lying Thorton. I never argued that there was evidence for the Biblical Adam or Eve. I said presupposing a first man and woman is a reasonable scientific axiom.


    Stop lying Shubee. I never said you mentioned Biblical Adam and Eve. You did claim 'Mitochondrial Eve' data meant only one human female was alive 60K-200K years ago. You're not alone in your ignorance though. Tedford the Idiot though the same thing until he was corrected on the big boner too.

    Furthermore, Sanford's genomic degeneration theorem cleverly avoids having to define genetic robustness and interactions with the environment.

    Yeah, it was real clever to not provide any objective way to determine robustness. Just claim genetic robustness is lessening with zero empirical data to support it, sell more books to the mouth-breathing rubes like you!

    What about your 'improvements' on Sanford's ideas? Why is it every time I ask about your claims in your document

    http://everythingimportant.org/genome.pdf

    you hide behind Sanford?

    ReplyDelete
  9. Thorton said...

    Time for the IDC Parade of Fools to start.

    Tedford the Idiot will bellow about how evil evolution is on its last legs

    natschuster will take time from his busy schedule of screwing his students by skipping pages in their textbook to demand science list every last mutation that ever happened.

    Eocene will take his finger out of his nose long enough to post a few quote-mined quotes.

    Gary the cowardly little puppy will crawl out from under the sofa and piddle on the rug again.

    Wait for it.

    =====================

    I see Thorton is as polite as ever

    ReplyDelete
  10. Pedant:

    "Dr Hunter, one thing you said:

    Perhaps they [the gods]initiated motion and instituted the natural laws, but like Aristotle’s Prime Mover showed little interest thereafter.

    Why not? What is your objection to that hypothesis?"
    ====

    Hypothesis ??? Why don't you instead provide the actual experiment that particular Atheist used to delve into the mind of an entity he says doesn't exist in the first place ??? Make sure it is an experiment that actually followed the rules of "SCIENTIFIC METHOD" so that any one of us who don't have your particular brand of FAITH, can therefore conduct the same experiment and arrive at the same scientific conclusions you did.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Zachy:

    "As nearly all working biologists, geneticists, botanists, paleontologists, etc. are 'evolutionists,' it is apparently because of the support of the scientific evidence."
    ===

    No it has everything to do with ideology and politics, something you yourself are well versed in. And their attitudes also explain why our planet Earth's natural ecosystems are presently failing globally because such individuals[scientists] strictly adhere to the political agendas that wallow in greed and selfishness by those big business pimps that employ them.
    ---

    Zachy:

    "Please don't confuse evolution, the observed process, with the Theory of Evolution, which is an explanatory framework consisting of a number of interrelated claims. If you object to a particular claim within the theory, then you should simply be specific."
    ===

    Sorry Zachy, but I suspect that
    Cornelius and countless millions of others just don't have your exact "eye of faith" when it comes to observing and reading into things. Perhaps you can provide a horoscope take on it.

    ReplyDelete
  12. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Zachriel said, "Zachy:

    "Please don't confuse evolution, the observed process, with the Theory of Evolution, which is an explanatory framework consisting of a number of interrelated claims. If you object to a particular claim within the theory, then you should simply be specific."


    LOL! It's the definition game again.

    According to the online evolutionists source talkorgins, it says:

    "One of the most respected evolutionary biologists has defined biological evolution as follows:


    'In the broadest sense, evolution is merely change, and so is all-pervasive; galaxies, languages, and political systems all evolve. Biological evolution ... is change in the properties of populations of organisms that transcend the lifetime of a single individual. The ontogeny of an individual is not considered evolution; individual organisms do not evolve. The changes in populations that are considered evolutionary are those that are inheritable via the genetic material from one generation to the next. Biological evolution may be slight or substantial; it embraces everything from slight changes in the proportion of different alleles within a population (such as those determining blood types) to the successive alterations that led from the earliest protoorganism to snails, bees, giraffes, and dandelions.

    - Douglas J. Futuyma in Evolutionary Biology, Sinauer Associates 1986 "

    Let's break it down:

    quote from above... "it embraces everything from slight changes in the proportion of different alleles within a population (such as those determining blood types)"

    CUT!!! Yes, so far so good. Observed? Yes, Everyone good? Yes, we're good. Everyone happy? Yes, happy. Okay good, continue...


    quote from above continued... "to the successive alterations that led from the earliest protoorganism ..."

    CUT!!!!!!! Whoa. In the same breath they moved to an a bald statement of how all life on earth came be be!

    Observed? No. All data agrees? No. Go ahead and finish up the snow job....


    quote continues from above: "to snails, bees, giraffes, and dandelions."

    It is a false statement on your part Zachriel to say that we have "observed" evolution in "successive alterations that led from the earliest protoorganism to snails, bees, giraffes, and dandelions". You might totally convinced from the inferences you make from the fossil record and such, but please spare us the snow job on being "an observed process".

    It's quite an evolutionists rhetorical magic trick.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Tedford the Idiot said...

    It is a false statement on your part Zachriel to say that we have "observed" evolution in "successive alterations that led from the earliest protoorganism to snails, bees, giraffes, and dandelions". You might totally convinced from the inferences you make from the fossil record and such, but please spare us the snow job on being "an observed process".


    Tedford the Idiot still can't read for comprehension. The processes that result in successive alterations have been observed you idiot, not the entire chain of alterations for the millions of years.

    How bloody stupid can one pastor be?

    ReplyDelete
  15. maponos said...
    " Thorton said...

    Time for the IDC Parade of Fools to start.

    Tedford the Idiot will bellow about how evil evolution is on its last legs

    natschuster will take time from his busy schedule of screwing his students by skipping pages in their textbook to demand science list every last mutation that ever happened.

    Eocene will take his finger out of his nose long enough to post a few quote-mined quotes.

    Gary the cowardly little puppy will crawl out from under the sofa and piddle on the rug again.

    Wait for it."

    ROTFLMAO !!

    ReplyDelete
  16. ...and there goes Gary the cowardly little puppy, piddling right on cue!

    Hey Gary, how's that disproof of ToE by using statistical mechanics coming? Any time this decade?

    ReplyDelete
  17. "to the successive alterations that led from the earliest protoorganism ..."

    Neal Tedford: CUT!!!!!!! Whoa. In the same breath they moved to an a bald statement of how all life on earth came be be!

    Learn to read more carefully. It says "led from the earliest protoorganism", not the origin of the first protoorganism.

    Neal Tedford: It is a false statement on your part Zachriel to say that we have "observed" evolution in "successive alterations that led from the earliest protoorganism to snails, bees, giraffes, and dandelions".

    We said that there is ambiguity in the term, and it is up to the speaker to make clear their meaning. The comment still stands. If someone objects to a particular claim within the theory, then they should be specific.

    Cornelius Hunter: So in spite of the evidence evolution is a fact because it is better than the alternatives.

    Apparently, this refers to common descent. In order to discuss that claim, you have to understand the nested hierarchy, and IDers seem utterly unable to understand such a simple pattern.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Zachriel, do you agree or disagree with the following statement: "we have observed evolution in successive alterations that led from the earliest protoorganism to snails, bees, giraffes, and dandelions"?

    ReplyDelete
  19. Tedford the Idiot said...

    Zachriel, do you agree or disagree with the following statement: "we have observed evolution in successive alterations that led from the earliest protoorganism to snails, bees, giraffes, and dandelions"?


    That's not what Futuyma wrote you idiot. Why don't you stick to an honest citation instead of making up your own misquote?

    ReplyDelete
  20. It's a common theme of Cornelius to innvoke the "metaphysical" card. CH believes evolutionists are being presumptous or "metaphysical" in claiming they know how God would or would not have carried out evolution.

    It's almost as if CH wants a state of affairs where God's ways cannot be questioned, critiqued or even examined. How dare the evolutionist presuppose to know the mind of God?

    Perhaps if God was some unknowable entity of whom we know nothing about, then perhaps this argument might have some validity. But of course we do know actually quite a lot about this "God" (at least the Christian version, which is the one that CH has stated numerous times he thinks is the Designer.

    So when we talk about what God would or would not do, this is not done in a vacuum, but based on the knowledge with have of God (and of course that is the Bible). It is perfectly reasonable therefore to examine what we observe in natural processes and ask the question "does this look like the handiwork of what we know about the Biblical God". Despite CH's handwaving, that is by no means a metaphysical argument. In fact it's exactly the same kind of forensic process a detective would make perhaps in a murder case, where they might have a suspect in mind, and they would compare what the observe in the crime to see if it matches the motives and methods of the criminal. One would hardly call that a "metaphysical" argument.

    Unless CH can convincingly reconcile Biblical accounts of creation with actual observed natural processes, his claims of metaphysics do not hold up at all. Perhaps they help to ward off the doubts of the faithful, but they have no persusive power to anybody else. If this argument was a garment, it would be an invisible one...

    And then of course we have the rather thorny problem (which I have never seen adequately addressed) that what we observe in the natural world appears to be diametrically opposite what God himself has apparently revealed to us in his own revelation. To get around this Christians have to resort to rather convuluted "just so" stories that these accounts are allegorical or metaphorical etc. And yet at the same time we are told that God is not a God of confusion? I know I'm confused....

    ReplyDelete
  21. Neal Tedford: do you agree or disagree with the following statement: "we have observed evolution in successive alterations that led from the earliest protoorganism to snails, bees, giraffes, and dandelions"?

    We observe the *evidence*, such as in fossils or the study of genetics. (Just for clarity, the statement doesn't encompass the origin of life.)

    ReplyDelete
  22. Zachriel said, " We observe the *evidence*, such as in fossils or the study of genetics. (Just for clarity, the statement doesn't encompass the origin of life.)"

    I do understand the fine gray line that is sometimes made between chemical evolution (Origins) and biological evolution. Yes, the discussion here is focused on biological evolution.

    Now that you mention it do you hold that Origin of Life via chemical evolution is NOT a fact? y/n

    ReplyDelete
  23. Zachriel said, " We observe the *evidence*, such as in fossils or the study of genetics. (Just for clarity, the statement doesn't encompass the origin of life.)"

    There is a significant difference in quality between observing slight changes in the proportion of different alleles within a population and interpreting fossils.

    In the first case you are observing the change, in the second you are interpreting the fossils. This distinction is important, but is not made in your statements, nor by other evolutionists until they are pressed for it.

    It is misleading.

    As the notable evolutionist Douglas Futuyma has said and as I quoted previously here, "Biological evolution may be slight or substantial; it embraces everything from slight changes in the proportion of different alleles within a population (such as those determining blood types) to the successive alterations that led from the earliest protoorganism to snails, bees, giraffes, and dandelions."

    Have SUCCESSIVE ALTERATIONS been observed in the fossil record between the phyla in the Cambrian era and before? What about eukaryotes? Many other examples could be given.

    Gross errors have been made by evolutonists in interpreting morphology of living animals (sea squirt, etc), so where does that leave the accuracy of interpreting fossil bone fragments?

    To lump together the observation of changing alleles in populations with interpreting the Cambrian fossils is hogwash.

    Successive alterations that led from the earliest protoorganism to snails, bees, giraffes, and dandelions is part of the definition of evolution (not the theory).

    This is the definition of 'evolution' according to Futuyma, and you said that evolution was a fact. So you consider successive alterations from the earliet protoorganism to dandelions to be a fact. And this 'fact' is arrived at by interpreting the fossils, like the Cambrian and the non-existent protoorganisms.

    Evolutionists are acting like hungry prosecutors in a criminal case rather than critical scientists seeking truth.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Tedford the Idiot said...

    Have SUCCESSIVE ALTERATIONS been observed in the fossil record between the phyla in the Cambrian era and before?


    Tedford the Idiot changes his tune again:

    "SHOW ME SUCCESSIVE ALTERATIONS BETWEEN PHYLA IN THE FOSSIL RECORD!!

    "OK, here are a few dozen well documented examples of transitional sequences, like the mammalian ear"

    "SHOW ME SUCCESSIVE ALTERATIONS BETWEEN PRE-CAMBRIAN PHYLA IN THE FOSSIL RECORD!!

    Tedford has it easy. He's living proof of the old adage 'no brains, no headaches'.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Neal Tedford: Now that you mention it do you hold that Origin of Life via chemical evolution is NOT a fact?

    All the evidence so far indicates a natural beginning for life on Earth, but there is still a great deal unknown.

    Neal Tedford: There is a significant difference in quality between observing slight changes in the proportion of different alleles within a population and interpreting fossils.

    Fossils are wonderful evidence.
    http://www.granneman.com/images/050814tRexSkeleton.jpg
    Dinosaurs really did once roamed the Earth.

    Neal Tedford: In the first case you are observing the change, in the second you are interpreting the fossils.

    You are filling in the blanks, because it is obvious there are transitions occurring, with fossils being snapshots in time.

    Neal Tedford: Have SUCCESSIVE ALTERATIONS been observed in the fossil record between the phyla in the Cambrian era and before?

    You do understand that phyla don't represent intrinsic categories, but are just the most ancient branchings?

    The most ancient transitions leave the least evidence. Let's start with common descent of dinosaurs or mammals, then work our way back.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Zachriel said, "All the evidence so far indicates a natural beginning for life on Earth, but there is still a great deal unknown. "

    Can one speak of your statement as a theory or a fact?

    A. Theory
    B. Fact

    ReplyDelete
  27. Neal Tedofrd:

    Zachriel said, "All the evidence so far indicates a natural beginning for life on Earth, but there is still a great deal unknown. "

    Can one speak of your statement as a theory or a fact?

    A. Theory
    B. Fact
    ===

    Actually Neal, I believe you left out the third and most important option, especially for this individual.

    Option C: FAITH

    ReplyDelete
  28. Neal Tedford: Can one speak of your statement as a theory or a fact?

    A. Theory
    B. Fact


    It's a demonstrable claim about the evidence.

    ReplyDelete
  29. Thorton:

    I hardly think getting students who can't read a regents to pass a regents qualifies as screwing. And I only skip the ages containing fraud or errors because I don't like to give young people wrong information.

    And I don't recall asking for every mutations, just an estimate about how many mutations. I think we have to konw that before we konw if evolution is even possible. But that's just me.

    ReplyDelete
  30. Ask and you shall receive. You get the pee you deserve.

    Pseudo-scientist thorton came in still asking for proof that's already been given. Duh! Too hard for you? Too simple?
    Still pretending, like all Darwieners here, that no proof exists? Deaf, "dumb" & blind chimps come to mind.

    Who is noob maponos? Whoever the hell he, she or it is, is too cowardly themselves to post under their real name.

    Darwinian fundamentalists haunt this blog daily -all while claiming it to be erroneous tripe!?!
    One must wonder why, and seriously question either their IQ, their motives or both.

    Over the 30 somethin' years I've debated Dawhiners, its become sadly obvious that what CH writes is true & proven by them every day, right here!

    But Darwinistas are exactly like radical Islamics:
    When anyone draws a picture of the true nature of their beliefs and behavior (prophet with bomb in turban), they immediately strike out to prove to the world that the picture isn't true by doing exactly what the picture describes as true!

    Best analogy available of what you Darwinian fundamentalist fanatics are like.

    Not one of you has the guts to face the truth about your failed theory & underlying world view.

    Discussions with such always end up the same way, witnessed here every day -denial of reality, smoke & mirrors & the ubiquitous Darwinian just so story. No doubt due to deep, even psychotic, insecurities over the fact that your anserine world view & pseudoscience is false.

    Why should anyone bother doing anything else but giving you what your low level "reasonings" deserve? pee

    Once again, astrophysicist Fred Hoyle owned Darwinists when he stated,
    "The notion that not only the biopolymer but the operating program of a living cell could be arrived at by chance in a primordial organic soup here on the Earth is evidently nonsense of a high order." Sir F. Hoyle

    "...unlikely as it was, it would surely be less difficult to make a rabbit out of a potato than to make a rabbit out of sludge, which is what people said had happened, people with line after line of letters after their names who should have known what they were talking about, but obviously didn't."
    ...
    "Because the old believers said that God came out of the sky, thereby connecting the Earth with events outside it, the new believers were obliged to say the opposite and to do so, as always, with intense conviction. Although the new believers had not a particle of evidence to support their statements on the matter, they asserted that the rabbit producing sludge (called soup to make it sound more palatable) was terrestrially located and that all chemical and biochemical transmogrifications of the sludge were terrestrially inspired. Because there was not a particle of evidence to support this view, new believers had to swallow it as an article of faith, otherwise they could not pass their examinations or secure a job or avoid the ridicule of their colleagues. So it came about from 1860 onward that new believers became in a sense mentally ill, or, more precisely, either you became mentally ill or you quitted the subject of biology, as I had done in my early teens. The trouble for young biologists was that, with everyone around them ill, it became impossible for them to think they were well unless they were ill, which again is a situation you can read all about in the columns of Nature [magazine]." (Hoyle, Mathematics of Evolution


    Sadly, none of you blind Darwhiners get it, precisely because you are mentally ill. Mentally ill persons rarely know they are ill.

    ReplyDelete
  31. natschuster said...

    Thorton:

    I hardly think getting students who can't read a regents to pass a regents qualifies as screwing. And I only skip the pages containing fraud or errors because I don't like to give young people wrong information.


    You don't skip pages because they contain fraud or errors. You skip pages because they don't mesh with your personal religious beliefs.

    You don't have the technical training, knowledge, or authority to unilaterally decide something in a science textbook is 'fraud and/or error' and should be skipped. What you are doing is not only immoral, it's probably illegal too. You deserve to be fired for your despicable dishonesty towards your students.

    ReplyDelete
  32. Gary the cowardly little puppy said...

    yap! yap! yap! tap! yap!

    piddle piddle piddle


    Hey Gary, instead of just adding significantly to global warming with all that gas, why don't you provide that disproof of ToE by statistical mechanics?

    You know, the one you bragged about having but run the other way every time you are asked.

    ReplyDelete
  33. Gary said...

    Who is noob maponos? Whoever the hell he, she or it is, is too cowardly themselves to post under their real name.

    =====================

    Not a noob dimwit my name is Llewellyn (real) also known as Ambiorix! Clown!

    ReplyDelete
  34. Cornelius,

    That was a garbled mess you came up with in "response" to my quote. But at least you managed to avoid having to admit that you don't know what modus tollens is.

    ReplyDelete
  35. Thorton:

    I didn't decide that Haekels's drawings were wildly inaccurate, if not outright fraudulant. That was a whole bunch of biologists.

    And those were the only pages I skipped. I covered the rest of the chapters on evolution.

    ReplyDelete
  36. natschuster said...

    Thorton:

    I didn't decide that Haekels's drawings were wildly inaccurate, if not outright fraudulant. That was a whole bunch of biologists.


    You haven't shown those were Haeckel's drawing that you used as an excuse to screw your students. Not every picture of an embryo is from Haeckel. Modern books use updated drawings and photos to show similarities, and you're way too ignorant to know the difference.

    You screwed your students out of a piece of their science education solely because of your religious beliefs and arrogance. You deserve to be fired.

    ReplyDelete
  37. When the textbooks used pictures, I didn't skip the pages. I did mention that the embryos look very different at earlier stages of development. The books left that part out. I only skipped the pages if they were Haeckle's drawing or close copies.

    ReplyDelete
  38. What was the textbook - author and edition

    ReplyDelete
  39. What do you mean, the textbooks with the pictures or the drawings?

    ReplyDelete
  40. natschuster said...

    What do you mean, the textbooks with the pictures or the drawings?


    Quit stalling you disingenuous schmuck. Give us the title, author, and edition of the textbook(s) you claimed included Haeckel's ideas and his drawings. The ones you took it upon yourself to delete from the science class.

    When you teach geology, do you skip plate tectonics and tell the kids Noahs flood was real too? How many other ways have you screwed kids out of proper science education?

    ReplyDelete
  41. I don't have the list of books here at home now. You'll have to wait till tomorrow.

    Y'know, I seem to recall that I already provided a list of the problematic textbooks.

    When I taught Earth science, I did discuss plate tectonics. Didn't I mention above that I covered the chapters on evolution? I covered everything in the curriculum. I just don't feel comfortable giving false information to young people.

    ReplyDelete
  42. natschuster said...

    I just don't feel comfortable giving false information to young people.


    Where you arrogantly take it upon yourself to define 'false' as anything that conflicts with your pre-conceived religious dogma. Sadly, it's your students who suffer from your scientific ignorance and arrogance when you skip parts of the science text you personally don't like.

    You absolutely disgust me, bragging about how you screwed your student to push your Creationist crap. What you do is a form of child abuse, nothing less. You should be fired and punished as the law allows.

    ReplyDelete
  43. For the purposes of teaching, I define false as something that experts in the field have declared false, that is, Haeckel's drawings.

    I covered the rest of the evolution curriculum, even though I'm skeptical about evolution, because the rest of the evidence presented was factual. I presented the real evidence to my students. I never discussed creationism. And I did a good enough job so that my students had a better pass rate than the rest of the deparment.

    ReplyDelete
  44. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  45. natschuster said...

    For the purposes of teaching, I define false as something that experts in the field have declared false, that is, Haeckel's drawings.


    Haeckel's drawings from 120 years ago weren't the ones you cut from your textbooks. You screwed your students over your own religious based ignorance, pure and simple.

    I covered the rest of the evolution curriculum, even though I'm skeptical about evolution, because the rest of the evidence presented was factual.

    If you consider the evidence factual then why do you doubt it?

    I presented the real evidence to my students. I never discussed creationism.

    Sure you did, sure you did. Just like you honestly represent the 'real' evidence for evolution here.

    ReplyDelete
  46. I didn't cut the drawings from the textbooks. I skipped those pages in class. And some of the drawings were Haeckel's. The othere were close copies. By close I mean a layperson, the people these books were intended for, couldn't tell the difference. And the text made it clear that the point of having hte pictures was to show how similar the embryos where as evidence for evolution.

    The other evidence for evolution is factual, that means it exists. No one questions whether there is evidence for evolution. But when I weigh it against the problems with evolution, then I begin to have doubts.

    ReplyDelete
  47. natschuster said...

    I didn't cut the drawings from the textbooks. I skipped those pages in class.


    That's why you deserve to be fired.

    And some of the drawings were Haeckel's. The othere were close copies. By close I mean a layperson, the people these books were intended for, couldn't tell the difference.

    It's the WORDS in the book that matter nat, not the pictures. Not all embryo drawings are Haeckel's, and drawings that to ignorant layperson nat superficially look like Haeckel's still contain important anatomical details worthy of teaching.

    And the text made it clear that the point of having hte pictures was to show how similar the embryos where as evidence for evolution.

    Similarities in embryo development IS strong evidence for evolution. It's Haeckel's "ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny" idea that was discarded almost a century ago.

    Comparative Embryology

    That's what makes your abuse of your students so egregious. You denied them access to a very important piece of evolutionary theory and evidence based on your ignorance and arrogance without even understanding what was being demonstrated.

    You could have easily educated yourself about this topic online - the Berkeley Evolution site covers it for instance - but you're too happy being an ignorant git and screwing your students.

    The other evidence for evolution is factual, that means it exists. No one questions whether there is evidence for evolution. But when I weigh it against the problems with evolution, then I begin to have doubts.

    Having doubts is one thing. Screwing your students by skipping important points based on your willful ignorance is another. That's the real problem.

    ReplyDelete
  48. But the embryos don't look like the pictures. Showing them the pictures would be wrong.

    ReplyDelete
  49. natschuster said...

    But the embryos don't look like the pictures. Showing them the pictures would be wrong.


    Yes. They. Do. Look. Alike. In. Key. Areas.

    Embryo development

    There's a whole branch of science - Ontogeny - that studies embryo development.

    No matter how many times I see it nat, your overwhelming desire to remain willfully ignorant still astounds me.

    ReplyDelete
  50. I know they kinda, sorta look alike, but they don't look like the drawings. And they don't look alike at earlier stages. The textbooks leave that part out.

    Anyway, I do recall mentioning in class that they kinda look alike, I just didn't use the drawings in the textbooks.

    Anyway, here are the books you requested

    Living Environment, Amsco, 2000 Rick Hallman

    Biology, The Study of Life William Prentice Hall 1995 William Schraer PhD. Herbet Stoltze PhD.

    Biologia (Spanish) Prentice Hall 2004 Kenneth Miller, PhD. Joseph Levine PhD.

    ReplyDelete
  51. My my nat, you've been a busy little liar these past few years. I found no less that three other places on the web where you made the same dishonest claim about those three books, including this very blog

    natschuster: "In each book the drawings were presented as evidence of recapitulation theory and evolution."

    In NONE of those books was Haeckel's recapitulation theory presented as evidence for evolution. That idea was discarded almost a century ago. The drawing (even some based on Haeckel's originals) are used to illustrate common evolutionary features like the yolk sac in mammal embryos, remnants of the time when they were egg-laying synapsids. The Miller and Levine text even went out of its way to say Haeckel's recapitulation idea was wrong and to change to newer drawings to avoid any confusion.

    Miller and Levine on Haeckel

    That you lie to other adults on discussion boards is despicable. That you lie to children you are suppose to be educating is inexcusable.

    ReplyDelete
  52. But the drawings in all the books I sited look indistinguishable from Haeckel's drawings.

    ReplyDelete
  53. natschuster said...

    But the drawings in all the books I sited look indistinguishable from Haeckel's drawings.


    Why did you lie and claim in each book the drawings were presented as evidence of recapitulation theory and evolution?

    ReplyDelete
  54. According to this:

    http://www.evolutionnews.org/Miller_DiscoveringLife.jpg

    They were used in an earlier version to support recapitualtion theory. Maybe they didn't correct eh Spanish version.

    ReplyDelete
  55. The drawings in the Spanish version where different than the one sin the website yoiu linked.

    ReplyDelete
  56. natschuster said...

    According to this:

    http://www.evolutionnews.org/Miller_DiscoveringLife.jpg

    They were used in an earlier version to support recapitualtion theory.


    They were never used ANYWHERE in ANY edition of those three books to support recapitulation theory. Even the page copy you linked to from the professional liars at the ID doesn't support recapitulation. The caption for the pictures merely points out the evolutionary remnants - gill pouches and a tail.

    Either you're flat out lying or are too stupid to understand what recapitulation theory even is.

    Which is it nat? Liar or stupid? Or both?

    ReplyDelete
  57. "The cells and tissues of the earliest embryological stages of any organism are like the cards at the bottom of a house of cards. Teh final form is built upon them.

    The earliest stages of the embryo are locked in whereas the later cells and tissues that are produced later can change more freely without harming the organism. As species evovle over time successive evolutionary changes accumulate as development proceeds, but early embryos stick more closely to their original appearance."

    ReplyDelete
  58. The above is a quote from the book linked above. It sure sounds like recapitulation theory to me. And I usually tell the truth. But sometimes, I must confess, I can be mighty foolish.

    ReplyDelete
  59. Now that I think about it, I may have been mistaken when I siad that they have been used in all the textbooks the support recapitulation theory. If I recall correctly, I was responding to the assertion that the drawing where used only to teach about the history of science, how an error was made and detected. They where used as evidence for evolution. It wouldn't be so bad if the drawing were accurate.

    ReplyDelete
  60. natschuster said...

    The above is a quote from the book linked above. It sure sounds like recapitulation theory to me.


    Wrong.

    recapitulation theory

    "The theory of recapitulation, also called the biogenetic law or embryological parallelism - and often expressed as "ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny" - is a hypothesis that in developing from embryo to adult, animals go through stages resembling or representing successive stages in the evolution of their remote ancestors.

    Since around the start of the twentieth century, Haeckel's "biogenetic law" has been refuted on many fronts.

    Modern biology rejects the literal and universal form of Haeckel's theory."


    Having early embryonic development show common ancestral components like yolk sacs (which they do) and having embryos go through distinct stages where they resemble animals in their evolutionary history (which they don't) are two vastly different things.

    The textbooks you cited illustrate the former. You trashed the texts and screwed your students by ignorantly assumed the latter without bothering to understand.

    I must confess, I can be mighty foolish.

    As long as you are happy to be willfully ignorant, too lazy to do the slightest bit of research, and content to mindlessly repeat the lies you pick up from Creto sites like the DI, you will be.

    ReplyDelete
  61. For the life of me, I can't see any difference in meaning between the text I quoted, and what you posted.

    And again, the only thing I skipped was showing my students inaccurate drawings. I talked about similarties in development.

    ReplyDelete
  62. What else can

    "As species evovle over time successive evolutionary changes accumulate as development proceeds, but early embryos stick more closely to their original appearance."

    mean?

    ReplyDelete
  63. natschuster said...

    What else can

    "As species evovle over time successive evolutionary changes accumulate as development proceeds, but early embryos stick more closely to their original appearance."

    mean?


    It means exactly what it says. In the early stages of embryo development the embryos all look quite similar, with similar features that are representative of their common ancestry. Later in embryo development they diverge considerably, as do the adult animals they produce.

    It doesn't say as embryos develop they go through stages that duplicate their adult ancestral forms. THAT would be recapitulation theory.

    How can you not be able to parse a simple sentence? Is English not your first language?

    ReplyDelete
  64. I forgot to mention another reason I don't like to use the drawings:

    http://www.mk-richardson.com/pdf/Anat%20Embryol.pdf

    It looks like there was some cherry picking.

    ReplyDelete
  65. natschuster said...

    I forgot to mention another reason I don't like to use the drawings:

    http://www.mk-richardson.com/pdf/Anat%20Embryol.pdf

    It looks like there was some cherry picking.


    Indeed there was. Behe, Wells, and other IDiots cherry picked sections of Richardson's paper to continue their attack on the evolutionary strawman they created. In actuality, Richardson's paper was more evidence against Haeckel's recapitulation idea and didn't affect in the least actual evolutionary theory.

    You keep getting this BS from IDiot sites, you'll stay an ignoramus just like I warned you.

    ReplyDelete
  66. The textbooks leave out the embryos that don't look that much alike. That's kinda dishonest. That's the problem I have.

    ReplyDelete
  67. natschuster said...

    The textbooks leave out the embryos that don't look that much alike. That's kinda dishonest. That's the problem I have.


    No nat, the problem you have is that you're woefully ignorant on the actual science and too lazy to learn the real story. You choke down the swill from IDiot sites without thinking because they tell you what you want to hear.

    ReplyDelete
  68. But why did the textbooks only pick species that kinda sorta look alike as embryos, and leave out the ones that don't?

    ReplyDelete
  69. natschuster said...

    But why did the textbooks only pick species that kinda sorta look alike as embryos, and leave out the ones that don't?


    Which ones were included and which were left out? Be specific.

    ReplyDelete
  70. Let's see, the textbooks have a fish, a salamander, a turtle, a chicken, a pig, a rabbit, and a human. They left out lampreys, sharks, frogs, dogs, and hedgehogs. I think there were more. You could check the article sited above.

    ReplyDelete
  71. natschuster said...

    Let's see, the textbooks have a fish, a salamander, a turtle, a chicken, a pig, a rabbit, and a human. They left out lampreys, sharks, frogs, dogs, and hedgehogs. I think there were more. You could check the article sited above.


    What in the world are you whining about? Fish, salamander, turtle, chicken, pig, rabbit, human make up a pretty broad sampling of vertebrate phenotypes. Do you have any evidence that the other mammalian embryos shown in the paper are somehow 'less alike' than the mammals that were presented?

    Also, the animals weren't picked because they 'kinda sorta' look like each other. They were given as illustrations of the similar features in early embryonic development like the yolk sac. We've been over this before, remember?

    Finally, how could the books deliberately 'leave out' some photos that appeared in a paper that was published after the books were published? Do you expect the book publisher to have a time machine?

    Your continued lack of understanding of the most basic concepts on this topic after all that has been covered is truly pathetic.

    ReplyDelete
  72. The whole point of the paper I sited was that some embryos don't look all that much alike.

    And wasn't the embryology of the vartious speceis that don't look all that much alike known way back in the nineteenth century? Wasn't that one of the problems that Haeckel's contemporaries had?

    And if it wasn't known, then biologist should have researched the subject before writing about it in textbooks, and siting it as evidence for evolution.

    ReplyDelete
  73. natschuster said...

    The whole point of the paper I sited was that some embryos don't look all that much alike.

    And wasn't the embryology of the vartious speceis that don't look all that much alike known way back in the nineteenth century? Wasn't that one of the problems that Haeckel's contemporaries had?

    And if it wasn't known, then biologist should have researched the subject before writing about it in textbooks, and siting it as evidence for evolution.


    No modern science text teaches that 'embryos look alike' in all their stages as evidence for evolution. Why you choose to keep propagating this lie is what we have to determine.

    Why do you keep telling the same lie nat? It's isn't going to become true by dint of your repetitions.

    ReplyDelete
  74. The fact that embryos don't look alike at some parts of hteir development is usually ignored by the textbooks. IMHO, leaving that out is being less than honest. I have the same problem with the fact that the textbooks only use species that kinda look alike as embryos, and ignore the others. This presents only some of the facts, not all. This is also a defect.

    ReplyDelete
  75. natschuster said...

    The fact that embryos don't look alike at some parts of hteir development is usually ignored by the textbooks. IMHO, leaving that out is being less than honest.


    That's because it's not relevant. Textbooks don't spend a chapter explaining that elephants don't look like rutabagas either.

    I have the same problem with the fact that the textbooks only use species that kinda look alike as embryos, and ignore the others. This presents only some of the facts, not all. This is also a defect.

    Since you insist on remaining willfully ignorant and deliberately misrepresenting the purpose of the illustrations, that's not surprising. But the 'problem' exists only between your ears, not with the science being taught.

    Does your religion teach you it's OK to lie in such a manner?

    ReplyDelete
  76. Why isn't it revelvant? Why not give all the information to the students, and let them decide for themselves?

    And the pictures are presented as evidence for evolution, the evidence being the similarities between the embryos. So why is it irrelevant that there are embryos that don't look alike? Present all the evidence, then let the students decide.

    ReplyDelete
  77. natschuster said...

    Why isn't it revelvant? Why not give all the information to the students, and let them decide for themselves?


    Students are given all the verified scientific information. What students aren't given in science classes is unverified religious BS like ID-Creationism. Science isn't a restaurant where each student gets to pick and choose which ideas suit their uneducated fancy. Students, especially young ones, often don't have the background knowledge and/or critical thinking skills to tell when they're being fed BS. You're the classic example of a clueless boob who can't tell the religious pipe-dreams he was taught from reality.

    And the pictures are presented as evidence for evolution, the evidence being the similarities between the embryos.

    Please stop repeating this lie. You've been corrected on it too many times.

    Present all the evidence, then let the students decide.

    We do. Please stop trying to pretend that the pack of lies pushed by the IDCers is scientific evidence.

    ReplyDelete
  78. The textbooks don't mention that the embryos do not look alike at different stages in development. And they don't include pictures of embryos that don't look alike. So they are not providing all the evidence. It's been verified that the embryos don't look alike at different points in development. And I'm not talking about ideas, I'm talking about facts.

    And teen-agers are experts at detecting lies, falsehoods, etc. etc.


    And what would the evidence from pictures be, if not that they look alike? That is why oit was necessary to falsify the pictures, and make them look even more alike.

    ReplyDelete
  79. natschuster said...

    And what would the evidence from pictures be, if not that they look alike?


    For the dozenth time, it's that early in embryonic development the vertebrate embryos all exhibit a set of common features like the yolk sac, pharyngeal arches, etc. NOT that the entire embryos look similar.

    That is why oit was necessary to falsify the pictures, and make them look even more alike.

    Haeckel's originals were made to look more alike in their entirety to support Haeckel's recapitulation idea, an idea that hasn't been taught for almost a century. Similar drawing now that show the early developmental common features aren't used to support Haeckel's idea.

    I can't believe you are too stupid to not get the difference between the two concepts. My working hypothesis is still that's you're a deliberately lying creationist.

    ReplyDelete
  80. So why do they need drawings? And why do they need inaccurate drawings? Why aren't accurate drawings good enough? And why not include some of the species that don't look all that much alike? And mention the differences, just for the sake of honesty.

    ReplyDelete
  81. natschuster said...

    So why do they need drawings?


    It's common practice to use drawings in biology and medical anatomy books because it's easier to highlight the important features.

    And why do they need inaccurate drawings? Why aren't accurate drawings good enough?

    The drawings are accurate enough to illustrate the particular features being described.

    And why not include some of the species that don't look all that much alike? And mention the differences, just for the sake of honesty.

    Still too stupid to get the difference between Haeckel's discredited idea and what is actually taught today I see.

    ReplyDelete
  82. But why change the pictures at all? Why aren't accurate drawings good enough? And what does the fact that we aren't teaching Haeckle's theory have to do with the fact that facts are not being presented? Teach all the facts, let the students decide for themselves.

    ReplyDelete
  83. natschuster said...

    Teach all the facts, let the students decide for themselves.


    We do teach all the facts. Not all of them are covered in every book, but they are all available with a minimum of research.

    The truth is, ID is a religiously based anti-science idea that doesn't have one bit of positive evidence to support it. Having professional liars like Wells create strawman arguments against ToE like the Haeckel's drawings, and having clueless boobs like you repeating the lies doesn't make ID true. That's the facts.

    As far as letting students decide for themselves, why don't you give every student a 100% on every test? The students have obviously decided for themselves what the answer should be, even if it disagrees with your answer. If Johnny thinks Ringo Starr was the first President of the U.S. or that 2+2=5, who are you to tell him his opinion is wrong?

    ReplyDelete
  84. If we teach all the facts why don't the textbooks talk about the fac that at somw points in development, the embryos are very different. And why don't they include drawings of species that don't look all that much alike? They leave some facts out.

    Now, I insist that my students get the facts staight. How they interperate the facts is up to them. I let them know that for the standardized tests, they have to interperate the facts as supporting evolution.

    ReplyDelete
  85. natschuster said...

    If we teach all the facts why don't the textbooks talk about the fac that at somw points in development, the embryos are very different. And why don't they include drawings of species that don't look all that much alike? They leave some facts out.


    If every book included every fact books would be 500' thick and weigh 1,000 tons. That's why we teach enough facts to get the concept across, and interested students can look up the rest.

    Now, I insist that my students get the facts staight. How they interperate the facts is up to them.

    How do you determine what is fact? What has been taught to students that isn't a fact? So far you've shown that your ignorance and religious based bias makes you an exceptionally poor judge.

    I let them know that for the standardized tests, they have to interperate the facts as supporting evolution.

    Since that interpretation is by far the most well supported and consilient with the evidence, why shouldn't they interpret it that way?

    There are books out there that claim the holocaust never happened, and present isolated 'facts' to support the claim. Are you OK with your students accepting that interpretation? Don't you agree we should 'teach the controversy"? and let the students decide?

    ReplyDelete
  86. We just have to use accurate drawings, include the fact that the embryos don't look alike at some points in development, and mention that some species don't look alike as embryos.
    If evolution is so well supported, then why not present all the facts? The conclusion is inevitable.

    The books that deny the holocaust leave out lots of facts. That the problem I have with the textbooks. If they would include all the facts, then no-one would be able to deny the holocaust.

    ReplyDelete
  87. natschuster said...

    We just have to use accurate drawings,


    We do use drawings that accurately illustrate the ideas being taught.

    You forgot to tell me how you determine when something is a fact BTW. And for forgot to tell me what is being taught now that is not a fact.

    The books that deny the holocaust leave out lots of facts. That the problem I have with the textbooks. If they would include all the facts, then no-one would be able to deny the holocaust.

    Creationist and IDiot books like the ones written by Wells and Behe leave out virtually all known facts about evolution. Why then do you accept their highly biased conclusion? If they would include all the facts, then no-one would be able to deny evolution.

    ReplyDelete
  88. Why do they have to chnage the drawings to illustrate the facts being taught?

    I read the books written by evolutionists, not the ID proponents.

    ReplyDelete
  89. Facts are things like how a embryo actually looks, how some embryos look similar, and some don't, how embryos don't look alike at some points in development. A fact is something we know directly from empirical observation.


    Whether evolution happened or not is an interpretation of the facts.

    ReplyDelete
  90. My post above contains an error. I meant to say I read the books by evolutionists as well as the ID proponents.

    ReplyDelete
  91. natschuster said...

    Why do they have to chnage the drawings to illustrate the facts being taught?


    Drawing weren't changed to illustrate the facts being taught. Keep lying for your God there nat, I'm sure HE appreciates liars.

    A fact is something we know directly from empirical observation.

    It's an empirically observable fact that in early development all vertebrate embryos show a common set of features. Why then are you whining when that fact is taught?

    I meant to say I read the books by evolutionists as well as the ID proponents.

    Books by ID proponents leave out many more facts about evolution than science books written by biologists and geneticists. Why aren't you bitching about the ID authors' lack of honesty? Sure makes you look like a big fat hypocrite.

    ReplyDelete
  92. natschuster said...

    Whether evolution happened or not is an interpretation of the facts


    Wrong. Evolution - the change in allele frequency of a population over time - is an empirically observed fact.

    The mechanisms of evolution - genetic changes due to gene duplication, point mutations, frame shifts, etc. as well as sexual recombination and lateral gene transfer - are empirically observed facts.

    That the same processes and mechanisms worked the same way in the past as they do now is an interpretation based on a huge amount of consilient positive evidence.

    If you want to falsify ToE you need evidence that the empirically observed processes and mechanisms didn't work in the past and couldn't have produced the results seen. Show us that magic barrier that limits the amount of genetic change possible.

    ReplyDelete
  93. Why were they changed at all? Why not use accurate drawings?

    I'm not complaining about the fact that similarities in fetal development are taught. I'm moaning over a: the fact that inaccurate drawing were used. b: the fact that only embryos that kinda look alike were selected c: the fact that the differences in development are not mentioned.

    And some of Wells' and Behe's books are on specific topics. Many books written by evoluttionists are also on specific topics. And Wells and Behe didn't effect me professionally. The textbooks with the inaccurate pictures did.

    ReplyDelete
  94. natschuster said...

    Why were they changed at all? Why not use accurate drawings?

    I'm not complaining about the fact that similarities in fetal development are taught. I'm moaning over a: the fact that inaccurate drawing were used. b: the fact that only embryos that kinda look alike were selected c: the fact that the differences in development are not mentioned.


    The drawings weren't inaccurate in the depiction of the common features being taught.

    Keep lying for your God nat. You're making HIM so proud!

    And some of Wells' and Behe's books are on specific topics. Many books written by evoluttionists are also on specific topics.

    Yet you accuse the science authors of dishonesty while you let Wells and Behe slide. Big fat hypocrite.

    And Wells and Behe didn't effect me professionally. The textbooks with the inaccurate pictures did.

    They only affected you 'professionally' in that you dishonestly and illegally decided to screw your students by skipping important course material. You didn't do it because of inaccurate drawings. You did it from your scientific ignorance and religious beliefs.

    ReplyDelete
  95. So why couldn't they use accurate drawings? And why not include the facts I mentioned, just for the sake of accuracy.

    And I don't have any problem with any book on any topic written by any evolutionist. I only have a problem with tedtbooks that have inaccurate pictures.

    When the textbooks used photographs, I didn't skip those pages. And I mentioned the fact that some embryos are similar in my lectures, even when I did skip the pages.

    ReplyDelete
  96. natschuster said...

    So why couldn't they use accurate drawings?


    They did use drawings that were accurate in the features being taught. Keep lying for Jesus there nat. Jesus loves liars.

    And why not include the facts I mentioned, just for the sake of accuracy.

    Adding extra illustrations would be superfluous to the point being taught.

    And I don't have any problem with any book on any topic written by any evolutionist. I only have a problem with tedtbooks that have inaccurate pictures.

    The textbooks didn't have inaccurate pictures of what was being taught. Keep lying nat, lying will get you into heaven for sure!

    If you saw a children's math book that had cartoon pictures of an elephant and a cow with the caption "these animals have four legs" would you scream

    "THOSE PICTURES AREN'T ACCURATE!! THEY'RE MISLEADING FAKES!! THAT'S NOT A REAL ELEPHANT OR COW!! WHY DIDN'T THEY SHOW A DOG AND A HORSE TOO FOR ACCURACY?? THOSE AUTHORS ARE BEING DISHONEST!! I'M GOING TO SKIP THAT CHAPTER BECAUSE IT'S A FRAUD!!"

    ...because that's exactly how stupid you look pushing the tired old creationist lie about Haeckel's originals and the use of similar drawings today.

    ReplyDelete
  97. These aren't story books, these are science textbooks. Isn't accuracy important in science?

    And the Miller Levine book I quoted above talks about "appearance." Thst would seem to indicate that it is the overall appearance that they are talking about, not just specific features. But the drawings distort the overall appearance. And the embryos that don't look alike are ignored.

    Where exactly am I lying when I say inaacurate drawings are being used?

    And why isn't the fact that some embyros don't resemble each other irrelevant?

    ReplyDelete
  98. Keep lying nat. There's a special place reserved in heaven for Liar For Jesus.

    ReplyDelete