Fw: An exchange regarding "recapitulation"!
- ------------Forwarded Message------------
Date: Friday, April 3, 2009 12:01 PM
Subject: Re: Is Evolution a Religious Belief #2 / recapitulation
--- In coCBanned@yahoogroups.com, DBWILLIS@... wrote:
> DW here,
>>q.. Ashley Montagu, "The theory of
>> recapitulation was destroyed in
>> 1921 by Professor Walter Garstang
>> in a famous paper. Since then no
>> respectable biologist has ever used
>> the theory of recapitulation, because
>> it was utterly unsound, created by a
>> Nazi-like preacher named Haeckel."
>> Montague-Gish Prinston Debate,
> Yeah, but from 1921 to the present
> it STILL is being pushed by HS science
No it isn't. Show me a high school biology teacher who
is teaching "ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny".
You are pretending that comparative embryology and
the theory of recapitulation are the same thing. They
Haeckel-like drawings are still used because embryology
does give us clues to evolutionary history -- such as
the tails on human embryos and the hind legs on whale
Do you deny that human embryos have tails? Do you
deny that whale embryos have hind legs, that chicken
embryos have teeth, that bird embryos have fingers?
Generally speaking, comparative embryology shows that
the structures (such as the vertebra) that evolved earlier
also appear earlier in the embryo, and those that evolved
most recently (like the human cerebrum) are the last to
develop in the embryo. That is not recapitulation theory.
> I for sure recall it from the past 35
> years being taught as valid.
No you don't. From your own demonstrated lack of
understanding of basic biological concepts, I seriously
doubt that you ever even had a biology course from a
public high school -- or if you did you were already so
screwed up by your creationist mentors that it was
impossible for you to learn the material.
I repeat: show me a high school biology teacher who is
teaching that "ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny" is
a valid part of evolutionary theory.
> Of course the same goes for the
> peppered moths...
Peppered moths are just a very simple example used to
illustrate a concept -- environmental pressures do cause
a change in allele frequency in a population. That is
one of the ways evolution works.
Would you care to dispute that?
I'm afraid, creationist that you are, you have been
getting your misinformation about peppered moths from
other creationists, who are unreliable sources of
scientific information. (But then, they must!)
and Ken Miller's:
> ...and Lucy's feet.
Let's get this straight. The Laetoli footprints are
3.5 million years old. The rock layers beneath that
are even older. Therefore, your young-earth fantasy
religion is false. You might as well get you some
pointy plastic ears and become a Trekkie.
It wouldn't matter if the footprints *were* identical to
modern humans -- which they aren't -- nor would it matter
if they were identical to modern chimps -- which they
aren't; it wouldn't matter if they were all left-footed
with seven toes; your young-earth religion is still
falsified simply by the fact that they are 3.5 million
Given that your young-earth religion is false, why should
you be worried about irrelevancies such as biological
evolution? What you *should* be doing is trying to
find out the truth, rather than trying to convert others
to a false religion. Why do you want to promote something
that is false?
> We can expect the deceiving ev's to
> keep pushing doctrine like that so
> long as it serves their purposes.
Maybe you should be finding us that high school biology
teacher who is teaching "ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny"
before you make such accusations. I say that it is
DB Willis who is pushing false doctrine.
Remember what your assertion is: That recapitulation
theory is not valid, but that high school biology
teachers are still using it as evidence of evolution
anyway, in order to brainwash kids into believing
evolution is a fact.
If you are NOT able to find such a teacher and present
evidence that recapitulation theory is still being
taught as valid, then I think we can safely conclude that
you have once again attempted to mislead us.
> I would expect Lucy to be still on
> her "throne" in 50 years if some
> other creature is not found
> which can replace her.
What throne? "Lucy" is a common Australopithecus afarensis.
We have hundreds of them. While A. afarensis certainly
qualifies as an intermediate stage between chimps and
humans, it will take a lot more finds and a lot more work
before anyone can positively say that Lucy is a direct
Do you deny that A. afarensis existed over 3 million years
ago? Then you need to be coming up with some evidence.
I don't mean creationist-style "evidence" that the
scientists are all bozos; I mean *positive* evidence
that the tracks are however old you want to say they are.
These word games you have been trying to play about the
Laetoli tracks year after year aren't doing anything but
making you look foolish. If you can't deal with the
age of the tracks then all the rest is immaterial.
Worldwide Church of Latitudinarianism
P.S. Here, peruse the online supplement to the
Developmental Biology textbook:
Ernst Haeckel and the Biogenetic Law
(An informed opinion):
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
- --------------Forwarded Message-----------
Date: Friday, April 3, 2009 12:30 PM
Subject: Re: Is Evolution a Religious Belief #2
--- In coCBanned@yahoogroups.com, "Terry W. Benton" <terrywbenton@...> wrote:
> q.. Ashley Montagu, "The theory of
> recapitulation was destroyed in 1921
> by Professor Walter Garstang in a
> famous paper. Since then no
> respectable biologist has ever used
> the theory of recapitulation, because
> it was utterly unsound, created by a
> Nazi-like preacher named Haeckel."
> Montague-Gish Prinston Debate,
There is no "Montague-Gish Prinston Debate".
There was, however, a debate between Ashley Montagu and Duane Gish
at Princeton University.
Cretinists are offal spelers.
But speaking of quote-mining, here's one for you:
| Regarding the recent action brought by the creationists in
| California and the judge's order that the state distribute
| more copies of a statement of long-standing policy that
| evolution should not be taught as dogmatic, irrefutable fact
| but rather as a scientific theory, the truth is that evolution
| is an unrefuted fact. There are theories concerning the exact
| mechanisms of evolution, but concerning evolution there no
| longer can be any doubt as to its reality.
| The method of science is falsification, the attempts to
| disprove by every possible means the theory which appears to
| explain the fact. If the attempt fails, the scientist knows
| that he has something and proceeds to set up experiments to
| further test the theory. When the results support the theory,
| they are published so that other scientists can check them.
| When the findings are verified, we have "irrefutable" proof
| of the accuracy of the theory. In that sense, truth for a
| scientist means the highest degree of probability attached to
| a particular judgment.
| In that same sense, because we have innumerable evidences of
| the reality of evolution, both of a premeditated and
| unpremeditated (natural) experimental kind, evolution is no
| longer a theory but one of the best authenticated facts within
| the whole realm of science. The fact of evolution is beyond
| Theories as to the exact mechanisms of evolution are (happily)
| alive and being debated -- such debate constitutes the lifeblood
| of science, not evidence of disagreement as to the fact of
| evolution. The scientist believes in proof without certainty;
| some other people believe in certainty without proof.
| Not all things can be proven; evolution can. Creation myths
| are just that: myths. As such, they are the legitimate study
| of anthropologists and folklorists. If some people choose to
| believe them to be truths, they are free to do so.
Dr. Ashley Montagu, 1981
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]