Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Fw: An exchange regarding "recapitulation"!

Expand Messages
  • Robert Baty
    ... From: w_w_c_l To: coCBanned@yahoogroups.com Date: Friday, April 3, 2009 12:01 PM Subject: Re: Is Evolution a Religious Belief #2 / recapitulation ... No it
    Message 1 of 2 , Apr 3, 2009
      ------------Forwarded Message------------

      From: w_w_c_l
      To: coCBanned@yahoogroups.com
      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,
      >> 4/12/80

      > Yeah, but from 1921 to the present
      > it STILL is being pushed by HS science
      > teachers.

      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
      are not.

      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
      embryos.

      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!)

      Here:

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peppered_moth_evolution

      and Ken Miller's:

      http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/Moths/moths.html

      > ...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
      years old.

      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
      ancestor.

      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.

      Rick Hartzog
      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):

      http://8e.devbio.com/article.php?id=219

      ---------------------------------------
      ---------------------------------------



      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • Robert Baty
      ... From: w_w_c_l To: coCBanned@yahoogroups.com Date: Friday, April 3, 2009 12:30 PM Subject: Re: Is Evolution a Religious Belief #2 ... There is no
      Message 2 of 2 , Apr 3, 2009
        --------------Forwarded Message-----------

        From: w_w_c_l
        To: coCBanned@yahoogroups.com
        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,
        > 4/12/80

        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
        | dispute.
        |
        | 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
        http://ncseweb.org/cej/2/4/misquoted-scientists-respond

        ----------------------------------------
        ----------------------------------------




        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.