Vox offers three “unexplainable” mysteries of life on Earth

_{Denyse O'Leary

March 9, 2023

Biology, Intelligent Design}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

In three podcasts at Vox:

How did life start on Earth? What was the series of events that led to birds, bugs, amoebas, you, and me?
That’s the subject of Origins, a three-episode series from Unexplainable — Vox’s podcast that explores big mysteries, unanswered questions, and all the things we learn by diving into the unknown. – Brian Resnick (March 1, 2023)

The three mysteries they offer are:

Where did Earth’s water come from?
How did life start in that water?
What is life anyway?

About that last: Science writer Carl Zimmer offers “The problem is, for each definition of life, scientists can think of a confounding exception. Take, for instance, NASA’s definition of life: “Life is a self-sustaining chemical system capable of Darwinian evolution.” But that definition would exclude viruses, which are not “self-sustaining” and can only survive and replicate by infiltrating a host.”

Comments

Whistler: you keep comparing yourself to lower standard atheists and not to saints that are the right standard to compare yourself. Especially if the Saints didn't do science.JVL_{March 12, 2023
March
03
Mar
12
12
2023
11:03 AM
11
11
03
AM
PDT}

Martin_r: I am just trying to explain, that Darwinists invented a fancy term “phenotypic plasticity” to justify the existence of this camouflage feature, because it doesn’t fit the classic mutations-selection theory… Hmmm . . . let's look. Here's the definition of phenotypic plasticity from Wikipedia:
Phenotypic plasticity refers to some of the changes in an organism's behavior, morphology and physiology in response to a unique environment. Fundamental to the way in which organisms cope with environmental variation, phenotypic plasticity encompasses all types of environmentally induced changes (e.g. morphological, physiological, behavioural, phenological) that may or may not be permanent throughout an individual's lifespan. The term was originally used to describe developmental effects on morphological characters, but is now more broadly used to describe all phenotypic responses to environmental change, such as acclimation (acclimatization), as well as learning. The special case when differences in environment induce discrete phenotypes is termed polyphenism.
In reality, these species can switch off their eyes development “at will” — to save energy. Well, I'd like to see your evidence for that. Plus: how can an organism turn off its eye development 'at will'? I mean, what is the mechanism? How is it done? Can you create, in a lab, the exact conditions so as to trigger that reaction? Do you get in JVL ? Do you know what 'get in' means in Britain?JVL_{March 12, 2023
March
03
Mar
12
12
2023
11:02 AM
11
11
02
AM
PDT}

@Martin_r : If you want you should focus on God , let atheists alone .Ever if you are right about atheists/darwinists you are wrong on the approach(your attitude make darwinists more frozen /opinionated in their approach and secondly make you proud-because you keep comparing yourself to lower standard atheists and not to saints that are the right standard to compare yourself. ) ;)whistler_{March 12, 2023
March
03
Mar
12
12
2023
06:41 AM
6
06
41
AM
PDT}

JVL @31 Perhaps it is because of my bad English, but let me clarify once again ... Of course, I understand the advantage of not being seen by predators ... to blend in ... Creator of peppered moth understands this advantage too :))))))) THAT IS THE PURPOSE OF CAMOUFLAGE - TO "BLEND IN" :))))))) THAT IS WHY OUR CREATOR ENGINEERED THIS CAMOUFLAGE FEATURE :)))))) I am just trying to explain, that Darwinists invented a fancy term "phenotypic plasticity" to justify the existence of this camouflage feature, because it doesn't fit the classic mutations-selection theory... The same for blind cave species - according to Darwinists, another example of phenotypic plasticity. In reality, these species can switch off their eyes development "at will" -- to save energy. Again, this has nothing to with Darwinism or natural selection. These species will switch off their eyes development anytime when there is no light. Will happen anytime with our without your natural selection or Darwin :))))))) BECAUSE ALL THESE FEATS WERE DESIGNED THAT WAY. And it doesn't matter how many more fancy terms will Darwinists invent ... You people were misinterpreting reality for 150 years.... Do you get in JVL ?martin_r_{March 12, 2023
March
03
Mar
12
12
2023
05:13 AM
5
05
13
AM
PDT}

The new "it's not a lie if you believe it" is "it's not a lie if it's carefully selected facts taken wholly out of context to create an intentionally misleading conclusion".
The art of lying and belittling another. https://mobile.twitter.com/pmarca/status/163471936930017208 How often does both sides of the argument here do this? One side admits it has no religious beliefs while the other side professes to be based on religious beliefs and theoretically should be bound by it.jerry_{March 12, 2023
March
03
Mar
12
12
2023
05:03 AM
5
05
03
AM
PDT}

A better question would be, was Jesus haploid or diploid?
Indeed, and the result of having only one set of chromosomes (haploid) is no Y chromosome... ...and Jesus would have been a woman!!!Alan Fox_{March 12, 2023
March
03
Mar
12
12
2023
01:22 AM
1
01
22
AM
PDT}

Martin_r: A peppered moth caterpillar can “see” background color with its body and then adjust its body color to fit the background color. If that is your interpretation of what unguided evolutionary theory says then clearly you've never understood it, at all. Which means your arguments against it are unfounded; you are arguing against a stance that no one takes. To be clear: the idea is that moths whose colour is highly contrasting with the background are easy to spot by predators so that the ones who blend in better have a higher chance of survival and therefore produce more of the next generation. It's a very simple concept but you seem to have completely missed it.JVL_{March 12, 2023
March
03
Mar
12
12
2023
12:31 AM
12
12
31
AM
PDT}

as to phenotypic plasticity … of course it is a conjecture … it is a trick. Invented by Darwinists to trick lay or not very smart people. A peppered moth caterpillar can “see” background color with its body and then adjust its body color to fit the background color. Jerry, you think that this is an easy feat ? Do you realize how complex engineering problem it is ? But it is easy for a Darwinist (like you). You give this problem a name “Phenotypic plasticity” … problem solved ….
Thank you for your opinions. Just as an aside, there is no way anyone could call me a Darwinist. And yes, I appreciate how intricate life is from the cell to all the coordinated systems in advanced forms of life. It is very much like engineering and it would take an extremely advanced intelligence to create them. How and when It was done is a mystery.jerry_{March 11, 2023
March
03
Mar
11
11
2023
12:54 PM
12
12
54
PM
PDT}

Jerry @17
Definitely, an ID proponent. Let’s just say I am interested in truth and believe ID represents that. But people here want to define ID in lots of ways. For example, it has nothing to do with religion but they want it to be closely associated with their religion.
Jerry, of course ID has a lot to do with religion. If you are an ID proponent, you have to BELIEVE in a designer, a creator -- whoever it may be. You believe in a creation. You are a creationist. That is the fact. I have to agree with those atheists who claim that ID is just another word for Creationism. One more note: Few days ago, there was an article published at ICR.org by Randy Guliuzza. I like this fellow engineer very much, because he can see things and give it the right names ... Here is the article title: Mutation-Selection: A Calamitous Creationist Concession this is the part I like:
... The fact is that creationists have been playing Darwin’s game, on his field, by his rules ... For instance, when it comes to the extraordinary biological changes observed in finch beaks, flightless birds on islands, or even peppered moths, creation scientists have historically failed to provide a biblically consistent and scientifically sensible alternate explanation for them—or even a new hypothesis. For decades, we’ve interpreted things like the loss of eyes in cavefish by applying the same ill-conceived, scientifically foolish narrative gloss of random genetic mutations that are mystically acted on by Darwin’s conception of natural selection ...
https://www.icr.org/article/mutation-selection-calamitous-creationist an excellent article .... I can only agree with Guliuzza .... Darwinists have been misrepresenting the reality for 150 years and Creationists/ID proponents still parroting some of this stuff ... As to Natural selection, you wrote:
I point out that “natural selection” happens all the time but is essentially trivial. So why not admit it. It represents truth and is obvious to the average person.
Yes, it is obvious and self-evident that broken /sick species die. It is a common sense. You don't have to call it names - it is a common sense. Darwin misrepresented the reality from the beginning, that is why he had to invent this term ... and now Darwinists and some Creationists/ID proponents use this term permanently to explain the origin of the most sophisticated technology on this planet ...... Natural selection did it :))))))))) Natural selection ...natural selection .... look what natural selection can do ... look, ... natural selection can solve the most complex engineering challenges - like to design an autonomous self-navigating flying systems :))))))))) Natural selection did it ... Send future aerial engineers home ... close technical universities .... leave it to natural selection :)))))))) Guliuzzia is right ... many of you play Darwin's game .... PS: as to phenotypic plasticity ... of course it is a conjecture ... it is a trick. Invented by Darwinists to trick lay or not very smart people. A peppered moth caterpillar can "see" background color with its body and then adjust its body color to fit the background color. Jerry, you think that this is an easy feat ? Do you realize how complex engineering problem it is ? But it is easy for a Darwinist (like you). You give this problem a name "Phenotypic plasticity" ... problem solved ....martin_r_{March 11, 2023
March
03
Mar
11
11
2023
12:20 PM
12
12
20
PM
PDT}

Ford Prefect contradicting himself:
Ford Prefect According to Christianity he is not physical.
Also Ford Prefect in the same comment:
So, any significant deviation from a typical mid-eastern Jewish (darker skin, curly dark hair, brown eyes, )person...
PS:Inform yourself and don't write nonsenses. There are Jewish with blue eyes not many but are. You just generalized common features of Jews to 100% of Jews. PPS: The Supernatural birth of Jesus should give pause to any logic regarding physical features of Jesus.Sandy_{March 11, 2023
March
03
Mar
11
11
2023
12:11 PM
12
12
11
PM
PDT}

BA77 @5
Hairiness is a matter of pure conjecture.
as to Darwinian museum artists ... That is exactly what all these biologists, paleontologists, anthropologists and all the other "-logists" are ... artists .... romantics ... story-tellers ... natural science graduates .... who never made anything .... it is a grotesque ... it is absurdly absurd that this sort of people research/investigate the most advanced technology on this planet ... it is insane .... no wonder that these people are permanently wrong ... whatever they said, later it always turned out to be wrong ... not only these people are extremely biased, what is even worse --they are not qualified to investigate biology ... yes, that's right. Biologists are not qualified to investigate biology. Because biology is all about engineering. That is the reason why these people are permanently wrong ...martin_r_{March 11, 2023
March
03
Mar
11
11
2023
11:25 AM
11
11
25
AM
PDT}

AF at 22: "evolutionary developmental biology is a productive field of research." Developmental biology has no use for evolutionary presuppositions.
On the problem of biological form - Marta Linde-Medina (2020) Excerpt: Embryonic development, which inspired the first theories of biological form, was eventually excluded from the conceptual framework of the Modern Synthesis, (neo-Darwinism) as irrelevant.,,, At present, the problem of biological form remains unsolved. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12064-020-00317-3 The Diverse Early Embryonic Development of Vertebrates and Implications Regarding Their Ancestry David W. Swift - July 21, 2022 Excerpt: contrary to evolutionary expectations, the phylotypic stages of different vertebrate classes arise in radically diverse ways. This diversity clearly counters the superficial appearance of homology of the phylotypic stage, and the plain inference is that vertebrates have not evolved from a common vertebrate ancestor. The diversity extends through all stages of early development—including cleavage and formation of the blastula, gastrulation, neurulation, and formation of the gut and extraembryonic membranes. This paper focuses on gastrulation, during which the germ layers originate and the vertebrate body-plan begins to form.,,, https://bio-complexity.org/ojs/index.php/main/article/view/BIO-C.2022.1/pdf The earliest events leading from the first division of the egg cell to the blastula stage in amphibians, reptiles and mammals are illustrated in figure 5.4. Even to the untrained zoologist it is obvious that neither the blastula itself, nor the sequence of events that lead to its formation, is identical in any of the vertebrate classes shown. The differences become even more striking in the next major phase of embryo formation - gastrulation. This involves a complex sequence of cell movements whereby the cells of the blastula rearrange themselves, eventually resulting in the transformation of the blastula into the intricate folded form of the early embryo, or gastrula, which consists of three basic germ cell layers: the ectoderm, which gives rise to the skin and the nervous system; the mesoderm, which gives rise to muscle and skeletal tissues; and the endoderm, which gives rise to the lining of the alimentary tract as well as to the liver and pancreas.,,, In some ways the egg cell, blastula, and gastrula stages in the different vertebrate classes are so dissimilar that, where it not for the close resemblance in the basic body plan of all adult vertebrates, it seems unlikely that they would have been classed as belonging to the same phylum. There is no question that, because of the great dissimilarity of the early stages of embryogenesis in the different vertebrate classes, organs and structures considered homologous in adult vertebrates cannot be traced back to homologous cells or regions in the earliest stages of embryogenesis. In other words, homologous structures are arrived at by different routes." Michael Denton - Evolution: A Theory in Crisis - pg 145-146 Evolution by Splicing – Comparing gene transcripts from different species reveals surprising splicing diversity. – Ruth Williams – December 20, 2012 Excerpt: the papers show that most alternative splicing events differ widely between even closely related species. “The alternative splicing patterns are very different even between humans and chimpanzees,” said Blencowe.,,, http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view%2FarticleNo%2F33782%2Ftitle%2FEvolution-by-Splicing%2F "It's a Mystery, It's Magic, It's Divinity" - Casey Luskin - March 22, 2012 Excerpt: "The magic of the mechanisms inside each genetic structure saying exactly where that nerve cell should go, the complexity of these, the mathematical models on how these things are indeed done, are beyond human comprehension. Even though I am a mathematician, I look at this with the marvel of how do these instruction sets not make these mistakes as they build what is us. It's a mystery, it's magic, it's divinity." - Alexander Tsiaras http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/03/mathematician_a057741.html "The mere fact that a firefly comes from a single cell that then develops into a firefly puts it in a completely different league [from an iPhone]. That doesn’t happen with smartphones. Factories make smartphones. Fireflies come from fireflies and come from an initial fertilized cell. It’s absolutely mind-boggling. We have no idea how a single cell produces an adult. These things are marvelous." - Doug Axe - The Problem with Theistic Evolution - video - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GkAxRY41ndU Intelligent Design and the Advancement of Science - Brian Miller - December 11, 2017 Excerpt: Thom concluded in his book Structural Stability and Morphogenesis that the process of development should be thought of as being controlled by an “algebraic structure outside space-time itself” (p. 119). Likewise, Robert Rosen argued that life can only be understood as a mathematical abstraction consisting of functional relationships, irreducible to mechanistic processes. He observed that life is fundamentally different from simple physics and chemistry. It embodies the Aristotelian category of final causation, which is closely related to the idea of purpose. The conclusions of these scholars challenge materialistic philosophy at its core. https://evolutionnews.org/2017/12/intelligent-design-and-the-advancement-of-science/ Ask an Embryologist: Genomic Mosaicism - Jonathan Wells - February 23, 2015 Excerpt: I now know as an embryologist,,,Tissues and cells, as they differentiate, modify their DNA to suit their needs. It's the organism controlling the DNA, not the DNA controlling the organism. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2015/02/ask_an_embryolo093851.html
Here is an excellent powerpoint presentation by Dr. Jonathan Wells, starting around the 15:00 minute mark, showing that the central dogma of Darwinian evolution, which simply stated is “DNA makes RNA makes protein makes us”, is incorrect at every step.
Design Beyond DNA: A Conversation with Dr. Jonathan Wells – video (14:36 minute mark) – January 2017 https://youtu.be/ASAaANVBoiE?t=876
bornagain77_{March 11, 2023
March
03
Mar
11
11
2023
11:19 AM
11
11
19
AM
PDT}

Sandy writes:
Jesus was born from a Jewess but what are the physical qualities of his Father?
According to Christianity he is not physical. A better question would be, was Jesus haploid or diploid? But this is deviating from my original comment. Why does Jesus tend to be depicted with the physical/racial characteristics of the people where the depiction is made? In the Bible he is never described as being different in any physical way from the general population. So, any significant deviation from a typical mid-eastern Jewish person (darker skin, curly dark hair, brown eyes, etc), would be an intentional deception.Ford Prefect_{March 11, 2023
March
03
Mar
11
11
2023
10:47 AM
10
10
47
AM
PDT}

Unlike the depictions of Jesus as a light skinned
Jesus was born from a Jewess but what are the physical qualities of his Father?Sandy_{March 11, 2023
March
03
Mar
11
11
2023
10:04 AM
10
10
04
AM
PDT}

Alan Fox @21 Stephen Jay Gould, Abscheulich!(Atrocious!), NATURAL HISTORY, Mar. 2000, at 42, 44--45 Bonus quote:
Matzke, Gross: "Haeckel did exaggerate similarities in very early embryos of different species, and his figures, or derivatives of them, have appeared in a few textbooks." [Nicholas J. Matzke & Paul R. Gross, Analyzing Critical Analysis: The Fallback Antievolutionist Strategy, in NOT IN OUR CLASSROOMS: WHY INTELLIGENT DESIGN IS WRONG FOR OUR SCHOOLS 40 ( Eugenie C. Scott & Glenn Branch, eds. 2006).]
SOURCEOrigenes_{March 11, 2023
March
03
Mar
11
11
2023
08:42 AM
8
08
42
AM
PDT}

Just to be clear, I'm querying the accusation of fraud. Everyone makes mistakes and Haeckel owned up to some inaccuracies and mis-judgements. Also evolutionary developmental biology is a productive field of research.Alan Fox_{March 11, 2023
March
03
Mar
11
11
2023
08:36 AM
8
08
36
AM
PDT}

Stephen Jay Gould: “Haeckel had exaggerated the similarities by idealizations and omissions,” … “in a procedure that can only be called fraudulent,” … “simply copied the same figure over and over again.”
Where did the Gould quote come from, Origenes?Alan Fox_{March 11, 2023
March
03
Mar
11
11
2023
08:28 AM
8
08
28
AM
PDT}

Relatd: Haeckel’s fraud has been revealed but some people are too trusting and do not look beyond the textbooks they had in school.

Alan Fox: Hmm. Historian of Science, Robert J. Richards wrote a paper (PDF) that questions whether fraud ever occurred.

What Does Richards’s Article Argue? Bob Richards admits that Haeckel’s infamous drawings show “considerable disparity” from photographs of embryos, and at one point acknowledges that Haeckel “egregiously erred” in at least one of his early embryo drawings. evolutionnews.org

Ford Prefect: I would say that the most that could be claimed is observer bias.

embryologist Michael Richardson: “one of the most famous fakes in biology,”

Stephen Jay Gould: “Haeckel had exaggerated the similarities by idealizations and omissions,” … “in a procedure that can only be called fraudulent,” ... “simply copied the same figure over and over again.”

The journal Science: “generations of biology students may have been misled by a famous set of drawings of embryos published 123 years ago by the German biologist Ernst Haeckel.”
Origenes_{March 11, 2023
March
03
Mar
11
11
2023
08:13 AM
8
08
13
AM
PDT}

Alan Fox writes:
Hmm. Historian of Science, Robert J. Richards wrote a paper (PDF) that questions whether fraud [Haeckel’s em to depictions] ever occurred.
I would say that the most that could be claimed is observer bias. Unlike the depictions of Jesus as a light skinned, light haired, blue eyed man. In the latter case, there is almost certainly some level of intentional deception involved.Ford Prefect_{March 11, 2023
March
03
Mar
11
11
2023
07:11 AM
7
07
11
AM
PDT}

the term “phenotypic plasticity” is just another Darwinian conjecture, very similar to “natural selection” conjecture
Neither are conjectures. They both happen naturally. I point out that “natural selection” happens all the time but is essentially trivial. So why not admit it. It represents truth and is obvious to the average person. People including Darwin witnessed that there were physical changes that took place over time within a species. For example, there are 7 foot and 3 foot humans with different musculature, skin color, hair color, and facial shapes. Their understanding of genetic cellular process were basically nil. So they use the expressions plasticity to describe the process. They reasoned that If it could take place within a species that eventually small physical changes would lead to a different species. Obviously wrong given our knowledge of genetics today but a reasonable speculation in the mid 1800s. Now they will say some genetic changes will eventually cause physical changes. This will then lead to a new species as new genes with varying alleles get added to a genome that cause even more physical changes. No evidence for this but this is the speculation. That’s what most modern evolutionary biology is about. I have nothing against research that seeks these answers. A lot of it has led to epigenetic research which is valid and 100% consistent with ID. Some of these epigenetic effects definitely lead to what would be called plasticity changes. Aside: I believe truth is what will win out. But how to establish that truth? To deny the obvious such as natural selection is the worse possible strategy. Instead emphasize that it is true but all the evidence is that it is trivial even over millions of years. There is zero reason to denigrate Darwin. Just acknowledge he was right but only on minor things. Modern genetics depends on many of his ideas. Give him his due but say modern science shows these ideas as very limited. That’s true. People are scared of the truth on both sides of the argument. For example, I see little evidence of pro ID people seeking it here.jerry_{March 11, 2023
March
03
Mar
11
11
2023
05:59 AM
5
05
59
AM
PDT}

I always wanted to ask, are you a creationist, a ID proponent, a theistic evolutionist or something else ?
Definitely, an ID proponent. Let’s just say I am interested in truth and believe ID represents that. But people here want to define ID in lots of ways. For example, it has nothing to do with religion but they want it to be closely associated with their religion. Not illogical but ID can be associated with lots of religions. For example, there is nothing in ID that points to a triune God so Christianity is not the only religion justified by ID. “Creationist” is another word that needs a definition. It is ill defined on this site but means one thing to the general world, Young Earth Creationist. The term “theistic evolutionist is also badly defined but outside a very small community, no one has ever heard of it. Does anyone here know, that scientists and philosophers justify Darwinian Evolution by showing “creationism” to be obviously wrong. An absurd bit of logic because ID is not creationism and ID and Darwinian Evolution do not represent a totality of possibilities. ID is discredited constantly by associating it with creationism which as I said nearly everyone associates with Young Earth Creationism. From what I understand, theistic evolutionists are all over the lot. There used to be a few that came here to comment. It seems that their beliefs are based on it had to happen naturally somehow and is driven mainly not by the evidence but by opposition to YECs who they associate with ID. Aside: I am definitely not a YEC and probably not what’s called an old earth creationist, whatever that is. I have no idea how design was instigated in this universe nor does anyone else using science. They will appeal to Genesis but that definitely is not ID or science. It’s a mystery. I am on record that if ID wins the day, (highly unlikely given the strategies used to justify it) the real food fight will begin. Aside2: I’ve written several times that both life and complex life could have arisen naturally but science seems to strongly suggest otherwise. But a creator who is powerful enough to create this universe, certainly has the knowledge and ability to make it happen. For example, with initial/boundary conditions at the origin of the universe. I’m not saying it happened that way, just that’s it possible that was the way.jerry_{March 11, 2023
March
03
Mar
11
11
2023
05:21 AM
5
05
21
AM
PDT}

AF at 15, Hmm, and Charles Darwin himself conceded that it can be seriously questioned whether his theory even qualifies as a 'true science' in the first place.
,,"I am quite conscious that my speculations run quite beyond the bounds of true science.",,, - Charles Darwin to Asa Gray - 18 June 1857 https://www.darwinproject.ac.uk/letter/DCP-LETT-2109.xml ,, "What you hint at generally is very very true, that my work will be grievously hypothetical & large parts by no means worthy of being called inductive; my commonest error being probably induction from too few facts.",, - Charles Darwin to Asa Gray - 29 November 1857 https://www.darwinproject.ac.uk/letter/DCP-LETT-2176.xml "In response to a letter from Asa Gray, professor of biology at Harvard University, Darwin declared: “I am quite conscious that my speculations run quite beyond the bounds of true science." When questioned further by Gray, Darwin confirmed Gray’s suspicions: “What you hint at generally is very, very true: that my work is grievously hypothetical, and large parts are by no means worthy of being called induction.” Darwin had turned against the use of scientific principles in developing his theory of evolution." - Richard William Nelson - Darwin Then and Now - Anti Science Irony - 2011
Of supplemental note:
Countering revisionism—part 1: Ernst Haeckel, fraud is proven by E. van Niekerk - 2011 In 1997, a ‘bomb’ exploded in the face of all those evolutionists who so fondly kept on using this evolutionary ‘icon’, when embryologist (and evolutionist) Dr Michael K. Richardson and his colleagues published a variety of real photographs of the relevant embryos.5 These drawings of Haeckel were later compared directly to the actual photos, and they were found to be far more different than everybody even thought. Richardson also published photographs of species additional to those which appeared in Haeckel’s popular embryo plates. This showed that Haeckel conveniently used those which tended to look more similar, while ignoring those which were different. Although a minority of honest evolutionists have appreciated Richardson’s work, such as Stephen Jay Gould, Scott F. Gilbert (author of developmental biological books) and Paul Dombrowsky (a specialist in rhetoric), the embarrassment was just too severe and the iconic embryos too beloved among textbook authors to let things stay as they were. Robert John Richards, a professor of history at the University of Chicago, made a concerted attempt to rehabilitate not only the history around Haeckel, but also the very embryo sketches themselves. In 2008/9 Richards published a book and a paper in which he made some serious attempts to clear and clean up the name of his hero, Ernst Haeckel. My paper will look mainly at the works of Haeckel and the scientific issues around them, specifically set out in Richards’ paper named Haeckel’s Embryos: Fraud not proven.6 Where necessary, related issues will be discussed.,,, On investigating Haeckel’s illustrations technically, it becomes clear just how many things Haeckel distorted in the embryo illustrations. His dishonesty can thus not be denied. http://creation.com/haeckel-fraud-proven Icons of Evolution 10th Anniversary: Haeckel's (Bogus) Embryos - January 2011 - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lAC807DAXzY?
bornagain77_{March 11, 2023
March
03
Mar
11
11
2023
01:41 AM
1
01
41
AM
PDT}

Haeckel’s fraud has been reveled but some people are too trusting and do not look beyond the textbooks they had in school.
Hmm. Historian of Science, Robert J. Richards wrote a paper (PDF) that questions whether fraud ever occurred.Alan Fox_{March 10, 2023
March
03
Mar
10
10
2023
11:58 PM
11
11
58
PM
PDT}

Jerry, the term "phenotypic plasticity" is just another Darwinian conjecture, very similar to "natural selection" conjecture. Darwinists had to invent this term to somehow justify their misinterpretation of reality. The term "phenotypic plasticity" is just another example of Darwinian damage control. They can't admit that the ability to lose eyes "at will" -- to save energy -- is just another designed feature. It can't be more obvious, especially when so many other evolutionary unrelated species living in caves have this ability (e.g. beetles and spiders). Moreover, there are other examples of "phenotypic plasticity", e.g. adaptive (real time) color change of peppered moth's larvae (I bet that adult peppered moth and other moth species work the same way as its larvae, can change wings color "at will"). Jerry, I always wanted to ask, are you a creationist, a ID proponent, a theistic evolutionist or something else ?martin_r_{March 10, 2023
March
03
Mar
10
10
2023
10:20 PM
10
10
20
PM
PDT}

The above definitions are probably not precise enough and modifications should be debated until there is general agreement on each. I am sure there are other terms and each may have different variations that should be delineated so everyone knows just what the other means. My guess is that this will not happen. The definition of "theory" is especially problematic. It could range from the "wave theory of light" to "the Butler did it" with a lot of examples in-between. We tend to use the same word for all. Aside: ID is closer to the "Butler did it" than to the "wave theory of light" so why use the same word for ID as for an area of particle physics.jerry_{March 10, 2023
March
03
Mar
10
10
2023
10:58 AM
10
10
58
AM
PDT}

The term "evolution" just means changes by a change in alleles or epigenetic effect. It is completely part of modern day genetics. It is also consistent with the concept called micro evolution which is just genetics (includes epigenetics.) The term "Evolution mean tiers 2 and 3 of this discription of life changes which was put forward 17 years ago here. No one disagreed with the distinctions made here but it can certainly be refined with better examples and descriptions. https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/the-argument-from-incredulity-vs-the-argument-from-gullibility/#comment-40952 That is why I try to use a capital "E" anytime I am referring to what the debate is about. It is definitely not about the small "e" which only has relevance to genetics. Natural selection is described in the following comment https://uncommondescent.com/origin-of-life/paul-davies-on-the-gap-between-life-and-non-life/#comment-775881 Essentially it is just what happens when a system has been disturbed after one of its elements takes on a new value. For ecologies, the new values may be environmental or the introduction of a new species or a new allele version of a species. All three could affect the allele version of a species that becomes predominant. Darwin is the most egregiously misused term on this site. Darwin was a lay scientist who had some insights that have proved useful. These insights have also been exaggerated by many as to their implications. So when using any expression that includes some form of Darwin, it is best to indicate which insights are being used. Darwin had little knowledge of biology since at best it was primitive at the time. No one knew exactly what a cell was or what the implications were. So give him credit for some of his insights but also the evidence is that his ideas has little to do with Evolution but a lot to do with evolution or genetics. So Darwin's ideas are definitely real and relevant to genetics. His ideas have no meaning for Evolution because the changes necessary for Evolution to take place are far beyond what genetic process can accomplish. Darwin is not someone to malign but he is also not someone who changed science much. Give him credit where it is due but with the understanding that the ideas he put forward had value but not to Evolution. So the lesson here is not to mock or disparage Darwin but admit his ideas are useful for a very important science, namely genetics. But then emphasize that his ideas have proven fruitless for Evolution. The last word that needs a careful definition is the term "theory." It must be distinguished between the forces of physics which are continually operating and those by intelligences which could be one time events. To think that both are the same thing is ludicrous.jerry_{March 10, 2023
March
03
Mar
10
10
2023
10:34 AM
10
10
34
AM
PDT}

Jerry at 7, Why not lead by example? Post all those definitions.relatd_{March 10, 2023
March
03
Mar
10
10
2023
10:10 AM
10
10
10
AM
PDT}

phenotypic plasticity
From what I understand phenotypic plasticity is just genetics. So it is not an example of Evolution (capital E). I include epigenetics as a subset of genetics. Phenotypic changes can be caused by allele changes or epigenetic processes. There is obviously phenotypic differences between species. But how that arose is still a mystery.jerry_{March 10, 2023
March
03
Mar
10
10
2023
09:31 AM
9
09
31
AM
PDT}

Ba77, Starting in the 1960s, the idea of 'cave men' was widespread. Yet I wonder what men did when no natural caves were in the area. But back to the 1960s. These cave men were shown with heads/skulls with heavy brow ridges. Strangely, as the decades passed, depictions of these allegedly early men upgraded to make them indistinguishable from "modern men." https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/rethinking-neanderthals-83341003/ What is sorely lacking is a comparative study of skull shapes. The various racial groups, from Caucasian to Negroid to Asian, show marked differences. I have yet to see side by side comparisons, with angle measurements, showing representative skull shapes for each. The just-so stories included drawings by Ernst Haeckel that were widely published and which appeared in textbooks until the 1990s. They were fraudulent but confirm the idea that the theory of evolution was worth far more as a means of spreading atheism than in spreading any scientific ideas. So here we are, in the midst of evolution promoters, who, as far as I can tell, are part of a planned effort to promote atheism since 'evolution' requires no God in order to function. Even the origin of life itself is still promoted as happening through the chance combination of inorganic chemicals with perhaps a little help from atmospheric gases and a lightning strike or two. All of that can be duplicated in a laboratory today. It could even be simulated using a computer program. Haeckel's fraud has been reveled but some people are too trusting and do not look beyond the textbooks they had in school. https://press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/book/chicago/H/bo18785800.htmlrelatd_{March 10, 2023
March
03
Mar
10
10
2023
08:54 AM
8
08
54
AM
PDT}

Jerry, I completely agree with you. The definition of terms. Recently I came across a term "Phenotypic plasticity". Biologists claim, that blind cave fish, the way how it lose its eyes, is an example of phenotypic plasticity. And I always thought, that it is an example of Darwinian evolution :)))))))))martin_r_{March 10, 2023
March
03
Mar
10
10
2023
08:48 AM
8
08
48
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 … 5 6 7 8 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply