Blind Guides

_{Cornelius Hunter

July 27, 2010

Intelligent Design}

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

Biology textbook authors George Johnson and Jonathan Losos are leaders in the life sciences. They are accomplished researchers and professors from leading universities—they are also blind guides. In their otherwise well written and highly produced textbook The Living World ((Fifth Edition, McGraw Hill, 2008), Johnson and Losos badly misrepresent science and make fallacious arguments when they present evolution to the student. It is yet another example of smart people spreading lies and foolishness. Read more

Comments

(Maybe even you, SAR?) Umm, it's like summer time and the school keeps the books. I am a little disappointed. I going to be gone to camp next week, and this conversation is just getting interesting. I guess I'll have to wait to see if anyone mentions the differences. I read your post Mr. Kairos and until next weekend. I'm sorry, Mr. Karios, I don't mean to be rude but I am not a doctor and your post is hard to understand without a dictionary. I am pretty sure it is about Darwinists misleading students and something about big numbers making Darwinism false. But, I don't have alot of time before I leave to look up all those words. Hopefully, someone will get some good pictures of embryos and you can point out all the differences when I get back next weekend.San Antonio Rose_{July 31, 2010
July
07
Jul
31
31
2010
10:56 AM
10
10
56
AM
PDT}

Mr Kairosfoscus, you say: "Worse, even if there are striking parallels in the embryological development process, strictly, such can easily be explained on a well-known design praxis: multiple use of a library of parts and processes, with adaptations to specific applications. In short, absent a priori ruling out of common design, embryological development similarities are not going to point to common descent." But that would mean no matter how accurate photos in contemporary textbooks are you still dismiss them as an argument for common descent. Why then go to all the trouble to accuse their authors of fraud? Given the gravity of the accusation, I would still prefer to wait for proof.Kontinental_{July 31, 2010
July
07
Jul
31
31
2010
10:43 AM
10
10
43
AM
PDT}

K: The only really relevant visible details in pictures at this level are the pharyngeal pouches. (And if you want full details as published, I suspect you will have to go to a research library and pull a copy of the journal article, or go through one of those $30+ -- these days -- paywalls. But, I do not think that you will get enough bang for the buck to make that an advisable step, as the decisive informaiton is already here.) I have already linked on Wiki's brief discussion, and the above on library plus adaptation for particular application draws out the root problem with all arguments by homology, as also discussed. On the secondary issue in this thread, someone above aptly pointed out that exaggeration of resemblance (which Haeckel and others who followed him plainly did) is not a good indication, relative to the duties of care of the educator. To further draw out, scroll up above to Gould's remarks, and ask yourself why an advocate of evolution is speaking about shame deriving from teh continued use of Haeckel and Haeckel-derived drawings over a century. Gkairosfocus_{July 31, 2010
July
07
Jul
31
31
2010
09:36 AM
9
09
36
AM
PDT}

---Kontinental: "And if I have not been clear: "I do not defend Haeckel’s tampering." To achieve maximum clarity you would need to say that you condemn authors and educators who use them and their likeness to mislead students. As it is, your acknowledgement means little.StephenB_{July 31, 2010
July
07
Jul
31
31
2010
09:29 AM
9
09
29
AM
PDT}

Mr Kairofoscus, you say "the key issues do not pivot on fine details". Please allow me to disagree. Embryos are tiny, and details may make all the difference. You should realise that you have studied the matter before coming to your verdict that the images in textbooks are doctored. As an educator you should be eager to allow us the same process. And if I have not been clear: I do not defend Haeckel's tampering. @ San Antonio Rose, one little error in you comments: "the much older book you boys are arguing about." I'm a girl. :-D Unfortunately, I live in Europe, so no chance to find your textbook.Kontinental_{July 31, 2010
July
07
Jul
31
31
2010
07:25 AM
7
07
25
AM
PDT}

PS: Another embryologically relevant issue is that to get to new body plans [the main branches of a tree of life model], something like 10+ mn bits of genetic information have to be created dozens of times over. And, the changes in structure have to be embryologically feasible, i.e integrated into a tightly co-ordinated delicately balanced functional system. This too, becomes a challenge for the chance-sourced informaiton model. (Do not let the tendency to focus on the natural selection through differential reproductive success fool you. NS is a culler out of the less fit, not an engine of variation and contingency in DNA. It is chance that has to be the creator of bio-information on evolutionary materialistic models, almost by definition. And if there is an argument that somehow the mechanical necessity of nature will do the job, that is equivalent to saying that life forms were programmed into the basic physics and chemistry of the cosmos. Of this, we find nowhere the faintest observational evidence, and it would point directly from program to programmer.)kairosfocus_{July 31, 2010
July
07
Jul
31
31
2010
07:10 AM
7
07
10
AM
PDT}

Anyone: Could you please look up SAR's book and scan, then upload a graphical file of the relevant page? (Maybe even you, SAR?) SAR, As already noted, even when anatomically similar structures exist in an organism, very often they form in very different ways from different parts of the embryo as it develops; e.g. as I recall, among frogs, or between different animals with guts etc. Similarly, the claim that a human embryo has a gill or the equivalent -- a fish stage -- at any time is simply ridiculous. The folds [pharyngeal pouches] being called gills or gill-like are the start-points for various body structures. Cf wiki here. Worse, even if there are striking parallels in the embryological development process, strictly, such can easily be explained on a well-known design praxis: multiple use of a library of parts and processes, with adaptations to specific applications. In short, absent a priori ruling out of common design, embryological development similarities are not going to point to common descent. (This is a general problem with arguments from homology.) And, educators know or should know that. The exaggeration of similarities -- whether done visually or verbally -- to fallaciously persuade those who by definition do not know enough to spot such problems, is abuse of the privilege of being an educator. So, the whole project of using apparent (or even real) embryological resemblances as a claimed evidence of evolutionary descent is immediately and fatally flawed. Thus, while the faked drawings issue is important as evidence that points to something very wrong, even that does not go far enough. Where there is indeed a potentially decisive issue, it is precisely the one that darwinists who come to UD are as a rule ever so eager to distract from, strawmannise and generally evade or distort. [Cf the weak argument correctives above right this and every UD page.] Namely, all of these systems are based on cells, cells that have in them digitally coded, functionally specific, algorithmic complex information, with tightly co-ordinated, organised implementing molecular nanomachines. There is one routinely observed source of dFSCI, namely intelligence. And, we have excellent reason to see that chance on the gamut of our observed cosmos [the other source of highly contingent outcomes] is utterly implausible as a source of such information and associated coupled machinery. The number of possible but non-functional configurations of molecules and atoms in whatever still warm pond you wish so utterly overwhelms the number that will work, that chance is not a viable engine of origin. (Just 1,000 bits of functionally specific digital information has 10^301 possible configs, about 10 times the SQUARE of the 10^150 states the atom,s of our observed universe would access at the rate of a state every Planck time, across the lifetime of the observed universe. DNA runs from 100's of thousands to billions of bits.) But, if Lewontinian a priori materialism is allowed to censor our thinking on what the obs3erved patterns of cause and the associated signs of their presence are, then we will beg the questions that make homologies seem to be evidence for macroevolution. But, what is really going on is what Philip Johnson pointed out , as already cited today:
For scientific materialists the materialism comes first; the science comes thereafter. [[Emphasis original] We might more accurately term them "materialists employing science." And if materialism is true, then some materialistic theory of evolution has to be true simply as a matter of logical deduction, regardless of the evidence. That theory will necessarily be at least roughly like neo-Darwinism, in that it will have to involve some combination of random changes and law-like processes capable of producing complicated organisms that (in Dawkins’ words) "give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose."
Thinking in circles has always been prone to ill-founded triumphalism; as one thinks s/he has "proved" what one already has implicitly assumed. Unfortunately, that is precisely what evolutionary materialism so often does. GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{July 31, 2010
July
07
Jul
31
31
2010
06:58 AM
6
06
58
AM
PDT}

actually, I’d like to see the photos in your textbook. Do you happen to know if I can find them online? I don't know. Obviously, I don't have teh book anymore. I did look it up based on the discussion here and it was by Miller and Levine. Their dragonfly book, which it seems is more recent than the much older book you boys are arguing about.San Antonio Rose_{July 31, 2010
July
07
Jul
31
31
2010
05:04 AM
5
05
04
AM
PDT}

<i.“The authors wanted to minimize the differences between early embryo stages to create the impression that they are strikingly similar and, for that reason, appear to share a common ancestor.” Is this the time that someone could tell me what those differences are? I've asked like 4 times now and I have been ignored all along. The photos in my text beek make the embroyos look very similar. What are the differences that the Darwinists are hiding?San Antonio Rose_{July 31, 2010
July
07
Jul
31
31
2010
05:01 AM
5
05
01
AM
PDT}

If your pictures looked a lot like the Haeckel pictures, they were probably not photographs, but airbrush rendered, masked images; or the digital equivalent. They were definitely photographs of embryos that showed that there are alot of similarities between different species. And they did look very similar.San Antonio Rose_{July 31, 2010
July
07
Jul
31
31
2010
04:55 AM
4
04
55
AM
PDT}

PS: Philip Johnson's rebuke was well-warranted:
For scientific materialists the materialism comes first; the science comes thereafter. [[Emphasis original] We might more accurately term them "materialists employing science." And if materialism is true, then some materialistic theory of evolution has to be true simply as a matter of logical deduction, regardless of the evidence. That theory will necessarily be at least roughly like neo-Darwinism, in that it will have to involve some combination of random changes and law-like processes capable of producing complicated organisms that (in Dawkins’ words) "give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose." . . . . The debate about creation and evolution is not deadlocked . . . Biblical literalism is not the issue. The issue is whether materialism and rationality are the same thing [They most definitely are not]. Darwinism is based on an a priori commitment to materialism, not on a philosophically neutral assessment of the evidence. Separate the philosophy from the science, and the proud tower collapses. [[Emphasis added.] [[The Unraveling of Scientific Materialism, First Things, 77 (Nov. 1997), pp. 22 – 25.]
kairosfocus_{July 31, 2010
July
07
Jul
31
31
2010
04:00 AM
4
04
00
AM
PDT}

K: You have enough evidence to draw a reasonable conclusion; as the key issues do not pivot on fine details, given photos, photo-paintings, drawings and remarks about Mr Haeckel's behaviour over the past 130+ years. Mr Haeckel's misbehaviour is not in doubt. And so, just the use of drawings or photo-paintings close to the relevant Haeckel drawings -- except to expose and learn from them -- is inexcusable. Especially as the actual photos (even in the file sizes as linked) are enough to show sharp dissimilarities between the Haeckel drawings, the Haeckel-like illustrations and the actual credible reality. I repeat: the first charge of the educator is not to mislead. And thatis evident form the textbooks cited, from only a few years ago. So, the real issue at this point is not to prove to someone's idiosyncratic demands, but to address the pattern over the past 130 years that has led to fr instance not only the Haeckel case but to the current actual one above in the original post. For, in that post, one tower of circularity-loaded inferences projected into the remote unobservable past, on dating, was used to then try to transform another set of such towered inferences and imaginative reconstructions [the photo-paintings of a claimed line of descent] into a claimed factual observation of Macroevolution. But, plainly, and inferred explanatory construct (even if well supported by explanations) is simply not in our remit to prove beyond reasonable doubt, and it is not to be conflated with a "fact" or an "observation." Thus, we see the triumph of ideology over sound epistemology, where the business of grounding and resulting degree of warrant for claimed knowledge is a key issue for responsible educators. So, we are back to the implications of Lewontin's a priori materialism as an ideological construct distorting the content of origins science education:
. . . to put a correct view of the universe into people's heads we must first get an incorrect view out . . . the problem is to get them to reject irrational and supernatural explanations of the world, the demons that exist only in their imaginations, and to accept a social and intellectual apparatus, Science, as the only begetter of truth . . . . To Sagan, as to all but a few other scientists, it is self-evident that the practices of science provide the surest method of putting us in contact with physical reality, and that, in contrast, the demon-haunted world rests on a set of beliefs and behaviors that fail every reasonable test . . . . It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door. [[“Billions and Billions of Demons,” NYRB, January 9, 1997.]
This has sobering import for the state of origins science education, even at the hands of professors in major universities and their reviewers and publishers. For, it is plain that the duty of care for educators to be conservative and cautious in claims, pointing out when there are limitations, has been violated. And in particular, there is a difference between a theory and a fact of observation, especially in contexts where our facts are in the here and now, and our theories relate to a projected past dozens to hundreds or more of millions of years into the inferred past. Mr Hunter has a definite point, even though I do not like how he has phrased it on tone. GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{July 31, 2010
July
07
Jul
31
31
2010
03:41 AM
3
03
41
AM
PDT}

Hi San Antonio Rose, actually, I'd like to see the photos in your textbook. Do you happen to know if I can find them online? As Mr Kairosfoscus still seems to be looking for acceptable ones we could discuss yours in the meantime.Kontinental_{July 31, 2010
July
07
Jul
31
31
2010
03:14 AM
3
03
14
AM
PDT}

---molch: "The drawings in his book are not Haeckel’s drawings." You are quibbling again. If they are pure Haeckel, Haeckel-like or Haeckel-based, they are being used for the same purpose. Do I really need to use the hyphen every time?StephenB_{July 30, 2010
July
07
Jul
30
30
2010
05:50 PM
5
05
50
PM
PDT}

--molch: "And I am still waiting for your answer on what you were trying to say with “….the authors’ intent was [...] to mislead readers into believing that the same similarities that occur later in the process are also present earlier in the process.” Well, here I think you have a point. That sentence, too hurriedly written, begs to be misunderstood. It would have been better to say something like this: "The authors wanted to minimize the differences between early embryo stages to create the impression that they are strikingly similar and, for that reason, appear to share a common ancestor."StephenB_{July 30, 2010
July
07
Jul
30
30
2010
05:25 PM
5
05
25
PM
PDT}

SAR: You are no dumb girl, but a fairly hot exchange is ongoing; which will draw attention. If your pictures looked a lot like the Haeckel pictures, they were probably not photographs, but airbrush rendered, masked images; or the digital equivalent. Gkairosfocus_{July 30, 2010
July
07
Jul
30
30
2010
05:09 PM
5
05
09
PM
PDT}

K: I dunno, Irfanview I have found very useful ever since an Archaeologist recommended it to me. (My old workhorse for images is Corel PhotoPaint, ver 8, believe it or not.) In looking at the pics, I had no problem with my basic screen resolution. (And since you have Photoshop -- which Gimp is comparable to -- I assume your screen res is good.) I think you are looking for fine details that are not going to be in the pics; the general shape is enough to show:
(a) the modern textbook pics [JPGs it seems from colour photocopies or scans) clearly are influenced by Haeckel or actually use his drawings (b) the pictures from Michael Richardson as reproduced are not high resolution, but show enough to tell us that Haeckel artificially converged his drawings.
The last should be no surprise, as that was the complaint in 1874. Russell Grigg summarises:
In his book Natürliche Schöpfungs-geschichte (The Natural History of Creation), published in German in 1868 (and in English in 1876 with the title The History of Creation), Haeckel used the drawing of a 25-day-old dog embryo which had been published by T.L.W. Bischoff in 1845, and that of a 4-week-old human embryo published by A. Ecker in 1851–59.14 Wilhelm His, Sr (1831–1904), a famous comparative embryologist of the day and professor of anatomy at the University of Leipzig, uncovered the fraud. Prof. His showed in 1874 that Haeckel had added 3.5 mm to the head of Bischoff’s dog embryo, taken 2 mm off the head of Ecker’s human embryo, doubled the length of the human posterior, and substantially altered the details of the human eye. He sarcastically pointed out that Haeckel taught in Jena, home of the then finest optical equipment available, and so had no excuse for inaccuracy. He concluded that anyone who engaged in such blatant fraud had forfeited all respect and that Haeckel had eliminated himself from the ranks of scientific research workers of any stature.15,16 _____________ 14 Ref. 1, pp. 276, 469, 472, which reference T.L.W. Bischoff, Entwicklungsgeschichte des Hunde Eies, F. Vieweg, Braunschweig, Germany, 1845; and A. Ecker, Icones Physiologicæ, L. Voss, Leipzig, 1851–59. Return to Text. 15 Adapted from ref. 1, pp. 276, 475, which references Wilhelm His, Unsere Körperform, C.W. Voegel, Leipzig, 1874. Return to Text. 16 It is noteworthy that the latest (15th) edition of Encyclopædia Britannica, committed as it is to evolution, makes no mention of Haeckel’s many fabrications. The 1992 printing says merely, ‘Haeckel tended to speculate’, ‘his concepts of recapitulation were in error’, and he ‘was often involved in controversy’, Encyclopædia Britannica, 5:610, 1992.
Haeckel's behaviour is indefensible. 136 years later, we should not have to be discussing how his misleadingly convergent drawings influence biology textbooks in their presentations of evidence for evolution, books published within the past 10 - 20 years. And, when we see books basing the pictures more or less on Haeckel, when we could do photographs of what is happening to relevant embryos at the actual ages, is incredible. It is a failure of duties of care that is indefensible in the educator. Worse, that remark from the first text in Luskin's list, on human embryos with gill slits just takes the cake. No way, Jose! GEM of TKI PS: Over years I have seen reports that he recapitulation theory is used to assuage guilty consciences of women: "it is a lizard at that point," essentially. I hope that such reports are wrong, for if they are not, that lends a much more sinister aura to the whole exchange. 50 million ghosts worth of more sinister aura.kairosfocus_{July 30, 2010
July
07
Jul
30
30
2010
05:00 PM
5
05
00
PM
PDT}

trying to hide. LOLSan Antonio Rose_{July 30, 2010
July
07
Jul
30
30
2010
04:09 PM
4
04
09
PM
PDT}

“Wells is also correct in criticizing textbook authors for perpetuating Haeckel’s infamous diagram without commenting on its inaccuracies or the way it was misused to support a falsified theory I realize I am just a dumb girl and you boys would rather tussle with each other. But, I would like for someone to answer my questions. Since my text book had photographs that are used to show why emboroyo development supports evolution, just like the "Heackel like" drawings in the list way up above, I want to know if those photos are doctored and what are the actual differences in embryos that the Darwinists are trying to hid?San Antonio Rose_{July 30, 2010
July
07
Jul
30
30
2010
04:08 PM
4
04
08
PM
PDT}

---molch: "I adressed all these points in completeness in 72. I discuss in particular detail why the conclusion of (3) is wrong. Please point out where you disagree with 72." You wrote, "So what are biology textbooks using these drawings for? To illustrate the fact that embryos of different vertebrate families show lots of similarities – a lot more similarities than they show to embryos of non-vertebrate organisms." Well, no, not even close. Clearly, the reason for including these drawings was not to clarify, as you naively suggest, but to mislead. Even PZ Myers, rabid Darwinist extraordinaire, gets it. Commenting on the subject under discussion, he writes, “Wells is also correct in criticizing textbook authors for perpetuating Haeckel's infamous diagram without commenting on its inaccuracies or the way it was misused to support a falsified theory.” Eugenie Scott, also admits that they are fraudulent and misleading, differing from Myers only to the extent that she thinks the lie is laudable, that is, she thinks that the end [promoting evolution] jusifies the means [the misrepresentation]. It would likely not have occurred to either of them to employ your futile strategy of denial.StephenB_{July 30, 2010
July
07
Jul
30
30
2010
03:50 PM
3
03
50
PM
PDT}

StephenB @ 136 "You talked around the issues, but you did not address them." The issue I expressedly adressed was your question: “Are Darwinists who knowingly use Haeckel’s drawings lying or are they telling the truth?” “(1) They show embryo drawings that are essentially recapitulations of Haeckel’s fraudulent drawings — drawings that downplay and misrepresent the actual differences between early stages of vertebrate embryos;" That was obviously NOT part of the original question you asked. But if you want that claim adressed, you need to provide some proof for it. Do you know what the actual sources are that the illustrators of any of the books used to base their illustrations upon? "(2) They have used these drawings as evidence for evolution — in the present day — and not simply to provide some kind of historical context for evolutionary thought; (3) Even if the textbooks do not completely endorse Haeckel’s false “recapitulation” theory, they have used their Haeckel-based drawings to overstate the actual similarities between early embryos, which is the key misrepresentation made by Haeckel. They then cite these overstated similarities as still-valid evidence for common ancestry.” I adressed all these points in completeness in 72. I discuss in particular detail why the conclusion of (3) is wrong. Please point out where you disagree with 72. "Your paraphrase created a contradiction that wasn’t there" Ok, so if there was no contradiction, then obviously you are still serious about the statement that "he is using Heackel’s drawings as evidence to support his lie", and you are are still wrong. The drawings in his book are not Haeckel's drawings. And I am still waiting for your answer on what you were trying to say with “….the authors’ intent was [...] to mislead readers into believing that the same similarities that occur later in the process are also present earlier in the process.”molch_{July 30, 2010
July
07
Jul
30
30
2010
02:59 PM
2
02
59
PM
PDT}

Gee, Petrushka, you are making perfect sense again in 130! How incivil of you!molch_{July 30, 2010
July
07
Jul
30
30
2010
02:25 PM
2
02
25
PM
PDT}

---molch: "That’s exactly what I did when I wrote 72 – no guesswork involved – and for the problem with your only rebuttal to 72 thus far – see above." You talked around the issues, but you did not address them. Here they are again [from the website] "(1) They show embryo drawings that are essentially recapitulations of Haeckel's fraudulent drawings — drawings that downplay and misrepresent the actual differences between early stages of vertebrate embryos; (2) They have used these drawings as evidence for evolution — in the present day — and not simply to provide some kind of historical context for evolutionary thought; (3) Even if the textbooks do not completely endorse Haeckel’s false “recapitulation” theory, they have used their Haeckel-based drawings to overstate the actual similarities between early embryos, which is the key misrepresentation made by Haeckel. They then cite these overstated similarities as still-valid evidence for common ancestry." ---"Good – you get the picture! Of course only the last sentence makes sense, because the first sentence paraphrases the contradictory statement you made." No, I am afraid that you don't get the picture. Your paraphrase created a contradiction that wasn't there, which is why I asked you to look up the word, "eisegesis." You are straining at gnats and swallowing camels. The real action is in the preceding paragraphs, the substance of the debate which you seem reluctant to confront.StephenB_{July 30, 2010
July
07
Jul
30
30
2010
02:20 PM
2
02
20
PM
PDT}

Mr Kairosfoscus, thank you for the advice re Irfanview. I assume that it can't perform better than Photoshop which I used to enhance the pictures. The problem is, pictures of 12 kb do not get any better when they are blown up, and they were not sharp to begin with - perhaps they are a bit old - there must be better ones around by now? And as for Haeckel's influence: We should remember that it is true that Haeckel tampered with the evidence, but to some extent you would expect similarities - after all it is still about embryos. So I do not want to draw a premature conclusion and sincerely hope you can point me to pictures you can agree with.Kontinental_{July 30, 2010
July
07
Jul
30
30
2010
01:46 PM
1
01
46
PM
PDT}

StephenB @ 124 "molch: “And if you still insist that earlier embryos are more dissimilar than the later embryo stages depicted in the illustrations, I’d like to see some evidence for that?” So would I inasmuch as I am not saying that or anything close to it." So what then were you trying to say with "....the authors’ intent was [...] to mislead readers into believing that the same similarities that occur later in the process are also present earlier in the process." in 80, which was your argument in trying to rebut 72? "Do you have an answer or don’t you? Why not simply go to the website, look at the drawings, analyze the way they were used, and then come back and comment on the matter after you have immersed yourself in the evidence? That way you don’t have to do all this guessing." That's exactly what I did when I wrote 72 - no guesswork involved - and for the problem with your only rebuttal to 72 thus far - see above. "Only your last sentence makes any sense." Good - you get the picture! Of course only the last sentence makes sense, because the first sentence paraphrases the contradictory statement you made.molch_{July 30, 2010
July
07
Jul
30
30
2010
01:41 PM
1
01
41
PM
PDT}

I am not quite sure what Petruska did, but it must of been bad! Srsly, though, could you help me understand how the pictures of embryos I saw in my text book were misleading. TIA!San Antonio Rose_{July 30, 2010
July
07
Jul
30
30
2010
01:34 PM
1
01
34
PM
PDT}

Petrushka: You have moved beyond the pale of reasonable discussion. You know what you need to do to get back on reasonable and civil terms. Gkairosfocus_{July 30, 2010
July
07
Jul
30
30
2010
01:22 PM
1
01
22
PM
PDT}

K: 1 --> Get thee a free copy of Irfanview, and install it. (Simplest, and free. Even has filters for interesting effects. Beyond, you could get Inkscape, or Gimp or Gimphoto or Gimpshop.) [When I needed to figure out Haiti pics, that is what I did.] 2 --> Copy relevant images to your desktop, then use I-v to expand to heart's content. 3 --> PDFs can be easily expanded to view at blown up scale, so this would work for the DI pages. 4 --> You have Haeckel's drawings, you have he page views, and you have the photos, so a 3- way comparison is easy enough to arrange. 5 --> You will see soon enough that the Haeckel images deeply influence the relevant textbook ones, and that the excerpts from the researcher who actually did follow up on resemblances of embryos are significantly different and diverse. 6 --> But, my complaint is a bit deeper, as the claim that say the human embryo has gills or the like is utterly specious, and only serves to bring forward into C21 a fraud exposed in 1874, or its derivatives [ladder embryology with embryological similarities and additional rungs as one climbs the figurative evolutionary materialistic tree of life]. 6 --> In fact, even among very similar animals diverse structures come from very different parts of the embryo and/or develop in very diverse ways. 7 --> Meanwhile the real root challenge, to get from any credible prebiotic "soup" du jour to a digital code based, self-replicating AND metabolising organism requiring 100 - 1000 bits of DNA code, on blind chemistry, thermodynamics and chance circumstances is lost in the fog. 8 --> That is the root question of origin of life on evolutionary materialist premises is being begged bigtime. 9 --> Going further, the origin of novel body plans to get say the 3 dozen main body plans appearing in Cambrian layers without clear antecedents and requiring 10+ Mbits of integrated, embryologically feasible innovations in bio-information is ALSO being begged, big time. (Especially as we do have a known source for such dFSCI -- the only observed source: intelligence.) 10 --> Instead we see from the original post a timeline produced by circular argument in a circle of a priori materialism so that a claimed observed fact is a chain of inferences predicated on assumptions, and artistic reconstructions of animals never actually observed, much less observed to be in ancestral relationships, are being presented to the naive as proof positive that macroevolutin -- however defined -- is an observed fact. (And only fools dispute facts.) 11 --> Worse, all of this is in a context where there are several questionable cases and outright hoaxes across 100+ years that are being presented as though to question what is going on today and ask for epistemological humility in light of the limits of what science can do, given the 100 + year history is verboten. 12 --> Lest we forget [it was a few dozen posts upthread at no 39 . . . ], let us look again at that demonstration on the limits of scientific theorising again:
we cannot validly infer from empirical reliability of [an explanatory] model to its truth: Theory (T) EXPLAINS initial observations O1: T => O1 T also predicts further observations O2: T => (O1 AND O2) O2, so far, is confirmed, and O1 was there from the outset. ___________ But, (O1 AND O2) =/=> T (That would be to affirm the consequent.) We therefore only can properly infer that O1 and O2 provide empirical support for T, which may thus be seen as empirically reliable so far. But, it has not been proved true; it is always a provisional explanation subject to correction in light of future findings.
13 --> And that is when you have actual observations by Eyeball mark I, ear bag Mark I, and associated instruments. 14 --> When all you got is a ladder of theory-laden inferences going into the deep and unobserved past, so that "observations" as just as much deeply interpreted as the "theories" that are to "explain" them . . . ______________ GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{July 30, 2010
July
07
Jul
30
30
2010
01:16 PM
1
01
16
PM
PDT}

Maybe we could make some progress in the discussion if Mr Kairosfoscus could provide images of embryos he finds accurate.
That is something I tried asking for earlier in the thread. What are the errors that are so important. How about some side by side comparisons with accurate drawings, with a discussion of how 9th graders are having their minds ruined by the errors. That would make a good article for the current ID journal.Petrushka_{July 30, 2010
July
07
Jul
30
30
2010
12:31 PM
12
12
31
PM
PDT}

LOL. Your funny.San Antonio Rose_{July 30, 2010
July
07
Jul
30
30
2010
11:57 AM
11
11
57
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 … 7 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply