Icons of Evolution: Science or Myth?
Matt Silberstein
<9if5tj$18k0$1...@node21.cwnet.roc.gblx.net> from "Aura"
<au...@aura.aura>:
Aura seems to be a hit and run poster. He does not seem to engage in
debate or defend his false statements. I gather he thinks he has an
exemption for bearing false witness.
>x-no-archive:yes
>
>What some biologists know . . . and are not telling you
I wonder if you know much about Wells and are not telling us? Like how
he is a member of the Unification Church and that he went to study
biology with the expressed desire of being able to claim to be a
creationist biologist.
>In this shocking book, doctor of biology Jonathan Wells (Ph.D.s from both Yale
>University and the University of California at Berkeley) lets you in on scientific
>discoveries you won't learn about from college and high school textbooks -- and
>reveals a dirty little secret known only to some of his fellow biologists:
>
>The best-known 'icons' of evolution - from comparisons of fish and human embryos,
>to moths on tree trunks, to pictures of apes evolving into humans - are false or
>misleading. For decades, biology students have been taught things about evolution
>that are simply untrue.
Wells is wrong here. He, like you, has either lied or spoken from
ignorance. This "secrets" are well known, where they are true, and
where they are not know it is because they are false. Haeckel is not
only known to be wrong today, he was known to be wrong when he wrote.
But the is an interesting similarity in development in a wide range of
organisms. A similarity well explained by evolution.
[snip]
>In Icons of Evolution Jonathan Wells reveals:
>
>*How the textbook version of the origin of life assumes the exact opposite of what
>scientists now believe was the environment on the early Earth
I wonder if Wells has looked an other textbooks. Are there a greater %
of errors in biology textbooks than physics or history? If not, all
his comments are meaningless.
>*How scientists have long known that drawings supposedly showing similarities
>between fish and human embryos were faked, yet continue to use them as evidence
>for evolution
And, yet, the actual similarities do exist and do support evolution.
Haeckel idea *conflicts* with what we actually know about evolution.
>*How Darwin's theory of natural selection is illustrated with staged photographs
>showing moths on tree trunks where they don't actually rest
Which was irrelevant when you posted this before and irrelevant now.
If you don't want to learn anything why do you think others would want
to learn from you? (The pictures are just to show the relative colors.
The predation did occur, the ratio of moths by color did change, etc.
And this is but one of thousands and thousands of examples of current
evolution.)
>*How the alleged role of mutations in evolution is illustrated with
>artificially-engineered fruit flies that show the opposite of what evolutionary
>theory requires
No, it does not.
[snip]
--
Matt Silberstein
Pardon me whilst I adjust my accoutrements.
D.D.
Jason E. Hubred
Matt Silberstein wrote in message ...
>In alt.religion.christian I read
><9if5tj$18k0$1...@node21.cwnet.roc.gblx.net> from "Aura"
><au...@aura.aura>:
>
>Aura seems to be a hit and run poster. He does not seem to engage in
>debate or defend his false statements.
Posting without responding is nothing new here. People from both sides do
it. Why not be fair and hunt down those from your side of the issue and
publically berate them as well?
>I gather he thinks he has an
>exemption for bearing false witness.
Assume what you will, but you know what the old adage about assuming things
says.
>>x-no-archive:yes
>>
>>What some biologists know . . . and are not telling you
>
>I wonder if you know much about Wells and are not telling us? Like how
>he is a member of the Unification Church and that he went to study
>biology with the expressed desire of being able to claim to be a
>creationist biologist.
No! What a crime! He should be jailed!
>>In this shocking book, doctor of biology Jonathan Wells (Ph.D.s from both
Yale
>>University and the University of California at Berkeley) lets you in on
scientific
>>discoveries you won't learn about from college and high school
textbooks -- and
>>reveals a dirty little secret known only to some of his fellow biologists:
>>
>>The best-known 'icons' of evolution - from comparisons of fish and human
embryos,
>>to moths on tree trunks, to pictures of apes evolving into humans - are
false or
>>misleading. For decades, biology students have been taught things about
evolution
>>that are simply untrue.
>
>Wells is wrong here. He, like you, has either lied or spoken from
>ignorance.
Another assumption on your part. I take it that you must intimately know
what kind of knowledge Wells and Aura have.
>This "secrets" are well known, where they are true, and
>where they are not know it is because they are false. Haeckel is not
>only known to be wrong today, he was known to be wrong when he wrote.
And yet his "findings" are still widely distributed as fact.
>But the is an interesting similarity in development in a wide range of
>organisms.
The only "similarity" is in how the embryos reproduce their cells early on.
Not long after that, it's quite easy to distinguish human embryos from
animal embryos.
>A similarity well explained by evolution.
Not even close.
>[snip]
>
>>In Icons of Evolution Jonathan Wells reveals:
>>
>>*How the textbook version of the origin of life assumes the exact opposite
of what
>>scientists now believe was the environment on the early Earth
>
>I wonder if Wells has looked an other textbooks.
Perhaps you should ask him. In the meantime, I wouldn't assume anything.
>Are there a greater %
>of errors in biology textbooks than physics or history? If not, all
>his comments are meaningless.
This isn't a simple case of "errors." This is about how all science
textbooks portray the supposed naturalistic origins of life. Many, many
people still believe in the false (by scientists' current standards)
"primordial soup" theory (something that has also been portrayed in pop
culture like "Star Trek").
>>*How scientists have long known that drawings supposedly showing
similarities
>>between fish and human embryos were faked, yet continue to use them as
evidence
>>for evolution
>
>And, yet, the actual similarities do exist and do support evolution.
Only at the very earliest stages just after conception.
>Haeckel idea *conflicts* with what we actually know about evolution.
And yet his idea has been circulated in science textbooks and considered
true for many, many years.
>>*How Darwin's theory of natural selection is illustrated with staged
photographs
>>showing moths on tree trunks where they don't actually rest
>
>Which was irrelevant when you posted this before and irrelevant now.
Not at all. The photos were faked and portrayed as reality.
>If you don't want to learn anything why do you think others would want
>to learn from you?
The same question could be applied to you.
>(The pictures are just to show the relative colors.
Oh, well, that certainly explains it! *rolls eyes*
>The predation did occur, the ratio of moths by color did change, etc.
>And this is but one of thousands and thousands of examples of current
>evolution.)
Not an "example." An unprovable supposition. Moths changing color proves
nothing about (macro)evolution anymore than people changing their hair
color. These moths are not becoming another species.
>>*How the alleged role of mutations in evolution is illustrated with
>>artificially-engineered fruit flies that show the opposite of what
evolutionary
>>theory requires
>
>No, it does not.
Actually, it does. It shows that a guiding hand is needed to produce these
changes.
Matt Silberstein
<F9P27.132$N02.17...@news2.randori.com> from "Jason E. Hubred"
<jehu...@maxminn.com>:
>
>Matt Silberstein wrote in message ...
>>In alt.religion.christian I read
>><9if5tj$18k0$1...@node21.cwnet.roc.gblx.net> from "Aura"
>><au...@aura.aura>:
>>
>>Aura seems to be a hit and run poster. He does not seem to engage in
>>debate or defend his false statements.
>
>Posting without responding is nothing new here. People from both sides do
>it. Why not be fair and hunt down those from your side of the issue and
>publically berate them as well?
If I had hunted Aura down and not someone of "my side" then I would be
unfair. Since I did not hunt him down your comment is misguided. I am
responding and in my response pointing out an aspect of the poster's
history.
>>I gather he thinks he has an
>>exemption for bearing false witness.
>
>Assume what you will, but you know what the old adage about assuming things
>says.
I was being charitable. Perhaps he just does not care that he presents
false statements.
>>>x-no-archive:yes
>>>
>>>What some biologists know . . . and are not telling you
>>
>>I wonder if you know much about Wells and are not telling us? Like how
>>he is a member of the Unification Church and that he went to study
>>biology with the expressed desire of being able to claim to be a
>>creationist biologist.
>
>No! What a crime! He should be jailed!
I have an idea you might like. How about responding to actual content.
I suggest no crime at all, just deception. Wells is not a biologist
who has been convinced by the evidence that evolution is false and
creationism correct. And presenting him as such deceives people. Wells
is an ideologue who got a degree for the purpose of making arguments
from authority to deceive people. I don't consider that a crime, I
consider it immoral.
>>>In this shocking book, doctor of biology Jonathan Wells (Ph.D.s from both
>Yale
>>>University and the University of California at Berkeley) lets you in on
>scientific
>>>discoveries you won't learn about from college and high school
>textbooks -- and
>>>reveals a dirty little secret known only to some of his fellow biologists:
>>>
>>>The best-known 'icons' of evolution - from comparisons of fish and human
>embryos,
>>>to moths on tree trunks, to pictures of apes evolving into humans - are
>false or
>>>misleading. For decades, biology students have been taught things about
>evolution
>>>that are simply untrue.
>>
>>Wells is wrong here. He, like you, has either lied or spoken from
>>ignorance.
>
>Another assumption on your part. I take it that you must intimately know
>what kind of knowledge Wells and Aura have.
No assumption there (you should find out what the word means). I know
the actual situation referred to. (Something I have commented on
several times in response to you, but you have ignored.) I don't know
whether Wells and Aura have the actual information, so I don't know if
they are simply ignorant or if they lied. (No assumption, see.) My
suspicion is that Aura is ignorant and wants to remain so, and that
Wells simply can't see.
>>This "secrets" are well known, where they are true, and
>>where they are not know it is because they are false. Haeckel is not
>>only known to be wrong today, he was known to be wrong when he wrote.
>
>And yet his "findings" are still widely distributed as fact.
100+ years ago they were distributed. Do you want to prevent anything
but "truth" from being distributed? That might help you religion, but
it would not help science.
>>But the is an interesting similarity in development in a wide range of
>>organisms.
>
>The only "similarity" is in how the embryos reproduce their cells early on.
>Not long after that, it's quite easy to distinguish human embryos from
>animal embryos.
Wrong on many fronts. First, humans are animals. Second, the
similarity is much stronger than that. The embryos basically show (not
100%, but we would not expect that) more similarity across species in
a particular way, the earlier the populations branched off, the
earlier in development the embryos differ. So H.S. resemble chimps
until very late, pigs until earlier, and modern fish until earlier
still. This is actually how it works and all the complaining about
Haeckel, who had a different idea, don't change this at all.
>>A similarity well explained by evolution.
>
>Not even close.
Why not? Would you care to provide an answer other than "is not"? From
an evolutionary perspective I would expect that most developmental
changes would occur later in the developmental cycle, not earlier.
>>[snip]
>>
>>>In Icons of Evolution Jonathan Wells reveals:
>>>
>>>*How the textbook version of the origin of life assumes the exact opposite
>of what
>>>scientists now believe was the environment on the early Earth
>>
>>I wonder if Wells has looked an other textbooks.
>
>Perhaps you should ask him. In the meantime, I wouldn't assume anything.
Again you use the word in an odd manner. No unreasonable assumptions
made or implied. I *wondered*, I did not *assume*. And I have seen
this complaint made by a number of creationists and not one of them
has compared it to the error rate in other textbooks. As such the
figure in entirely meaningless.
>>Are there a greater %
>>of errors in biology textbooks than physics or history? If not, all
>>his comments are meaningless.
>
>This isn't a simple case of "errors." This is about how all science
>textbooks portray the supposed naturalistic origins of life.
No, about the *evolution* of life, not the origin. The origin of life
is a separate issue.
> Many, many
>people still believe in the false (by scientists' current standards)
>"primordial soup" theory (something that has also been portrayed in pop
>culture like "Star Trek").
Yep. I can see two possible solutions. We put more effort into making
modern biology textbooks conform to our current best idea of these
issues or we decide to teach ideas which have been completely
discredited by science. I support doing a better job at teaching
current science.
>>>*How scientists have long known that drawings supposedly showing
>similarities
>>>between fish and human embryos were faked, yet continue to use them as
>evidence
>>>for evolution
>>
>>And, yet, the actual similarities do exist and do support evolution.
>
>Only at the very earliest stages just after conception.
Nope. (See, I can do it too.)
>>Haeckel idea *conflicts* with what we actually know about evolution.
>
>And yet his idea has been circulated in science textbooks and considered
>true for many, many years.
Not really. His *drawings* have been circulated, not his ideas. (You
are free to find a modern textbook that presents his ideas as
correct.)
>>>*How Darwin's theory of natural selection is illustrated with staged
>photographs
>>>showing moths on tree trunks where they don't actually rest
>>
>>Which was irrelevant when you posted this before and irrelevant now.
>
>Not at all. The photos were faked and portrayed as reality.
Which is, as I have shown irrelevant. If you won't respond to argument
with other than "is not" this discussion will degrade quickly.
>>If you don't want to learn anything why do you think others would want
>>to learn from you?
>
>The same question could be applied to you.
But inaccurately. You have not presented any evidence and any argument
other than "is not". I have.
>>(The pictures are just to show the relative colors.
>
>Oh, well, that certainly explains it! *rolls eyes*
Yep, it does. The *pictures* show how the moth colors changed over
time to resemble the trees. The observation that the white moths
effectively disappeared occurred before any of these experiments took
place. We know that evolution had occurred from other observations,
these experiments help point to the reason, the selective pressures.
>>The predation did occur, the ratio of moths by color did change, etc.
>>And this is but one of thousands and thousands of examples of current
>>evolution.)
>
>Not an "example." An unprovable supposition.
No, an observation of the world. Observations are not suppositions.
> Moths changing color proves
>nothing about (macro)evolution anymore than people changing their hair
>color. These moths are not becoming another species.
And no one said they became another species.
>>>*How the alleged role of mutations in evolution is illustrated with
>>>artificially-engineered fruit flies that show the opposite of what
>evolutionary
>>>theory requires
>>
>>No, it does not.
>
>Actually, it does. It shows that a guiding hand is needed to produce these
>changes.
At best it shows that they occur with a "guiding" hand, not *only*
with a guiding hand. They are just like any lab experiment. People
isolate factors so they can see how they work. In your view, does my
experiments dropping a rock shows that a guided hand is needed to
produce gravity. Do you think that the world somehow acts by different
rules when a person is in the room?