Skip to comments.Tom, The Dancing Bug
Posted on 07/05/2005 7:07:57 PM PDT by balrog666
click here to read article
In 20 million years, cats will likely have evolved, but not into bears. Could even be a bear-like (in appearance) species, depending upon selection pressures. But not into actual species of bears as they exist today.
Both, actually. In 20 million years they will still be cats due to the fact that they descended from a population of contemporary cats.
However, they will be cats only in the same sense that humans, mice and aardvarks are still mammals or humans, mice, aardvarks and crocodiles are still vertebrates and so on.
*opens the door to the thread and is burned by flames that jump out of the screen*
A cat species would have to get a set of mutations that would "turn" it into a bear species. Possible? Well, anything is possible. Likely? Not really.
You mean to tell me, that in another 20 million years, cats will still be cats? Or is it possible that they could change?
20 million years from now, cats could be extinct with no descendants. Cats could continue to exist and have descendant species who aren't classified as cats. Or, cats could be an evolutionary dead end that survives for another 20 million years but does not lead to the rise of new non-cat species.
All of these things have happened to various species in the past.
See post #52.
Would you like me to show you a copy of Hitler's private handwritten notes, where he credited the Bible for his notion of Racial Purity, but never mentioned Darwin? How about the SS uniform button that is imprinted with the slogan "God Is With Us"?
Or would you like to drop the usual creationist canard that somehow evolutionary biology was Hitler's inspiration?
Or even a step away from evolution: secular thought and reasoning. Hmm, yup, got another party just east of that first one that came to mind.
You obviously have something against thinking and reasoning, but in any case, that "another party just East of that first one" explicitly rejected Darwinian evolution, so perhaps your attempted point falls flat on its face.
Try some new material instead of the usual propaganda.
Or, and I know this is a shockingly original suggestion for a creationist to consider, perhaps you might want to try just discussing the actual science for a change instead of trying to smear it through cheap innuendo.
*Cue the Bud*weiser music*
For all that you do, this quote's for you:
After this compromising confession of 'forgery' I should be obliged to consider myself condemned and annihilated if I had not the consolation of seeing side by side with me in the prisoner's dock hundreds of fellow - culprits, among them many of the most trusted observers and most esteemed biologists. The great majority of all the diagrams in the best biological textbooks, treatises and journals would incur in the same degree the charge of 'forgery,' for all of them are inexact, and are more or less doctored, schematised and constructed.
Francis Hitching, The Neck of the Giraffe: Where Darwin Went Wrong, Ticknor and Fields, New York, 1982, p. 204
At least he took solace in the fact that his buddies were doing it too, so that made it okay. The culprit.
Imagine my surprise.
And it's the same problem I ahve with the first toon.
It's incomplete and arrogant.
And creationists are *never* that, certainly...
I disagree with the simple statement "h2o freezes at 32 degrees farhenheit" based on this: You aren't accounting for pressure.
Oh, right, the cartoonist should have put a whole chapter of chemistry into that panel, just to make it cover all bases instead of the standard conditions. And my car's speedometer should adjust for Relativity.
Yeah, that would have made the cartoon *much* funnier and more relevant. Uh huh.
Half-assed statements like that, that are then used to smear other people are crude, deceitful, and igotistical.
Missed the real point again, I see.
I am yet to meet any one who believes that the Bible says that bacteria can't adapt.
We covered this already. Did you not bother to read my reply, or did you utterly fail to understand any of it, so you decided to just repeat your original irrelevant complaint?
The astute reader will note that *nothing* in MacDorcha's post addresses *anything* I actually wrote in my very lengthy post to him, other than to nitpick about the cartoon.
I am also yet to find one who disagrees with the fundamental idea of gravity.
That's nice. Now feel free to go find someone who ever claimed or implied that they did, because *I* sure didn't.
I DO, however, find Darwinists who are willing to put forth only enough effort into making alternate thoughts look childish... but only to a child.
What in the heck are "alternate thoughts"? Attempt to remain coherent. Ask one of those insightful children for assistance if need be.
Now did you want to actually address anything I actually wrote? Or do you just want to ramble some more?
Those would be thoughts by George Westinghouse ... as opposed to thoughts by Thomas Edison, which were "direct thoughts."
But Jacob said to Rebekah his mother, "Behold, my brother Esau is a hairy man, and I am a smooth man."
-- Genesis 27:11, KJV
Please learn to read. I said it wasn't *necessarily* a conscious fraud.
I simply pointed out that it was indeed "conscious," as evidenced by the expert's statements I referenced.
...and I simply pointed out that you were incorrect about what your "expert's statements" actually did and did not say.
The damage done to science in general and to the ToE by those drawings is immeasurable;
ROFL! Yeah, right. You wish.
furthermore, to make excuses for Haeckel is kind of silly, IMO.
I wasn't making excuses for Haeckel. I was describing the situation and pointing out that the creationist version of it is cartoonishly oversimplified, not to mention slanderously false in several respects.
Here is a photo of the Kaiserstandarte, the Kaiser's flag, a design which stems from 1870, with the phrase upon it.
Ooh, thanks for the reminder. While I have linked some of my earlier "educational posts" on my Freeper homepage, I've fallen way behind on indexing the rest of them. I'll do that as soon as I have some free time.
Maybe you should get to the point.
The only lies we are talking about here would be those told and drawn by Mr. Haeckel, years ago,
Are you really this incapable of following the discussion? "We" were talking about *creationist* behavior on this thread *long* you showed up. Did it escape your attention that this thread *started* with a satirical cartoon about the behavior of creationists?
Maybe the "only" lies *you* want to talk about are those of Haeckel, but "we" have already been discussing creationist dishonesty for a long time now. But I can understand why you'd want to keep restricting the conversation to only Haeckel, since even though you have to go back to the 19th century to get a juicy example of a biologist being significantly misleading, there are *THOUSANDS* of CONTEMPORARY examples of creationists lying their faces off.
Deal with it.
Or don't. But don't kid yourself -- your running away from that topic doesn't make it go away, nor convince anyone that creationists are actually accurate, honest, and willing to address sticky issues head-on. Quite the contrary, in fact.
perpetuated by people like you and your atheist buddies.
Uh huh. Please present your evidence for your presumption that I am an "atheist". This should be pretty funny. Then you can repeat the exercise for my "buddies", as you call them.
And what exactly are "people like me"? I'm not a recapitulationist. Be specific.
I'm sorry if the truth hurts.
I'm sorry if you keep revealing that you have barely a passing acquaintance with truth, and instead keep posting your wild guesses and prejudices as if they were facts.
And your laughable snipes don't hurt at all.
Why don't you cut and paste another 50+ paragraph post from talkorg or the P-thumb and calm down.
Why don't you try to actually address the evidence which I presented and the points I made?
Oh, right, you can't. You don't actually know enough about biology to do that. You never bothered, despite my repeated suggestions over the past year or so imploring you to do so. Not that this lack of knowledge stops you from being a belligerent anklebiter on these threads, though, because hey, you've glanced at a few creationist websites and that's *ALL* you need to know about the subject, right?
Arrogant snottiness is no substitute for knowledge, son.
From the very first link in Michael_Michaelangelo pack-o'-creationist-claptrap "Articles of Notable Interest" ("notable" only in their unceasing spew of disinformation and dishonest propaganda):
"That there is a controversy over how macroevolution could have occurred is largely due to the increasing awareness in scientific circles that the fossil evidence is very difficult to reconcile with the Darwinist scenario."Horse manure. See post #52 for many examples. The fossil evidence *beautifully* fits "the Darwinist scenario". It's the creationists who have a hell of a hard time reconciling it with *their* scenarios. So they just lie about it. And often they lie about it by misquoting respectable biologists or paleontologists and trying to stuff the creationist lies into *their* mouths. See:
-- creationist Phillip Johnson (whose expertise in evolutionary biology field is as... a lawyer!)
The Quote Mine Project: Or, Lies, Damned Lies and Quote MinesYou'll find many examples of these dishonestly misused quotes in Johnson's essays at Michael_Michaelangelo's link, as well as in the links to essays by other creationists.
Quotations and Misquotations: Why What Antievolutionists Quote is Not Valid Evidence Against Evolution (scroll to the bottom of this one as well, it has links to *dozens* of other sites dedicated to exposing the countless creationist dishonest "quotes" of scientists)
Johnson dishonestly continues:
New forms of life tend to be fully formed at their first appearance as fossils in the rocks. If these new forms actually evolved in gradual steps from pre-existing forms, as Darwinist science insists, the numerous intermediate forms that once must have existed have not been preserved.Again, this is complete and utter bollocks. Johnson can't even begin to attempt to reconcile the fossil record to any *creationist* scenario, so instead he just outright LIES and falsely claims that it doesn't show any "numerous intermediate forms" which match evolutionary scenarios.
Again, this is just a badlfaced lie, and again, one can look at post #52 for *several* examples of the "numerous intermediate forms" of fossils which Johnson shamelessly claims "have not been preserved" (i.e. do not exist).
Remember, folks, *this* is the sort of "tell you complete and transparent lies to your face" stuff that the creationists rely on as their stock-in-trade. *This* is what Michael_Michaelangelo presents to his fellow Freepers as "Articles of Notable Interest".
This is the moral bankruptcy and intellectual emptiness of the creationist movement.
Hey, genius, let's let the lurkers read the information in the links and decide for themselves, shall we? Or would you like to tell everyone here how to think? (Don't answer that - I think we know the answer)
Every once in a while an evangelist asks me my favorite Bible verse. That's it. Once they figure it out they usually end up not pursuing the conversation.
In other words, "pay no attention to the man behind the curtain."
"After this compromising confession of 'forgery' I should be obliged to consider myself condemned and annihilated if I had not the consolation of seeing side by side with me in the prisoner's dock hundreds of fellow - culprits, among them many of the most trusted observers and most esteemed biologists. The great majority of all the diagrams in the best biological textbooks, treatises and journals would incur in the same degree the charge of 'forgery,' for all of them are inexact, and are more or less doctored, schematised and constructed."
ROFL!!! Here we have Evidence That Creationists Have Faulty Reading Comprehension #73,792, collect the whole set!
This isn't an "admission", you goof. Did you not notice that "forgery" was written in "scare quotes"? And did you not actually bother to read the passage for content?
Here the writer is only saying, "look, if the idealizations in my illustrations were 'forgeries', then hell, just about all illustrations are idealized to some degree and all illustrators are 'guilty' of that 'crime', string us all up!..." In other words, he's saying that the whole *purpose* of illustrations is to clarify, to idealize, to highlight the significant details and minimize the distraction of the insignificant details.
So... What was your "Verbal" score on your SAT tests?
Huh. Is the Catholic church religious in nature? What a puzzler.
Huh. Is the Catholic church religious in nature? What a puzzler.
I'm not here to crack cryptic rhetorical puzzles. Provide enough context so that I know what you are responding to, and what you are talking about.
I'll note that.
I doubt it.
See my previous post. Your ability to completely misread the meaning of this quote is... astounding.
Your vitriol and your belief that evolutionary biology is just "lies, all lies", told by multiple generations of lying biologists, is nothing short of clinical paranoia. Seek help. I'm not kidding.
I'll be adding your post 52 to the List-O-Links.
I'm not stopping them. I strongly encourage everyone to read material from various creationist sites, so that they can see for themselves just how dishonest and inaccurate those sources are.
Just be sure to actually read some science journals, some primary research literature, and some evolution information sites as well, so that you can actually have a basis for comparison, lest you end up in the situation of a liberal who has made the mistake of "learning" all of his "knowledge" about conservatism from the likes of Michael Moore, Alec Baldwin, Dianne Feinstein, MoveOn.Org, etc., without actually giving an equally attentive ear to actual conservatives to see what they're *actually* like and are *actually* saying.
Don't be like Michael_Michaelangelo. Learn some *real* science, instead of just the distorted cartoon-version of it attacked on creationist sites.
Or would you like to tell everyone here how to think?
Not at all. I have always strongly encouraged people *TO* think, to LEARN, to become personally acquainted with the evidence, to learn how to reason logically, to analyze accurately, to resist propaganda, to recognize charlatans.
Surely you must remember all the times I've tried *really* hard to get you to go *learn* some evolutionary biology -- the *real* field, the *real* evidence, not just toddle off to your creationist sites and lap up all of their reassuring falsehoods. It has been completely in vain so far, but I haven't given up on you. I know you can become educated if you try. I *want* you to try.
(Don't answer that - I think we know the answer)
As usual, the answer that you "know" is just dead flat wrong.
And therein lies your problem -- you never even entertain the possibility that your presumptions could possibly be wrong. You believe that you *have* all the answers already. And that belief blocks you from seeking knowledge. It closes your mind.
I've become pretty fond of Proverbs 29:9.
I did, actually, and am aware of the full history, including the (one rather lonely) non-creationist source MM cited. I've read Gould's book among many other shorter historical writings on the recapitulation theory and related issues. You are correct, as I see it, in your characterization that Haeckel did not admit conscious (or even venal) fraud, and that we don't know enough about the matter historically to say that he intended to deceive.
We do know, however, that Haeckel was wrong, and that many of his contemporaries (not least Von Baer, the dominant personality in the field of embryology) realized it and said so clearly, and that they were soon vindicated in the consensus judgment of the whole scientific community.
So, while I disagree with MM's overheated and gratuitous characterization, I think it's worth pointing out that even if it's accepted it still doesn't make his case (that damage was done, that recapitulation influenced modern textbooks, etc, etc).
Maybe that's what they get for wearing them on their head. ;^)
Never seen one of those flashing "12:00" symbols?
But that's okay, somehow I think we can find a few more. ;^)
Well, you can't say you weren't warned.
Who said that? Are you going senile in your old age?
Furthermore, your support of a man who faked embryo drawings in order to "fill in the blanks" says a lot about your character, especially when one considers how many abortions have been performed around the world using the concept of embryonic recapitulation" as justification.
Do Sagan and Druyen ring any bells? Here's a gem for you, compliments of these two famous humanists:
The embryo first is a kind of parasite that eventually looks like a segmented worm. Further alterations, they suggested, reveal gill arches like that of a fish or amphibian.
Parade, 1990, p.6
I should add that the title of the article they wrote for parade was The Question of Abortion: A Search for the Answers; They argued that human abortion is okay on the grounds that the fetus growing within a womans body for several months following conception is not a human being.
I really think their butts are bigger than their heads.
NEW Ichneumon's legendary post 52. More evidence than you can handle.
I entertain the possibility every day. I'm looking for "the answers" all the time. When I *have* free time, I read quite a bit of information regarding science. Luckily, there are quite a few places I can go to that have up-to-date information. I also look at the websites and papers that critique the ToE.
That being said, I've read most of your more lengthy posts and have a basic understanding of what you are trying to convey. It's not that hard to understand the ToE. It's pretty basic on the surface, but the details are always changing and under scrutiny. To me and countless others, it seems shaky. That doesn't mean God couldn't have used it - I just don't think it was used to the extent you and others believe it was.
That being said, I do think you have a knack for translating the detailed information with a dash of humor to keep your readers attention. Truth be told, I enjoy your posts (except when you flame me).
But - I have the right to question the theory and post links to websites that critique it. We aren't talking about an uncontroversial theory here.
So what? Their argument (at least as you report it) is wrong irrespective of evolution, or even of any particular theory of embryology. Heck, not only is the fetus a human being, in a strict factual sense so is any stage of embryo, so is a zygote, and indeed so is a sperm cell or egg cell. The later are simply a human individual of the haploid as opposed to diploid generation. Apart from that difference, and the fact that they will remain unicellular, they are nevertheless human, alive and individual in being genetically unique (remember crossing-over in the formation of gametes).
That disposed of, Sagan's conclusion being a non-sequitor, I'll grant you a faint hint of Haeckelian recapitulation in that Sagan seems to be comparing the human embryo to the adult stages of more "primitive" creatures, but there's sufficient arm waving that his observations are also consistent with von Baer's laws:
For instance Sagan (per your report) refers to segmentation in the early embryo, and compares it to a worm. Well, the early embryo does show "the general characters of the group to which [it] belongs ... earlier than the special characters," per von Baer's first law. This includes a general resemblance to characteristics of animals, including segmentation. Later segmentation becomes more subtle as the embryo passes along the chordate path of development, and more so as more "specific" characters come to dominate.
Not every reference to embryological similarities is an invocation of recapitulation, although creationists tend to treat them so. As much as they complain about supposed resurrections of recapitulation, they often seem to be the only ones keeping the idea alive with their boringly knee-jerk invocations of Haekel any time anyone says anything whatsoever about embryological comparisons.
Actually, the Catholic church has a history of being very politically motivated.
Or did the whole "Pope" thing elude you?
Fisher is a classical liberal. He is concerned about the power of large corporations, and satirises the way government has been corrupted by money.
He was passionately opposed to war, and this was reflected in his work. He also challenges the way government manipulates the media and attempt to define its own version of events, especially surrounding the Iraq war. He is also scathing of celebrity culture, particularly in strips such as "Funny, Funny Celebs".
So you're basically siding with a liberal (actually nearly every liberal in the world) on this issue.
More anti-conservative cartoons from author:
Mocking conservatism and conservatives is a hallmark of this guy. Now if he wants to promote his narrow minded viewpoint, that's his business. But when you promote his narrowminded viewpoint on a conservative website, then it's pretty distateful and insulting to the vast majority of conservatives on here.
So sue me. I also agree with Alan Dershowitz when he exposes the lies, bigotry and extremism of jew-hating creeps, and disagree with him virtually without exception on everything else.
I did. Several times sense the last time you posted it (on another thread, many moons ago)
DNA may, or may not change enough to cause species differences.
Animals, appearing similar to the ones we now have, existed long ago.
A hell of a lot of "could be"s and "maybe"s. And not a single documented case of a single species observably changing into a different, non-compatible (ie, can reproduce, but not with it's "original" family) animal.
And nothing "empirical."
Can anyone contribute to Darwin Central?
That's a pretty statement.
I would love to take you to a dice game.
Hi Douglas, 'classical liberal' is a frequently used synonym for 'libertarian', of which there are more than a handful at FR. A 'classical liberal' believes in Jeffersonian republicanism, in contrast to 'modern liberals', who are simply socialists under a different name.
Oh really? Do you promote Allen Dershowitz's work as you're promoting the "art" of Fisher? Fisher is just Al Franken who knows how to draw. His humor is vitrolic and always slams conservatives and conservatism.
Why don't you post some Al Franken stuff that makes fun of a conservative viewpoint? I'm sure you can find one out there somewhere.
"Oh, right, the cartoonist should have put a whole chapter of chemistry into that panel, just to make it cover all bases instead of the standard conditions. And my car's speedometer should adjust for Relativity. "
Actually, the artist COULD have spent his time actually coming up with something funny to write, not something riddled with stupid half-assed statements.
It's the same reason I don't like Mike Luckovich. Yeah, he's brief, and says his statement. But it leaves the unlearned with the wrong impression.
"The astute reader will note that *nothing* in MacDorcha's post addresses *anything* I actually wrote in my very lengthy post to him, other than to nitpick about the cartoon. "
Very lenghty post? It started with the toon!
I don't know about Junior's webstie, but as for the parent organization, we have very strict standards.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.