In post #459 Kalamata entertains us with responses in roughly equal parts of:
- fake "facts"
- misused quotes
- insults
- obedience to Denier Rules
On rare occasions he will sidle up to the truth (i.e., "Either way, cells are intelligently designed, Joey."), but then quickly backs away in favor of more insults & nonsense.
Kalamata: "Are you blind, or just scientifically-challenged?
This is the photo by Richardson et al:...
There are no similarities."
In fact there are numerous similarities and those are what is left of Haeckel's original idea.
Here is another collection of photos you may be familiar with:
Kalamata: "No, Joey, Haeckel was a fraud!
Even in his confession he deliberately misrepresented the facts.
His later work with the Nazi's indirectly contributed to the holocaust.
Why are you defending him, Joey?"
Anyone can be, and nearly everyone is sometimes mistaken, but that does not make everybody a "fraud".
The fact is that Haeckel excited strong opposition during his lifetime and responded in part by modifying his drawings as better information became available.
Some people have noticed that not all of Haeckel's opponents were themselves 100% truthful.
As for Haeckel's alleged "later work with the Nazis" that was possibly a case of Halloween resurrection from the dead, since Haeckel died in August 1919 (age 85), and the Nazi party was founded in February 1920.
In other posts I've also noted how, like Kalamata, Adolf Hitler himself opposed certain features of Darwinian theory such as common descent of humans from ape-like ancestors.
Kalamata: "You are out of the loop, Joey.
More from Richardson:
Perhaps you were brainwashed by the same Biology texts that brainwashed me."
Your photo shows some remarkable similarities among very young embryos.
Kalamata: "You are persistent.
Wrong, but persistent."
Kalamata: "You sound like a Robert Richards apologist, Joey."
Kalamata on Richardson's 2013 book, "Was Hitler a Darwinian": "I have it in my library.
My analysis of Richard's work concludes that Richards believes Haeckel's reputation must be rescued (e.g., "revised") in order to save Darwin's reputation. "
Your savage treatment of Haeckel suggests to me he must have been on to some important truth that you deniers just can't face.
Kalamata: "We got a kick out of the words, "More reputable scholars," which Richards reserves for evolutionists, while Hitler historian and professor Richard Weikart and the genius David Berlinski (whose Jewish parents escaped the Vichy government) are relegated to the dregs as "constricted thinkers."
No bias there.
Move along now . . . "
I would not politely call them "constricted", to me they seem more like charlatans and scoundrels.
Enough of post #459 for now, will pick up here later...
>>Joey wrote: "In post #459 Kalamata entertains us with responses in roughly equal parts of: fake "facts" misused quotes insults obedience to Denier Rules. On rare occasions he will sidle up to the truth (i.e., "Either way, cells are intelligently designed, Joey."), but then quickly backs away in favor of more insults & nonsense."
You are remarkable juvenile! LOL!
****************
>>Kalamata: "Are you blind, or just scientifically-challenged? This is the photo by Richardson et al:... There are no similarities."
>>Joey wrote: "In fact there are numerous similarities and those are what is left of Haeckel's original idea. Here is another collection of photos you may be familiar with: >>Joey inserted this Lennart Nillson photograph found on the Ken Miller and Joseph Levine website:
You have to be scientifically-challenged (which includes all die-hard ideologues) to believe those embryos contain anything other than vague similarities. You would expect similarities from single cell embryos multiplying into two cells, then into four, and so forth, until they are distinguishable. But for evolutionists to claim that is evidence for evolution is ample proof that evolutionists have no science to support their ideology.
Evolutionists, like Miller and Levine, were forced to reject Haeckel's fraud (after Richardson et al (1997) exposed it) in order to remain relevant; but they still cling to the myth of recapitulation, though heavily disguised, as follows:
"As you read this, you may wonder why evolution should be limited to changes tacked on at the end of the process of development. So did evolutionary biologists, and Haeckel's idea was quickly discarded. In fact, evolution can affect all phases of development, removing developmental steps as well as adding them, and therefore embryology is not a strict replay of ancestry. Nonetheless, many of the stages that embryos pass through can indeed be understood as remnants of their evolutionary past."
"One example is the fact that the embryos of all placental mammals (including humans) form a yolk sac during their development. Why is this important? Because the eggs of these organisms do not have large amounts of stored yolk, and therefore their yolk sacs are empty! Nontheless, the persistence of a yolk sac stage makes perfect sense when one considers that these animals are descended from egg-laying reptiles in which the sac encloses a massive amount of yolk to support embryonic development."
"This idea has been pushed back into the news recently by the news that Haeckel's drawings of embryonic similarities were not correct. British embryologist Michael Richardson and his colleages published an important paper in the August 1997 issue of Anatomy & Embryology showing that Haeckel had fudged his drawings to make the early stages of embryos appear more alike than they actually are! As it turns out, Haeckel's contemporaries had spotted the fraud during his lifetime, and got him to admit it. However, his drawings nonetheless became the source material for diagrams of comparative embryology in nearly every biology textbook, including ours!" [Miller & Levine, "Haeckel and his Embryos: A Note on Textbooks." 1997]
Did you see the bait and switch? The conversation went from the "rejecting" the fraud of recapitulation, to the sophistry of "embryos of all placental mammals (including humans) form a yolk sac during their development," a process in which any child would expect to see similarities.
Did you also notice the statement, "Haeckel's idea was quickly discarded." That is true ONLY if you believe the word "quickly," in this context, can be defined as over 100 years.
A good rule of thumb is, never buy a used car from Brown University's Ken Miller. I would also avoid his textbooks.
****************
>>Kalamata: "No, Joey, Haeckel was a fraud! Even in his confession he deliberately misrepresented the facts. His later work with the Nazi's indirectly contributed to the holocaust. Why are you defending him, Joey?" Anyone can be, and nearly everyone is sometimes mistaken, but that does not make everybody a "fraud". >>Joey wrote: "The fact is that Haeckel excited strong opposition during his lifetime and responded in part by modifying his drawings as better information became available. Some people have noticed that not all of Haeckel's opponents were themselves 100% truthful."
I can't believe you are still defending him.
****************
>>Joey wrote: "As for Haeckel's alleged "later work with the Nazis" that was possibly a case of Halloween resurrection from the dead, since Haeckel died in August 1919 (age 85), and the Nazi party was founded in February 1920."
Haeckel's fraudulent research publications survived his death, as did his promotion of abortion and eugenics.
****************
>>Joey wrote: "In other posts I've also noted how, like Kalamata, Adolf Hitler himself opposed certain features of Darwinian theory such as common descent of humans from ape-like ancestors."
Nope. Adolf Hitler believed in the Darwinian ape-to-human myth.
"One of Hitler's secretaries, Christa Schroeder, remembered that on several occasions the Führer discussed religion, the church and biological evolution with his secretaries. After explaining that Hitler rejected the church, she provided a lengthy description of Hitler's views on human evolution:
"Science does not yet clearly know from which root human beings have arisen. We are certainly the highest stage of evolution of any mammal, which evolved from reptiles to mammals, perhaps through apes, to humans. We are a member of creation and children of nature, and the same laws apply to us as to all living organisms. And in nature the law of the struggle rules from the beginning. Everything incapable of living and everything weak will be eliminated."
[Weikart, Richard, "Hitler’s Religion: The Twisted Beliefs that Drove the Third Reich." Regnery History, 2016, Chap.9]
"On October 24, 1941, Hitler spoke at great length to his entourage about the controversy between science and religion, and specifically between evolution and Christianity. Hitler opened this lengthy monologue on evolution by claiming that the church's teachings are contrary to modern research. In fact, as Hitler expounded on this science-religion controversy, he clearly came down on the side of science and bashed the church, asserting, 'The definition of the church is a misuse of the creation for earthly purposes.' He also divulged his pantheistic tendencies: 'Whoever sees God only in an oak or in a tabernacle and not in the Whole, cannot be pious deep inside; he remains stuck in the outward.' In addition, Hitler praised the French Enlightenment thinkers' anticlericalism and the progress of science. After expostulating on the glories of science and the ignorance of the church, Hitler pronounced his belief in the evolution of humans. He stated, 'There have been humans at the rank at least of a baboon in any case for 300,000 years at least. The ape is distinguished from the lowest human less than such a human is from a thinker like, for example, Schopenhauer.' Hitler clearly accepted evolutionary theory, including human evolution, and rejected religious teachings to the contrary." [Ibid.]
"Many of [Josef ] Lanz's doctrines became core tenets of Hitler's worldview: the primacy of race in determining historical developments, Aryan superiority (with the Aryans being the sole creators of culture), the Darwinian racial struggle, the need for eugenics policies, and the evils of racial mixing. Hitler also shared Lanz's view that Aryans had developed an ancient civilization in the mythical Atlantis. In a passage of Mein Kampf that decries racial mixing in a manner reminiscent of Lanz's writings, Hitler admonished the state to elevate the status of marriage, which under the present system was supposedly contributing to biological decline. By hindering the marriages of those he dubbed inferior, he hoped marriages could 'produce images of the Lord and not monstrosities halfway between man and ape.' By claiming that racial mixture could result in human-ape hybrids, Hitler was pulling a page out of Lanz's repertoire. No wonder Daim was struck by the similarities between Lanz and Hitler and supposed that Hitler's ideology hailed largely from Lanz's writings. Given all these parallels, most historians acknowledge the likelihood that Lanz's Ariosophy influenced Hitler's ideology, either directly or indirectly." [Ibid. Chap.7]
Richard Weikart is a Professor of History at California State University at Stanislaus. His books are well-researched, and highly recommended.
****************
>>Kalamata: "You are out of the loop, Joey. More from Richardson:
>>Kalamata: "Perhaps you were brainwashed by the same Biology texts that brainwashed me."
>>Joey wrote: "Your photo shows some remarkable similarities among very young embryos.
You are hopelessly scientifically-challenged, Joey.
****************
>>Kalamata: "You are persistent. Wrong, but persistent. You sound like a Robert Richards apologist, Joey."
>>Kalamata on Richardson's 2013 book, "Was Hitler a Darwinian": "I have it in my library. My analysis of Richard's work concludes that Richards believes Haeckel's reputation must be rescued (e.g., "revised") in order to save Darwin's reputation. "
>>Joey wrote: "Your savage treatment of Haeckel suggests to me he must have been on to some important truth that you deniers just can't face.
Haeckel was a scientific FRAUD! I cannot believe you are defending that jackass, unless that is one of the progressive talking points you are obliged to disseminate.
****************
>>Kalamata: "We got a kick out of the words, "More reputable scholars," which Richards reserves for evolutionists, while Hitler historian and professor Richard Weikart and the genius David Berlinski (whose Jewish parents escaped the Vichy government) are relegated to the dregs as "constricted thinkers." No bias there. Move along now . . . "
>>Joey wrote: "I would not politely call them "constricted", to me they seem more like charlatans and scoundrels."
Joey slanders scholarly Christians and Jews who do not bow down to his religion of evolutionism, and defends frauds like the eugenicist Ernst Haeckel. Joey is no conservative.
Mr. Kalamata