Science Disproves Evolution

[turtle]

I seen a show on intelligent design a few years ago. It was well done but I do not all would agree with the findings of it. However I think what impressed me is the comparison to some of our own creations, after all we take from nature and design things. It demonstrated the change in cells. I do not remember much else on the program, put out by discovery channel or one of the many they have anyway. To recognize we can break down some of the changes scientifically helps one to understand the complexity of God. It not just a craved piece of wood but if one uses a microscope to look and examine the leaves and the cells that make the leaf a whole new picture emerges from what the visible eye can see. Now my eyes are not go to examine through a microscope, however science does it everyday, yet they can not see God creator making these just a tree or even a blade of grass, I have to wonder about them. However each is own. Each must decide what one believes based on knowledge, experience and understanding they have of course not. God in His wisdom provides faith and harden hearts like he did the pharaoh after there was no light for three days. That something that can not be explained away so easily. Yet science will attempt to do just that.

BTW walter brown on wikinpeg can not be found. He lost to the world they say. Who knows. However I am sure you not speaking of that walter brown.

[Pahu]

Embryology 1


Evolutionists have taught for over a century that as an embryo develops, it passes through stages that mimic an evolutionary sequence. In other words, in a few weeks an unborn human repeats stages that supposedly took millions of years for mankind. A well-known example of this ridiculous teaching is that embryos of mammals have “gill slits,” because mammals supposedly evolved from fish. (Yes, that’s faulty logic.) Embryonic tissues that resemble “gill slits” have nothing to do with breathing; they are neither gills nor slits. Instead, those embryonic tissues develop into parts of the face, bones of the middle ear, and endocrine glands.

Embryologists no longer consider the superficial similarities between a few embryos and the adult forms of simpler animals as evidence for evolution (a).

a. “This generalization was originally called the biogenetic law by Haeckel and is often stated as ‘ontogeny [the development of an embryo] recapitulates [repeats] phylogeny [evolution].’ This crude interpretation of embryological sequences will not stand close examination, however. Its shortcomings have been almost universally pointed out by modern authors, but the idea still has a prominent place in biological mythology.” Paul R. Ehrlich and Richard W. Holm, The Process of Evolution (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1963), p. 66.

“It is now firmly established that ontogeny does not repeat phylogeny.” George Gaylord Simpson and William S. Beck, Life: An Introduction to Biology (New York: Harcourt, Brace & World, Inc., 1965), p. 241.

Hitching, pp. 202–205.

“The enthusiasm of the German zoologist, Ernst Haeckel, however, led to an erroneous and unfortunate exaggeration of the information which embryology could provide. This was known as the ‘biogenetic law’ and claimed that embryology was a recapitulation of evolution, or that during its embryonic development an animal recapitulated the evolutionary history of its species.” Gavin R. deBeer, An Atlas of Evolution (New York: Nelson, 1964), p. 38.

“...the theory of recapitulation has had a great and, while it lasted, regrettable influence on the progress of embryology.” Gavin R. deBeer, Embryos and Ancestors, revised edition (London: Oxford University Press, 1951), p. 10.

“Moreover, the biogenetic law has become so deeply rooted in biological thought that it cannot be weeded out in spite of its having been demonstrated to be wrong by numerous subsequent scholars.” Walter J. Bock, “Evolution by Orderly Law,” Science, Vol. 164, 9 May 1969, pp. 684–685.

“...we no longer believe we can simply read in the embryonic development of a species its exact evolutionary history.” Hubert Frings and Marie Frings, Concepts of Zoology (Toronto: Macmillan Publishing Co., 1970), p. 267.

“The type of analogical thinking which leads to theories that development is based on the recapitulation of ancestral stages or the like no longer seems at all convincing or even interesting to biologists.” Conrad Hal Waddington, Principles of Embryology (London: George Allen and Unwin Ltd., 1956), p. 10.

“Surely the biogenetic law is as dead as a doornail.” Keith Stewart Thomson, “Ontogeny and Phylogeny Recapitulated,” American Scientist, Vol. 76, May–June 1988, p. 273.

“The biogenetic law—embryologic recapitulation—I think, was debunked back in the 1920s by embryologists.” David Raup, as taken from page 16 of an approved and verified transcript of a taped interview conducted by Luther D. Sunderland on 27 July 1979. [See also Luther D. Sunderland, Darwin’s Enigma (San Diego: Master Book Publishers, 1984), p. 119.]

“The theory of recapitulation was destroyed in 1921 by Professor Walter Garstang in a famous paper. Since then no respectable biologist has ever used the theory of recapitulation, because it was utterly unsound, created by a Nazi-like preacher named Haeckel.” Ashley Montagu, as quoted by Sunderland, p. 119.

[From “In the Beginning” by Walt Brown
http://www.creationscience.com/onlin...tml#wp1009086]

[dodge]

Hi Pahu. Let me demonstrate how you are misled by Walter Brown. In your last post, you wrote:

“You failed to quote all of Stevenson. Here is the whole quote: ‘the most striking outcome of planetary exploration is the diversity of the planets,’ and ‘I wish it were not so, but I’m somewhat skeptical that we’re going to learn an awful lot about Earth by looking at other planetary bodies. The more that we look at the different planets, the more each one seems to be unique.”

(Your post #999.)

Unfortunately for you, Stevenson did not write the second part, beginning with “I wish it were not so…” If you go to the article from which it came, “The Solar System’s New Diversity,” by Richard A. Kerr, from the 2 SEP 94 issue of Science magazine, and look at the fourth paragraph, you will find that Kerr was quoting Michael Carr of the U.S. Geological Survey in Menlo Park, California, who Kerr says “…speaks for many of his colleagues when he says, “I wish it were not so, but I’m somewhat skeptical that we’re going to learn an awful lot about Earth by looking at other planetary bodies. The more that we look at the different planets, the more each one seem to be unique.”

http://business.highbeam.com/5345/ar...-new-diversity

This is what creationists do, recycle material that makes its rounds without ever checking on the accuracy of what they find. So, it appears, Pahu, that you were wrong when you said I “failed to quote all of Stevenson.” This is what you get when you copy and paste from Walter Brown.

[Pahu]

Hi Pahu. Let me demonstrate how you are misled by Walter Brown. In your last post, you wrote:

“You failed to quote all of Stevenson. Here is the whole quote: ‘the most striking outcome of planetary exploration is the diversity of the planets,’ and ‘I wish it were not so, but I’m somewhat skeptical that we’re going to learn an awful lot about Earth by looking at other planetary bodies. The more that we look at the different planets, the more each one seems to be unique.”

(Your post #999.)

Unfortunately for you, Stevenson did not write the second part, beginning with “I wish it were not so…” If you go to the article from which it came, “The Solar System’s New Diversity,” by Richard A. Kerr, from the 2 SEP 94 issue of Science magazine, and look at the fourth paragraph, you will find that Kerr was quoting Michael Carr of the U.S. Geological Survey in Menlo Park, California, who Kerr says “…speaks for many of his colleagues when he says, “I wish it were not so, but I’m somewhat skeptical that we’re going to learn an awful lot about Earth by looking at other planetary bodies. The more that we look at the different planets, the more each one seem to be unique.”

http://business.highbeam.com/5345/ar...-new-diversity

This is what creationists do, recycle material that makes its rounds without ever checking on the accuracy of what they find. So, it appears, Pahu, that you were wrong when you said I “failed to quote all of Stevenson.” This is what you get when you copy and paste from Walter Brown.

The error is mine, not Walt’s. Here is the whole reference from Walt Brown’s article about Strange Planets:

“The most striking outcome of planetary exploration is the diversity of the planets.” David Stevenson, as quoted by Richard A. Kerr, “The Solar System’s New Diversity,” Science, Vol. 265, 2 September 1994, p. 1360.

“I wish it were not so, but I’m somewhat skeptical that we’re going to learn an awful lot about Earth by looking at other planetary bodies. The more that we look at the different planets, the more each one seems to be unique.” Ibid.

I erroneously thought the ibid was a reference to the Stevenson quote when it was really to the article by Kerr. My apologies.

That in no way rebuts the accuracy of Walt’s facts, does it?

[dodge]

Pahu -- I was going through your list of references in your word-for-word copy-and-paste text from Walter Brown’s young earth creationist website under “Embryology 1.” The first reference is to a forty-seven-year-old book called “The Process of Evolution” by Paul R. Ehrlich and Richard W. Holm. This is quite a coincidence, since I have a copy of that book in my digital library.

Your post referred to how “evolutionists” taught about the development of embryos, how they pass through “stages that mimic an evolutionary sequence.” Your quote by Brown goes on about how they taught that embryos have “gill slits,” and how “embryologists no longer consider the superficial similarities between a few embryos and the adult forms of simpler animals as evidence of evolution.

Immediately after this Brown quotes Ehrlich and Holm’s book:

“This generalization was originally called the biogenetic law by Haeckel and is often stated as ‘ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny.’ This crude interpretation of embryological sequences will not stand close examination, however. Its shortcomings have been almost universally pointed out by modern authors, but the idea still has a prominent place in biological mythology.”

My first reaction to this, that “…the idea still has a prominent place in biological mythology,” is that this was written almost fifty years ago. Do you think that any modern biologist here in the second decade of the twenty-first century embraces this “recapitulation theory?” It was also known as “embryological parallelism” as well as the “biogenic law” (as formulated by German zoologist Ernst Heinrich Haeckel).

But let’s get to that quote you pasted here from Walter Brown’s website. It appears on page 66 of “The Process of Evolution,” which I’m looking at right now, under “Modification of the Developmental System.”

“Of all the phenomena of morphogenesis, none has received more attention from evolutionists than so-called recapitulation. It was soon observed by embryologists that early developmental stages of
vertebrates resembled one another ( at least superficially ) to a much greater degree than did the adults. This has been interpreted by some workers to mean that, in the course of development, each organism goes through a condensed version of its phylogenetic history—that man, for instance, goes through a one-celled stage (zygote), fish stage (when gill pouches appear), a mammal stage,
etc. This generalization was originally called the biogenetic law by Haeckel and is often stated as ‘ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny.’ This crude interpretation of embryological sequences will not stand close examination, however. Its shortcomings have been almost universally pointed out by modern authors, but the idea still has a prominent place in biological mythology.”

And, of course, the authors are correct; and since the book was written almost a half-century ago, the last sentence has no relevance in the field of biology today. The old “ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny” theory was discredited long ago and has since been relegated to history.

RECAPITULATION IS KAPUT! It has been for a long time. For Brown to dig up a quote from a book written almost fifty years ago suggesting that “the idea has a prominent place in biological mythology today” is simply ridiculous.

I might add that Paul R. Ehrlich, author of “The Population Bomb (1968),” warned of mass starvation of humans in the 1970s and 1980s due to overpopulation. In 1970 Ehrlich warned that in ten years “all important animal life in the sea will be extinct, and large areas of the coastline will have to be evacuated because of the stench of dead fish.” In 1971 he predicted that by the year 2000 the United Kingdom will be a small group of impoverished islands, inhabited by 70 million hungry people…and bet that England would not exist in the year 2000.

Looking at Brown’s other references tells the same story, of using out-of-date out-of-context quote-mines:

A forty-five-year-old book called “An Introduction to Biology” by Gaylord and Beck; a forty-six-year-old book called “An Atlas of Evolution” by Gavin R. deBeer; another one by de Beer called “Embryos and Ancestors” that was written almost sixty years ago; a book by Walter J. Bock called “Evolution by Orderly Law” that was written more than forty years ago; a book called “Concepts of Zoology that was written forty years ago by the Frings; a fifty-four-year-old book by Conrad Hal Waddington called “Principles of Embryology; a twenty-two-year-old magazine article in American Scientist by Keith Steward Thomson called “Ontogeny and Phylogeny Recapitulated;” a thirty-one-year-old lecture by David Raup; and a quote by Ashley Montagu “as quoted by Sunderland.”

None of this has any relevance to modern embryology. Wake up and smell the propaganda.

[dodge]

Pahu -- you wrote that you were confused about those quotes that Brown listed, thinking that “ibid” meant it was from the same source. However, that’s exactly what it means. It comes from the Latin “ibidem,” meaning “in the same place.” What this does is “repeats the previous author and title and whatever else is identical.” When one uses “ibid,” it refers to “the same author or source in the immediately preceding reference,” “refers to the reference listed earlier by the same author.” “Where Ibid. appears, the source is listed in the immediately preceeding reference.”

http://design.caltech.edu/erik/Misc/...nd_Op_Cit.html

So when Brown quoted Kerr quoting Stevenson, and then added another quote, the implication was that the quote was by Stevenson. What he should have done was tell us that the second quote was by Michael Carr. He didn’t, so the implication was that it was by Stevenson. This is sloppy referencing that led to your confusion.

If you Google that quote, you will find creationists copying and pasting it in a lot of website making the same incorrect assumption that you did. As a matter of fact, you’ve copied and pasted this same error into a lot of forums:

http://www.expatsingapore.com/forum/...opic=49433.285

http://www.voy.com/208012/2/250.html

And you’ve pasted this same confused assumption here at FactNet before (NOV 2009):

http://www.factnet.org/vbforum/showthread.php?p=383099

And at the Scientific Debate Forum:

http://thescientificdebateforum.aimo...-3-671297.html

And at Beliefnet:

http://community.beliefnet.com/go/th...&post_num=1098

And at the Wasteland of Wonders forum:

http://wastelandofwonders.yuku.com/t...n.html?page=15

And at the Yuku forum:

http://avt.yuku.com/topic/1075/t/Sci...on.html?page=2

And at the ICQ forum:

http://www.icq.com/groups/index.php?..._page=2&page=6

And at Forum3:

http://forum3.aimoo.com/TheScientifi...4/newpost.html

You said in a previous post that you keep archives of material for quick copy and paste for "efficiency" when posting on forums. What it looks like is that you're rubber-stamping Walter Brown's murky research. Perhaps you should start doing your own research...but I know you won't. You're too lazy.

Yes, I do think that this “rebuts the accuracy of Walt’s facts.”

[Pahu]

Pahu -- I was going through your list of references in your word-for-word copy-and-paste text from Walter Brown’s young earth creationist website under “Embryology 1.” The first reference is to a forty-seven-year-old book called “The Process of Evolution” by Paul R. Ehrlich and Richard W. Holm. This is quite a coincidence, since I have a copy of that book in my digital library.

Your post referred to how “evolutionists” taught about the development of embryos, how they pass through “stages that mimic an evolutionary sequence.” Your quote by Brown goes on about how they taught that embryos have “gill slits,” and how “embryologists no longer consider the superficial similarities between a few embryos and the adult forms of simpler animals as evidence of evolution.

Immediately after this Brown quotes Ehrlich and Holm’s book:

“This generalization was originally called the biogenetic law by Haeckel and is often stated as ‘ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny.’ This crude interpretation of embryological sequences will not stand close examination, however. Its shortcomings have been almost universally pointed out by modern authors, but the idea still has a prominent place in biological mythology.”

My first reaction to this, that “…the idea still has a prominent place in biological mythology,” is that this was written almost fifty years ago. Do you think that any modern biologist here in the second decade of the twenty-first century embraces this “recapitulation theory?” It was also known as “embryological parallelism” as well as the “biogenic law” (as formulated by German zoologist Ernst Heinrich Haeckel).

But let’s get to that quote you pasted here from Walter Brown’s website. It appears on page 66 of “The Process of Evolution,” which I’m looking at right now, under “Modification of the Developmental System.”

“Of all the phenomena of morphogenesis, none has received more attention from evolutionists than so-called recapitulation. It was soon observed by embryologists that early developmental stages of
vertebrates resembled one another ( at least superficially ) to a much greater degree than did the adults. This has been interpreted by some workers to mean that, in the course of development, each organism goes through a condensed version of its phylogenetic history—that man, for instance, goes through a one-celled stage (zygote), fish stage (when gill pouches appear), a mammal stage,
etc. This generalization was originally called the biogenetic law by Haeckel and is often stated as ‘ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny.’ This crude interpretation of embryological sequences will not stand close examination, however. Its shortcomings have been almost universally pointed out by modern authors, but the idea still has a prominent place in biological mythology.”

And, of course, the authors are correct; and since the book was written almost a half-century ago, the last sentence has no relevance in the field of biology today. The old “ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny” theory was discredited long ago and has since been relegated to history.

RECAPITULATION IS KAPUT! It has been for a long time. For Brown to dig up a quote from a book written almost fifty years ago suggesting that “the idea has a prominent place in biological mythology today” is simply ridiculous.

I might add that Paul R. Ehrlich, author of “The Population Bomb (1968),” warned of mass starvation of humans in the 1970s and 1980s due to overpopulation. In 1970 Ehrlich warned that in ten years “all important animal life in the sea will be extinct, and large areas of the coastline will have to be evacuated because of the stench of dead fish.” In 1971 he predicted that by the year 2000 the United Kingdom will be a small group of impoverished islands, inhabited by 70 million hungry people…and bet that England would not exist in the year 2000.

Looking at Brown’s other references tells the same story, of using out-of-date out-of-context quote-mines:

A forty-five-year-old book called “An Introduction to Biology” by Gaylord and Beck; a forty-six-year-old book called “An Atlas of Evolution” by Gavin R. deBeer; another one by de Beer called “Embryos and Ancestors” that was written almost sixty years ago; a book by Walter J. Bock called “Evolution by Orderly Law” that was written more than forty years ago; a book called “Concepts of Zoology that was written forty years ago by the Frings; a fifty-four-year-old book by Conrad Hal Waddington called “Principles of Embryology; a twenty-two-year-old magazine article in American Scientist by Keith Steward Thomson called “Ontogeny and Phylogeny Recapitulated;” a thirty-one-year-old lecture by David Raup; and a quote by Ashley Montagu “as quoted by Sunderland.”

None of this has any relevance to modern embryology. Wake up and smell the propaganda.

I am surprised that you admit you agree with Brown in this area. That myth is still believed by many today. I ran into it a lot while picketing abortion chambers. Ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny was one of the excuses given to justify the murder of the unborn. After all, he isn't human yet since he is just a fish.

[dodge]

Pahu -- I didn’t say I agreed with Walter Brown; but I’m not surprised you interpreted it that way. When I said “…of course, the authors are correct,” I was referring to Paul R. Ehrlich and Richard W. Holm’s “The Process of Evolution.” I quoted page 66 of that book, under the heading “Modification of the Developmental System.”

As I also wrote, the only thing I disagreed with in that paragraph was “…but the idea still has a prominent place in biological mythology,” and pointed out that the book was written about a half-century ago.

So what do you do with all of the information that I included? You focus on and conveniently misinterpreted one paragraph, saying that I agreed with Walter Brown; and went on to say that the “myth is still believed by many today.”

Haeckel postulated that “the embryological development of an embryo (ontogeny) recapitulates or repeats the adult stages of the organisms from which it has evolved (phylogeny).

I would ask you to provide me with the names of current scientists who support and teach Ernst Haeckel’s “recapitulation theory,” also known as the “biogenetic law,” that the stages in an organism’s embryonic development correspond to the stages of evolutionary development of the species.

[dodge]

I was doing some research about “Darwinian Medicine,” and found that it is a growing field within the area of evolutionary biology.

The University of Michigan’s Evolutionary Biology and Human Disease department has a webpage describing courses available in the field of Darwinian Medicine that teaches the principals of evolutionary biology using the problems of medicine and public health as a framework.

http://www.lsa.umich.edu/psych/cours...us_9_11_05.pdf

In the course syllabus, it says they will “engage students in critical thinking about disease origins and causation from the novel viewpoint of Darwinian medicine using the principals of evolutionary biology including natural selection, adaptation, phylogenetic analysis, and general scientific hypothesis testing.”

This was from 2005, and the course was using “Why We Get Sick: The New Science of Darwinian Medicine” by Randolph M. Nesse and George C. Williams.

Randolph M. Nesse (born in 1948) is a doctor and an evolutionary biologist who researches evolutionary psychology and evolutionary medicine, as well as the evolutionary emotions and how natural selection shapes the capacity for mood. He’s a professor of psychology and psychiatry at the University of Michigan, and the Director of the Evolution & Human Adaptation Program.

Dr. Nesse has a resource page at his website for those interested in Darwinian/Evolutionary Medicine that includes his introduction to this field of study, “Evolution: Medicine’s Most Basic Science,” published in the December 2008 issue of The Lancet (a weekly peer-reviewed general medical journal.”

http://www-personal.umich.edu/~nesse...ancet-2008.PDF

George C. Williams, who co-authored the textbook with Dr. Nesse, was “an evolutionary biologist who helped shape modern theories of natural selection,” and passed away last September at the age of eighty-three. He was a professor emeritus of biology at the State University of New York at Stony Brook, and along with others developed a “gene-centric” view of evolution in the 1960s.

Their work in the field of Evolutionary Medicine is being carried on by a new generation of students and teachers who are researching how shared traits leave all members of a species vulnerable to a disease, how humans are vulnarable to diseases because of evolutionary mismatches and co-evolution with pathogens and parasites. There are traits that favor reproduction at the expense of health and defenses which are not medical problems but responses shaped by natural selection.

Florida State University has an excellent Evolutionary Medicine program within its Department of Biological Science, and they’re hosting a symposium next month centering on the contributions that Evolutionary Medicine has made in the study of disease and immunity.

http://www.bio.fsu.edu/FowlerII/

“Evolutionary medicine is a growing discipline that applies evolutionary reasoning to medical problems including the nature of disease and the efficacy of immune response. Evolution has informed medical science about such diverse issues as the way the interaction between disease organisms and host response shape the nature of symptoms, and the causes of disease resistance and virulence and how to manage medical care to minimize them.”

Tulane University also offers courses related to Evolutionary Medicine, like “Evolution in Human Health and Disease,” that teaches the application of Darwin’s ideas “to the evolution of pathogenic organisms, and consideration of their co-evolution with their human hosts.”

http://www.tulane.edu/~bfleury/darwinmed/darwinmed.html

As Theodosius Dobzhansky wrote, “Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution.”

http://www.phil.vt.edu/Burian/NothingInBiolChFina.pdf

[Pahu]

It is commonly claimed that Darwinism is the cornerstone of the life sciences and that “nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution.” To evaluate this claim I reviewed both textbooks used to teach life science class at the college where I teach and those I used in my university course work. I concluded from my survey that Darwinism was rarely mentioned. I also reviewed my course work and that of another researcher and came to the same conclusion. From this survey I concluded that the claim “nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution” is not true.

http://www.trueorigin.org/biologymyth.asp

“The process of mutation is the only known source of the raw materials of genetic variability, and hence of evolution. ... the mutants which arise are, with rare exceptions, deleterious to their carriers, at least in the environments which the species normally encounters.” Theodosius Dobzhansky, “On Methods of Evolutionary Biology and Anthropology,” American Scientist, December 1957, p. 385.

“Most mutants which arise in any organism are more or less disadvantageous to their possessors. The classical mutants obtained in Drosophila [the fruit fly] usually show deterioration, breakdown, or disappearance of some organs. Mutants are known which diminish the quantity or destroy the pigment in the eyes, and in the body reduce the wings, eyes, bristles, legs. Many mutants are, in fact, lethal to their possessors. Mutants which equal the normal fly in vigor are a minority, and mutants that would make a major improvement of the normal organization in the normal environments are unknown.” Theodosius Dobzhansky, Evolution, Genetics, and Man (New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1955), p. 105.

[dodge]

Is that the best you can do, Pahu? The only places you ever look to find scientific information is creationist websites. This time it’s the “True Origin Archive,” another young Earth creationist propaganda mill run by Timothy Wallace.

You found Jerry Bergman’s essay about Dobzhansky there, where he wrote that he reviewed college textbooks in order to evaluate the claim that “nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution.” His conclusion was that “biology makes perfect sense without ever mentioning Darwinism,” and that he agrees with the statement that biochemistry is what gives biology its place in science; and that evolutionary biology “is not even covered in most science course work.”

That’s odd, because every major university and college seem to think otherwise. Take the Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry at Baylor University for example:

“Evolution, a foundational principle of modern biological sciences, is supported by overwhelming scientific evidence. It is fundamental to the understanding of modern biochemistry, and our faculty incorporate the principle of evolution throughout the biochemistry curriculum.”

http://www.baylor.edu/chemistry/index.php?id=68470

Then there’s the statement by the Biology Department at Central Connecticut State University:

“As members of the worldwide scientific community, we use the theory of evolution and other scientific principles to study the natural world. Evolution, a foundational principle of modern biological sciences, is supported by overwhelming scientific evidence. It is fundamental to the understanding of modern biology, and our faculty incorporate the principle of evolution throughout the curriculum,” and “evolutionary theory has greatly enhanced progress in the fields of medicine, anatomy, archaeology, biology, biochemistry, geology, neuroscience, and many other disciplines. Without an understanding of evolutionary biology, our perception of the natural world would be greatly diminished.”

http://www.biology.ccsu.edu/Evolution.htm

The Department of Biology at the College of New Jersey “is unequivocal in its support of the contemporary theory of biological evolution. Evolutionary theory has been supported by data collection and analysis conducted over the past 150 years.”

http://www.tcnj.edu/~biology/evolution.htm

I already posted the “Statement on Evolution” from the Department of Biology at Saint Louis University.

http://www.slu.edu/x31096.xml

Louisiana State University’s Museum of Natural Science confirms that “evolutionary theory has greatly enhanced progress in the fields of medicine, anatomy, archaeology, biology, biochemistry, geology, neuroscience and many other disciplines. Without an understanding of evolutionary biology, our perception of the natural world would be greatly diminished.”

So Jerry Bergman’s statement that evolutionary biology is “not even covered in most science course work” seems to be inaccurate.

Brown University teaches evolutionary biology in its department of biology.

http://biomed.brown.edu/Courses/BIO48/BIO48.HTML

Yale University offers evolutionary biology courses in its department of ecology and evolutionary biology.

http://www.yale.edu/eeb/ugrad/courses.htm

Harvard University has a Department of Organismic and Evolutionary Biology.

http://www.oeb.harvard.edu/research/evo_devo.html

The University of Buffalo emphasizes evolutionary biology, with Dobzhansky’s statement right on the top page.

http://www.bio200.buffalo.edu/

Rice University also has a Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology.

http://eeb.rice.edu/courses.html

As does the University of Arizona,

http://catalog.arizona.edu/2008-09/c.../091/ECOL.html

…and Case Western, the University of Chicago, Tulane University…and it appears most other major colleges and universities across the United States and the world support and teach evolutionary biology and believe that evolution is fundamental to any science education.

Where does Jerry Bergman teach? At a two-year community college in Ohio. It looks like that's the only accredited school that would hire him. Someone who believes and teaches that the universe was created from nothing by an invisible supernatural being less than ten thousand years ago should not be allowed to teach any science course. I certainly wouldn’t allow a son or daughter of mine to be taught by someone like him, because it would distort their minds and make them unprepared for any serious academic scientific discipline they might choose.

[turtle]

Pahu in lay terms recapitulation is it supported theoretically by embroyic growth. In other words, Life begins with fertilization and an egg. In other words two cells colliding. Much like water Oxygen and carbon monoxide colliding to form water. However I do not know if the process is the same to produce water in the sense of the cells colliding and pentrating. However it would make sense. In other words ferilization of oxygen. Yeah do not know a thing do I or at least not terms thank God for articles that explain what I can not.


http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Covalent_bond

[dodge]

It’s obvious that you don’t do any reading other than what’s written by young earth creationists, Pahu. As I’ve mentioned before, this seriously limits your understanding of science.

As Richard Burian, Professor Emeritus of Philosophy and Science Studies at Virginia Polytechnic Institute, wrote “during the last twenty years, molecular biology has produced a series of extremely startling findings,” and “the last two decades of work in molecular biology have helped to justify” Dobzhansky’s claim that “nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution.”

http://www.phil.vt.edu/Burian/NothingInBiolChFina.pdf

At Cornell University, in a course called “Introduction to Biological Sciences (BioG1101), in lecture 1: “The major theme that runs through all of modern biology and unifies the discipline is evolution. Charles Darwin laid out the principles of evolution nearly 150 years ago. Since that time some concepts of evolution have been proposed and falsified, but many more have been developed and are shown to have great predictive power.”

http://courses.cit.cornell.edu/biog1...%20Biology.pdf

The reading assignments in that course include N.A. Campbell and J.B. Reece’s “Biology, 8th Edition,” where they “introduce seven themes that unify biology…the seventh theme, evolution, unites the others because it explains why they occur and recur in all areas of the natural world. Evolution brings unity to the study of biology and casts a light that makes sense out of the fact of biology.” As the instructor in this course, Prof. Cole Gilbert, wrote, “Dobzhansky’s famous quote, nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution, remains an inspiring analysis of the importance of evolution as an organizing principle in biology with insights into the unnecessary conflict between evolutionary theory and fundamentalist religious thinking.”

“Evolutionary biology is, of course, the scientific foundation for all biology, and biology is the foundation for all medicine,” wrote Dr. David DiMattio, who teaches “Inquiry in the Natural World” in the physics department at St. Bonaventure University, a private Franciscan Catholic university.

http://web.sbu.edu/physics/faculty/d...ol-reading.htm

Even at such a school as Brigham Young University, owned by the Mormon Church, its Department of Biology supports the statement that “Evolution theory ties all of the fields of biology together into a unified whole.”

In an article about Dobzhansky’s statement, that “nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution, “A Delicate Balance: Teaching Biological Evolution at Brigham Young University,” Professor of Biology Lynn Firestone wrote “I can think of no better way to emphasize the importance of teaching evolution in all biology classes, at all educational levels, than to point out its central role in biology.”

http://www.byui.edu/perspective/v4n2..._firestone.pdf

Brigham Young University’s Prof. Lynn Firestone goes on to say that “Evolution theory ties all of the fields of biology together into a unified whole. It explains not only why there is so much diversity of life on earth but also why all of these diverse forms of life are so similar on a molecular basis and in the attributes which define life itself.”

Prof. Firestone, in the above article, says that “There is also another important reason for studying evolution. Understanding evolution helps scientists solve problems that influence the quality of our lives. For example, understanding how pathogenic organisms evolve facilitates the treatment of diseases.”

So, Dan Carlton (Pahu), when you limit your inquiry into the evolutionary basis of biology to young Earth creationists, scientists who exist on the fringes of the academic world, such as Walter Brown, you severely damage your ability to comprehend modern evolutionary biology.

[Pahu]

Pahu in lay terms recapitulation is it supported theoretically by embroyic growth. In other words, Life begins with fertilization and an egg. In other words two cells colliding. Much like water Oxygen and carbon monoxide colliding to form water. However I do not know if the process is the same to produce water in the sense of the cells colliding and pentrating. However it would make sense. In other words ferilization of oxygen. Yeah do not know a thing do I or at least not terms thank God for articles that explain what I can not.


http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Covalent_bond

Life begins when the female egg accepts a sperm. It doesn't accept the first sperm that tries to penetrate, but seems to distinguish which sperm it will accept. It almost seems that the egg (ovum) is exercising some sort of intelligence in its selection, similar to the woman selecting which man she prefers to impregnate her.

Water is a different subject. It is not the combination of oxygen and carbon monoxide, but oxygen and hydrogen. Wikipedia gives a good description of water:

Water (H2O) is the most abundant compound on Earth's surface, covering about 70% of the planet's surface. In nature it exists in liquid, solid, and gaseous states. It is in dynamic equilibrium between the liquid and gas states at standard temperature and pressure. At room temperature, it is a nearly colorless with a hint of blue, tasteless, and odorless liquid. Many substances dissolve in water and it is commonly referred to as the universal solvent. Because of this, water in nature and in use is rarely pure and some of its properties may vary slightly from those of the pure substance. However, there are many compounds that are essentially, if not completely, insoluble in water. Water is the only common substance found naturally in all three common states of matter and it is essential for life on Earth.[3] Water usually makes up 55% to 78% of the human body.[4]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Properties_of_water

[Pahu]

It’s obvious that you don’t do any reading other than what’s written by young earth creationists, Pahu. As I’ve mentioned before, this seriously limits your understanding of science.

As Richard Burian, Professor Emeritus of Philosophy and Science Studies at Virginia Polytechnic Institute, wrote “during the last twenty years, molecular biology has produced a series of extremely startling findings,” and “the last two decades of work in molecular biology have helped to justify” Dobzhansky’s claim that “nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution.”

http://www.phil.vt.edu/Burian/NothingInBiolChFina.pdf

At Cornell University, in a course called “Introduction to Biological Sciences (BioG1101), in lecture 1: “The major theme that runs through all of modern biology and unifies the discipline is evolution. Charles Darwin laid out the principles of evolution nearly 150 years ago. Since that time some concepts of evolution have been proposed and falsified, but many more have been developed and are shown to have great predictive power.”

http://courses.cit.cornell.edu/biog1...%20Biology.pdf

The reading assignments in that course include N.A. Campbell and J.B. Reece’s “Biology, 8th Edition,” where they “introduce seven themes that unify biology…the seventh theme, evolution, unites the others because it explains why they occur and recur in all areas of the natural world. Evolution brings unity to the study of biology and casts a light that makes sense out of the fact of biology.” As the instructor in this course, Prof. Cole Gilbert, wrote, “Dobzhansky’s famous quote, nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution, remains an inspiring analysis of the importance of evolution as an organizing principle in biology with insights into the unnecessary conflict between evolutionary theory and fundamentalist religious thinking.”

“Evolutionary biology is, of course, the scientific foundation for all biology, and biology is the foundation for all medicine,” wrote Dr. David DiMattio, who teaches “Inquiry in the Natural World” in the physics department at St. Bonaventure University, a private Franciscan Catholic university.

http://web.sbu.edu/physics/faculty/d...ol-reading.htm

Even at such a school as Brigham Young University, owned by the Mormon Church, its Department of Biology supports the statement that “Evolution theory ties all of the fields of biology together into a unified whole.”

In an article about Dobzhansky’s statement, that “nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution, “A Delicate Balance: Teaching Biological Evolution at Brigham Young University,” Professor of Biology Lynn Firestone wrote “I can think of no better way to emphasize the importance of teaching evolution in all biology classes, at all educational levels, than to point out its central role in biology.”

http://www.byui.edu/perspective/v4n2..._firestone.pdf

Brigham Young University’s Prof. Lynn Firestone goes on to say that “Evolution theory ties all of the fields of biology together into a unified whole. It explains not only why there is so much diversity of life on earth but also why all of these diverse forms of life are so similar on a molecular basis and in the attributes which define life itself.”

Prof. Firestone, in the above article, says that “There is also another important reason for studying evolution. Understanding evolution helps scientists solve problems that influence the quality of our lives. For example, understanding how pathogenic organisms evolve facilitates the treatment of diseases.”

So, Dan Carlton (Pahu), when you limit your inquiry into the evolutionary basis of biology to young Earth creationists, scientists who exist on the fringes of the academic world, such as Walter Brown, you severely damage your ability to comprehend modern evolutionary biology.

Interesting opinions by Darwinists intent on maintaining the notion that evolution is true despite the evidence disproving the myth, which I have been sharing.

[turtle]

Pahu,

Carbon monoxide comes from what oxygen after it dies, however lets trace Hydrogen backwards to hydrocarbons that come from carbon monoxide, Carbon monoxide is the opposite of oxygen. we exhale carbon dioxide.


http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Hydrogen

http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Hydrocarbon



http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/...Carbon_dioxide


Not carbon monoxide is not carbon dioxide to different element. However easy mistake it been years since a science class. However Breaking down hydrogen from God breath, in the since of exhaling carbon dioxide or changing oxygen that is used to carbon dioxide through blood. Now where did blood come from.

1 John 5:6 KJV
(6) This is he that came by water and blood, even Jesus Christ; not by water only, but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit that beareth witness, because the Spirit is truth.


Acts 17:26 KJV
(26) And hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation;

[Pahu]

Embryology 2


Ernst Haeckel, by deliberately falsifying his drawings (b), originated and popularized this incorrect but widespread belief [of the “biogenetic law”]. Many modern textbooks continue to spread this false idea as evidence for evolution (c).

b. Haeckel, who in 1868 advanced this “biogenetic law” that was quickly adopted in textbooks and encyclopedias worldwide, distorted his data. Thompson explains:

“A natural law can only be established as an induction from facts. Haeckel was of course unable to do this. What he did was to arrange existing forms of animal life in a series proceeding from the simple to the complex, intercalating [inserting] imaginary entities where discontinuity existed and then giving the embryonic phases names corresponding to the stages in his so-called evolutionary series. Cases in which this parallelism did not exist were dealt with by the simple expedient of saying that the embryological development had been falsified. When the ‘convergence’ of embryos was not entirely satisfactory, Haeckel altered the illustrations of them to fit his theory. The alterations were slight but significant. The ‘biogenetic law’ as a proof of evolution is valueless.” W. R. Thompson, p. 12.

“To support his case he [Haeckel] began to fake evidence. Charged with fraud by five professors and convicted by a university court at Jena, he agreed that a small percentage of his embryonic drawings were forgeries; he was merely filling in and reconstructing the missing links when the evidence was thin, and he claimed unblushingly that ‘hundreds of the best observers and biologists lie under the same charge.’” Pitman, p. 120.

M. Bowden, Ape-Men: Fact or Fallacy? 2nd edition (Bromley, England: Sovereign Publications, 1981), pp. 142–143.

Wilbert H. Rusch, Sr., “Ontogeny Recapitulates Phylogeny,” Creation Research Society Quarterly, Vol. 6, June 1969, pp. 27–34.

“...ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny, meaning that in the course of its development [ontogeny] an embryo recapitulates [repeats] the evolutionary history of its species [phylogeny]. This idea was fathered by Ernst Haeckel, a German biologist who was so convinced that he had solved the riddle of life’s unfolding that he doctored and faked his drawings of embryonic stages to prove his point.” Fix, p. 285.

“[The German scientist Wilhelm His] accused Haeckel of shocking dishonesty in repeating the same picture several times to show the similarity among vertebrates at early embryonic stages in several plates of [Haeckel’s book].” Stephen Jay Gould, Ontogeny and Phylogeny (Cambridge, Massachusetts: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 1977), p. 430.

“It looks like it’s turning out to be one of the most famous fakes in biology.” Michael K. Richardson, as quoted by Elizabeth Pennisi, “Haeckel’s Embryos: Fraud Rediscovered,” Science, Vol. 277, 5 September 1997, p. 1435.

“When we compare his [Haeckel’s] drawings of a young echidna embryo with the original, we find that he removed the limbs (see Fig. 1). This cut was selective, applying only to the young stage. It was also systematic because he did it to other species in the picture. Its intent is to make the young embryos look more alike than they do in real life.” Michael K. Richardson and Gerhard Keuck, “A Question of Intent: When Is a ‘Schematic’ Illustration a Fraud?” Nature, Vol. 410, 8 March 2001, p. 144.

c. “Another point to emerge from this study is the considerable inaccuracy of Haeckel’s famous figures. These drawings are still widely reproduced in textbooks and review articles, and continue to exert a significant influence on the development of ideas in this field.” Michael K. Richardson et al., “There Is No Highly Conserved Embryonic Stage in the Vertebrates,” Anatomy and Embryology, Vol. 196, No. 2, August 1997, p. 104.

[From “In the Beginning” by Walt Brown
http://www.creationscience.com/onlin...tml#wp1009086]

[dodge]

Pahu -- You just copied and pasted some blocks of text by Walter Brown from his young Earth creationist website where he says that “Many modern textbooks continue to spread this false idea as evidence for evolution,” meaning Ernst Haeckel’s embryo drawings.

Please link me to any modern high school or college biological textbooks that mention these drawings as “evidence for evolution.”

Brown quotes entomologist William R. Thompson (1887-1972) from his introduction to the 1956 reprint of “Darwin’s Origin of Species,” which in fact demonstrates how Haeckel was not taken seriously by evolutionists even fifty-five years ago. How does this lend any support that Haeckel’s drawings are used as evidence for evolution in modern textbooks?

Then you have Brown quoting some guy named “Pitman” on “page 20.” Who is “Pitman,” and from what book is this quote taken? Brown doesn’t say.

It took me a while, but I found out that this quote that Brown used came from “Adam and Evolution (1984),” by Michael Pitman. I found a review of this book from the 21 FEB 85 edition of New Scientist, page 44, called “Another Case for Creationism” by P.T. Saunders.

The article says that Michael Pitman argues the case for creationism; but that Pitman is “less convincing in putting forward his alternative, as his only real argument, that anything that has not yet been adequately explained by science counts as evidence for creationism.” I’ve yet to find out who Michael Pitman is or was, and I wonder why Brown didn‘t tell us where he got Pitman‘s quote from?

So far we have two quotes that are not from any textbook that Brown says “continue to spread this false idea as evidence for evolution.”

Next, Brown quotes from the June 1969 edition of the “Creation Research Society Quarterly.” Since this publication’s stated beliefs are that all the assertions in the Bible are “historically and scientifically true,” that all living things were “made by direct creative acts of God during the Creation Week described in Genesis,” and that “salvation can come only through accepting Jesus Christ as our Savior,” well….anything coming from them is suspect and not anything that would be of any consequence or interest to the scientific community.

http://www.creationresearch.org/belief_wndw.htm

Brown quotes Stephen Jay Gould, whom I have a great deal of respect for, in his “Ontogeny and Phylogeny (1977),” as saying that “the German scientist Wilhelm…accused Haeckel of shocking dishonesty in repeating the same picture several times to show the similarity among vertebrates at early embryonic stages in several plates of…” and that’s it. Brown doesn’t give any context or insight into the quote.

Conveniently enough, the entire text of “Ontogeny and Phylogeny” is online here:

http://www.sjgarchive.org/library/te...geny/cover.htm

The quote that Brown used is from Page 430, which are notes to pages 190-197. The entire quote is:

22. His was by no means immune to invective in return. He accused Haeckel of shocking dishonesty in repeating the same picture several times to show the similarity among vertebrates at early embryonic stages in several plates of the Naturliche Schöpfungsgeschichte: "I myself have grown up in the belief that, among all qualifications of a scientist, reliability and unconditional respect for factual truth is the only one that can never be lacking ... In my judgment, he [Haeckel], by his way of waging battle, has himself renounced the right to be counted as a peer in the company of earnest researchers" (1874, p. 171).

This footnote refers to page 192 and 193, where Wilhelm His, professor of anatomy at Leipzig, was being discussed. Professor His published rebuttals to recapitulation and challenged Haeckel’s methodology. In response, Haeckel called Professor His’s argument the Rag Bag or Rubber Tube Theory.

This is what that quote by Brown is, a footnote concerning Professor His and Ernst Haeckel’s arguments with each other. I don’t know what any of this has to do with Haeckel’s drawings being used as “evidence for evolution in modern textbooks.” But that’s Walter Brown, using out-of-context quotes and stringing them together with vague references. In fact, what Brown has shown is that reputable scientists saw through Haeckel and his questionable methods. This is the beauty of peer review.

Then Brown quotes Michael K. Richardson, “as quoted by Elizabeth Pennisi,” in “Haeckel’s Embryos: Fraud Rediscovered,” an article found in the 5 SEP 1997 edition of Science magazine. The quote is “It looks like it’s turning out to be one of the most famous fakes in biology.”

OK, Stephen Jay Gould, Michael K. Richardson, and several others criticized Ernst Haeckel. This seems to prove that Haeckel’s drawings are NOT used as evidence for evolution. The fact is that, if these drawings are contained in any modern biology textbooks, they are found in discussions of the history of embryology, with clarification that these are no longer considered valid, as Douglas Futuyma wrote in “Evolutionary Biology,” p. 652-652. This is an actual textbook, by the way.

So Walter Brown’s assertion that Haeckel’s drawings are being used in modern textbooks as proof of evolution is false. His references are uninformative, vague, and misleading.

The proof that modern textbooks and reputable sources refer to Haeckel only in terms of historical perspective, we have Berkeley’s University of California Museum of Paleontology, supported by the National Science Foundation and the Howard Hughes Medical Institute, explaining this at their “Understanding Evolution” site.

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolib...cle/history_15

They talk about Ernst Haeckel as being “not entirely honest,” and that his “biogenetic law” was proven to be without merit “with the rise of genetics and the modern synthesis,” and when it was discovered that “genes controlled the rate and direction of embryonic development.”

Pahu -- You’ve beaten this dead horse enough. Haeckel’s comparative embryo drawings that served as his evidence for the biogenetic law are relics of history. They have nothing to do with modern evolutionary biology. There are no modern biology textbooks that use these drawings as “proof of evolution.” All you're doing is proving that you have no idea what you're talking about...well, Walter Brown; because all you do is copy and paste his young Earth creationist propaganda.

[turtle]

Jeremiah 1:5 KJV
(5) Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, and I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations.

Genesis 35:11 KJV
(11) And God said unto him, I am God Almighty: be fruitful and multiply; a nation and a company of nations shall be of thee, and kings shall come out of thy loins;

Psalms 139:13-15 KJV
(13) For thou hast possessed my reins: thou hast covered me in my mother's womb.
(14) I will praise thee; for I am fearfully and wonderfully made: marvellous are thy works; and that my soul knoweth right well.
(15) My substance was not hid from thee, when I was made in secret, and curiously wrought in the lowest parts of the earth.

Romans 8:29 KJV
(29) For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.

What man understood about birth, conception came from God, some might say could of come from observation over time, but in truth I think it came from God almighty, however over time, embryo would of been born prematurely a natural effect. If nothing else in live stock. They would of had knowledge of conception and also reproduction, however they would understood how baby formed from point A to point B. One ahs to think over time, this stuff would of been common knowledge, however men in cities only learn from the street, books or homes, if you spend time around countries woods or nature you learn alot more about production of humans. Knowledge and understanding man's role in reproduction might not of fully been understood even with the sex act.

[Pahu]

OK, Stephen Jay Gould, Michael K. Richardson, and several others criticized Ernst Haeckel. This seems to prove that Haeckel’s drawings are NOT used as evidence for evolution. The fact is that, if these drawings are contained in any modern biology textbooks, they are found in discussions of the history of embryology, with clarification that these are no longer considered valid, as Douglas Futuyma wrote in “Evolutionary Biology,” p. 652-652. This is an actual textbook, by the way.

So Walter Brown’s assertion that Haeckel’s drawings are being used in modern textbooks as proof of evolution is false. His references are uninformative, vague, and misleading.

Did Brown make that assertion? I thought Michael K. Richardson et al. made that assertion in their article: “There Is No Highly Conserved Embryonic Stage in the Vertebrates,” Anatomy and Embryology, Vol. 196, No. 2, August 1997, p. 104.

Is it possible that in your eagerness to discredit Brown and defend atheism/evolution, you read into the material what you want to see?

When I was attending school, I remember those fake drawings in my textbook. I also have been assured by some, while picketing abortion chambers, that the unborn was just a fish evolving into a human and therefore justifying his murder.

The proof that modern textbooks and reputable sources refer to Haeckel only in terms of historical perspective, we have Berkeley’s University of California Museum of Paleontology, supported by the National Science Foundation and the Howard Hughes Medical Institute, explaining this at their “Understanding Evolution” site.

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolib...cle/history_15

They talk about Ernst Haeckel as being “not entirely honest,” and that his “biogenetic law” was proven to be without merit “with the rise of genetics and the modern synthesis,” and when it was discovered that “genes controlled the rate and direction of embryonic development.”

Pahu -- You’ve beaten this dead horse enough. Haeckel’s comparative embryo drawings that served as his evidence for the biogenetic law are relics of history. They have nothing to do with modern evolutionary biology. There are no modern biology textbooks that use these drawings as “proof of evolution.” All you're doing is proving that you have no idea what you're talking about...well, Walter Brown; because all you do is copy and paste his young Earth creationist propaganda.

You agree with Brown on the fact that those fake drawings have nothing to do with modern evolution, but that isn't the point, which is nine years after Darwin published his book, Haeckel, eager (as you) to support the evolution idea, produced those fake drawings. Since then, many evolutionists have faked evidence to support the myth, such as, Piltdown Man, Nebraska Man, etc.

http://www.iol.ie/~afifi/BICNews/Yahya/yahya2.htm