SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Evolution
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: Greg or e who wrote (2520)4/20/2009 6:30:23 PM
From: LLCF1 Recommendation  Read Replies (1) of 69300
 
<It's unfortunate that you seem too emotionally invested in this to even concede the smallest, most obvious point. Namely that it is intellectually dishonest to continue to use discredited studies >

That's simply not the case. I never said anyone should use discredited studies (in this case Haekels are hardly needed, nor are they used) for any reason. Further I DID say that none of this more advanced theory SHOULD BE TAUGHT IN GRADE SCHOOL.

<"fraudulent" (Gould's word) drawings to prop up a theory that is otherwise in trouble.>

Nor did I espouse using Haekel's drawings for any such thing. Please read what I said about Haekel's drawings and about grade school vs university studies.

I think your term "emotionally invested" comes in handy here though: The REASON Haekel's drawings are used in in "evo-devo" text books is precicely to describe what he thought was the truth, which is now known NOT to be the truth... yet to hold very important information. So to me it looks like certain factions have such a big axe to grind that they want to trow babies out with bathwater.

As to the second part of your statement... what theory are you talking about that is "otherwise in trouble"?

As to "Ad Hominem" it's hard to bother with that since your "arguement" or "factual claim" (That Haekel's drawings were inaccurate, exaggerated, or fraudulent) doesn't refute my original claim that Haekel's ideas and work was and is very important to the study of evolution and are rightly included in it's study. Therefore there was no reason for me to deny, or attack that assertion in any way. In fact I never supported any particular study on this thread I don't beleive?

OTOH, there DOES seem to be an attack (on evolution... in particular "EVO-DEVO" and Haekel's role in it) going on here that ISNT using facts other than those that break basic logistical fallacies (ie. since Haekel drew pictures that misreapresented the truth, he has therefore nothing to add and all those ideas are discredited) from first semester university.

DAK
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  

HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2025 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News