You are pulling quotes out of context from a discussion paper and then saying that they represent my position? If that is your idea of fair discussion then it's no wonder we clash as we do. If you really were the least bit interested in a rational discussion then you would not have taken the quotes so outrageously out of their context. I will provide a decent amount of context that shows what you did was improper. I posted it initially to demonstrate the circularity of this statement;
"modern biology does recognize numerous connections between ontogeny and phylogeny, explains them using evolutionary theory without recourse to Haeckel's specific views, and considers them as supporting evidence for that theory."
Nothing in that statement justifies your direct use of Haeckel's dicredited theory where you stated:
"As the egg develops through evolutionary phases of fish and reptile it eventually takes on human evolutionary characteristics and develops consciousness.
The fact is; the stages that the Human Embryo goes through are all Human stages and the Embryo is fully Human and a distinct person from conception!
Here is some context for those who wish to be fair minded.
"What Should We Make of All This?
So what is the empirical content of common descent, anyway? The theory is certainly easy enough to state:
Evolution asserts that the pattern of similarity by which all known organisms may be linked is the natural outcome of some process of genealogy. In other words, all organisms are related.[48]
But is this – not to put too fine a point on it – a testable proposition?
Or perhaps we should rather ask, do evolutionists (in practice) treat common descent as a testable proposition? There are many indications that the answer is "no, not really." On this view of the theory (which we offer for discussion), common descent is actually something like an axiom or formal principle, which is presupposed by evolutionary theory – but is itself not at issue. This view – call it the axiom thesis – is not as outlandish as it may appear, and helps to make sense of the scientific practice of evolutionary theorists, as in the examples given above. When reconciling a theoretical bundle (common descent + independent auxiliary theory) with observation, evolutionists act to conserve the truth of common descent. As philosopher of science Harold I. Brown observes,
In science, not all propositions are treated as testable empirical hypotheses. It is only because a large body of knowledge is taken as paradigmatic that we can isolate individuals propositions for purposes of testing, and what conclusions we draw from a particular test depends on what propositions we take as paradigmatic.[49]
Kevin de Queiroz and Michael Donoghue argue that "the principle of common descent" unifies the "patterns of living things in space, in time, and in form under a single general theory."[50] But, as they also argue,
The theory of common descent...is "evolutionary" only in the most general sense, for it does not even refer to change. It certainly is not tied to any particular model of the evolutionary process, nor is it at odds with the results of systematic analysis.[51]
In other words, we need not worry that anything in our biological experience will ever run afoul of the theory.
Suppose Darwin had it right, namely, that "all the organic beings which have ever lived on this earth have descended from some one primordial form."[52] The existence of this "one primordial form," the common ancestor, establishes a theoretical domain that logically subsumes all biological and paleontological phenomena. That is, even if life had multiple origins, we will be unable, having assumed the truth of common descent, to provide any evidence for that possibility: all observed organisms, whether recent or extinct, will necessarily lie within what might be called the "common ancestor horizon."
If this seems counter-intuitive, try the following thought experiment. Assume the truth of common descent, and then attempt to construct an empirical argument against it. No imaginable evidence one might bring to bear, however striking – e.g., organisms for which no transitional stages seem possible, multiple genetic codes – will be able to overturn the theory. If there really was a common ancestor, then all discontinuities between organisms are only apparent, the artifacts of an incomplete history. An ideally fine-grained history would reveal the begetting relations by which all organisms have descended from the common ancestor.
If the axiom thesis is correct, then the theory of common descent will indeed be refractory to the evidential challenges thrown up by biological experience. One can see the point in Mayr's recent claim that common descent
has been gloriously confirmed by all researches since 1859. Everything we have learned about the physiology and chemistry of organisms supports Darwin's daring speculation that "all the organic beings which have ever lived on this earth have descended from some one primordial form..."[53]
One wonders what we could have learned about organisms, since 1859, that would not have confirmed common descent.
We offer the axiom thesis, not because we are persuaded of its truth, but to provide a starting point or focus for discussion. How, really, do the patterns of living things count for, or against, the notions of primary continuity (common ancestry) or primary discontinuity (polyphyly)? If common descent cannot be dislodged by the "evidence," then how should we go about evaluating it?"
BTW I appreciated the poetry, even though there seemed to be a element of passive aggressiveness in the ones you chose. |
