Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

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 : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Jim McMannis who wrote (246315)	8/17/2005 12:10:22 AM
From: combjelly	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1571898

"So, you believe...Ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny?" It wouldn't surprise me. Z doesn't have a science background and this statement has been taught many decades past its prime in highschools despite it being officially doubted. That is like history, when students go to college or to a university and learn that their previous 12 years of history is, at best, simplified, does that make it wrong? While the correct answer might be 'yes', apparently public schools in this area teach we were winning in Vietnam whe we withdrew instead of recognizing there is a state between 'winning' and 'losing' called 'stalemate'. Highschool science and history is, for the most part, bogus. Nonscience or nonhistory majors are shortchanged. Given the state of our society, that probably means more nonscience majors get screwed with respect to what is reality, but so it goes until somebody like the Chinese or Japanese cleans our plow...

To: Jim McMannis who wrote (246315)	8/17/2005 12:19:43 AM
From: neolib	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1571898

So, you believe...Ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny? Not quite the current view, but it was actually a useful step along the way. The current field of developmental biology, which looks at how embryos develop is showing indeed that common genes control the development of different structures across a wide range of distantly related species. It's not that the embryo is actually going through a miniature version of the adult bodies of all the ancestors in succession as it develops. Rather embryos of related species (even say humans & fish) go through very similar stages early on, hence the common visual phylogeny. You might roughly view "Ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny" as being similar to Copernicus vs Kepler on the solar system. It was an important step to realise that embryo development said something important about related species, but it lacked a clear understanding of the mechanics of why that is, just like Copernicus made the leap to a Sun centric solar system without understanding the nature or mechanism of orbital motion, something that Kepler & Newton were needed for.

To: Jim McMannis who wrote (246315)	8/17/2005 12:20:30 AM
From: SilentZ	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1571898

>So, you believe...Ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny? No, as far as I can tell, recapitulation theory is crap. But the fact that we develop things in the womb for no particular reason and then they go away for no particular reason is evidence that there probably was an evolutionarily-conceived purpose for those characteristics and that we're evolutionarily in the middle of a process, and not the end of it, as a perfect creationism would dictate. -Z