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 : Evolution -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: LLCF who wrote (2481)	4/18/2009 3:09:37 PM
From: Brumar89	1 Recommendation Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 69300

Re. the history of the Catholic church, I know a bit, though I'm not a Catholic myself. Precisely because I'm not one I prefer not to kick them. I know they've committed abuses in history. But when it comes to science I also know there h/b false histories written by charlatans like David William Draper and Andrew Dickson White that have created an overly negative viewpoint on the part of many. I also posted a bit from wickipedia pointing out that the "conflict thesis" of science and religion they created and that you seem to be enthall to is now pretty well debunked. ------ Re. the peppered moth study, there's been a book written on that, entitled Of Moths and Men. "Of Moths and Men" by Judith Hooper It was a world-famous example of evolution in action, and it was rigged. How the case of the peppered moth proved that "scientific fact" sometimes isn't either. By Alison Motluk .............http://dir.salon.com/story/books/review/2002/09/18/hooper/index.html pubmedcentral.nih.gov Summing up, the above: Moths are nocturnal, they're preyed on by bats, not birds. Bats find moths by echo location, don't know or care what color they are. Moths don't spend their days resting on the sides of trees where the researcher stuck them (with birds following him around eating the moths he placed out - just as birds will follow a mower across a lawn or a person scattering bird seed) but in dark hidden places under leaves, limbs, in tree crevasses ... ----- Re. Haeckel's drawings, I find it strange you'd link to a site that says such negative things about his drawings and theory: He supported the theory with embryo drawings that have since been shown to be oversimplified and in part inaccurate, and the theory is now considered an oversimplification of quite complicated relationships. .... In 1866, the German zoologist Ernst Haeckel proposed that the embryonal development of an individual organism (its ontogeny) followed the same path as the evolutionary history of its species (its phylogeny). This theory, in the highly elaborate and deterministic form advanced by Haeckel, has, since the early twentieth century, been refuted on many fronts.[2] Haeckel's drawings used artistic licence, his theory was associated with Lamarckism, it was quite clearly wrong in supposing that embryos passed through the adult stages of more primitive life-forms, it ignored organs such as teeth which are "held over" to a late developmental stage, and it was used by Haeckel to promote the supremacy of the white European male. ..... Haeckel produced several embryo drawings that often overemphasized similarities between embryos of related species. These found their ways into many biology textbooks, and into popular knowledge. For example, Haeckel believed that the human embryowith gill slits (pharyngeal arches) in the neck not only signified a fishlike ancestor, but represented an adult "fishlike" developmental stage. Embryonic pharyngeal arches are not gills and do not carry out the same function. ..... Modern biology rejects the literal and universal form of Haeckel's theory.[6] Although humans are generally understood to share ancestors with other taxa, stages of human embryonic development are not functionally equivalent to the adults of these shared common ancestors. In other words, no cleanly defined and functional "fish", "reptile" and "mammal" stages of human embryonal development can be discerned. ..... en.wikipedia.org as a defense of Haeckel. Who knew that wikipedia had been taken over by hate-mongers? --------------- First of all, why would you care... intelligent design is EVOLUTION!! Oops, you just committed heresy. ID is creationism according to any establishment scientific publication, like Scientific American. ---------------- And getting to Scientific America, peer-reviewed or not, it is a scientific magazine and reflects establishment scientific opinion. Thats why it published attacks on Bjorn Lomborg for committing global warming heresy and why it refused a column to science writer and real scientist, Forrest Mims, because his ID views made him a "creationist" while continuing to publish a column by Michael Shermer, an evangelist for athiesm. ----------- Second of all "science" doesnt "crusade" But establishment science does. And if you are going to have a successful career in science, you'd best learn that and be very careful not to get on the wrong side. ----------------------------------------------- This is a partial response. I'll respond to the bottom part of the post later.