tamara
Broken-in Plebe
Posts: 96
|
Post by tamara on Jan 4, 2004 11:55:51 GMT -5
I am myself a believer in evolution (albeit guided) and so I confess I am unsettled by what appears dogmatic lies taught to me in the past. Do any of you have reason to think this page to be wrong? It talks about the lie of "ontogeny recapitulates philogeny" and all those pictures of embryos going thru stages resembling lower critters. www.apologeticspress.org/docsdis/2001/dc-01-06.htm
|
|
|
Post by Griffey on Jan 4, 2004 12:08:37 GMT -5
In the words of my old biology professor, "Ontogeny doesn't recapitulate philogeny but it makes a great slogan to put on your t-shirt." Apparently (according to him) O.R.P. isn't exactly accurate, but yes, the embryo does go thru a few vestigal stages (ie, gill slits.)
I don't know about this webpage, it seems a little off. I mean the idea that O.R.P is wrong is there, it just looks like they got carried away and added a few falsities of their own. Maybe they are right, I don't know, I just hold this particular professor's word in high regard and believe him over a webpage. Anyway, if there were more information I might start questioning this opinon.
To answer your question directly I don't think that this page is entirely wrong. The concept is true, as far as I know, but not all the details.
|
|
tamara
Broken-in Plebe
Posts: 96
|
Post by tamara on Jan 4, 2004 14:55:39 GMT -5
Bummer. Well, I'll look for further details and post more. Lessee if at least the gill slits are there...
|
|
tamara
Broken-in Plebe
Posts: 96
|
Post by tamara on Jan 11, 2004 13:02:38 GMT -5
Wikipedia has this to say: "Ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny", also called the "biogenetic law" or the "theory of recapitulation", is a now discredited hypothesis in biology first espoused in 1866 by Ernst Haeckel. Ontogeny is the development of the embryos of a given species; phylogeny is the evolutionary history of a species. The theory claims that the development of the embryo of every species repeats the evolutionary development of that species.
In order to support his theory, Haeckel produced several embryo drawings which overemphasized similarities between embryos of related species and found their way into many biology textbooks.
Modern biology rejects Haeckel's theory. While for instance the phylogeny of humans as having evolved from fish through reptiles to mammals is generally accepted, no cleanly defined "fish", "reptile" and "mammal" stages of human embryonal development can be discerned. ----- As far as gill slits go, it seems they are a propaganda item. There are folds or invaginations in the neck region of embryos, which develop into widely differing organs in different groups of vertebrates. In fish they develop into gills, but in humans they develop into jaw and adenoids and a bunch of other stuff (never lung). They call them by now some other names, like pharyngeal slits and others, I am not sure if there is agreement on the name.
I think the only reason they got named gill slits was was propaganda reasons. It conjured the image of fish in our human ancestry.
So, folks, our embyos do NOT have gill slits. G'bye hoax.
|
|
|
Post by Griffey on Jan 11, 2004 15:30:40 GMT -5
Hmm, learn something new every day. I was fairly sure that part of the theory was correct, but perhaps I was mistaken. Thank you for looking that up for the rest of us ;D
|
|
tamara
Broken-in Plebe
Posts: 96
|
Post by tamara on Jan 11, 2004 17:46:41 GMT -5
My pleasure, Griffey. It's not that they completely lied, it was just overstated and given a certain twist. One of these days, I want to look into dating methods. I hope they hold up better than gill slits! (I have a feeling they will, despite young-earthers' fuss.)
|
|
tamara
Broken-in Plebe
Posts: 96
|
Post by tamara on Jan 13, 2004 12:26:59 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Griffey on Jan 13, 2004 19:42:20 GMT -5
Ah, Gould...too bad he's not around anymore I'll have to get to his article later tho, unfortunately. When you say "dating" I assume you mean like "carbon dating" not like "going out with someone." I actually read something interesting about archaeological and paleontological dating methods, their accuracies and inaccuracies, I'll have to find it again. Perhaps it will be of some interest. Are we the only ones on this thread?
|
|
|
Post by Hilly on Jan 14, 2004 20:36:12 GMT -5
Are we the only ones on this thread I`ve been following this. I do recall seeing pictures of these various animals in their embryonic stages quite some time ago, and I was struck by there obvious simularities. Interesting.
|
|
tamara
Broken-in Plebe
Posts: 96
|
Post by tamara on Jan 15, 2004 8:24:41 GMT -5
Seems like this board is hibernating. Yo, Maverick! Stir something up! ;D
Anyways... Yeah, too bad about Gould. He beat cancer the first time around, then it got him 20 years later. Not bad tho. Everybody thought he was a-goner first time around.
I'd love to see info on carbon dating. I think that there are always inaccuracies in these things, but my feeling is that the young earthers have nothing better to offer, and lamely say that it is accurate in the last couple of thousand of years, and not longer than that.
Hilly, the thing about embyos is... they are very dissimilar in the early stages, then there is the so called hourglass effect -- about midway in their development they become more similar, and then they diverge again. People have known since about 1910 that Haeckel doctored his drawings, and yet allowed them to be perpetuated.... Apparently he did not hesitate to stoop so low as to just copy the same embryo drawing over and over claiming it to be different animals!
By the way, the gill slits -- they call them pharyngeal pouches now.
|
|
|
Post by ck on Jan 18, 2004 22:13:19 GMT -5
I really found that page a little funny and very stupid myself.... Expecially the pictures was the top thing i could not stand about it.
|
|
tamara
Broken-in Plebe
Posts: 96
|
Post by tamara on Jan 21, 2004 15:02:07 GMT -5
So I've also looked into another evolutionary example, the peppered moth story. This is what I've found:
The science behind the study of the peppered moth is somewhat problematic. There seems to be evidence that the patterns of pollution do not necessarily correlate with the darker moth variant. Science now admits that many other factors besides bird predation must be considered. The experiments had some practical problems, such as failing to consider that birds see light differently from humans, and therefore camouflage works differently than previously thought. And so on.
However, even with all the problems, I think that the experiments do show that variation within a species does occur due to a variety of changes in the environment. In other words, natural selection at work.
However! The experiment has been hailed as evidence of evolution, and this is what I don't see. If you had a village with blue eyed people and brown, and a sniper over the years picked off many of the blue eyes, then the brown eyed people would predominate. Duh! We don't need science to tell us that. And for all we know, the peppered moth has been shifting its hues back and forth in response to conditions in the woods since time immemorial.
I sent a request for more info to one of the biologists teaching this story at a university. I'll update this with what he says.
|
|
|
Post by Griffey on Jan 24, 2004 23:31:54 GMT -5
You've got a good point...It doesn't take that much effort to prove microevolution to even the most stubborn creationist. Nice analogy by the way. (I have a sick sense of humor.) So, what are you saying here? Are you concerned that since this study has been found flawed that it might be used as leverage to disprove evolution? If that turns out to be the case I think humans are evolving towards mental retardation...not like there aren't other examples of evolution, like you said
|
|
tamara
Broken-in Plebe
Posts: 96
|
Post by tamara on Feb 4, 2004 15:09:17 GMT -5
What I was saying, Griffey, is that the study does not show any evidence of evolution. It shows natural selection, but in this case the natural selection leads to fluctuations in the population of a back and forth nature. I think to claim it as big evidence for evolution is not honest.
|
|
tamara
Broken-in Plebe
Posts: 96
|
Post by tamara on Feb 4, 2004 15:10:50 GMT -5
I have looked into information re the geologic record, and so I needed to examine the concept or doctrine of uniformitarianism that has been important in geology for a long time now. It seems to me that: this concept was postulated not based on scientific observation of nature (which then and now has shown many abrupt upheavals), but rather to counter the biblical catastrophism that was once prevalent in geologic thinking. This concept has been repeatedly shown false, but only recently have geologists begun to discuss how it can be altered. Some speak of "actualism" but this seems just another name for watered-down uniformitarianims (which only claims that natural laws hold over time). In practice, of course, uniformitarianism has meant much more than that. The amazing fear of the religious point of view shows up in recent writings that do affirm that catastrophes have played a role, but hasten to stress that these are NATURAL catastrophes (capitals!) as tho the writer fears the scientific inquisitor leaning over his shoulder, accusing him of heresy.
Plainly looked at, uniformitarianism is wrong. Both sudden upheavals and slow processes have played a role in geology. Some of the catastrophic events were unique to that time and place. It seems to me that geology must come to terms with this, and come up with a name that reflects reality, rather than wishful thinking. The question is... how much of what we "know" about geologic history needs to be revised by scientists not hamstrung by an old dogma?
----- For those who want more info, here is a reasonable take on it by a geology prof. Uniformitarianism:
This term seems to be one of the most abused words in geology. What does it really mean, and if it is not accurate how can it be altered to form a more responsible definition? Classically, it states that the processes occurring on earth today are the same as those occurring in the Earth's past. In short form, it says "the present is the key to the past." This definition can be verified in any number of hundreds of introductory texts on geology (usually in the first few pages).
This definition runs into some trouble however, because there are events that have occurred or are occurring over time that change processes on the Earth. Some of the candidates are: - Change in biologic activity in the Cambrian explosion: life has undoubtedly had a profound effect on sedimentary and atmospheric processes. - Slow cooling of the Earth: if it is giving off heat as evidenced by flux at the surface, then it must be cooling over time. This has many implications about the rate and magnitude of geodynamic processes. - Change in oceanic salinity: this changes the chemical equilibria for chemical sedimentary rocks like limestone. - Change in the size and distribution of continental mass above sea level: the Earth's climate is almost entirely controlled by land mass, and continents also insulate heat flow and may cause a large upwelling accompanied by intrusive and extrusive activity. - Change in atmospheric pressure and temperature: This affects atmospheric chemistry and interaction at the surface of the earth (e.g. oxidation). - Change in ecology due to tectonics: e.g. the closing of Tethys. - etc., etc., etc.
All of the above and more are processes that occur over time that will change the manner of geologic activity so that it is different in the past compared to the present. John Hernlund
|
|