I Dont Have Enough Faith to be an Evolutionist - Skepticism of Evolution
#10
Thumbs Down 
(07-22-2018, 01:38 PM)1stvermont2ndvermont3rdvermont Wrote: “Shouldent students be skeptical when they're told that evolutionist can simply look at folds in embyoes and see gill slits? The truth is those are only folds of tissue in the pharynx region of vertebrates during the pharyngula stage of development....they never develop into a structure that is in any way like fish gills....the human tail is another misnomer born of evolutionist “look- imagine- see” methodology. What we actually see through time are early precursors to the spine forming the axial skeleton....so when evolutionist see a lower portion of the afial skeleton where the embryo is yet to grow, they “see” a transient “tail” in their imaginations. Human embroyes are recapitulating their reptilian past. But there never is a tail. The embryo grows down to its coccyx, which begins anchoring devolving muscles of the pelvic floor.”
-Randy Guliuzza P.E M.D Haeckel's Embryos Born of Evolutionary Imagination
 




“It is clear that the genetic differences between humans and chimpanzees are far more excessive than previously thought, their genomes are not 98-99% identical”
-Todd Press Human Brain evaluation PNAS 109 20121 10709-16

This person has spammed at least 2 other forums with this coy-pasted/plagiarized wall of quotes.

I decided to check a couple - here is what I found:



Quote:“It is clear that the genetic differences between humans and chimpanzees are far more excessive than previously thought, their genomes are not 98-99% identical”
-Todd Press Human Brain evaluation PNAS 109 20121 10709-16

That is verbatim.  Googling the quote returned several hits - all only to places where the quote-bomber had spammed before.  So I searched for the citation:

-Todd Press Human Brain evaluation PNAS 109 20121 10709-16

Nothing.  Well, except for the quote-bomber's footprint.  Long story short, I finally found the source:


Quote:Human brain evolution: From gene discovery to phenotype discovery
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2012 Jun 26; 109(Suppl 1): 10709–10716.
Todd M. Preuss

So you can see why it was so hard to find - misspelled name... erroneous title.... garbled citation...

And even the quote was not correct- a comma where a semi-colon belonged:
Quote:"It is now clear that the genetic differences between humans and chimpanzees are far more extensive than previously thought; their genomes are not 98% or 99% identical."

Now, that statement is unwarranted hyperbole in my opinion, especially when we consider what the author explains later in the paper:

Quote:Humans possess species-specific genes, as a result of the numerous tandem duplications of chromosome segments that occurred in human evolution, and also recombination events (46, 47). One consequence of the numerous duplications, insertions, and deletions, is that the total DNA sequence similarity between humans and chimpanzees is not 98% to 99%, but instead closer to 95% to 96% (41, 48, 49), although the rearrangements are so extensive as to render one-dimensional comparisons overly simplistic.

Wow - 2-4% = extensive!  Who knew?

Hmmm.... It is almost as if the creationist source of Tokien's copying hadn't read the paper (they usually don't).  It is obvious that Tolkien didn't read it - or any of the quotes he copies from other creationists.
I had only checked 2 other quotes that this fellow has presented, 1 turned out to be a creationist lie and the other was a misrepresentation like this one.


********

This quote is from a creationist engineer and, amazingly, doctor, ranting about the coccyx.  As one with graduate training and professional experience in teaching human and vertebrate anatomy at the college level, I cringe (but I love it!) when I see creationists with no business discussing this sort of thing pontificating like they were Vesalius himself.  The quote as per our pal Tolkien, ellipses and all*:


“Shouldent students be skeptical when they're told that evolutionist can simply look at folds in embyoes and see gill slits? The truth is those are only folds of tissue in the pharynx region of vertebrates during the pharyngula stage of development....they never develop into a structure that is in any way like fish gills....the human tail is another misnomer born of evolutionist “look- imagine- see” methodology. What we actually see through time are early precursors to the spine forming the axial skeleton....so when evolutionist see a lower portion of the afial skeleton where the embryo is yet to grow, they “see” a transient “tail” in their imaginations. Human embroyes are recapitulating their reptilian past. But there never is a tail. The embryo grows down to its coccyx, which begins anchoring devolving muscles of the pelvic floor.”
-Randy Guliuzza P.E M.D Haeckel's Embryos Born of Evolutionary Imagination

Let's go though this point by point.


“Shouldent students be skeptical when they're told that evolutionist can simply look at folds in embyoes and see gill slits?"


Creationists should be skeptical when a professional propagandist for Christ claims that any such thing is taught.  In fact, very few modern texts use the phrase "gill slits" except in historical reviews, and those that do use the term (I have a book from the 1990s that uses the term) indicate very clearly that they are not actually gills, or that they only become gills in fish.  Interestingly, I am betting our engineer creationist friend Randy has no problem looking at something and seeing Creation!
And as an aside, it was never merely looking at them and calling them gill slits - Haeckel observed these structures in fish embryos and other vertebrate embryos, and erroneously concluded that they were gills.  I guess Randy forgot that Haeckel wrote his treatise more than 100 years ago, and did not have the imaging technology we do today.


 "The truth is those are only folds of tissue in the pharynx region of vertebrates during the pharyngula stage of development....they never develop into a structure that is in any way like fish gills...."

They are not even really "folds" as such - they contain bundles of primordia that are 'encased' in a thin layer of tissue, and this produces the appearance of folds (I guess we can attack Randy for calling these structures folds?).  In fish, they DO develop into gills.  Amphibians also, at least in some stages of their life cycle.  The creationist only seems to be focusing on humans, of course, neglecting or being ignorant of the fact that ALL vertebrate embyos contain this pharyngeal apparatus.  They all contain the same primordia (aortic arch, cartilage, mesoderm, etc.).  In fish, they become gills and parts of their face and neck (if they had necks - the area behind the mouth), and in mammals and reptiles, they become parts of the face and neck and associated structures.

"the human tail is another misnomer born of evolutionist “look- imagine- see” methodology. What we actually see through time are early precursors to the spine forming the axial skeleton....so when evolutionist see a lower portion of the afial skeleton where the embryo is yet to grow, "

What?  The embryo IS growing there, too. When one looks at other vertebrate embryos, one sees something very similar, hence the connection.

"they “see” a transient “tail” in their imaginations. Human embroyes are recapitulating their reptilian past."

This is Haeckel's thesis, and it is wrong and is not taught in textbooks anywhere since maybe 1915 (as seen in the movie "Flock of Dodos").

 But there never is a tail. The embryo grows down to its coccyx, which begins anchoring devolving muscles of the pelvic floor.”
-Randy Guliuzza P.E M.D Haeckel's Embryos Born of Evolutionary Imagination

I do enjoy this creationist claim about how the coccyx "anchors" things.  Pshun2404 claimed the coccyx "anchored" the nervous system.  I have seen creationists claim that it 'anchors' the spinal cord and such.  And now this guy is claiming that it 'anchors' the muscles of the pelvic floor.
Anchoring something, in my view, means that it is very strong and holds something in place.  Fair?  The coccyx does not do anything like that.  It happens to be in a place where the tendons of several pelvic floor muscles pass.  People born without a coccyx have those muscles simply joining to the perineal body.  Be very skeptical when creationists ascribe all manner of superlative function to the coccyx.


Haeckel was wrong in his interpretation, but the universality of the pharyngeal apparatus in vertebrates (even in the lungless, gill-less groups of salamanders) is very good evidence for common descent, creationist desperation or ignorance-based dismissal/rejections notwithstanding.

*2 things - 1. I noticed something - this quote seems to contain typos not in the original (horrible) article - does Tolkien actually re-type these collected quotes?  Does he not know how to use the copy-paste function?  He must!  Maybe he typed them by hand into his quote-bomb archive, then just copy-pastes from there?
2. The engineer creationist also declares that students are still taught the errors that Haeckel made as fact.  Which means that even professional creationists are liars.

********

I went to that den of simpletons, "The Institute for Creation Research" to see the essay that Tolkien quotes.

This is the essay by the creationist engineer:
[/url]
[url=http://www.icr.org/article/major-blunders-haeckels-embryos-born/]"Major Evolutionary Blunders: Haeckel's Embryos Born of Evolutionary Imagination"


In it, we see creationist engineer Randy Guliuzza write:


Quote:I didn’t escape being misled. In 1975 my sophomore biology textbook referred to a drawing very similar to Haeckel’s. Like most students absorbing this information for their first—and possibly only—time, I was somewhat shocked by the incredible fish-like similarity of all early embryos…especially humans. The visual evidence looked undeniable.

These drawings persuasively promoted three powerful evolutionary concepts. First, life evolved from “primitive” animals to complex humans. This “fact” is seen in the supposedly nonhuman structures that humans possess during development. My textbook commented, “For example, the early human embryo has a well-developed tail and also a series of gill pouches in the pharyngeal region.”3

Second, as my textbook went on to say, “Human and fish embryos resemble each other because human beings and fish share a common remote ancestry.”3 It presented the remarkable similarity of the embryos in the illustration as strong evidence for a universal common ancestor.

Third, a synopsis of the evolutionary history of life on Earth emerges as scientists map out all stages of embryonic development for every species. Remarkably, the stages of embryonic development for organisms, called ontogeny, supposedly reenacted or “recapitulated” their evolutionary history through time, which was called their phylogeny. Haeckel’s embryos were clearly time-lapse pictures of evolution itself.

Those concepts remain cemented in contemporary evolutionary thinking.

That number 3 citation is:
Keeton, W. T. 1972. Biological Science, 2nd Ed. New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 550.

I'm betting ol' Randy was betting that nobody would be able to read this book.  I bet he didn't think it was still available anywhere.

Poor Randy didn't know that it is available for free (to borrow electronically via The Internet Archive).  Which I just did.
First, recall, Randy writes:
Quote:"This “fact” is seen in the supposedly nonhuman structures that humans possess during development. My textbook commented, “For example, the early human embryo has a well-developed tail and also a series of gill pouches in the pharyngeal region.”3"

Ok.  That is on p. 344.  But Randy only writes "550" in his citation.  Weird...  But not uncommon for creationist authors to try to trick skeptics.

Then on p.345, we see:

"The modern view is that Haeckel's idea was an oversimplification.  Ontogeny does not repeat phylogeny in any strict or literal sense."

Which is odd, because ol' Randy claims:

Quote:"Third, a synopsis of the evolutionary history of life on Earth emerges as scientists map out all stages of embryonic development for every species. Remarkably, the stages of embryonic development for organisms, called ontogeny, supposedly reenacted or “recapitulated” their evolutionary history through time, which was called their phylogeny. Haeckel’s embryos were clearly time-lapse pictures of evolution itself."

DIRECT contradiction of what Randy the creationist at ICR claims the text indicates!

It is odd - Randy cites p. 550 of the text, but p. 550 does not mention Haeckel at all.  And the drawing of embryos (p. 344)?  NOT Haeckel's (they are from Romanes, 1901).


Randy then claims:

Quote:"Those concepts remain cemented in contemporary evolutionary thinking. During medical school in 1992, my graduate-level human development textbook contained the same drawings and concepts.4"

That 4 refers to:
Moore, K. L. 1989. Before We Are Born, 3rd Ed. Philadelphia, PA: W. B. Saunders Company, 70.

The Internet Archive only has the 5th Ed, but I have been using Moore and Persaud's human embryology texts for 25 years, and I know that their new editions generally only have new photos..

Anyway, let's see if Moore's 5th edition has the 'same drawings' and 'same concepts' as the other text he lied about...

Going to be tough... 'Haeckel' does not show up in a search or in the index... Nor does 'ontogeny' or 'phylogeny'...  Going to have to do this the old fashioned way.
Maybe in the "historical highlights"?  Randy says p. 70, but he biffed the page number with the other text.. and... nope.  Nothing on p. 70.  It is a different edition, so I will cut him some slack.  Back to 'historical highlights'...  No drawings or pictures of 'Haeckel's embryos' in the entire chapter.  No mention of him or his ideas in the entire chapter.
Maybe in the chapter on the Pharyngeal Apparatus?  You know, where the 'gill slits' are?  Nope... Here we go!  Chapter 6:

Nope.

Oh - wait - there it is, in the back, at the end of the chapter... In the 'clinically oriented questions' section...

Quote:1:  I have heard that the early human embryo could be confused with the offspring of several other species, such as a mouse or chick.  Is this true?  What is the distinctive feature of early human embryos?

And then - WAYYYY back at the end of the book, on p. 500, in the section with the answers to those questions, the answer:

Quote:1. During the first few weeks, human embryos resemble the embryos of several other species because of common characteristics (e.g., large head, pharyngeal arches, and tail); thereafter, embryos acquire characteristics that are distinctly human...

Oh, the INDOCTRINATION!  Those CONCEPTS!  Those drawings!
Oh the humanity!
Oh, wait -

p. 501, there are some drawings of a bunch of embryos at early and later stages.  No mention of Haeckel.  No mention of 'ontogeny'.  No mention even of evolution.

Oh the humanity!

Looks like Randy is just another carnival barker for Jesus, not to be trusted.

Most interesting - again even the professional creationists fib about these things.




So, I randomly pick just 2 quotes from this spam-trolling extravaganza, and one is distorted and misleading, and the other comes from a dishonest creationist hack.

What a complete waste.
[-] The following 2 users Like nolte's post:
  • 19405, Stanis
Reply


Messages In This Thread
RE: I Dont Have Enough Faith to be an Evolutionist - Skepticism of Evolution - by nolte - 09-24-2018, 03:55 PM



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)