Yes, it's another damned evolution question...

[Tolls]

"Brain size doubled from afarensis (Lucy types 3.5 mya) to erectus, and jumped by 50-100% to us in a matter of a few tens of thousands of years or less."

The "jump" you refer to from ergaster (slightly less than 1000cc) to heidelberg (not erectus) at a slowly increasing capacity, to archaic sapiens with around the current average of 1300cc, is over a period of more than 500,000 years...not "a few tens of thousands of years or less".

[Lincoln]

I guess no one really stopped to realize that the theory that one nascent life form evolved into the present life that fills the earth is based entirely on the explanations of it's proponants. I suppose if the stories are good enough then it must have happened by golly!

Of course the hypothetical nascent life form can only come into being with intelligent input unless one believes that a string of coinciding miracles represents a good scientfic explanation. In any case, the stories continue and for some reason the fantastic speculation is believed by people who will go to any means to escape their Creator. How much simpler would it be to assume that love, the beauty, intelligence, variety and adaptability of life comes from a being that has a superior reasoning ability than our own? Of course that would take a degree of humility which must be avoided at any cost.

[Lincoln]

Just one of many examples of the frauds still perpetuated in the name of "science":

"One of the most popular and familiar pieces of evidence used to bolster the theory of evolution – reproduced for decades in most high school and college biology textbooks – is fraudulent, and has been known to be fraudulent for nearly 100 years.

Most people have seen those drawings of developing human embryos next to developing animal embryos, and they look virtually indistinguishable. (The Haeckel embryo sequence shown purported to show – left to right – a hog, calf, rabbit and human). This has long been said to demonstrate that humans share a common ancestry with these animals and thus prove the theory of evolution.

These pictures were designed by German zoologist Ernst Haeckel. What few people know – and one of many surprises in the evolution debate reported in the July edition of Whistleblower magazine (formerly WorldNet) – is that they were fakes. At Jena, the university where he taught, Haeckel was charged with fraud by five professors and convicted by a university court. His deceit was exposed in "Haeckel’s Frauds and Forgeries," a 1915 book by J. Assmuth and Ernest R. Hull, who quoted 19 leading authorities of the day.


Ernst Haeckel

"It clearly appears that Haeckel has in many cases freely invented embryos, or reproduced the illustrations given by others in a substantially changed form," said anatomist F. Keibel of Freiburg University. Zoologist L. Rütimeyer of Basle University called his distorted drawings "a sin against scientific truthfulness."

Yet, despite Haeckel’s fraud conviction and early exposure, Western educators continued using the pictures for decades as proof of the theory of evolution.

The matter was settled with finality by Dr. Michael Richardson, an embryologist at St. George’s Medical School in London. He found there was no record that anyone ever actually checked Haeckel’s claims by systematically comparing human and other fetuses during development. So Richardson assembled a scientific team that did just that – photographing the growing embryos of 39 different species.

In a 1997 interview in The Times of London, Dr. Richardson stated: "This is one of the worst cases of scientific fraud. It’s shocking to find that somebody one thought was a great scientist was deliberately misleading. It makes me angry. ... What he [Haeckel] did was to take a human embryo and copy it, pretending that the salamander and the pig and all the others looked the same at the same stage of development. They don’t. ... These are fakes."

Today – believe it or not – Haeckel’s drawings still appear in many high school and college textbooks. Among them are "Evolutionary Biology" by Douglas J. Futuyma (Third Edition, Sunderland, MA: Sinauer Associates, 1998), and also the bedrock text, "Molecular Biology of the Cell" (third edition), whose authors include biochemist Dr. Bruce Alberts, president of the National Academy of Sciences."

[TheStinger]

I don't think you have to have a lack of Humility to see no place for a creator in the creation of life. Just because the thought of our prescence being in essence a lucky accident doesn't make it any less true.

I am not trying to escape my creator, I for one would love it if he turned up and said Hi, however he hasn't and in the competition between faith and reason I go with reason(even if it is not complete) every time.

[Jack the Bodiless]

I guess no one really stopped to realize that the theory that one nascent life form evolved into the present life that fills the earth is based entirely on the explanations of it's proponants. I suppose if the stories are good enough then it must have happened by golly!

It's also based on a little detail called evidence, Lincoln. Something no rival theory has. It isn't "just a story".

The common descent of modern organisms from shared ancestors is extremely obvious to those who have studied that evidence.

Of course the hypothetical nascent life form can only come into being with intelligent input unless one believes that a string of coinciding miracles represents a good scientfic explanation.

Haven't we dealt with this already?

A fortuitous coincidence is hardly a "miracle" if it's not very improbable. Can you prove that it's improbable? No, of course not.

In any case, the stories continue and for some reason the fantastic speculation is believed by people who will go to any means to escape their Creator.

Interesting that you believe a "creator" is something to be "escaped". Why is that?

How much simpler would it be to assume that love, the beauty, intelligence, variety and adaptability of life comes from a being that has a superior reasoning ability than our own? Of course that would take a degree of humility which must be avoided at any cost.

Why is this "simpler"?

Where did this being come from? If it exists, then WHY does it exist? And WHY does it have the properties that it supposedly has?

Answering these questions takes a degree of curiosity which the proponents of this myth must avoid at any cost.

[Lincoln]

Thanks Stinger. I have to go to work now but I must post this next article for the benefit of Jack before I go:

Biblically-based scientists have always known that the theory of evolution is fraught with false evidence. Whether in the form of deliberate hoaxes or misinterpretations of the facts based on pre-conceived biases, practically every "proof" of evolution supplied by Darwin’s supporters has turned out to be false. A notable example of this was provided by German scientist Ernst Haeckel, Darwin’s staunchest supporter in nineteenth-century Europe. Like most proponents of evolution, Haeckel was less than honest and accurate in his scholarship. Stephen J. Gould, professor of biology, geology, and the history of science at Harvard and the world’s leading supporter of the evolution myth, admitted in an article in the March, 2000 issue of Natural History:

Haeckel’s forceful, eminently comprehensible, IF NOT ALWAYS ACCURATE [says Gould], books appeared in all major languages and surely exerted more influence than the works of any other scientist, including Darwin…in convincing people throughout the world about the validity of evolution (p. 42, emphasis added).
To "prove" the greater myth of evolution, Haeckel invented the lesser myth known as "ontology recapitulates phylogeny." In a nutshell, he claimed that evolution was proved by the fact that, from its conception to its birth (or hatching), every animal passes through an evolutionary "climb" identical to the worldwide process of evolution from one-celled animals to advanced life-forms over eons of time. In other words, every animal embryo "evolves" from a microscopic mass of cells to a fish, then to an amphibian, then to a reptile, and so on. To prove his claim, Haeckel created numerous drawings of embryonic fish, salamanders, tortoises, chickens, pigs, dogs, and humans, all placed side by side. His drawings showed each species starting its fetal existence looking exactly like all the others, and then undergoing an individual evolutionary ascent identical to that which Darwin had proposed for the entire animal kingdom.
The problem with Haeckel’s "proof" of evolution was that his drawings were a hoax. Even Dr. Gould admitted that

Haeckel had exaggerated the similarities [between embryos of different species] by idealizations and omissions. He also, in some cases — in a procedure that can only be called fraudulent — simply copied the same figure over and over again.…Haeckel’s drawings never fooled expert embryologists, who recognized his fudgings right from the start (p. 44).
Most of the scientific establishment, eager to reject the Book of Genesis and embrace Darwin’s myth, uncritically accepted Haeckel’s artwork. Of the very few who knew them to be fraudulent, the most vocal figure was one of the greatest Creation scientists of all time, Louis Agassiz. A professor of zoology at Harvard and the first scientist to discover that the Earth had once been under a "Great Ice Age," Agassiz had vigorously opposed the introduction of evolutionary teaching at Harvard. The Swiss-born scientist made no bones about Haeckel’s pro-evolution dishonesty. When he examined the book in which Haeckel’s bogus drawings first appeared, Agassiz wrote in the margins that the drawings were "artistically crafted similarities mixed with inaccuracies," and that "these figures were not drawn from nature, but rather copied one from the other!" He then wrote the word "Atrocious" (p. 48). In the fight that erupted between the two scientists, Gould admitted that
Agassiz generally sticks to the high road, despite ample provocation, by marshaling the facts of his greatest disciplinary expertise (in geology, paleontology, and zoology) to refute Haeckel’s frequent exaggerations and rhetorical inconsistencies. Agassiz may have been exhausted and discouraged, but he could still put up one whale of a fight, even if only in private (pp. 47-48).
Despite the fact that Haeckel’s embryo drawings have long since been exposed as fraudulent, the profoundly dishonest pro-evolution movement is, astonishingly, STILL presenting his artwork as "proof" of Darwin’s theory. Ironically, no one has been more vigorous in exposing this travesty than Dr. Gould, the world’s staunchest proponent of Darwin’s great myth. He wrote:
Haeckel’s drawings, despite their noted inaccuracies, entered into the most impenetrable and permanent of all quasi-scientific literatures: standard student textbooks of biology (p. 44)….Once ensconced in textbooks, misinformation becomes cocooned and effectively permanent, because…textbooks copy from previous texts (p. 45).
Prof. Gould then made this absolutely startling admission:
…[W]e do, I think, have the right to be both astonished and ashamed by the century of mindless recycling that has led to the persistence of these drawings in a large number, IF NOT A MAJORITY, of modern textbooks! (p. 45, emphasis added)
He then goes on to quote a colleague, Michael Richardson of the St. George’s Hospital Medical School in London, who stated, "I know of at least fifty recent biology texts which use the drawings uncritically" (p. 45).
These facts are both frightening and heartening. They are frightening because they demonstrate the colossal dishonesty of the evolutionary movement, as well as the widespread nature of this dishonesty. However, it is heartening to know that even a militant anti-Creationist such as Dr. Gould would admit in the pages of a respected journal like Natural History that one of the major pieces of evidence for evolution is not only fraudulent, but is shamefully being propagated among the world’s youth to this very day. With hope, this might serve as a wake-up call for people who have been deceived into believing Darwin’s theory as scientific fact beyond the scope of doubt or question.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Stephen Caesar holds his master’s degree in anthropology and archaeology from Harvard University. He is the author of the e-book: The Bible Encounters Modern Science, available at: www.1stbooks.com.

[TheStinger]

Look so the Guy is wrong why does that make Genessis correct.

[Lincoln]

I was simply answering Jack the Bodiless's statement that creationists are dishonest. The dishonest come from all sides. The theory of evolution is full of frauds that are paraded about as proven facts.

[TheStinger]

Ok fiar enough, but it does seem that it was other evolution supporters who debunked this guy. creationists couldn't because they don't use science anyway

[Jack the Bodiless]

Lincoln:

The problems with Haeckel's drawings have been known for DECADES. And Agassiz was NOT the only person to point that out.

Your article fails to point out that the use of those drawings in Futuyma's "Evolutionary Biology" is accompanied by an EXPLANATION OF WHY THEY ARE WRONG.

Furthermore, even though Haeckel exaggerated a general principle into a universal law, he was essentially correct: embryo homology is still genuine science.

And THIS was absolutely ridiculous:

practically every "proof" of evolution supplied by Darwin’s supporters has turned out to be false.

So ONE "proof" suddenly becomes "practically every" proof?

Haeckel's drawings were dodgy, therefore fossils don't exist? DNA similarities don't exist? Radiometric dating doesn't exist? Mutations don't happen? Natural selection doesn't happen? Speciation doesn't happen?

I could go on...

And did you actually read the link I provided earlier? This is from the very same Michael Richardson you quoted:

Our work has been used in a nationally televised debate to attack evolutionary theory, and to suggest that evolution cannot explain embryology (2). We strongly disagree with this viewpoint. Data from embryology are fully consistent with Darwinian evolution. Haeckel's famous drawings are a Creationist cause célèbre (3). Early versions show young embryos looking virtually identical in different vertebrate species. On a fundamental level, Haeckel was correct: All vertebrates develop a similar body plan (consisting of notochord, body segments, pharyngeal pouches, and so forth). This shared developmental program reflects shared evolutionary history. It also fits with overwhelming recent evidence that development in different animals is controlled by common genetic mechanisms (4).

Unfortunately, Haeckel was overzealous. When we compared his drawings with real embryos, we found that he showed many details incorrectly. He did not show significant differences between species, even though his theories allowed for embryonic variation. For example, we found variations in embryonic size, external form, and segment number which he did not show (1). This does not negate Darwinian evolution. On the contrary, the mixture of similarities and differences among vertebrate embryos reflects evolutionary change in developmental mechanisms inherited from a common ancestor (5). [...]

These conclusions are supported in part by comparisons of developmental timing in different vertebrates (7). This work indicates a strong correlation between embryonic developmental sequences in humans and other eutherian mammals, but weak correlation between humans and some "lower" vertebrates. Haeckel's inaccuracies damage his credibility, but they do not invalidate the mass of published evidence for Darwinian evolution. Ironically, had Haeckel drawn the embryos accurately, his first two valid points in favor of evolution would have been better demonstrated. (Richardson, 1998)

So where, exactly, is this "fraud that is still perpetuated in the name of science"?

Do you really want me to start listing creationist frauds? It will take a while...

[Tolls]

"The theory of evolution is full of frauds that are paraded about as proven facts."

Right...you've done Haeckel, whose diagrams are pretty much debunked, which is why Gould says about being:

"...both astonished and ashamed by the century of mindless recycling that has led to the persistence of these drawings in a large number, IF NOT A MAJORITY, of modern textbooks!"

Note that he is not attacking biology, or evolution...he is attacking text book publisher, especially for schools, who are notorious for producing rubbish...just look at Feynman's reviews of textbooks (someone else probbly has more detail on this than me), and his (failed) attempts to get them revamped. Gould was not arguing that science is remiss in dealing with this...it has dealt with it, and rejects Haeckels drawings. Gould was aghast that the publishers were so unconcerned about the content of their books.

So...Haeckel...who else?

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Sava
On the free will issue: Assuming free-will does exist... Does anyone think animals have free will?

Besides them?

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Rogan Josh
1. The ability to behave in ways which are not dictated by our initial conditions.

Even in a complex non-living system, even a small change will lead to a tremendous difference. Since small changes can and do occur randomly, I see that the roots of freewill is not in biology but in physics. Therefore, it has nothing to do with evolution at all.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Lincoln
I guess no one really stopped to realize that the theory that one nascent life form evolved into the present life that fills the earth is based entirely on the explanations of it's proponants. I suppose if the stories are good enough then it must have happened by golly!

Well, if you have a better theory that explains mountains of information from such a huge number of principles such as geology, biology, paleotology, genetics, farming, etc., etc., I am all ears.

Originally posted by Lincoln
Of course the hypothetical nascent life form can only come into being with intelligent input unless one believes that a string of coinciding miracles represents a good scientfic explanation.

What do you call this? Uh, a Strawman. That's it, a Strawman. Because only creationists would completely misconstrue evolution as "a strong of coninciding miracles," this makes you a Creationist.

Not that surprises me in the least.

[Jack the Bodiless]

Here's another review of the "Haeckel's embryos" chapter of Icons of Evolution. Some snippets:

Wells's entire chapter on embryology amounts to little more than a misreading of Darwin, Haeckel, and others, combined with a general failure to acknowledge recent work on Haeckel and his embryos by Gould, Richardson, and others. In it, he conflates ideas in history of developmental biology with ideas of contemporary developmental biology. He also fails to recognize close to 60 years of work in developmental biology and thus completely omits any discussion of the real developmental evidence for evolution. It almost seems that Wells's goal is to discredit the entire field of comparative embryology by proxy, employing a bait-and-switch between Haeckel and Darwin. Wells's ploy is reminiscent of a child's false logic proof. It goes like this: Darwin relied on Haeckel, Haeckel was a fraud, therefore Darwin is a fraud...

...Wells sets up a straw man in his bait-and-switch, starting with Darwin's famous assertion that embryology represented the "single strongest class of facts" in favor of his theory. Here Wells misrepresents both early embryology and Darwin's own words. When quoting both Darwin and other historical figures, he quotes them out of context, leaves out important parts of quotes, and even changes the order of their appearance, all to misrepresent their real meaning and intent...

...In the introduction to Icons, Wells states that he first became aware of the problems in evolutionary theory when he was "finishing his Ph.D. in cell and developmental biology" (Wells 2000:xi). He claims that he knew that the drawings of embryos presented in textbooks were false because he was a developmental biologist. Shortly thereafter, he claims, his observation was confirmed by other scientists. Before that seminal event, he says, "I believed almost everything I read in my textbooks" (Wells 2000:xi). This statement is inconsistent with other claims of Wells's. According to statements made by Wells in a sermon on a Unification Church website, he went to graduate school with the specific intent of attacking evolution: "Father's words, my studies, and my prayers convinced me that I should devote my life to destroying Darwinism..."

...For any textbook to show Haeckel's drawings themselves as unqualified statements of developmental anatomy or to advocate "recapitulation" in a Haeckelian sense would be inexcusable, but none of the textbooks reviewed by Wells appear to do so. Wells gleefully excoriates Futuyma for using Haeckel's drawings, but apparently in his fit of righteous indignation, he forgot to read the text, in which the drawings are discussed in a historical context -- stating why Haeckel is wrong -- and Futuyma has an entire chapter devoted to development and evolution. Guttman uses them in an explicitly historical context as well. Wells states that books use "Haeckel's drawings, or redrawn versions of them" (Wells 2000:255), but this is not true...

...The grading scheme employed by Wells is designed for failure. This is because Wells assumes all drawings to be "redrawn" from Haeckel and gives any book with a drawing an F (Figure 11). Wells does not explain how one would determine whether they are simply redrawn from Haeckel; in any case none of the books appear to contain redrawn figures (Figure 10). Using more accurate pictures only earns a book a D. In order to earn a C or higher, a book must not use "misleading drawings or photos." This amounts to complaining that textbooks shouldn't allow students to be misled by reality! Wells does not specify what kind of drawings or photos would not be misleading. Thus Wells apparently thinks that all visual presentations of embryos are misleading, whether they are accurate or not.