>>Joey Denier: "Well... first of all some of your own lower photos look similar, so are they "fraud" too?
Are you blind, or just scientifically-challenged? This is the photo by Richardson et al:
There are no similarities.
**********************
>>Joey Denier: "Second, Haeckel himself corrected his drawings as better information became available, so that was not fraud."
No, Joey, Haeckel was a fraud! Even in his confession he deliberately misrepresented the facts. His later work with the Nazi's indirectly contributed to the holocaust. Why are you defending him, Joey?
**********************
>>Joey Denier: "Third, most but not all of Haeckel's ideas are today considered "defunct". The part which remains valid is the similarity of early stage embryos of different species [quoted Wikipedia]."
You are out of the loop, Joey. More from Richardson:
Perhaps you were brainwashed by the same Biology texts that brainwashed me.
**********************
>>Danny Denier: "No, Joey. Haeckel faked them. The vain attempt by historian Robert J. Richards to rehabilitate Haeckel's reputation proved futile in light of the actual embryonic photos taken by scientist's Michael Richardson et al. Only the blind and the brainwashed fail to see how far Haeckel strayed from reality in order to supplement the evolutionism hype of his day; though, admittedly, Haeckel did not act much differently than the hypesters of today, especially the charlatans pushing ape-to-man evolution."
>>Joey Denier: "Those Richardson photos show some remarkable similarities among embryos of different species. That much of Haeckel's idea remains valid."
You are persistent. Wrong, but persistent.
**********************
>>Danny Denier: "Are you aware that Hitler adopted Haeckel's recapitulation theory?"
>>Joey Denier: "Right, and by that same denier logic (Rule #8), did you also know that Hitler believed two plus two equals four?! So, if you believe 2+2=4, then you're a Nazi! {sigh}
You sound like a Robert Richards apologist, Joey.
**********************
>>Danny Denier: "It is also worth nothing that Robert John Richards is a very poor historian who ignores boatloads of evidence that Hitler was a Darwinian."
>>Joey Denier: "So, you read Richards' 2013 book, "Was Hitler a Darwinian?: Disputed Questions in the History of Evolutionary Theory"?
I have it in my library. My analysis of Richard's work concludes that Richards believes Haeckel's reputation must be rescued (e.g., "revised") in order to save Darwin's reputation. Two quick examples:
"Ernst Haeckel was Darwin's foremost champion, not only in Germany but throughout the world (fig. 6.1). In the first decades of the twentieth century, the great historian of biology Erik Nordenskiöld judged that Haeckel's Natürliche Schöpfungsgeschichte (12 editions,1868–1920) was 'the chief source of the world's knowledge of Darwinism.'" [Robert J. Richards, "Was Hitler a Darwinian: Disputed Questions in the History of Evolutionary Theory." 2013, p.135]
"Those critics who have urged a conceptually causal connection between Darwin's or Haeckel's biology and Hitler's racial beliefs—Weikart, Berlinski, and a myriad of religiously and politically constricted thinkers—apparently intend to undermine the validity of Darwinian evolutionary theory and, by regressive implication, morally indict Darwin and Darwinians like Ernst Haeckel. More reputable scholars—Gould, Arnhart, Bowler, and numerous others— are willing to offer up Haeckel to save Darwin by claiming significant differences between their views, a claim, as I've suggested, that cannot be sustained. The arguments arrayed against Darwin and Haeckel have power, no doubt. Whether they should have power is the question I investigate here." [Ibid. p.195]
We got a kick out of the words, "More reputable scholars," which Richards reserves for evolutionists, while Hitler historian and professor Richard Weikart and the genius David Berlinski (whose Jewish parents escaped the Vichy government) are relegated to the dregs as "constricted thinkers." No bias there. Move along now . . .
**********************
>>Danny Denier: "No, again, Joey. Haeckel's fake drawings are shown below on the top, while the real embryos from Michael Richardson's 1997 science team are on the bottom:"
>>Joey Denier: "I see some remarkable similarities among embryos of different species."
Please point them out, Joey, so that biologists the world over can learn from you.
**********************
>>Danny Denier on statistics: "I imagine so! After all, your motto is, "Damn the scientific evidence against it: evolution is a fact!"
>>Joey Denier: "Nonsense, we're talking about statistics and the fact that "figures don't lie, but liars can figure." Your statistics which claim to "prove" evolution impossible are totally based on false assumptions."
What false assumptions, Joey?
**********************
>>Joey Denier: "Further, I've never said "evolution is a fact". Long-term evolution is a theory based on literal mountains of facts."
What is the difference, Joey? BTW, when are you going to show us a pebble or two of that mountain of facts? We really would like to see some evidence.
**********************
>>Danny Denier: "Have you ever taken a college level science course above the survey level, Joey? You seem absolutely clueless about how to respond to real scientific evidence. Perhaps the reason you mock Behe's book is because you do not possess the aptitude to read a book of that caliber, even though it is written for the layman scientist."
>>Joey Denier: "I took plenty enough heavy-duty science courses to learn the difference between real science and phony-baloney theology masquerading as science."
Just as I thought. Behe's work is too complicated for you.
**********************
>>Joey Denier: "As for Behe, I have no interest in charlatans, unless they post their lies on Free Republic."
You are confused, Joey. You embrace charlatans of most every "scientific" stripe. The reason you do not understand Behe's work is because he sees right through the charlatans of the evolutionism cult who pretend to be real scientists, and you cannot.
**********************
>>Danny Denier: "Rick Durrett and Deena Schmidt are secular mathematicians at Cornell University who reject Intelligent Design, Joey."
>>Joey Denier: "Oh for crying out loud! Yet again you've hijacked an article which opposes Behe's nonsense and used it to support him. "...we use these results to expose flaws in some of Michael Behe's arguments concerning mathematical limits to Darwinian evolution."
The paper by Durrett & Schmidt was Ann Gauger's reference, Joey. Besides, Behe states that, overall, their work strongly supports his research. Perhaps you were confused by the words, "in some of Michael Behe's arguments". Try to keep up.
**********************
>>Danny Denier: "Child." Danny Denier: "Child." Danny Denier: "Child."
>>Joey Denier: "Denier Rules #5 & #7.
Santimonious Child.
**********************
>>Danny Denier: "Morphological similarity is the result of Dumb Luck? LOL! You are really funny, Joey."
>>Joey Denier: "I didn't say "dumb luck", far from it."
You said "trial and error." Those words in the world of Darwin are synonymous with Dumb Luck.
**********************
>>Joey Denier: "You love whales, so let's consider whales"
Joey, get a grip! You are the one who keeps parading out pictures of artistic mockups depicting the fantasy world of whale evolution; not me.
**********************
>>Joey Denier: "You love whales, so let's consider whales -- about 100 living species, many "morphologically similar" to each other -- minor variations on an overall theme. But scientists have also discovered about 600 species of extinct whales & pre-whales in geological deposits dated back to about 50 million years. These are also "morphologically similar" in some degrees to each other and to living whales. Is that all just "dumb luck"?
No, Joey. That is called "bringing forth after their kind." For example, like a single pair of dogs brought forth a myriad of breeds (and mutts;) a single pair of bears brought forth the brown, black and polar bears (and maybe a few others;) and a single pair of humans brought forth humans in various shapes, colors and facial characteristics. The whale family is no different:
"And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good. And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth." -- Gen 1:21-22 KJV
**********************
>>Joey Denier: "No, I believe it was all teleologically directed, by God, and even extinct species served His purposes. But trial & error appears to be the process by which life accomplishes God's purposes.
I believed that too, Joey, for most of my long life, until I realized there is no supporting evidence.
**********************
>>Danny Denier quoting Prothero 2004: "When paleontology's 'dirty little secret' of the prevalence of stasis in the fossil record finally got out, it caused great problems for evolutionary theory."
>>Joey Denier: "Yet again we're only talking about perspective -- is it an old woman or young woman, is it "stasis" or "punctuated"? Depends on how you look at it. Either is a perfectly valid explanation, depending on your perspective.
No, Joey, wrong analogy. When serious paleontologists look at the fossil record, about all they see is stasis. A more creative one may imagine a whale transition line from 4 or 5 fragmented skeletons; but no serious scientist would go that route.
**********************
>>Joey Denier: "More important, neither "stasis" nor "punctuated" in morphology implies equal "stasis" or "punctuated" in DNA. For example, the rapid human-directed "punctuated" speciation of dogs from wolves belies the underlying stasis in dogs' DNA.
Statis is not about speciation or adaptation, but rather the absence of common descent -- the absence of transitions containing new body parts.
**********************
>>Danny Denier quoting Prothero 2004, continued: "The old idea that selection could act on one character at a time just by changing its gene frequencies has been discredited. Evolution is more than a 'change in gene frequencies through time.'"
>>Joey Denier: "So let's see if I "get" what you're saying here -- Prothero tells us that evolution is more complicated and this in Danny boy's mind means evolution is a myth?
No. Evolution is a myth. Prothero is attempting to explain it away. Essentially what is he saying is there is no evidence of common descent, which he alluded to in the first sentence of this quote, and in the other book I quoted:
**********************
>>Danny Denier quoting Prothero 2017: "...In other words, they would suddenly appear in the fossil record. Once they were established, speciation theory would predict that the main population would remain stable and not change gradually through time but that new species would continually arise on the periphery and migrate back to the homeland. Eldredge and Gould (1972) called their idea punctuated equilibrium... "
>>Joey Denier: "Sounds reasonable to me."
Of course it does, since you believe the absence of evidence is evidence. It does make for a nice story, doesn't it? It is too bad for the evolutionist that it is not science.
**********************
>>Danny Denier: "How can we carry on a reasonably discussion if you insist on making stuff up to cover up your ignorance, Joey?"
>>Joey Denier: "Total nonsense, Denier Rule #5."
You claimed that disparity and diversity are functionally the same, Joey, under the pretense that they are synonyms. They are not.
**********************
>>Danny Denier: "Perhaps this will help you understand: Patterson 2019: "The abrupt first appearance of a multitude of animal fossils in early Cambrian rocks (Terreneuvian to Series 2; ca. 541–509 Ma) epitomizes one of the most significant evolutionary events in Earth’s history."
>>Joey Denier: "Yet again Danny boy, you've hijacked scientific arguments about evolution to make claims against evolution."
You left out the most important part of my quote, Joey:
"This sudden burst of diversity and abundance across most eumetazoan (especially bilaterian) phyla over a relatively short geologic time span, and lack of obvious Precambrian precursors, poses a conundrum when attempting to reconcile the fossil record with the true tempo of early animal evolution... Despite ongoing debate over the true origins of animal phyla, our data, as well as the Ediacaran–Cambrian geochemical, body, and trace fossil records (1, 3, 9), indicate that a modern-style marine biosphere was fully established by Series 2, followed by broad-scale evolutionary stasis throughout the remainder of the Cambrian"
The authors, Paterson et al, are making claims against evolutionary theory, Joey. I am merely quoting them.
**********************
>>Joey Denier: "See again my discussion on this in post #347 above."
What for?
**********************
>>Joey Denier: "Notice first that of 36 living phyla today only 10 are first recorded in the "Cambrian Explosion"."
Fossils of all major phyla designs are found in the Cambrian, Joey.
"In a geological moment near the beginning of the Cambrian, nearly all modern phyla made their first appearance, along with an even greater array of anatomical experiments that did not survive very long thereafter. The 500 million subsequent years have produced no new phyla, only twists and turns upon established designs." [Stephen Jay Gould, "Wonderful Life: The Burgess Shale and the Nature of History." W. W. Norton & Company, 1989, p.64]
**********************
>>Joey Denier: "Notice second the Cambrian Age lasted almost as long as the time between the destruction of dinosaurs and today, with another "explosion" in numbers of species -- indeed today there are orders of magnitude more species than fossils found from the Cambrian "Explosion"."
The number of species is not a critical issue for evolutionists. The critical level is the family.
**********************
>>Danny Denier: "No one denies there are many billions of fossils, Joey. They simply do not provide any support for Darwinian theory. None!"
>>Joey Denier: "Right, precisely the same "logic" I saw from Holocaust deniers nearly 20 years ago. Neither they nor you can see mountains of evidence. Denier Rules #1 & #9.
Joey, rather than insinuate I am a holocaust denier if I don't believe in your nutty religion of evolutionism, why not simply provide some solid evidence for it in the way of common descent? That would instantly put this matter to rest.
Silly Child.
**********************
>>Danny Denier: "You must have had your way in discussions in the past, Child. Perhaps it spoiled you. How does it feel to have someone expose your deception and ignorance?"
>>Joey Denier: "How does it feel to have your long-time denier tactics fully exposed for what they are, Danny boy?"
I have been an evolution denier for only 7 or 8 years, Joey; before that I never questioned evolution. I have been a climate change denier for much longer, though previously it was called global cooling (in the 70's,) and then global warming. How long have you been a science denier, Joey?
**********************
>>Danny Denier on Gould's theories: "LOL! Of course not. But data is data, and there are mountains of data that contradict evolution. Worse for the evolutionist, all of it thus far supports special creation and a single global flood."
>>Joey Denier: "But you've presented no data, none, which might falsify basic evolution theory."
Evolution is not science, so it is unfalsifiable. Only science deniers believe in evolution.
**********************
>>Joey Denier: "Nor have you presented confirmed evidence of "special creation" and a "single global flood".
The fossil record provides evidence for both special creation and at least one global flood, Joey. The highly sorted geological strata, along with unbroken folding in the mountainous regions, are ample evidence for a single global flood. Those evidences only scratch the surface.
**********************
>>Danny Denier: "The discussion was about disparity vs. diversity, Joey, not species."
>>Joey Denier: "Disparity & diversity of what, Danny boy? Oh, yeh, of species. Some with soft bodies, some with hard bodies.
No, Joey. Disparity refers to body plans. Diversity refers to variations within basic body plans. Darwin predicted boat loads of diversity before new body plans evolved. The opposite occurred.
**********************
>>Joey Denier: "Burgess suggests hard-bodies represented 2% of the total, but elsewhere hard-bodies are all that was found -- hence the idea of a Cambrian "explosion"."Explosion" over 50+ million years of hard bodies."
Are you talking to yourself?
**********************
>>Danny Denier quoting McMenamin 2016: "One particularly vexing aspect of the problem is that no new phyla can be shown to have appeared after the Cambrian (Valentine 1995)..."
>>Joey Denier: "Nonsense because only 10 of 36 phyla left fossils first found so far in the Cambrian. It doesn't mean those 10 phyla originated in the Cambrian, only that those are the first fossils found so far. What about those other 26 phyla? Some are found from before, some after, most we just don't know yet."
Gould explained it in my earlier quotes in #310 and #355. You can also find it earlier in this post. But just in case you read right past it, here it is again:
"In a geological moment near the beginning of the Cambrian, nearly all modern phyla made their first appearance, along with an even greater array of anatomical experiments that did not survive very long thereafter. The 500 million subsequent years have produced no new phyla, only twists and turns upon established designs." [Stephen Jay Gould, "Wonderful Life: The Burgess Shale and the Nature of History." W. W. Norton & Company, 1989, p.64]
Gould plainly states that no new phyla have been produced (e.g., evolved) since the Cambrian.
**********************
>>Danny Denier: "You don't understand what you are trying to defend, Joey. Darwin predicted diversity before disparity, and gradual appearance of species through evolution, rather than disparity before diversity and abrupt appearance followed by stasis. You are an embarrassingly incompetent Darwinian apologist, Joey."
>>Joey Denier: "That's Denier Rule #13, among others."
I must admit, your silly rules allow you a clever way to shut down debate, or avoid it. But avoiding debate only adds to the size of your label which reads, "You are an embarrassingly incompetent Darwinian apologist."
**********************
>>Joey Denier: "Sorry FRiend, but you are an embarrassingly incompetent liar. For example, I can't find where Darwin ever used the term "disparity" or tried to distinguish it from "diversity". That idea came 100 years after Darwin."
Disparity is simply a modern term for [significant] difference. Darwin's tree of life denoted increasing diversity, followed by increasing disparity:
**********************
>>Joey Denier: "Here is another discussion (Fortney) which says in more words what I've tried to summarize."
What should we be looking for in that paper by Briggs & Fortney, Joey?
In the meantime, Briggs co-authored a book on the Burgess Shale in which he mentioned disparity, but in Darwin's language for his day and age:
"When Charles Darwin wrote"The Origin of Species " in 1859, the sudden appearance of animal fossils at the beginning of the Cambrian was of particular concern to him. It was at odds with his view that the diversification of life on earth through natural selection had required a long period of time. Darwin's theory predicted that the major groups of animals should gradually diverge [become disparate] during evolution He knew that the sudden appearance of fossils would be used by his opponents as a powerful argument against his theories of descent with modification and natural selection. Consequently, he argued that a long period of time, unrepresented in the fossil record, must have preceded the Cambrian to allow the various major groups of animals to diverge. At that time the strata that we now regard as Cambrian were subsumed within the concept of the Silurian, so Darwin wrote,
"I cannot doubt that all the Silurian trilobites have descended from some one crustacean, which must have lived long before the Silurian age....Consequently, if my theory be true, it is indisputable that before the lowest Silurian strata was deposited, long periods elapsed, as long as, or probably longer than, the whole interval from the Silurian to the present day.....The case must at present remain inexplicable; and may be truely urged as a valid argument against the views here entertained." [The Origin of Species, 1859, pp. 313 – 314]"
[Briggs et al, "The Fossils of the Burgess Shale." 1994, p.39]
**********************
>>Danny Denier: "There have been no new phyla since the Cambrian, Joey. See the above statement by McManamim, quoting Valentine and McCoy."
>>Joey Denier: "Sorry, Danny boy, but the data here does not support your denials. So your claims represent nothing more that "the lack of evidence is evidence of" no new phyla.
I am quoting evolutionary paleontologists, Joey. Why would they lie? This is the book I am quoting from:
https://www.amazon.com/Dynamic-Paleontology-Quantification-Decipher-Springer/dp/3319227769
**********************
>>Danny Denier again quoting McManamim: "One particularly vexing aspect of the problem is that no new phyla can be shown to have appeared after the Cambrian (Valentine 1995)..."
>>Joey Denier: "Right, just like Kalamata always says: "the lack of evidence is evidence of" whatever fantasy Danny boy promotes today.
McManamim, an evolutionary paleontologist, is quoting James W. Valentine, another evolutionary paleontologist. I checked Valentine's paper, and McManamim is quoting him accurately. This is a link to Valentine's paper:
You are acting sorta goofy, Joey. Are you getting enough sleep?
**********************
>>Danny Denier: "You have been magnificently brainwashed, Joey. You have no clue how ignorant you are."
>>Joey Denier: "Oh Danny boy, your slavish obedience to Denier Rules #5, #7 & #13.
Foolish Child.
**********************
>>Danny Denier: "LOL! There you go again with, "the absence of evidence is evidence"
>>Joey Denier: "LOL, there you go again with Denier Rule #12.
Foolish Child.
**********************
>>Danny Denier: "The cell certainly appears to be designed, Joey. It is a mind-bogglingly complex, microscopic factory, complete with conveyor "belts," repair "technicians," ... the works:"
>>Joey Denier: "Sure, but the philosophical question is whether God accomplished that naturally or by special divine intervention. Natural science cannot answer the second option, only, if at all, the first.
Either way, cells are intelligently designed, Joey.
**********************
>>Danny Denier: "Lying Child."
>>Joey Denier: "Oh Danny boy, our liar-denier, you so often claim you didn't say what you just said. That's on you, not me.
Quit lying and I will quit calling you a liar.
**********************
>>Danny Denier: "The absense of evidence is not evidence, Joey, no matter how you spin it."
>>Joey Denier: "But absence of evidence is always evidence to Danny boy of whatever fantasy you're promoting today.
No, Joey. I rely on physical, verifiable evidence; not on dumb luck.
**********************
>>Danny Denier quoting Raup 1979: "The record of evolution is still surprisingly jerky and, ironically, we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transition than we had in Darwin's time."
>>Joey Denier: "Well... hmmm... So far as I know David Raup was no Young Earth Creationist and cannot have intended his words to be hijacked for Kalamata's nefarious purposes. So I will tentatively suggest that you have taken Raup's words out of context."
I am a scientist, so I always quote in context. You can download (for free) the bulletin containing the full article by Raup, here:
https://archive.org/details/cbarchive_47737_bulletin50fieldmuseumofnatural1930/page/n2
The portion of the quote you included is found on page 25.
**********************
>>Joey Denier: "Said today I'd call Raup dishonest but given the 1979 date just possibly he was only naïve. It may just represent the newly dawning revelation that actual evolution was more complex than previously understood. I'd be pretty sure Raup didn't believe "complex" meant "falsified" evolution. His suggestion here, that somehow more fossils can mean fewer transitions seems beyond bizarre.
Raup was referring to the highly-touted "horse evolution," which had to be abandoned when more information, in the way of fossils, became available.
**********************
>>Danny Denier still quoting Raup 1979: "...we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transition than we had in Darwin's time. By this I mean that some of the classic cases of darwinian change in the fossil record, such as the evolution of the horse in North America, have had to be discarded or modified as a result of more detailed information — what appeared to be a nice simple progression when relatively few data were available now appears to be much more complex and much less gradualistic."
No, Raup was referring to the highly-touted "horse evolution," which had to be abandoned when more information, in the way of fossils, became available.
**********************
>>Joey Denier: "Again, that would be utterly dishonest if said today, but for its time perhaps understandable."
He would be utterly dishonest if he said what you have been saying about the fossil record.
**********************
>>Joey Denier: "The fact is that complexity in evolutionary processes does not falsify basic evolution theory."
You are abusing Raup's words.
**********************
>>Danny Denier still quoting Raup 1979: "So Darwin's problem has not been alleviated in the last 120 years and we still have a record which does show change but one that can hardly be looked upon as the most reasonable consequence of natural selection."
>>Joey Denier: "The obvious answer is that along with natural selection, descent with modifications also plays a role in evolution."
That would be true if someone found evidence for common descent.
**********************
>>Danny Denier: "Baloney, Joey. A real scientist does NOT pretend a few skull and jaw fragments, plus a couple of teeth, are evidence of a seal-like whale transitional animal, like the imaginary animal on the left:"
>>Joey Denier: "That's nonsense because, first, the number of extinct fossil whale species discovered so far is around 600. Some are represented by dozens of individuals. All have morphological similarities to modern whales and other extinct whales or pre-whales. Each species is also different in some ways from the others.
There are a gazillion trilobite fossils, Joey, but they are still trilobites. How are whales any different?
**********************
>>Joey Denier: "Specific bones which are missing from one individual may be present in others. Transitional features (i.e., blow holes) which are present in later species may be partially transitional in earlier ones. Specialists who study such things at length become very familiar with different species, individuals and even individual bones.
That is story-telling, Joey, not scientific evidence.
**********************
>>Danny Denier: "Seriously, Joey; you have been living in La-La Land far too long."
>>Joey Denier: "Seriously, Danny boy, you have been living in Liar-Liar Land far too long.
Foolish Child.
**********************
>>Danny Denier: "Foolish child."
>>Joey Denier: "Denier Rules #5 & #7.
Foolish Child.
**********************
>>Danny Denier: "You said they looked like blowholes, Joey. LOL! Clearly they do not. "
>>Joey Denier: "Denier Rule #12.
When Joey gets caught making stupid statements, he brings out the old rule book to distract you.
**********************
>>Danny Denier: "Foolish child, still playing kindergarten games."
>>Joey Denier: "No, Danny boy, just exposing the workings of your dishonest heart for all to see.
I am certain those reading this thread would be most interested in you exposing any lies I have made. Please do.
**********************
>>Danny Denier: "Evolutionists, like other pseudo-scientists, believe everything, real or imagined, is evidence for evolution."
>>Joey Denier: "And yet neither Danny Denier nor anyone else has ever presented confirmed evidence that would seriously falsify basic evolution theory.
Evolution is not science, so it cannot be falsified.
**********************
>>Danny Denier: "Quit making stuff up, Child."
>>Joey Denier: "Oh Danny boy, quit slavishly obeying Denier Rules. Break out of the box that constrains your mind. Tell the truth, for once.
Please point out my lies for all to see, Joey. Be specific.
Lying Joey!
Mr. Kalamata
In fact there are numerous similarities and those are what is left of Haeckel's original idea.
Only in the eyes of phony-baloney theologians pretending at science.
No, if the word "disparity" has any real meaning, it refers to phyla while "diversity" to all taxonomic categories below phyla.
New data can modify old theories, but