Smashing List is entirely appropriate for the simple point I was making -- namely that there are a large number of different historical ideas floating around "out there" for how life may have first begun on earth.
Since none are scientifically confirmed, all are worthy of at least a quick review.
Besides, I thought those graphics were pretty nice, and that's the reason I posted them all.
But please, please note: in addition to the nice graphics from "Smashing Lists", I also provided links to two more sources
In sum, I provided you with not just bullet-point lists of ideas, but also serious discussion behind some of those ideas.
So, what exactly is your problem with that?
On the quotes from Wikipedia, first please note, they all reference sources for their data.
Second, my point here is to illustrate, regarding Haeckel's epigram -- "ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny" -- that there are, in fact, two sides to this story.
Yes, Haeckel was controversial during his life-time, accused then of fraud & hoax, claims which he denied.
And yes, Haeckel's idea is today considered obsolete & defunct.
But Haeckel also has his modern defenders, which the Wiki quotes point out.
These defenders do not say that Haeckel was totally right in his conclusions, only that he was not totally wrong, and not deliberately fraudulent.
And that is my point also, which seems to me rather self evident.
Perhaps you can accept an analogy?
Do we condemn Christopher Columbus today because in all of his voyages he believed & reported he had reached India and met Hindu Indians?
No, of course not -- we gloss over that, focusing instead on Columbus the great and courageous explorer, whose exploits excited western imaginations for centuries, until every corner of the Earth has been explored, mapped & analyzed for whatever data it might provide us.
Today we don't call Columbus a hoax & fraud because he made history's most colossal navigation error!
That's all I'm saying about Haeckel.
So what exactly, please say, is your problem with it?
Texas Songwriter: "I gave you 'word for word' quotes of authorities contemporary with Haeckel as well as others like Gould moving up to the year 2000 in NATURE and they fell on deaf ears."
Your quotes certainly did not "fall on deaf ears," I fully acknowledge the controversy -- merely provided other data to show you there are actually two sides to this story, and Haeckel deserves better than categorical condemnations.
Indeed, one of your quotes came from 1995 Michael Richardson, about which the wiki article reminds us:
In short, even your man Richardson is willing to give Haeckel some benefit of the doubt, and so am I.
What exactly is your problem with that?
Texas Songwriter: "Then you disparage Lewontin tangentially, his age and his comment, despite the highests probability that his accomplishments at Harvard would dwarf both yours and my accomplishments in science."
Now, dear FRiend, you really do need to go back and re-read my post, paying more attention this time.
In fact, I in no way disparaged Lewontin!
I merely pointed out that he is a well known evolutionary biologist of very long standing (age 85), and so there is no possible way his words can be misconstrued as an assault on evolution theory.
Instead, I said, his words were likely descriptions of today's average citizens -- those Rush calls "low information voters" who might confuse "science", writ large, with some form of religion.
Obviously, that can't possibly include you, FRiend, since any serious FReeper qualifies as "top 1%" of informed voters, and you, Texas Songwriter, must be pretty near the "top 1%" of informed FReepers!
So, far from criticizing Lowentin, I was trying to say his words are doubtless accurate regarding some people.
Texas Songwriter: "Then you reference me as a 'low information voter' or on par with that invective."
Clearly, you mis-read my point.
So I'm requesting you to re-read it, understanding the term "low information voter" certainly does not apply to you, and then see if it doesn't make more sense.
Thanks!