Posted on 07/05/2005 7:07:57 PM PDT by balrog666
Never seen one of those flashing "12:00" symbols?
But that's okay, somehow I think we can find a few more. ;^)
Well, you can't say you weren't warned.
Who said that? Are you going senile in your old age?
Furthermore, your support of a man who faked embryo drawings in order to "fill in the blanks" says a lot about your character, especially when one considers how many abortions have been performed around the world using the concept of “embryonic recapitulation" as justification.
Do Sagan and Druyen ring any bells? Here's a gem for you, compliments of these two famous humanists:
The embryo first is “a kind of parasite” that eventually looks like a “segmented worm.” Further alterations, they suggested, reveal “gill arches” like that of a “fish or amphibian.”
Parade, 1990, p.6
I should add that the title of the article they wrote for parade was “The Question of Abortion: A Search for the Answers;” They argued that human abortion is okay on the grounds that the fetus growing within a woman’s body for several months following conception is not a human being.
I really think their butts are bigger than their heads.
NEW Ichneumon's legendary post 52. More evidence than you can handle.
I entertain the possibility every day. I'm looking for "the answers" all the time. When I *have* free time, I read quite a bit of information regarding science. Luckily, there are quite a few places I can go to that have up-to-date information. I also look at the websites and papers that critique the ToE.
That being said, I've read most of your more lengthy posts and have a basic understanding of what you are trying to convey. It's not that hard to understand the ToE. It's pretty basic on the surface, but the details are always changing and under scrutiny. To me and countless others, it seems shaky. That doesn't mean God couldn't have used it - I just don't think it was used to the extent you and others believe it was.
That being said, I do think you have a knack for translating the detailed information with a dash of humor to keep your readers attention. Truth be told, I enjoy your posts (except when you flame me).
But - I have the right to question the theory and post links to websites that critique it. We aren't talking about an uncontroversial theory here.
So what? Their argument (at least as you report it) is wrong irrespective of evolution, or even of any particular theory of embryology. Heck, not only is the fetus a human being, in a strict factual sense so is any stage of embryo, so is a zygote, and indeed so is a sperm cell or egg cell. The later are simply a human individual of the haploid as opposed to diploid generation. Apart from that difference, and the fact that they will remain unicellular, they are nevertheless human, alive and individual in being genetically unique (remember crossing-over in the formation of gametes).
That disposed of, Sagan's conclusion being a non-sequitor, I'll grant you a faint hint of Haeckelian recapitulation in that Sagan seems to be comparing the human embryo to the adult stages of more "primitive" creatures, but there's sufficient arm waving that his observations are also consistent with von Baer's laws:
For instance Sagan (per your report) refers to segmentation in the early embryo, and compares it to a worm. Well, the early embryo does show "the general characters of the group to which [it] belongs ... earlier than the special characters," per von Baer's first law. This includes a general resemblance to characteristics of animals, including segmentation. Later segmentation becomes more subtle as the embryo passes along the chordate path of development, and more so as more "specific" characters come to dominate.
Not every reference to embryological similarities is an invocation of recapitulation, although creationists tend to treat them so. As much as they complain about supposed resurrections of recapitulation, they often seem to be the only ones keeping the idea alive with their boringly knee-jerk invocations of Haekel any time anyone says anything whatsoever about embryological comparisons.
Actually, the Catholic church has a history of being very politically motivated.
Or did the whole "Pope" thing elude you?
Fisher is a classical liberal. He is concerned about the power of large corporations, and satirises the way government has been corrupted by money.
He was passionately opposed to war, and this was reflected in his work. He also challenges the way government manipulates the media and attempt to define its own version of events, especially surrounding the Iraq war. He is also scathing of celebrity culture, particularly in strips such as "Funny, Funny Celebs".
So you're basically siding with a liberal (actually nearly every liberal in the world) on this issue.
More anti-conservative cartoons from author:
Mocking conservatism and conservatives is a hallmark of this guy. Now if he wants to promote his narrow minded viewpoint, that's his business. But when you promote his narrowminded viewpoint on a conservative website, then it's pretty distateful and insulting to the vast majority of conservatives on here.
So sue me. I also agree with Alan Dershowitz when he exposes the lies, bigotry and extremism of jew-hating creeps, and disagree with him virtually without exception on everything else.
I did. Several times sense the last time you posted it (on another thread, many moons ago)
DNA may, or may not change enough to cause species differences.
Animals, appearing similar to the ones we now have, existed long ago.
A hell of a lot of "could be"s and "maybe"s. And not a single documented case of a single species observably changing into a different, non-compatible (ie, can reproduce, but not with it's "original" family) animal.
And nothing "empirical."
Can anyone contribute to Darwin Central?
That's a pretty statement.
I would love to take you to a dice game.
Hi Douglas, 'classical liberal' is a frequently used synonym for 'libertarian', of which there are more than a handful at FR. A 'classical liberal' believes in Jeffersonian republicanism, in contrast to 'modern liberals', who are simply socialists under a different name.
Oh really? Do you promote Allen Dershowitz's work as you're promoting the "art" of Fisher? Fisher is just Al Franken who knows how to draw. His humor is vitrolic and always slams conservatives and conservatism.
Why don't you post some Al Franken stuff that makes fun of a conservative viewpoint? I'm sure you can find one out there somewhere.
"Oh, right, the cartoonist should have put a whole chapter of chemistry into that panel, just to make it cover all bases instead of the standard conditions. And my car's speedometer should adjust for Relativity. "
Actually, the artist COULD have spent his time actually coming up with something funny to write, not something riddled with stupid half-assed statements.
It's the same reason I don't like Mike Luckovich. Yeah, he's brief, and says his statement. But it leaves the unlearned with the wrong impression.
"The astute reader will note that *nothing* in MacDorcha's post addresses *anything* I actually wrote in my very lengthy post to him, other than to nitpick about the cartoon. "
Very lenghty post? It started with the toon!
I don't know about Junior's webstie, but as for the parent organization, we have very strict standards.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.