MEASURABLE 14C IN FOSSILIZED ORGANIC MATERIALS: CONFIRMING THE YOUNG EARTH CREATION-FLOOD MODEL

http://www.icr.org/research/icc03/pdf/RATE_ICC_Baumgardner.pdf ^

[fishtank]

PDF file.

[Elsie]

Consider a well-studied example: that is bogus!

[Right Wing Professor]

Either you is or you ain't.....

Kid born with anencephaly (no cerebrum or cerebellum) - human or non-human?

Adult with brain death - human or non human?

[ThinkPlease]

Back online here, too, power back at 8am (on the dot!), debating on whether I should go into the office and turn on work computers. Maybe should wait a day.

[Elsie]

Chipanzee with 97% same genes: almost human or a smart liberal?

---

So far NO ONE has answered either question (other than me and that other guy), merely wanted to ask their OWN questions......

[VadeRetro]

This slur on distinguished biologist Douglas Futuyma comes from Jonathan Wells's Icons of Evolution. It's totally unfounded.

The NCSE Review of Wells on Haeckel's Embryos.

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.

I suggest clicking the link on "Figure 10" at the above source. It shows that Wells has gone into a tizzy at any comparative depiction of embryos at all, including photographs, not just redrawings from Haeckel. It's as if he really wishes to suppress the truth about embryos under the guise of eliminating Haeckel's misdrawings.

I believe we've been over this before, but here you are back with the same old crap.

[longshadow]

"Electrons Shrugged" placemarker

[Right Wing Professor]

We haven't answered because you're begging the question as to whether humanity is an either/or issue. I can think of many cases where it's an open and contentiously debated issue whether someone should be considered human. That says to me that human-ness is a continuum, where some not everything/everyone can be consider either not at all human or 100% human. However, the law, at least has to draw lines; and people have to reach sometimes agonizing ethical decisions. Go do a google search under anencephaly, and you'll see people who aren't utilitarians struggle with the issue of what level of care to give to anencephalic newborns.

[<1/1,000,000th%]

Chipanzee with 97% same genes: almost human or a smart liberal?

This is easy, but first a clarification. Chimps share 98% of their genome with humans. The actual number of genes are still estimates.

Chimps are very human-like, but they won't vote. However, chimps are not liberals. They don't talk about their feelings. They're very concerned about their freedoms and don't like big government. They're too smart to be liberals.

[cookcounty]

".........not peer reviewed, not published, chances are they're seeing contamination by modern 14C."

A problem with this line of (ad homnium) argument is that the peer-review system is a closed system. The only way to become a "peer" is to swear to a particular intellectual orthodoxy and become an advocate for a special set of dogma. If you refuse, you won't be peer-reviewed, and you won't be published, either.

Other than that, your reasoning is stellar.

[Right Wing Professor]

".........not peer reviewed, not published, chances are they're seeing contamination by modern 14C."

A problem with this line of (ad homnium) argument is that the peer-review system is a closed system. The only way to become a "peer" is to swear to a particular intellectual orthodoxy and become an advocate for a special set of dogma. If you refuse, you won't be peer-reviewed, and you won't be published, either.

First of all, it appears you do not know what an ad hominem (sp!) argument is.

Second of all, I publish routinely in peer reviewed journals. I've posted some fairly controversial stuff. Nowhere was I asked to swear to any orthodoxy, nor advocate any dogma. I have been asked to provide documentation for my observations, and to consider other alternatives when discussing my data. The authors under discussion did not do the latter.

[Lurking Libertarian]

Non-peer-reviewed placemarker.

[Elsie]

Is this like the "We pledge to be nice to other pledgers" that is partialy in force here?

[Elsie]

"Yeah, we're smart....

We got opposible thumbs on our FEET, too!

I guess we've further along the 'toolusing' line than you mere humans."

[Con X-Poser]

The drawings also appear in the popular, "The Body and How it Works". I have a photocopy of that. But it's nice to see that they are finally getting them out of most texts after 100 years.

[js1138]

They don't talk about their feelings...

But they whine like liberals, and since they have neither permanent addresses, nor American citizenship, nor driver's licences, they qualify to vote under Motor Voter.

[VadeRetro]

The drawings also appear in the popular, "The Body and How it Works". I have a photocopy of that.

The only thing it's safe to assume about that work is that somewhere in it are some sort of depictions of embryos. Beyond examining the primary source, there is no telling whether said depictions are Haeckel drawings, later and hopefully more accurate drawings, or even photographs. The history to date clearly says that creationists pay no attention to such details in their haste to tar as many as possible with the "fraud" label.

[js1138]

I'm having difficulty understanding this controversy. I have had only two courses in biology, in 1960 and in the late 60s. In both classes the teacher was careful to point out Haeckel's errors, and the error in the catchphrase.

[VadeRetro]

I'm having difficulty understanding this controversy.

Think about how baby frogs look like fish, baby insects look like soft-bodied worms, baby horseshoe crabs look like trilobites, baby lampreys look like amphioxus/brachiostoma (primitive cephalochorates), etc. Try a Yahoo on "evolutionary developmental biology."

The controversy is that there's still a lot of evidence for phylogeny in embryology, but there's the club of Haeckel's historical fraud to make it all go away when arguing before the unprepared jurors of society at large and maybe the school boards. Suppressing evidence is the true nature of ID.

[js1138]

I'm reciting from decades-old memory, but I believe what I was taught was that embryos of "higher" forms resemble the embryos of "lower" forms, up to a point. (Not that embryos resemble the adults of any other species.) The way I understood it, the "point" of divergence is an indicator of how closely related species are.

Two questions: Does this sound like something that was taught, or am I having an induced memory moment? Second, does any of this make sense?

[VadeRetro]

Just as you say, strict recapitulation does not apply, but there are certainly plenty of clues to evolutionary history in growth patterns.

Except that it all goes away--POOF!--because Haeckel faked his drawings.