Disney was cited as an influence in children. That would have been plain to any reader that didn't harbor all the rage and hatred you have for honest conversation on this topic.
Sounds like projection. We were talking about what science teaches, and suddenly Disney is an authority. You don't like that being examined, for obvious reasons.
Barbarian observes:
So far, it's been able to handle everything. And so far, when we get to the bottom of those "Lamarckian" examples, none of them are Lamarckian. As you know, in every case, mutation plus natural selection turns out to be sufficient.
Again, your under-welling rage and hatred drives you to mis-represent the truth.
It was my discussion on plieotropism that gave it away, um? :think:
When you say "As you know", you have no excuse not to be well aware that I've pointed out compelling evidence that NS is not a factor in most cases when a mutation occurs, including those mutations that are the initial requirements for a new feature.
As you should know, scientists long ago showed that mutations do not appear as needed, but randomly. Natural selection does not cause mutations, except in the trivial sense of some bacteria having higher mutation rates when stressed.
Barbarian chuckles.
Nope. That's just a fact that Haeckel tried to extend into a non-Darwinian theory. Some of your guys had holy tantrums when they removed the drawings and used photos instead.
Showed the same thing.
No they don't. Here's a word from grand poobah Ken Miller himself:
http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/ev...s/Haeckel.html
Well, let's take a look...
As you read this, you may wonder why evolution should be limited to changes tacked on at the end of the process of development. So did evolutionary biologists, and Haeckel's idea was quickly discarded. In fact, evolution can affect all phases of development, removing developmental steps as well as adding them, and therefore embryology is not a strict replay of ancestry. Nonetheless, many of the stages that embryos pass through can indeed be understood as remnants of their evolutionary past.
One example is the fact that the embryos of all placental mammals (including humans) form a yolk sac during their development. Why is this important? Because the eggs of these organisms do not have large amounts of stored yolk, and therefore their yolk sacs are empty! Nontheless, the persistence of a yolk sac stage makes perfect sense when one considers that these animals are descended from egg-laying reptiles in which the sac encloses a massive amount of yolk to support embryonic development
This idea has been pushed back into the news recently by the news that Haeckel's drawings of embryonic similarities were not correct. British embryologist Michael Richardson and his colleages published an important paper in the August 1997 issue of Anatomy & Embryology showing that Haeckel had fudged his drawings to make the early stages of embryos appear more alike than they actually are! As it turns out, Haeckel's contemporaries had spotted the fraud during his lifetime, and got him to admit it....(At Left): For examples of the early stages of development in vertebrate embryos. Unlike Haeckel's drawings, these photographs are absolutely accurate and have been taken at similar stages of development.
Top: a Fish Embryo
Next: a Chick Embryo
Next: a Pig Embryo
Bottom: a Human Embryo
Same stuff. Imagine that.
Barbarian:
Indeed, sometimes they don't "look" alike because of enlarged yolk sacks or other reasons. The reason most of them look alike is because their development follows from the same tissues in the same way. The (by looks) dodge is the creationist attempt to get around the deeper, histological and chemical evidence.
Nice try, though.
For creationists, evidence is "spin." We all got that.
You should learn to control your rage and hatred and you could have come up with the following quote below alone instead of the insult above so we could have a civil and honest conversation.
Sounds like more denial. We're used to that, too.
Barbarian observes:
And yes, that our development is constrained by evolutionary history is evidence for the fact.
It's only evidence if you first assume evolution is true.
Nope. In fact, the embryological data was among the facts that convinced many scientists of the fact of evolution in the 19th century.
Even the anti-Darwinian, Karl von Baer, was finally convinced by such data:
Despite von Baer’s rejection of strict recapitulation, he did allow that species within a given archetype yet displayed virtually identical structures during the earlier stages of embryogenesis. In a famous passage, which Darwin mistakenly attributed to Louis Agassiz (1807-1873), von Baer mentioned that he had two little embryos that he forgot to label: “They might be lizards, small birds, or very young mammals. The formation of the heads and trunks in these animals is quite similar. The extremities are not yet present in these embryos. But even if they were in the first stages of development, they would not indicate anything; since the feet of lizards and mammals, the wings and feet of birds, as well as the hands and feet of men develop from the same fundamental form” (1828-1837, 1: 221).
Otherwise, you'd also have to consider that there aren't a great number of different ways to start an embryo.
Not if they have a common ancestor. But there's no reason why they should first form a blastula or that there should be poles or even why the neural crest must form first, unless it's common ancestry. If you have evidence to the contrary, now is the time to trot it out.
But even so, I'll bet when we have more data we'll find the DNA directing the development is so widely varied that correlations to looks will be irrelevant.
As you learned, "correlations to looks" is a creationist fantasy. It's not done like that. For example, the genes that form our face have their origins in the most primitive chordates:
Hox genes, neural crest cells and branchial arch patterning.
Trainor PA, Krumlauf R.
Stowers Institute for Medical Research, 1000 East 50th Street, Kansas City, MO 64110, USAAbstract
Proper craniofacial development requires the orchestrated integration of multiple specialized tissue interactions. Recent analyses suggest that craniofacial development is not dependent upon neural crest pre-programming as previously thought but is regulated by a more complex integration of cell and tissue interactions. In the absence of neural crest cells it is still possible to obtain normal arch patterning indicating that neural crest is not responsible for patterning all of arch development. The mesoderm, endoderm and surface ectoderm tissues play a role in the patterning of the branchial arches, and there is now strong evidence that Hoxa2 acts as a selector gene for the pathways that govern second arch structures.
Not exactly what you were told, um?
There's a lot more. Would you like to see more?
