Hyperion
Posts: 31 Joined: June 2005
|
Quote (evopeach @ Aug. 24 2005,15:09) | Baloney,
That is your assertion from a survey that doesn't even mention the term.
Try any one of 100 H.S. Biology texts or even 1st yr College texts from 1940 through today.
1) Embronic recapitualtion ( totally a lie and misrepresentation for two decades after being shown false)
2) Miller Fox demonstrating the efficacy of chemical predestination and abiogenesis in pre-biotic conditions. ( a total fabrication failing to mention lack of optical purity, racemate results always, zero separation of L&D forms of amino acids critical to molecules of life or that even if such were the result its a dead end for several reasons not the least of which is the next step chemically has the rather unfortunate problem of directionally impossible free energy comsiderations. These are never, never mentioned though known absolutely by every organic chemist in the world.
3) Total misrepresentation of the fossil record results which is totally unsupportive of the theory .... a scam made possible by plaster of paris and dashed lines on charts , nothing more. Consider the several major fossil frauds in the last century.. undeniable dishonesty.
4) Purposefully blurring the differences between a priori and as posteriori probability arguments time and again with the stiupid and irrelevant (perfect bridge/poker hand demonstration of unlikely events and other such baloney)
5) Misstating the definitions of open, closed, isolated and constrained systems in thermodynamic discussions... trotting out the old snowflake, salt crystal and other rediculous and irrelevent processes to illustrate local violations of SLOT... knowing better all the while.
6) Denying in the face of crystal clear evidence real codes and systematics in the genome of living organisms as in the genetic code and the operations of the cell. Utter fraud and misrepresentation.
7) Dismissing abiogenesis and the fossil record as irrelevent and unimportant to the evolutionary paradigm.
8) All origin of proposals and experiments have ended in utter failure for 100 years but are presented in texts, documentaries and all public forums as success is just around the corner.
The public record is clear and unambiguous and undeniable by an honest observer |
Quote | Try any one of 100 H.S. Biology texts or even 1st yr College texts from 1940 through today. |
I'm bored, so I feel like taking you up on this. I have here in my lap a copy of Biology 5th Edition by Campbell, Reece, Mitchell, et al. It is generally considered to be a major scientific textbook for basic undergraduate courses, right in line with your suggestion of checking 1st year science texts.
Quote | 1) Embronic recapitualtion ( totally a lie and misrepresentation for two decades after being shown false) |
Well, for starters, I cannot find "embryonic recapitulation," which is what I presume you meant to write, in the index. However, I assume that you are referring to Haekel and the now discredited idea that ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny. Well, in this text, we do find: "Inspired by the Darwinian principle of descent with modification, many embryologists in the late nineteenth century proposed the extreme view that 'ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny." .... "The theory of recapitulation is an overstatement. Although vertebrates share many features of embryonic development, it is not as though a mammal first goes through a fish stage, then an amphibian stage, and so on. Ontogeny can provide clues to phylogeny, but it is important to remember that all stages of development may become modified over the course of evolution."
I think that this should clearly show that one undergrad biology textbook, one which is generally widely known and respected, does not misrepresent Haekel's ideas on ontogeny. And, by the way, the don't have his drawings, they have a pictures of a chick embryo and a human embryo.
Quote | 2) Miller Fox demonstrating the efficacy of chemical predestination and abiogenesis in pre-biotic conditions. ( a total fabrication failing to mention lack of optical purity, racemate results always, zero separation of L&D forms of amino acids critical to molecules of life or that even if such were the result its a dead end for several reasons not the least of which is the next step chemically has the rather unfortunate problem of directionally impossible free energy comsiderations. These are never, never mentioned though known absolutely by every organic chemist in the world.
|
Perhaps you are reffering to the Millery Urey experiments? Usually the limits of the Miller experiments are mentioned right in the text. I mean, ####, they want their readers to be knowledgeable. Referring to Dr. Miller's choice of atmosphere, Biology says: "This atmosphere was probably more strongly reducing than the actual atmosphere of Earth." So they are making clear the limits of the experiment. Furthermore, the book goes on to discuss protenoids and protobionts, including microspheres, which are abiotically produced, but not quite alive. Sort of like empty cells. It then goes on further to describe RNA synthesis, replication, and ribozymes, RNA chains that can act as enzymes.
Quote | 3) Total misrepresentation of the fossil record results which is totally unsupportive of the theory .... a scam made possible by plaster of paris and dashed lines on charts , nothing more. Consider the several major fossil frauds in the last century.. undeniable dishonesty.
|
The Smithsonian Institute has a Natural History Museum on the Mall in Washington, DC. It is a beautifl museum, home to one of the largest collection of Dinosaur fossils in the world. They also have research facilities in the back, outside the public view. Now, if this is a part of some giant conspiracy to misrepresent the fossil record, then I really have to meet their head of operations so I can take notes for any future coups or conspiracies that I, a just graduated Poli Sci major, may become involved in. Somehow, though, I don't think that the SI is going to be very useful for that sort of thing.
Quote | 5) Misstating the definitions of open, closed, isolated and constrained systems in thermodynamic discussions... trotting out the old snowflake, salt crystal and other rediculous and irrelevent processes to illustrate local violations of SLOT... knowing better all the while. |
Are you sure that you understand the second law of thermodynamics? By the way, I remember my chem teacher back in high school going over the laws of thermodynamics and explaining how entropy explains aging quite well,and also how it explained why we need to eat. He started out by telling us that life, being ordered, would be destroyed by entropy, unless it had an outside source of energy. When we asked what he meant, he pointed to a student's lunch box and asked if the student was planning to eat lunch later that day. The student responded that he most certainly did. The teacher then asked what would happen if he did not. This, the teacher was saying, is what entropy, which was the original lesson point, was about. Ordered, non-random systems such as ours require energy to be expended to maintain order. Even gaining outside energy, by eating, cannot stave off entropy forever, and eventually various body systems will break down, and people die. The laws of thermodynamics are not in contradiction of evolution or vice versa. In fact, the need for food or other forms of energy as required under the second law of thermodynamics is a major driving force in evolution.
Quote | 6) Denying in the face of crystal clear evidence real codes and systematics in the genome of living organisms as in the genetic code and the operations of the cell. Utter fraud and misrepresentation. |
Well, my book shows several charts and diagrams of the real codes used in the cells. There's a complete list of all possible permutations of codons, and their corresponding amino acid. What is being denied? There are codes and systematics in the genetic code of an organism. This is very basic.
Quote | 7) Dismissing abiogenesis and the fossil record as irrelevent and unimportant to the evolutionary paradigm.
|
Didn't you, sir, just dismiss the Miller experiments regarding abiogenesis as irrelevent, and the fossil record as being full of frauds?
Quote | 8) All origin of proposals and experiments have ended in utter failure for 100 years but are presented in texts, documentaries and all public forums as success is just around the corner. |
You know, believe it or not, biologists perform experiments to actually gather information to further our understanding of the world, not to get involved in metaphysical questions on the nature of man.
I'm really not sure what your complaints are. A better method might be to simply state a hypothesis. State how you might go about testing this hypothesis, and what results would confirm this hypothesis. Just complaining about how science is being taught and putting up straw men about objectionable content in books which I've just shown is not there doesn't really accomplish anything.
|