Has evolutionism become a leading religion?

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by Jason Badejo

Rivalry is irrelevant to the discussion, the fact is that Haekels work is to this day used as support for evolution.

Show me where "to this day" anyone uses Haeckel. I have a European textbook series from the 1920s that give him a mention. Nothing newer.

And "rivalry" is exactly the point. Darwin's theory was "Natural Selection." Haeckel famously rejected that. So how can Haeckel even be said to be a "Darwinist?"

I am really, really wanting to see you back up these last two assertions. Find me "dodging" the question. Find an example of Haeckel being used "to this day."

[coadie]

Originally Posted by pelathais

Show me where "to this day" anyone uses Haeckel. I have a European textbook series from the 1920s that give him a mention. Nothing newer.

Can't they get you a new book?

http://us2.harunyahya.com/Detail/T/E...roductId/19164

Below are listed a number of such modern textbooks which have used Haeckel's embryo drawings in the fashion stated above. The list includes an analysis of each textbook, with documenting graphics:

I. Peter H Raven & George B Johnson, Biology (5th ed, McGraw Hill, 1999)*

II. Peter H Raven & George B Johnson, Biology (6th ed, McGraw Hill, 2002)*

III. Textbook III. Douglas J. Futuyma, Evolutionary Biology (3rd ed, Sinauer, 1998)

IV. Cecie Starr and Ralph Taggart, Biology: The Unity and Diversity of Life (8th ed, Wadsworth, 1998)

V. Joseph Raver, Biology: Patterns and Processes of Life (J.M.Lebel, 2004, draft version presented to the Texas State Board of Education for approval in 2003)

VI. Cecie Starr and Ralph Taggart, Biology: The Unity and Diversity of Life (Wadsworth, 2004, draft version presented to the Texas State Board of Education in 2003)

VII. William D. Schraer and Herbert J. Stoltze, Biology: The Study of Life (7th ed, Prentice Hall, 1999)

VIII. Michael Padilla et al., Focus on Life Science: California Edition (Prentice Hall, 2001)

IX. Kenneth R Miller & Joseph Levine, Biology: The Living Science (Prentice Hall, 1998)

X. Kenneth R Miller & Joseph Levine, Biology (4th ed., Prentice Hall, 1998)

http://www.volconvo.com/forums/philo...textbooks.html
Fairy tales for adults lie to the little children.



http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/ev...s/Haeckel.html

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by coadie

Can't they get you a new book?

http://us2.harunyahya.com/Detail/T/E...roductId/19164

Below are listed a number of such modern textbooks which have used Haeckel's embryo drawings in the fashion stated above. The list includes an analysis of each textbook, with documenting graphics:

I. Peter H Raven & George B Johnson, Biology (5th ed, McGraw Hill, 1999)*

II. Peter H Raven & George B Johnson, Biology (6th ed, McGraw Hill, 2002)*

III. Textbook III. Douglas J. Futuyma, Evolutionary Biology (3rd ed, Sinauer, 1998)

IV. Cecie Starr and Ralph Taggart, Biology: The Unity and Diversity of Life (8th ed, Wadsworth, 1998)

V. Joseph Raver, Biology: Patterns and Processes of Life (J.M.Lebel, 2004, draft version presented to the Texas State Board of Education for approval in 2003)

VI. Cecie Starr and Ralph Taggart, Biology: The Unity and Diversity of Life (Wadsworth, 2004, draft version presented to the Texas State Board of Education in 2003)

VII. William D. Schraer and Herbert J. Stoltze, Biology: The Study of Life (7th ed, Prentice Hall, 1999)

VIII. Michael Padilla et al., Focus on Life Science: California Edition (Prentice Hall, 2001)

IX. Kenneth R Miller & Joseph Levine, Biology: The Living Science (Prentice Hall, 1998)

X. Kenneth R Miller & Joseph Levine, Biology (4th ed., Prentice Hall, 1998)

http://www.volconvo.com/forums/philo...textbooks.html
Fairy tales for adults lie to the little children.



http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/ev...s/Haeckel.html

What do you know? I happen to have Raven & Johnson's but I gotta reboot to access those drives so I'll be right back..

And speaking of "drooling idiots" - you do realize that your buddy "harunyahya.com" is a jihadist who "found Allah" in a mental institution, don't you?

I suspect he produced this list in the hopes that his Turkish and Arabic readers would never find out his fraud in these English textbooks. Miller & Levine is so ubiquitous, I think I may have one of theirs as well...

brb.

From your own link to Miller & Levine:

"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."

They go on to admit to a goof in using drawings - NOT by Haeckel but based on Haeckel. In their new edition they have replaced those with actual micrographs and drawings based on that.

This is the "Evolutionary Development Biology" that I schooled you on yesterday.

[coadie]

Originally Posted by pelathais

What do you know? I happen to have Raven & Johnson's but I gotta reboot to access those drives so I'll be right back..

And speaking of "drooling idiots" - you do realize that your buddy "harunyahya.com" is a jihadist who "found Allah" in a mental institution, don't you?

I suspect he produced this list in the hopes that his Turkish and Arabic readers would never find out his fraud in these English textbooks. Miller & Levine is so ubiquitous, I think I may have one of theirs as well...

brb.

From your own link to Miller & Levine:

"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."

They go on to admit to a goof in using drawings - NOT by Haeckel but based on Haeckel. In their new edition they have replaced those with actual micrographs and drawings based on that.

This is the "Evolutionary Development Biology" that I schooled you on yesterday.

So you still support the haeckel hoax because it is for a great cause.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ecH5S...eature=related

[Jason B]

Originally Posted by pelathais

Show me where "to this day" anyone uses Haeckel. I have a European textbook series from the 1920s that give him a mention. Nothing newer.

And "rivalry" is exactly the point. Darwin's theory was "Natural Selection." Haeckel famously rejected that. So how can Haeckel even be said to be a "Darwinist?"

I am really, really wanting to see you back up these last two assertions. Find me "dodging" the question. Find an example of Haeckel being used "to this day."

I know I have seen that used in modern textbooks on slides in videos. I graduted HS fairly recently (1999) and I seem to remember that being in my Texas biology textbook, though I'm not 100% certain. I could probably find it, but I'm not going to go looking right now. I've been on AFF for 2 hours tonight, I want to try to catch up on this thread, and get off the computer. I try to watch the time I spend on the computer, and when a converrsation like this is happening, sometimes I get sucked in.