I’m Just Sayin
Ramblings, Atheism August 10th. 2007, 11:55amMaybe we aren’t all that different…
But who am I kidding? This kind of harmony and similarity between species is so beautiful that the only possible explanation is that it was designed by someone or something far superior to ourselves.
I mean, just look at it. Could you design that? I don’t think so.
Loading ...
August 10th, 2007 at 6:27 pm
Chris, I was worried you’d dropped out of blogging. Nice to see your still around. With regards to this most recent post …
I hope you’re fooling around (?)
The similarities between life forms, from the DNA structure of all life to the embryonic development (which you’ve demonstrated), are the result of common descent.
August 11th, 2007 at 2:46 am
I’m entirely sure he was kidding (and I just Stumbled upon this just now). Nice post.
August 11th, 2007 at 2:51 am
I’m tempted to remove the labels at the top, mix them up a bit, and ask people to point out the human…
August 11th, 2007 at 3:37 am
The first time I saw this picture I was also really amazed.
The painter of this image is Ernst Häckl, who foundet the theory of recapitulation. Today it is a fact that Häckl has cheated to make is theory more probative.
There are similaryties in the early states of the ontogenesis of the higher lifeforms. They have all the same anatomy. But they don’t look the same.
Sorry
August 11th, 2007 at 7:46 am
Man I suck at blogging, my sarcasm and subtlety is not coming through nearly as much on paper as it is in my head.
Perhaps I should elaborate…
Matthias is correct. This is a drawing by Ernst Häckl that appeared in many science textbooks before the 1970’s. And he is also correct in that the theory that Häckl was using his drawing to support has since been discredited (although I believe it was called biogenetic law, which boils down to the idea that an organism’s evolutionary history repeats itself as it develops as an embryo).
Many (Un)Intelligent Designers like to use this fact to support the idea that all current and future science textbooks and theories are rot with the same flaws. Because as we know, ID survives solely by attacking the validity of evolution, not by supporting itself with its own evidence.
So, I (sarcastically) proposed the argument that this drawing is actually evidence for intelligent design, instead of evidence against evolution, in an attempt to show that virtually anything can be used and spun in different directions to support an idea that exists solely on the basis of belief and personal dissatisfaction with present scientific theory (much like the banana, or peanut butter).
Note that this is not meant to be actual evidence for evolutionary theory. God knows (
) there is plenty of real evidence for evolution that can be found elsewhere.
August 11th, 2007 at 1:25 pm
haha.. Chris, you made me LAUGH my friend. I got your comment the first time, but I think that was a good explanation of the picture. Really made me think.
“God knows (
) there is plenty of real evidence for evolution that can be found elsewhere.” Made me giggle.
Peace!
August 11th, 2007 at 2:49 pm
I came across this as an atheist friend of mine used it (mis-guided ah?) to show that other Christians embrace evolution.
Anyways, I thought I would drop this line since the largely reproduced ‘information’ is wrong and was a fraud and has been deemed such by science.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v20/i2/fraud.asp
-Rick
August 11th, 2007 at 5:38 pm
In the spirit of “teaching both sides”:
http://www.antievolution.org/topics/law/ar_hb2548/Haeckels_embryos.htm
EDIT: Moderator approved comment in the spirit of allowing anyone to post, even though they don’t read the other comments.
August 11th, 2007 at 6:57 pm
Rick, its a good thing you came by to point out science’s failings … if it weren’t for valiant efforts of sectarians, such as yourself, science would never be aware of the errors committed by those in the objective pursuit of knowledge and understanding.
sigh … forgive my sarcasm, but you might have read Chris’ comment the precedes yours … and … it might occur to you that those who embrace science might know something about its past errors.
August 12th, 2007 at 1:15 am
This diagram IS designed. It’s a fake
August 12th, 2007 at 7:29 am
Another comment from the department of redundancy department? Thanks Jon! We’d be lost without you.
August 12th, 2007 at 9:03 am
It’s funny how theists throw science’s mistakes in our faces as if it proves we are wrong and they are right. As we all know, science is all about trying to disprove itself in an effort to come up with better hypothesis. This is generally how I attack a problem; figure out why and in what way my theory is wrong so that I can find a more appropriate solution. What’s funny is that even the theists thought the earth was flat until we found that it was not, at which point they revised their interpretation of their own literature and claimed that it was right all the time, but that they just “read it wrong”.
I’m at least intrigued enough to read some more of your blog, but I must admit, that your sarcasm was lost on me as well, at first.
August 12th, 2007 at 10:08 am
Any chance anyone here knows where an accurate picture of embryo development may be found? … I’m thinking about a picture that correctly represents the embryonic development of each of the animals in Haeckel’s drawing.
I think it would be interesting to see the accurate drawings, and even more interesting to see the reaction of the fanatic sectarians … how many will claim that the figure is clearly found in the bible and how many will denounce it as another fake?
August 12th, 2007 at 11:48 am
I should have done quick google before asking. It only took a minute to find what I was looking for.
Miller and Levine have a page title Haeckel and his Embryos. They include actual pictures of embryo development for a fish, chicken, pig, and human. Those pictures are derived from video sequences of embry development which are available on the pbs site, here.
In 1998 Miller and Levine added a corrected figure illustrating embryo development to the 5th addition of their text. Here’s the link.
p.s. Chris, I’ve had some trouble commenting here today, if this shows up twice … please apply your omnipotence as moderator
August 12th, 2007 at 12:44 pm
Subone: like I said, I’m (apparently) not very good at this new-fangled blogging thing, but I think some sarcasm in the other posts might be more obvious.
Ben: Here is an actual picture of the embryos in the drawing’s first stage…
August 12th, 2007 at 4:59 pm
Chris,
Do you have a quota set for how many posts one individual may make?
I’ve tried to post twice earlier today … however, the posts haven’t showed up
August 12th, 2007 at 5:28 pm
Ok that comment showed up, and when I tried to duplicate my missing comment … it went missing as well.
So I decided to put up a post on my blog!
August 12th, 2007 at 5:49 pm
Well, I think that I have to say that this is grreat.
August 12th, 2007 at 6:21 pm
I have a filter set to catch any comments that contain more than one link, and hold the comment for moderation.
However, that is my own filter, and Akismet spam filter was catching your comments for some reason. Still not sure why, but all is back to normal for the moment.
Love the post on your blog. Funny stuff and good info too!
August 12th, 2007 at 7:16 pm
Thanks for fixing my difficulty … and for the pat on the pack!
I put up almost as many posts as you get visitors commenting … meanwhile your posts easily outnumber my visitors’ comments.
I’d make some quip about quality and quantity, but I’m feeling sufficiently insufficient already
August 13th, 2007 at 11:24 am
Sigh, are you implying that because there’s similarity in all carbon based lifeforms their must be some kind of deity? I sure hope you’re referring to nature or evolution, because this is no proof of god whatsoever, I can’t remember the exact figures, but we all share a percentage of the same DNA.
August 13th, 2007 at 12:03 pm
Michael, pay attention. Look at the tagline under the title of this webpage:
“To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy.”
Now do you think he’s trying to imply the existence of a deity? Or do you think he is being sarcastic? You’re right, it’s the latter.
August 13th, 2007 at 7:53 pm
I heard from someone–precisely when/where I forgot–who put it succinctly: “Ontogeny does not recapitulate Phylogeny” (or was it the other way around?).
August 18th, 2007 at 11:07 am
sorter, you quoted correctly. ontogeny does NOT recap. phylogeny, the best elaboration on development is beautifully covered in the evo-devo books that are out from sean b carrol (incredibly good author!) anyone can google evo-devo or the author for a some good stuff on this exact topic. as for the religious nutjobs that adhere to their “evolution is just a theory so it is wrong” stance….so is the electromagnetic theory. please pray the next time you switch on your lights.
August 23rd, 2007 at 11:15 am
I, for one, could design something way better than that. For one, why not keep the tail thing for all beings, and better yet, give tails extra hands? Actually, that would probably mean the end of the humans, because all of the asshole kids on school busses would be grabbing the ears and asses of everyone else and then claiming not to do it, resulting in massive riots in schools worldwide. Death to all.
August 23rd, 2007 at 8:33 pm
I think the pig looks most evolved .. but hey, I like pigs.
August 24th, 2007 at 12:46 am
-
-
-
Ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny.
-
-
-
August 24th, 2007 at 9:36 am
SubOne: If “As we all know, science is all about trying to disprove itself in an effort to come up with better hypothesis,” then why can’t scientists question the theory of evolution. Many other theories have been replaced to be discarded with other theories.
Ben Stein has made a documentary about the debate: http://www.expelledthemovie.com/playground.php According to the film’s press release, Expelled is “a disturbing new documentary that will shock anyone who thinks all scientists are free to follow the evidence wherever it may lead.”
August 24th, 2007 at 10:27 am
It’s called “testing,” duke. It’s done all the time.
I find it laughable that someone who probably thinks himself intelligent enough to actually debate the intricacies of evolutionary theory could, without a hint of sarcasm, propose the idea that evolution is unquestioned by scientists.
Just one of many examples at your fingertips: To Test Evolution…
Perhaps you would be so kind as to propose a test that could be performed on a theory that might replace evolution or otherwise cause it to be discarded, no? With bated breath, we wait…
September 10th, 2007 at 8:31 am
A Question on Polls and Atheism:
I’m curious about the polls I see that claim there are only 2 or 3% Atheist in the world. From what I see on post from all over the world it seems like the figure should be much higher.
Is it possible that maybe when asked the question many just reply with the easy answer to avoid all the consternation? I have been an atheist since the age of 12 (when as an Alter-Boy I figured it was nonsensical), I try not to insult the religious, but I also try to avoid them because their minds are locked at a certain stage and because of their beliefs cannot move forward.
Has anyone done any research on the polling of atheism?
September 10th, 2007 at 12:25 pm
I haven’t looked into the psychology of such polls, but here is a link regarding estimate of major religions of the world ranked by number of adherents.
1. Christianity: 2.1 billion
2. Islam: 1.5 billion
3. Secular/Nonreligious/Agnostic/Atheist: 1.1 billion
4. Hinduism: 900 million
5. Chinese traditional religion: 394 million
6. Buddhism: 376 million
7. primal-indigenous: 300 million
8. African Traditional & Diasporic: 100 million
9. Sikhism: 23 million
10. Juche: 19 million
11. Spiritism: 15 million
12. Judaism: 14 million
13. Baha’i: 7 million
14. Jainism: 4.2 million
15. Shinto: 4 million
16. Cao Dai: 4 million
17. Zoroastrianism: 2.6 million
18. Tenrikyo: 2 million
19. Neo-Paganism: 1 million
20. Unitarian-Universalism: 800 thousand
21. Rastafarianism: 600 thousand
22. Scientology: 500 thousand
http://www.adherents.com/Religions_By_Adherents.html
I must admit, I just love how the Pagans outnumber the scientologists by 2 to 1
Personally I don’t see any substance behind such polls. Popularity of opinion has nothing to do with the existence of god or gods.
September 10th, 2007 at 4:54 pm
Thank you Ben, interesting numbers.
By the way, I enjoyed your site very much, lots of good videos’ and information.
October 25th, 2007 at 8:53 am
wow…. i havent seen haeckel’s embryo’s used in support of evolution since they were disproved after they came out… i mean if you want to cheat to try to prove that randomness and chance is true then why not actually show the REAL embryo pictures they look pretty random to me.But hey im just an “ignorant christian” what do I know.David
October 25th, 2007 at 6:05 pm
I’m in no place to comment on what you do know. But apparently you don’t know how to read the comments, David.
October 25th, 2007 at 7:20 pm
sigh … Chris I was hoping to toy with him a bit, but didn’t get the chance to post prior to yours.
In any event, he can be given some latitude … he does realize he’s an “ignorant christian”.
Not that all christian’s are ignorant, but …
October 26th, 2007 at 9:25 am
I’m wondering who he was directing that comment at, because I don’t recall ever using that phrase, “ignorant christian”, especially with regard to David in particular.
Shades of strawmen…
November 5th, 2007 at 9:54 am
I wasn’t directing the “ignorant xian” comment at anyone in particular i was just saving people the trouble of having to call me that later on. Considering that when I say that i am an xian most atheists will immediatly disregard anything that I have to say about anything, So no offence to you Chris you seem like one of the good ones, so sorry if i offended you.David
November 5th, 2007 at 12:40 pm
David, you might consider that most will try to live up (down?) to your expectations. When you make it it explicitly clear that you expect to be dismissed as ignorant in the same breath as implying atheists are close-minded, it might occur to you that many (most?) will be happy to comply with your request.
November 9th, 2007 at 8:21 pm
Far be it from me to comment on what most atheists would do, but I try to treat each person as an individual. My general disposition is to be curious why otherwise intelligent people would believe such disgusting and irreconcilable things like those that are in the bible. If it’s any consolation, I tend to blame the parents.
Even so, “ignorant” would not be the correct label until you demonstrated that you had no idea what you were talking about.
February 25th, 2008 at 7:18 am
Did you guys know that this was fudged? To bad it’s still being published in textbooks and such. What a shame, and it’s because the man who first drew up this ‘comparison diagram’ wanted to prove his point by fudging it. GO SCIENCE!
February 25th, 2008 at 11:10 am
Thalo,
What can I say … hmmm, how about “hook, line, and sinker”
The post was a parody of sorts.
Regarding your remarks;The figure is *not* being used in textbooks today, and certainly is not relevant with respect to the character of science, but only relevant with respect to the character of Häckl.
February 25th, 2008 at 11:58 am
Last weeks Pew Poll on the migration of religious to other or no religions.
February 25th, 2008 at 11:39 pm
April 29th, 2008 at 1:46 am
I never realized how people can dismiss facts about religion/God, especially when these people are supposed to be smart. I mean, you have science, which to me, proves the Bibles validity over and over. I mean you have scientists that found snake fossils only to find out that they used to have legs… well no shit. I read that in the bible. Or scientists that wanna “predict” an asteroid hitting the Earth in the future… well duh I read that one in the bible too. “A star will fall from the sky and strike the center of the Earth. The sky will be covered in blackness and two thirds of the Earths population will perish” - Book of Revelation.
April 29th, 2008 at 5:15 am
You can be the first to reveal the facts. Please enlighten all of mankind what those would be.
You understanding of what science claims and what its motives are is so horribly distorted from the reality that I suspect you claims to “facts about religion/God” are also a distortion.
However, I would love that is be otherwise. The day such observable facts are known, religion will die and that spiritual pursuit will become part of the material one we call science.
May 10th, 2008 at 10:29 pm
apocalypse1280, your post makes me want to bang my head against a wall. It’s the type of drivel that I normally would not waste my time on, but lucky for you, I’m bored, so I’ll do it…
As you’re reading this, please keep in mind that I’m not taking any time to validate your claims on fossils and whatnot, I’m only using them to further your understanding of how your logic does not follow.
First you say that science proves the bible’s validity over and over, then you cite an example in science that does just the opposite. You surreptitiously use the common thread of ‘a snake’ to make the supposition that science is validating the bible’s claims that the snake was forced to move on its belly for all eternity, when, in fact, it does nothing of the sort. The fossils only show that there was a change. The bible’s claim is that the change was made by the hand of God. Simply because you’re willing to assume that any change of that sort is made by your god does not mean that’s what the fossils are telling you.
And if you’re going to pretend that the bible is only claiming that the snake used to have legs before it was possessed and subsequently punished for someone else’s actions, and then use that claim to project and extrapolate validation to all the other outrageous claims, then please, tell us now. That way, we know you are incapable of carrying on a conversation about facts, and can rightfully ignore your meanderings into the realm of science and religion.
But that’s not all. The best part is that you commit the exact same crime when you talk about an asteroid hitting the Earth. The only common thread is that both are referencing something hitting the Earth. Nevermind that an asteroid is not a star, and surely your omniscient invisible man would know this. but ignore that little inconsistency, sticking with your thesis… somehow this is supposed to be science proving the bible’s validity. As if the very fact that scientists are researching the how, when, and where of a possible asteroid strike validates the bible’s claim that a star will strike the center of the Earth. Here’s a hint, it doesn’t.
And if a star were to strike the center of the Earth, you can bet your mother’s life that more than two thirds of the Earth’s population would perish, that’s what science tells us, and it perfectly contradicts the bible’s claim in this situation.
Any more “facts” that you’d like to throw out there? I’m assuming the laws of physics are off limits since that science debases the whole reason for christianity to exist in the first place. I’ll make it easy… I’ll let you cherrypick the sciences you want to reference when you say it validates the bible’s claims… fair?