Four questions for YECs - (and a little history of creationism vs evolution)

[Sparks]

17 minutes ago, The Barbarian said:

Not one of them is actually shown to have them.  Do you have even one example of Haeckel's drawings shown as support for recapitualtion?    I already know that you don't.  Remember, I used to review biology textbooks.   

I noticed the weasel wording from that website:
Show embryo drawings that are either Haeckel’s originals or highly similar or near-identical versions of Haeckel’s illustrations — drawings that downplay and misrepresent the differences among early stages of vertebrate embryos

Here's an example...

https://live.staticflickr.com/1214/1139590175_f033109a49_b.jpg

This kind of thing infuriates creationists, since the photographs show the same things that drawings did.  The facts haven't changed, the explaination for them changed.  We don't resemble fish early on because we are fish in utero; we resemble fish because we have a common ancestor with fish and our structures form from the same tissues that fish have.   They just form different things, and this begins immediately in utero.  You've been hornswoggled because you had no idea how this actually works.   If you learn more, you won't be so easy to fool. 

And as I pointed out your source just threw out titles but carefully avoided showing and evidence for the claim.   Now you know why.

If you do actually find a biology book written in the last 50 years that endorses Haeckel's claims,be sure to show us.   It would certainly be a huge deal in science education.

I gave you a link that showed dozens of them.

[The Barbarian]

2 hours ago, Sparks said:

I gave you a link that showed dozens of them.

Not one of them is actually shown to have them.  Do you have even one example of Haeckel's drawings shown as support for recapitulation?

If not, just say so, and we're done.  Or if you have it, link to it so we can see for ourselves.   That website has a reputation for dishonesty, so when it merely makes a claim without providing evidence, it's very likely, that the person there is back to their old tricks.

 

[The Barbarian]

2 hours ago, Sparks said:

You misunderstand.  How did they calibrate the instrument. 

Learn about it here

J Res Natl Inst Stand Technol

2006 Oct 1;111(5):335-60

Development of Argon Isotope Reference Standards for the U.S. Geological Survey

Abstract

The comparison of physical ages of geological materials measured by laboratories engaged in geochronological studies has been limited by the accuracy of mineral standards or monitors for which reported ages have differed by as much as 2 %. In order to address this problem, the U.S. Geological Survey is planning to calibrate the conventional (40)Ar/(40)K age of a new preparation of an international hornblende standard labeled MMhb-2. The (40)K concentration in MMhb-2 has already been determined by the Analytical Chemistry Division at NIST with an uncertainty of 0.2 %. The (40)Ar concentration will be measured by the USGS using the argon isotope reference standards that were recently developed by NIST and are described in this paper. The isotope standards were constructed in the form of pipette/reservoir systems and calibrated by gas expansion techniques to deliver small high-precision aliquots of high-purity argon. Two of the pipette systems will deliver aliquots of (38)Ar having initial molar quantities of 1.567 × 10(-10) moles and 2.313 × 10(-10) moles with expanded (k = 2) uncertainties of 0.058 % and 0.054 %, respectively. Three other pipette systems will deliver aliquots (nominally 4 × 10(-10) moles) of (40)Ar:(36)Ar artificial mixtures with similar accuracy and with molar ratios of 0.9974 ± 0.06 %, 29.69 ± 0.06 %, and 285.7 ± 0.08 % (k = 2). These isotope reference standards will enable the USGS to measure the (40)Ar concentration in MMhb-2 with an expanded uncertainty of ≈ 0.1 %. In the process of these measurements, the USGS will re-determine the isotopic composition of atmospheric Ar and calculate a new value for its atomic weight. Upon completion of the USGS calibrations, the MMhb-2 mineral standard will be certified by NIST for its K and Ar concentrations and distributed as a Standard Reference Material (SRM). The new SRM and the NIST-calibrated transportable pipette systems have the potential for dramatically improving the accuracy of interlaboratory calibrations and thereby the measured ages of geological materials, by as much as a factor of ten.

The details are important.   The complete article is available in the journal site.   More detail here:

During the 1950's, the basic calibration factors for many radionuclides were established and retained on a stable and accurate ionization chamber at NIST (then NBS).With this set of definitive calibration factors, it was possible to begin assessing the accuracies of measurements made by users in commerce and research. This assessment was first done primarily in nuclear medicine and later moved into the nuclear power and environmental areas. NIST radioactivity measurements are compared with the primary standards of other National Metrology Institutes (NMIs) world-wide through the International Bureau of Weights and Measures (BIPM) which organizes and analyses the measurements.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27274937/

This one requires no more than HS math skills.

 

 

Edited May 19, 2023 by The Barbarian

[Sparks]

11 minutes ago, The Barbarian said:

Not one of them is actually shown to have them.  Do you have even one example of Haeckel's drawings shown as support for recapitulation?

If not, just say so, and we're done.  Or if you have it, link to it so we can see for ourselves.   That website has a reputation for dishonesty, so when it merely makes a claim without providing evidence, it's very likely, that the person there is back to their old tricks.

 

You mean like this one from the EXACT link I sent you to?

 

[Sparks]

4 minutes ago, The Barbarian said:

Learn about it here

. 2006 Oct 1;111(5):335-60

I don't think you understand this topic.  Thanks for the chat, though.

[The Barbarian]

Not one of them is actually shown to have them.  Do you have even one example of Haeckel's drawings shown as support for recapitulation?

If not, just say so, and we're done.  Or if you have it, link to it so we can see for ourselves.   That website has a reputation for dishonesty, so when it merely makes a claim without providing evidence, it's very likely, that the person there is back to their old tricks.

19 minutes ago, Sparks said:

You mean like this one from the EXACT link I sent you to?

Did you even read it?   Second column on that page specifically refutes Haeckel's claims of recapitulation.  

"These striking embryological similarities led some of Darwin's contemporaries (But apparently not Darwin himself) to believe that the embryological development of an individual repeats its species evolutionary history... The cells and tissues of the earliest embryological stages are like the bottom levels in a house of cards. The final form of the organism is based on them, and even a small change in their characteristics can result in a disaster later... The earliest stages of an embryo's life, therefore are essentially “locked in” whereas cells and tissues that are produced later can change more freely without harming the organism."

You seem to have done my work for me.   I repeat.   Do you have even one example of Haeckel's drawings shown as support for recapitulation?

Remember where I showed you that von Baer debunked Haeckel's ideas in the early 1800s?    Why would you think otherwise?

 

Edited May 19, 2023 by The Barbarian

[The Barbarian]

14 minutes ago, Sparks said:

I don't think you understand this topic. 

You could understand it if you can do high school math.    Take some time, read the article and let me know if there are parts you don't get.   But it can be done.    I used to know a  guy who repaired autos who was able to understand it.  

Put some time in and you'll find it's not as daunting as it looks.

 

[Sparks]

28 minutes ago, The Barbarian said:

You could understand it if you can do high school math.    Take some time, read the article and let me know if there are parts you don't get.   But it can be done.    I used to know a  guy who repaired autos who was able to understand it.  

Put some time in and you'll find it's not as daunting as it looks.

You are the one who does not understand, and I am tired of asking you to provide the instrument calibration source.

I have worked with spectrometers.  If you did, then you know what I mean by calibration source.

[Sparks]

1 hour ago, The Barbarian said:

Not one of them is actually shown to have them.  Do you have even one example of Haeckel's drawings shown as support for recapitulation?

If not, just say so, and we're done.  Or if you have it, link to it so we can see for ourselves.   That website has a reputation for dishonesty, so when it merely makes a claim without providing evidence, it's very likely, that the person there is back to their old tricks.

Did you even read it?   Second column on that page specifically refutes Haeckel's claims of recapitulation.  

"These striking embryological similarities led some of Darwin's contemporaries (But apparently not Darwin himself) to believe that the embryological development of an individual repeats its species evolutionary history... The cells and tissues of the earliest embryological stages are like the bottom levels in a house of cards. The final form of the organism is based on them, and even a small change in their characteristics can result in a disaster later... The earliest stages of an embryo's life, therefore are essentially “locked in” whereas cells and tissues that are produced later can change more freely without harming the organism."

You seem to have done my work for me.   I repeat.   Do you have even one example of Haeckel's drawings shown as support for recapitulation?

Remember where I showed you that von Baer debunked Haeckel's ideas in the early 1800s?    Why would you think otherwise?

That red posting is still making bogus evolution claims, and that's Earnest Haekle's art. 

I sometimes forget that people actually believe in evolution theory.  It's so fake.

[The Barbarian]

1 hour ago, Sparks said:

That red posting is still making bogus evolution claims, and that's Earnest Haekle's art. 

But as you now see, the page specifically refutes Haeckel's claims.   Do you have any textbooks at all that support your claim that they teach recapitulation?

1 hour ago, Sparks said:

I sometimes forget that people actually believe in evolution theory.  It's so fake.

As you know, even knowledgeable creationists admit that there is very good evidence for macroevolutionary theory .   Would you like me to show you?

And as you learned, we see evolution occuring regularly around us.   Do you remember the definition for biological evolution?