Biologists?

Question

Why do you keep the lies in the textbooks?

ex. Miller Experiment, Darwins Tree of Life, Haeckel's Embryo's, Archaeopteryx, Java Man....

Why must we keep these in the textbooks? And when are you going to replace them?

Well we are teaching the kids of America that the Bible is the truth, we want all of the lies out of the textbooks.

Why must you use lies to support your theories?

Darwins Tree of Life~ A problem came with this when we found the Cambrian Explosion

Java Man~ Member of humans, not an actual ape man

Miller Experiment~ Are you kidding me. He used the wrong atmosphere, and if we use the right one it is highly toxic

Archaeopteryx: Not part reptile/bird

it's a bird with modern feathers amd birds are very different from reptiles in many important ways, their breeding system, bone structure, lungs, distribution of weight and muscle. It's abird that's clear, not a bird/reptile

Why don't you read case for a Creator

Here are some of the men that say they are lies:

Jonathan Wells, Noble Nominee;
Henry F. Schaefer, James Tour, Fred
Figworth, and those are a few;

I believe they have studied this more than you

Do some people really believe what they say?

Answer 1

There are quite a few lies in other books too... like the Bible

Text books are an historical record of the progress of science. When I studied science at university we were taken through the earlier theories on a topic so that we could gain a fuller picture about how peoples' understanding and knowledge developed and the reasoning behind various theories. Science isn't static and fixed like religious dogma, it is fluid and forever changing as our understanding and knowledge increase. Therefore, while older text books may become out of date they are nevertheless important as stepping stones to the present, helping us understand how currently accepted ideas came into being and providing lessons for the future, both in terms of sucesses and mistakes.

As scientists we are taught to question everything and that nothing is absolute (the opposite of religious dogmatists who blindly follow one book despite its many glaring errors and inconsistencies). We are thus able to read a textbook and gain knowledge and insight but still be able to question and test the information. This is how science progresses. If everything written in a book was accepted as an absolute truth the the Rennaisance would never have happened, Columbus would have never set sail and everyone would still believe that the Sun orbited around a flat Earth... is that what you believe?

Answer 2

They aren't lies, except Haeckel's Embryo. Miller DID experiment with primitive Earth conditions, he formed organic compounds using inorganic. Darwin explained evolution, though he didn't know what changed, we now know it's mutations in the DNA. Archaeopteryx is a very primitive bird that could only plane, not fly, and there is fossil evidence showing it's existence, even feathers. Java man is not really a subspecies in the genre homo, but it represents primitive men. They are not lies and you've actually missed the most misleading scientific evidence (which I'm not going to tell you, because if you think you know about "lies", you ought to know).
If you call all these statements, like evolution and Archaeopteryx lies, your textbooks must be ANCIENT.
By the way, show me some tiny, real, foolproof evidence that god exists, fossil records of Adam & Eve (bible Eve, don't use the hipothetical mythocondrian Eve), or a real & true explanation of Mathusalen's metabolism so he could actually live 900 years. Or simple, explain the existance of living beings like trilobites or dinosaurs, because your god didn't create them according to the bible.

Answer 3

I think this is an excellent question. It can be evidenced by the responder that thinks only the embryo's have been disproven. I think these things are still taught because either the teacher/professor is to lazy to take them out or does not want to take the time to explain how they are wrong, or they themselves still believe they are true.

Just to let you know the Miller Experiment used a atmosphere for early earth which is no longer believed to be the atmosphere of early earth. Similar experiments with the new consensus atmosphere produces does produce organic chemical but they are include formaldehyde with is not very conducive to life. Darwin' tree of life is not a accurate depiction of evolution. Haeckel's embryo's were doctored. Java Man only consisted of a femur and part of a skull cup. Archeopteryx is the only of the above that I think may have any credibility left.

Answer 4

They aren't lies.

The Miller experiment showed that simple organic compounds could be formed from primitive building blocks (in short amounts of time!) with the addition of energy. That atmosphere was not equivalent to the early Earth's atmosphere, but it still remains a valid and valuable experiment in biochemistry, and a viable avenue of research for abiogenesis.

I'm not sure what you mean by 'Darwin's Tree of Life', or how exactly you think it was invalidated by the findings of the Cambrian explosion. A ladder-like progression of evolution is indeed no longer a valid or accepted premise, and loe and behold, it is no longer in textbooks. Perhaps you are reading Creationist propaganda written in the 1920's??

While Haeckel's ideas of ontogeny recapitulating phylogeny have been found to be inaccurate (and are no longer found in most textbooks), the study of ontological development in various organisms can still give some strong indications of phylogenetic relationships, as well as identifying homologous structures.

Archeopteryx, while it is definitely a bird, still retains a huge number of reptilian characteristics that make it a definite 'transition form' (one of those things Creationists always claim don't exist). The teeth, long tail, clawed fingers, lack of a carina, no strut-like coracoids, etc. are all features more similar to a small theropod dinosaur than to any living bird.

Java Man was never claimed to be an 'ape-man'. It is representative of an earlier species of human, known as Homo erectus. The features of this fossil definitely mark it as not being a modern human, but there is also plenty of evidence to indicate that Homo erectus utilized stone-tool technology (Acheulean technology, including bifacial hand-axes), and probably had mastered fire as it expanded out of Africa into Asia (thus, why Homo erectus fossils have been found in Indonesia (Java) and China (Peking Man)).

Thus: Those findings and hypotheses based on factual information, and which provide valuable insights into the past occurrences on Earth still remain in the textbooks. Those that don't provide valuable information, even by contrasting with proven hypotheses, are discarded and are no longer found in textbooks.

However, theories and hypotheses which have no physical evidence behind them or valuable contribution to make to the scientific understanding of the world are not included.

Answer 5

Do you see any biologists or other scientists invading the numerous religious forums on the Internet and then deliberately insulting the devout Christians they find there?

Don't you understand that biologists and other scientists deserve the same respect in return?

Please take you ignorant superstitions and rude behavior elsewhere!

Answer 6

Haeckel's embryo's are the only thing in your list that is questionable. When are you creationist going to come out of your delusions?

Answer 7

People like you divert time and energy away from we biologists by bogging us down in law suits and what not when we could be curing cancer!