Why are Haeckel's drawings being taught in school?

Gee, why don't you tell these guys? you could save tons of research time for them.MK Rich Ardson - MK Blog RichOr, you could just acknowledge that the sperm/egg combo is not yet an embryo and that early embryo stages are not similar.Evolutionists have proposed the hour-glass solution claiming they are not similar in the beginning, but are in the middle and diverge at the end.Of course, this doesn't appear to be true either.Basically, evolutionary theory has been refuted in it's predictions for embryonic development.

Uh, maybe you don't realize that some of those biologists in the 1860s, 70s and 80s rejected evolution.Maybe you don't realize that since 1868, creationists have denounced Haeckel's drawings.Now, I'll admit that during this 130 year period, from time to time, some evolutionist would admit that the drawings were fraudulent, and even in the 70s, Gould made a comment along those lines, but nevertheless, some standard textbooks only quit using these drawings in 1998, and I would not be surprised to see some still using them.The evidence points to a 130 year sustained effort by creationists to discount the fraud, but evolutionists maintaining the use of such faked images for that time-period with the occasional acknowledgement of the fraud in American scientific circles, but no effort to get the fraud removed.Finally, in 1997, an evolutionist after years of creationists publicizing the error, does a study and denounces the fraud in a scientific journal.

Let's consolidate some arguments: If you want to equivocate and abandon your original position, that is fine with me. So far all you can show is that creationists get on the bandwagon whenever there is any kind of misrepresentation (all, so far, uncovered by scientists), shout "fraud" and "therefore evolution is wrong" and other nonsense. You have not shown any evidence otherwise. Let's not equivocate here either eh? I said vestigial tail. It is still south of the pelvis where all tails are located, and the extent of the cellular material originally south of the leg buds gets absorbed in the further development of the {embryo\fetus}. That the folds do not develop into gills in humans does not mean that there is absolutely no connection with the original process that developed gills in the remote ancestors shared by humans and fish. I would also expect that the embryonic development of fish has also changed since that time. The arm and leg buds also do not develop fins, claws or hooves on their way to hands and toes. Does that mean they have nothing to do with hands and toes? You need to stop arguing with things that are NOT said, as that is just dishonest. My point was that all evolution needs is in the single cell zygote. How that becomes a surviving and reproducing adult is irrelevant to evolution. You have done nothing to refute this point, but rather ignore it to argue instead with strawman positions.You also have not refuted that the embryonic development follows a general process that is similar in all species, that the variations from that process are not radical departures totally unlike other species (such as developing organs and features in a totally different order). Again, evolution needs no predictions for embryonic development. You are confusing the study of biological development and evolution.That theories of biological development have made some false starts, had some problems with enthusiastic proponents of certain theories and the like ... is no different than any other field of science. The more it is studied, the more scientists uncover the false starts, mistakes and misrepresentations, the more real knowledge moves forward.Thus was it found that the earth orbits the sun. Thus was it found that the earth is more than 4 billion years old. Actually, (1) I said scientist (not evolutionist - that is only one branch of science) and (2) I said all you need to do is post ONE fraud that was exposed by a documented creationist.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

If you are going to keep doing this, I am going to call you on it. You are engaging in deliberate deception. Creationists are scientists. The first time I heard about Haeckel's fraud, I heard it from a zoologist at NC State, a tenured professor. So the first time I heard that what I was clearly taught by evolutionists was a lie, I heard it from a creationist. That proves my point.He calmly laid out the evidence evolutionists were not teaching, or falsely using. It was very convincing. Since that time, I have denounced Haeckel's fraudulent use of imagery, but evolutionists I noticed kept right on going. Imo, I think the internet finally did them in.They just couldn't keep getting away with such a fraud after web-sites and repeated and sustained criticism from creationists drove them from it.As far as the original denunciation of Haeckel, I cannot find out if the men were creationists or not, but it is likely considering the times, that at least some of them were.Of course, that is not germane to the argument, and if anything indicts evolutionists even more. Haeckel's images were known to be frauds since 1868, but evolutionists kept using the fraudulent images. If they did this knowingly, as you seem to assert, then that is all the worse.It still does not change the fact they only relented after 130 years of creationists slamming this fraud, and after the internet made it untenable for evolutionists to continue with such an obvious fraudulent practice.On the issue of embryonic development, the predictions of common descent failed to materialize. The prediction was for at least one, single, embryonic shared phylotypic stage, or for total recapitulation.Neither prediction appears to be true.

If this is your assertion, you are thus asserting that both Rutimeyer and His were creationists.Do you have any evidence to support this assertion? Or are you making an assumption that these two men were creationists?Please provide evidence.

I don't think His was a creationist, but it is irksome to watch the behaviour of the evolutionists on this board.One evolutionist here claims Haeckel's fraud was originally exposed by evolutionists. He refused to back that up, and now you guys demand that I disprove his assertion. I have made known the reasons for my assertion already and backed them up, but you guys don't back up your claims.Why?I cannot ascertain which of these scientists were evolutionists or not very easily, but many biologists at the time were creationists and did argue against evolution, and assuming they were aware of this fraud, it is hard to imagine them not arguing against it. I consider this backing up the 1868 date.Since that time, from a quick review, I found explicit creationist arguments from the 1930s, 50s, 60s, 70s, 80s, and 90s denouncing the continued use of these images by evolutionists, and have posted references, except my personal account in the 80s where a zoologist of NC State spoke about this and other areas.So evolutionists continued to use these faked images for 130 years, and all the evidence points to creationists denouncing this for 130 years, with particular intensity applied in American circles for the past 20 years, resulting in evolutionists revisiting this in 1997, and agreeing that the depictions were fraudulent.If you disagree with any of that, please back up your reasons for disagreeing with that. I have posted my reasons more than once now.This message has been edited by randman, 06-23-2005 12:12 AM

So, I give you an example of a non-creationist scientist refuting Haeckel in 1874 and I'm not supposed to be "irked" at you continuing to insist that creationists have been the only anti-Haeckelites up until the last decade? His was the first to directly refute Haeckel with a scientific study in the 1870s (versus simply revealing the fraud). Except for the 1990 Evolution textbook I mentioned, that describes it as a fraud. Oh, and the 1980 scientific article I mentioned that your ground-breaking 1995 creationist article cites. Did you even bother reading my post before replying that the diagrams weren't revisited until 1997? Talk about irksome...Quite a pile of assertions in there, also. "Particular intensity" in the past twenty years? Fine, then it should be easy to support your assertion:Give me one example of the Haeckel diagram being presented as factually accurate in a biology textbook from the past twenty years. Just one. Otherwise I can only assume that you are making this stuff up.I have a textbook that still "used the faked image" in 2002. Of course it is described in historical context, and the fraud is mentioned in both the text and the diagram caption. Do you have a problem with that usage?

It's already been done on this thread. Try reading it.Moreover, I am not claiming no evolutionists ever denounced Haeckel's drawings, just that the majority of evolutionists kept using them in their educational materials in fooling the public.It's hard to say which ones did so honestly and which did so deceptively. Probably most were fooled themselves and just didn't question it.But back to your request for "just one." Haeckel's EmbryosPlease note that the author is Kenneth Miller, Professor of Biology
Brown University.Does he seem surprised to learn the drawings were faked?I'd say that's part of his excuse here for why their textbooks included the faked drawings. To thier credit, they changed the textbooks in 1998.Is that good enough for you?

The vast majority of evolution scientists are involved neither in production of education materials or dealing directly with the public. Again, your view of the scientific community seems a bit skewed. Based on what? an exclamation point in a statement on a cheesy, flashy website intended for school kids? I don't know that he is expressing surprise as much as incredulity or excitement. Reread your source. The books did NOT contain the faked drawings. The source doesn't provide the pre-revision drawings, so it is a bit hard to judge how accurate they were.

I think your view of what this thread is about is "a bit skewed"?The topic is "Why are Haeckel's drawings being taught in school?"And the forum topic is education.The fact the vast majority of evolutionists do not write textbooks is immaterial. The vast majority were taught from textbooks that contained false information as evidence for evolution. So when he explained how their textbooks did contain faked drawings and how they changed their textbooks after the 1997 study, he was what, lying in your book?Get real.The way you guys cannot just own up to this is amazing. Also, one of the guys writing the textbook is a professor of biology at Brown University.Why did a professor of biology at an Ivey League university make this mistake?He claims his textbook and most all others contained this error because somehow it got slipped in there and remained standard fare for the past 100 years in the evolutionist community.Are you claiming the professor is lying?This message has been edited by randman, 06-23-2005 02:05 AM

Um, wrong! And then on the same page of the web-site. What part of that do you not understand?

Prove it. Ok, look at this - is it a) fake, b) fraudulent or c) neither?

I think one problem here is in the idea of Haeckel's drawings being 'source material' for illustrations in textbooks. A figure which is 'after' or based upon a previous figure by someone else can be substantially different from the original.So a figure 'after' Haeckel's might be a replicate in layout but with anatomical data derived from fresh observations, similarly it might simply be a picture with some additional colouration, such as you suggested was the case in another instance.Perhaps one reason that the fakery of Haeckel's drawing is so frequently 'rediscovered' is that there are so many different things wrong with Haeckel's figure. The exact flaws noted by Haeckel's contemporaries may differ from the specific issues Richardson addresses, such as the period of development of the pharyngeal pouches in the chick.Indeed Richardson himself has some good things to say about Haeckel in a letter to Science. TTFN,WKThis message has been edited by Wounded King, 06-23-2005 07:16 AM

This barely merits a response, as you still fail to show fraud being uncovered by creationists. All this shows is another bandwagon.No matter how much you try to move the goalposts on this one (and so far that has been the sum of your effort on this issue), the fact remains that {mistakes\fakes} are uncovered by scientists.

This thread seems to going around and around and as a lurker I'm getting very confused.Here are my simple questions (point me to a post if you would be so good):

quote:

---

1) In what textbook and in what year are those "fraud" pictures being presented as fact?

​

2) What SPECIFIC example of fraud was uncovered by creationists, what year and where?

---

I only require post numbers for both of those (an absense of postnumbers will tell it's own story)... - thanking you.(OPPS - meant to be a general reply rather to RAZD)This message has been edited by Charles Knight, 23-Jun-2005 08:18 AM