Why Lie? (Re: Evolution frauds and hoaxes)

I was just quoting what PZ Meyers had said about Haeckel's drawings and his theory in his review of Wells chapter 5.God Bless,

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

Sure you are.But if I do it everybody jumps on me and says I am quote-mining.God Bless,

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

quote:

---

Haeckel's Embryos

​

He admits almost every textbook used faked data.

​

Why?

​

Isn't it true that on this point the creationists were right in stating that evos were using faked data in their textbooks, and specifically that Haeckel's drawings were faked?

---

Here's what Miller said about the textbook he worked on:"Page 223 of the Lion Book (BIOLOGY - The Living Science) and page 283 of the Elephant Book (BIOLOGY by Miller and Levine) each contain drawings of the early stages of embryonic development in several vertebrates. Although neither of these drawings are identical to his, they are based on the work of Ernst Haeckel (portrait at left), a 19th century German Biologist who was a pioneer in the study of embryonic development."Not the original Haeckel drawings (which were faked), but contemporary drawings (which are closer to the appearance of actual embryos).Here's what Miller said about other textbooks:"However, his drawings nonetheless became the source material for diagrams of comparative embryology in nearly every biology textbook, including ours!"They used side-by-side comparisons of different species in different stages of embryonic development. If they're more anatomically correct drawings, or even photos, how can this be termed "fake data?"

quote:

---

I don't want to accuse evos of blatant fraud so let's take their word that they just didn't know. Imo, this is almost worse in that it shows an incredible level of ignorance, incompetence, stubborness (refusal to listen to criticism) and narrow-mindedness. It'd almost be better, though not as a statement on their character, to assume they were informed and intelligent and just left in there on purpose.

---

But both articles, the first from PZ Meyers, and the second from Ken Miller (of Miller & Levine himself) said that the original points and drawings that Haeckel made were incorrect.All that leaves is the modern understanding of embryological data which is in textbooks, but this isn't what you're disputing.So the scientists have known the error, admitted the error, and instead have replaced the error with more correct embryology as it relates to evolution. How is any of this ignorant, incompetent, or stubborn at all?

Have you looked at the drawings he's talking about. They are not closer to the appearance of actual embryos. The only thing they changed was they colored Haeckel's drawings. Their attempt to gloss over that is striking all on it's own.Perhaps you meant the pictographs they eventually used to replace Haeckel's colored-in drawings? Either way, that was after the fact. Um, they were not more anatomically correct. They were in fact faked data. They simply added a little color to Haeckel's black and white drawings. You seem to be confusing the time they used the faked data to where they replaced it and so apologized for it with the excuse everyone did it too. First, it's ignorant because anyone following the debate or mildly interested in checking the facts out could have and should have easily known the data was faked. Why did they continue to use faked data?Secondly, despite their trying to downplay it as if no errors were involved other than the illustrations, that is simply not the case. There have been and continue to be errors based on Haeckel's faked data and ideas to this day. We could discuss the nuances and details of that, or just read some prior threads that address it, but it's worth noting briefly that evos have used the same term, recapitulation, to refer to several discredited versions of it, and they are still using it today in a more watered down version.You'd think there would be some shame over the whole affair and at a minimum, they'd back off and admit they advanced false ideas and never use the same term, but that's not the case. In fact, you still find evos sometimes using the same false claims of Haeckel in claiming human embryos have gill slits and such.Moreover, the idea that animals that appear more similar as adults appear more similar as embryos as somehow some sort of strong evidence for evolution or even evidence at all is baffling. The reason embryological claims are mentioned so much in textbooks is due to the fact Haeckel's faked data and ideas were so convincing. Heck, my Dad in the late 50s and early 60s was taught at a very prestigious university that "ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny." The phrase didn't phase out in the late 1900s as some claim here.

Why? What Wells says is of no consequence and I am pretty sure I have read the "paper". My opinion on Talkorigins is that it is propaganda and it discredits anyone citing it as somehow relevant material.Maybe you should have read the actual science journal papers Richardson published or the creationist criticism of Haeckel in the 20 years before Richardson confirmed their criticisms?

No, but I do think it should create doubt, not on evo theory per se but on the scientific community of evos in regard to the evidence for evolution. In other words, the whole affair says something about how facts and evidence are used in regard to evolution by evos. Imo, there is no excuse for the continued use of the faked data and ideas in the face of decades of persisent criticism easily verified. It's baffling and more so, very troubling.If it's this difficult to correct something fairly small, how much harder would it be to correct something more primary? If the obstinance of evolutionists can resist even a mild correction of obvious faked data to the point it takes over 100 years to get the community to back off of it, then what about other areas that are more primary as evidence for evolution? It just doesn't make the evo community look like the non-biased, objective group of scientists so often espoused. It certainly made an impression on me that prior to 1997, every evo I argued with and stated that Haeckel's data was faked insisted I was wrong, or a liar, or ignorant, etc,....despite the fact it wasn't that hard to tell the data was faked.Edited by randman, : No reason given.

quote:

---

Have you looked at the drawings he's talking about. They are not closer to the appearance of actual embryos. The only thing they changed was they colored Haeckel's drawings. Their attempt to gloss over that is striking all on it's own.

​

Perhaps you meant the pictographs they eventually used to replace Haeckel's colored-in drawings? Either way, that was after the fact.

---

I'm a little skeptical as to why they would color Haeckel's drawings. If they were going to rehash those diagrams that seems like unnecessary work.I'm afraid I don't have any textbooks that are as old as the 1998 edition. If you could put up scans or something that'd be interesting.

quote:

---

First, it's ignorant because anyone following the debate or mildly interested in checking the facts out could have and should have easily known the data was faked. Why did they continue to use faked data?

​

Secondly, despite their trying to downplay it as if no errors were involved other than the illustrations, that is simply not the case. There have been and continue to be errors based on Haeckel's faked data and ideas to this day. We could discuss the nuances and details of that, or just read some prior threads that address it, but it's worth noting briefly that evos have used the same term, recapitulation, to refer to several discredited versions of it, and they are still using it today in a more watered down version.

---

What exactly do you mean by "data" here? Are you referring to the original drawings, or to Haeckel's idea that evolutionary changes can only be added on to the tail end of development?If you want to talk about reusing Haeckel's "data," be more specific here... do you mean Haeckel's original drawings, or Haeckel's original theory?Many diagrams I've seen are oversimplifications (even in my copy of Kandel's neuroscience text, also used by graduate students) and while it's an annoyance, it's not exactly as big a sin as a rehash of phrenology. If they did use Haeckel's original drawings, yes, that'd be a pretty fair gaffe on their part. However, Haeckel's theory of tail-end evolution isn't presented at all. An explicitly described falsehood is one thing, but a misused image for a point that barely gets two paragraphs in a textbook is such a minor concern I don't quite understand what you're complaint is. It isn't the Mark of Cain you're making it out to be

quote:

---

You'd think there would be some shame over the whole affair and at a minimum, they'd back off and admit they advanced false ideas and never use the same term, but that's not the case. In fact, you still find evos sometimes using the same false claims of Haeckel in claiming human embryos have gill slits and such.

---

But Miller explicitly points out the flaws in Haeckel's original work. Meyer practically shouts it from the rooftops! In the light of their comments what exactly are your standards for these scientists before you'll accept that they've rejected the error and refuse to repeat it?

Or by textbook writers perhaps? Why not show us something in the primary literature from the last 30 years which uses Haeckel's embryological series as evidence for something.Textbooks are notoriously slow at being updated and revised. That said there was still no reason to use Haeckel's series in the first place other than sheer laziness.TTFN,WK

quote:

---

Or by textbook writers perhaps? Why not show us something in the primary literature from the last 30 years which uses Haeckel's embryological series as evidence for something.

​

Textbooks are notoriously slow at being updated and revised. That said there was still no reason to use Haeckel's series in the first place other than sheer laziness.

​

TTFN,

​

WK

---

I don't think it's all that crazy to believe that a textbook made the mistake to show Haeckel's original drawings (though I am skeptical of a recoloring that randman has suggested) they are, after all, a famous historical image even if they were inaccurate.There are three issues here that have to be distinguished. The first is Haeckel's original diagram, Haeckel's original idea of tail-end evolutionary development, and contemporary evolutionary biology regarding coopted structures in development. The first, used in any context, is a gaffe, the second is a lie, and the third is genuine science.If textbook publishers did use Haeckel's diagrams, yes, that would be a pretty bad error on their part, but nothing scandalous. What would actually be a problem is if textbook publishers repeated Haeckel's particular argument, and it doesn't follow that they do that just from using Haeckel's diagrams.Edited by BeagleBob, : No reason given.

Any time you want to start a thread comparing the accuracy and veracity of science vs. creationists, please feel free.

You mean a textbook writer like a biology professor of an Ivy League school or how about the fact Richardson stated in his peer-reviewed article that Haeckel's drawings and the idea of a phylotypic stage were near universally accepted by scientists despite there being no verification of the concept.

Try a little research. They were the same drawings, just color added. haeckel's drawings and ideas or related ideas. Keep in mind that despite the original Biogenetic law and recapitulation being abandoned, the concept ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny was not. It was just stated that adult forms are not recapitulated. However, it was maintained the embryonic forms were, still called recapitulation, and then that was watered down even more by claiming the phylotypic stage was real (it is not), and that was still called recapitulation and at times the biogenetic law too.And that's been largely discredited, though evos still make a pitch for it from time to time, but the new "recapitulation theory" is that somehow embryonic stages are coorealated due to evolution to a degree.Bottom line is evos have been trying to maintain and use Haeckel's fraudulent ideas and data for well over 100 years. Richardson, despite in the 90s calling it the biggest fraud in biology, lent his name to a paper (pressure from evos?) that has backtracked and calls Haeckel's fraudulent depictions "a good teaching aide."If it were not for the internet, I wouldn't be surprised to see the term "ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny" widespread in textbooks and college classes again, and we might still see it. This isn't the first time the fraud has been exposed. We'll see if it remains accepted that it was fraudulent among evos. Certainly, the evos I debated with in the 90s insisted it was correct.

quote:

---

Try a little research. They were the same drawings, just color added.

---

Apparently you've seen these images. Like I said earlier, you're in the best position to find them and post them for our benefit.

quote:

---

haeckel's drawings and ideas or related ideas. Keep in mind that despite the original Biogenetic law and recapitulation being abandoned, the concept ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny was not. It was just stated that adult forms are not recapitulated. However, it was maintained the embryonic forms were, still called recapitulation, and then that was watered down even more by claiming the phylotypic stage was real (it is not), and that was still called recapitulation and at times the biogenetic law too.

​

And that's been largely discredited, though evos still make a pitch for it from time to time, but the new "recapitulation theory" is that somehow embryonic stages are coorealated due to evolution to a degree.

---

While embryos don't have gills, the same structures that give rise to gill slits in fish give rise to the bones of the inner ear in humans. Human embryos, as pointed out, have vestigial yolk sacs. These are examples of cooption and adaptation of existing structures that shed light on our evolutionary origins... it's legitimate science.Link here: Evolutionary Embryology - Developmental Biology - NCBI BookshelfJust because the Iraq War was horribly planned and turned into a crapfest doesn't mean that the idea of "We should prevent rogue states from owning WMDs" is wrong. Likewise, just because Haeckel's original idea was a fraud doesn't mean that modern embryology is wrong.Are you really arguing that just because an idea is marginally related to a poorly-formulated predecessor, the new idea must share the same flaws? What is your reasoning for making a Guilt By Association argument?

Hmmm....modern embryology accepted Haeckel's depictions as factual until 1997-98 and also claimed and many still do that the phylotypic stage is real. As far as gill slits and such, that's a stretch. Just because embryos are more similar the more similar adults are is no surprise and certainly not evidence for universal common descent.

quote:

---

Hmmm....modern embryology accepted Haeckel's depictions as factual until 1997-98 and also claimed and many still do that the phylotypic stage is real.

---

I gave you the courtesy of providing source material, I would appreciate if you could do the same. From what I've seen, the scientific community seems to have rejected Haeckel's work within his lifetime.