Why Lie? (Re: Evolution frauds and hoaxes)

Here is the quote again where they call the faked data evidence for evolution. MK Rich Ardson - MK Blog RichDo you or do you not consider it acceptable to use faked data and call it "evidence for evolution"? It's not a straw man. This what they've done in this paper as quoted above, and this is what evos have done for well over 100 years on this issue.Seems that you approve of such things? But maybe I am wrong on that?

However,
One thing have not pointed out in Von Baer's paper is the conclusion where he said that this points to an intelligent designer. He said seperatly that he considers it evidence, but did he state that in the article, and did he back up that opinion with hard facts, and point things out that are hard fact that makes that statement testable?Scientists can have religious beliefs too, and sometimes it corrosponds to something similar to what they are working on.A lot of cosmologists have turned into Hindus because of the perceived
similarities between some cosmology theories and Hindu myths. That does not mean Hinduism is correct.

Because that is not all they are doing. They are saying fraudulent data is "evidence." It's one thing to explore an idea. It's another to use faked data as evidence for it.

This is one reason we have different threads so that if you want to explore more and more in-depth on a particular topic, such as the history of anti-Darwinians and their research and beliefs, you can do so.

From MK Rich Ardson - MK Blog Rich

quote:

---

Haeckel's much-criticized embryo drawings are important as phylogenetic hypotheses, teaching aids, and evidence for evolution.

---

Randman pulled this from the papers abstract. At least in that precise wording, it does not appear in the paper itself.Being in the abstract, it is probably a highly condensed version of a larger discussion. Would someone care to dig into the paper itself, and find and quote from this larger discussion?Adminnemooseus

Hiya,

quote:

---

Do you or do you not consider it acceptable to use faked data and call it "evidence for evolution"?

---

No.
Because no-one is doing that.
No-one is using faked data as evidence for evolution.Randman simply doesn't grasp the facts at all :* There ARE similarities in embryos growth - it's a fact.
* These similarities ARE "evidence for evolution" - it's a fact.
* Haeckel's drawings DO show these similarities (imperfectly) - it's a fact.What randman refuses to grasp is that Haeckel's drawings were mostly correct - they DO show factual similarities - you could perhaps say they are about 90% correct.Haeckel's drawings ARE slightly exaggerated - you could perhaps say about 10% error.
And the exaggerations of this 10% is rightly dismissed.But - the basic true fact of embryonic similarities is still shown by Haeckel's drawings (even if less than 100% perfectly.)Randman is playing the common cretinist game of all-or-nothing :Haeckel's drawings are not 100% correct -
therefore they are 100% faked.Which is complete nonsense.Iasion

I went through several pages of the paper in message 193:http://EvC Forum: Why Lie? (Re: Evolution frauds and hoaxes) -->EvC Forum: Why Lie? (Re: Evolution frauds and hoaxes)I'm not really all that interested in probing further, since from what I've seen already it's pretty clear that the writers wanted to put Haeckel in a historical context while still granting him some credit for pioneering embryology as it relates to evolution. They also focus on genuine embryological approaches rather than falsified ones.From what I've seen, the writers of that paper don't wish to use Haeckel's original erroneous drawings as a teaching tool at all (they point out the mistakes with each of the images they use). They also do not appeal to Haeckel's original theory.Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Changed part of link from "m=181#193" to "m=193#193". Things work most reliably for all if those last two numbers are the same. Members can set their own choice for messages per page. If for some, messages 181 and 193 are not on the same page, with the first way you'll get the page containing message 181.

(3) Modern inuenceThe embryo drawings are still widely printed in
reference books and student texts, and have therefore
been widely accepted as teaching devices (Gould,
2000). They are also used in technical scientic
publications (Duboule, 1994; Butler and Juurlink,
1987). Their modern use is to illustrate one or more
of the same three points that Haeckel intended,
namely: embryonic resemblance as evidence of
evolution; phenotypic divergence; and recapitulation. Haeckle's drawings were being critiqued by colleagues right out of the box. No one waited for the creationists to point it out. Moreover, "presumably in response to criticisms", Haeckle redrew his illustrations for later editions. Which set of illustrations are currently being used?

​

From the preceding page . (2) Evolution of the embryological drawingsHaeckel's drawings, like some of his ideas, change
through subsequent editions of his works. In later
editions of Anthropogenie, Haeckel modies and
elaborates the set of eight species from 1874 presumably
in response to criticisms, and to accommodate
new data. He takes more trouble to
acknowledge, in text and pictures, that there are
differences among embryos of different species. The
plates in the fourth edition (Haeckel, 1891) show
more species than those in the rst and second
editions, although anamniotes are no longer depicted.
In the fth edition (Haeckel, 1903), a further six
species are added making a total of six plates. He also
takes more care to compare embryos at similar
stages, citing for example the rapid developmental
transformations in the region of the pharyngeal
arches (Haeckel, 1910: pp. 3536). Some elements of
the 1874 plates are retained while others are
Haeckel's evolution and development 515
modied. For example the chick embryo in Table
IX of Haeckel (1903) uses the same advanced stage
(GIII) as the Haeckel (1874a) Anthropogenie gure,
but presents revised early stages (GIII)Edited by lyx2no, : Accuracy.

---

KindlyThere is a spider by the water pipe.

MK Rich Ardson - MK Blog RichYou can find under point 4 in the conclusion. The paper also states if you read it that Haeckel is still used in textbooks and scientific papers.

Thank you.....should have read the thread further and realized someone else answered the question first.

Prove it because they are not 90% correct. They have been described by one prominent evo as one of the "biggest frauds in all of biology." They simply do not reflect the data accurately and were deliberately fundged and faked to draw the wrong conclusion and assume more similarity exists than is so in reality.Moreover, merely claiming embryonic similarity means nothing. He was claiming something much more than that and seeking to show it be fudging his data. Keep in mind all animals are similar. You are similar to a fish, an ape, a turtle, a fly, etc,....in some fashion or another. So what?Finding out that a pig embryo is a little similar to a human or chicken embryo is no big deal because pigs, chickens and humans are a somewhat similar as adults. That doesn't support evo theory. Haeckel fudged his data to try to make embryos which are not all that similar appear much more similar to make recapitulation theory, which evos are still trying to claim as somehow true, work.But the data doesn't show what Haeckel shows. We don't pass through a fish stage, for example.Edited by randman, : No reason given.

---

"Haeckel's much-criticized embryo drawings are .... evidence for evolution."Richardson and Gerhard Keuck, 2002 paper

quote:

---

Prove it because they are not 90% correct. They have been described by one prominent evo as one of the "biggest frauds in all of biology." They simply do not reflect the data accurately and were deliberately fundged and faked to draw the wrong conclusion and assume more similarity exists than is so in reality.

---

If evolutionary biologists know this and practically shout it from the rooftops, and you yourself know that evolutionary biologists know this, what exactly are you disputing?

In Message 194 you gave the following answer - Now you say - Actually some cursory research suggests that an embryologist called Wilhelm actually exposed Haeckels fraud. However, other than suggesting that you do not necessarily know what you are talking about this is neither here nor there.
I am not familiar with the religious views or detailed work of either Wilhelm or Von Baer. However I can find no reference to either man ever having been described as a “creation scientist” by anyone other than you.
Can you provide a link to any source that does indeed declare any of the exposers of Haeckels fraud as “creation scientists”? Or is this a clear case of you adding 2 and 2 to make 5?Both men were members of fully established conventional scientific institutions and bodies. As far as I can ascertain neither man ever published any scientific work that set out to support creationist claims or directly did so. I think it is fair to say that both men considered themselves scientisists. Not "creation scientists".
As is the very basis of my point Haeckel was exposed by the very methods, bodies and institutions of conventional science that are in place to ensure veracity and avoid falsehood.
In short, the Haeckels debacle is ultimately a victory for scientific objectivity. Not an example of some sort of idealogical cover-up as you are suggesting.
The methods of science and the scientific community are exactly what they are such that falsehoods will be exposed.Thus the very example you use to demonstrate your main point - that there is some sort of "evo" conspiracy - is actually turned on it's head. It actually demonstrates that ultimately science reaches accurate conclusions no matter how winding the path may be. Obviously that is not what I said at all Actually I agreed that if the false drawings are being used as examples of bona fide data in text books rather than explaining Haeckels fraud then this is wrong and should be stopped.I asked you if there were any examples of this taking place. I shall take your silence on this matter to mean that you do not have any examples. Furthere admit....? Are you saying that because Haeckel exaggerated his evidence that any idea he had (or any even vaguely similar idea to those that he had) must necessarily be wrong?
Does fraud equal refutation in your view?
How do you logically come to that conclusion? My understanding (and I am happy to be corrected as I claim no expertise) is that all whale embryos go through the same early developmental stages as other mammals. In many cases this Includes the initial formation of hind limbs. In the case of whale embryos these hind limb buds later degenerate whilst in the case of land mammals these hind limbs go on to develop into fully formed limbs.How do you explain this obviously inefficient formation process in creationist terms?

So you have no evidence to support your contention? You don't know what Von Baer believed, nor His, nor are familiar with the many criticisms of this fraud. Right? Your post reflects a typical evo fallacy, namely that somehow "scientists" cannot include creationists. You insisted that "scientists" exposed the fraud as oppossed to creationists. You have nothing to back up your claim and the claim itself contains a massive fallacy, accusing anyone that is a creationist and I presume an IDer, that they are not scientists when that's clearly not the case.Just to make it clear, "evolutionist" is not synonymous with "scientist."It's interesting by the way to see how evo positions change. At first, some claimed, hey, no one says Haeckel's data is being used, relied on and "evidence for evolution", and then when shown that is indeed what is occurring, the fall-back position is well, it's not so fraudulent after all.....it's, it's 90% accurate.On whale limbs, you do realize the pelvis is necessary for mating, don't you? You think that structure should not develop in the embryo or something, and once again, you fail to realize that you are overstating things even if your facts were accurate. For example, animals are evolving all the time, right? So any feature could, according to evo doctrine, just be something novel that is evolving.Of course, fairly treating the data and admitting that isn't done. No, it just has to be vestigal.Edited by randman, : No reason given.

---

"Haeckel's much-criticized embryo drawings are .... evidence for evolution."Richardson and Gerhard Keuck, 2002 paper

Straggler says So no examples that these drawings are actually being used as evidence for evolution then? What exactly is your whole point? I would suggest I am equally as familiar as you seem to be. Possibly, having done some cursory research, maybe even a little more so. So from this can we take it that you are utterly unable support your assertion that those that uncovered Haeckels fraud are in fact "creation scientists"? Nobody but you has ever referred to them as such. Is this correct? Indeed. It is also fundamentally true that the very term "creation scientist" is a nonsense. How can a method of investigation that places the conclusion before the evidence be in any way scientific?Those that exposed Haeckel were scientists in the sense that they made conclusions based on empirical evidence. Objective conclusions. Objective conclusions made using the standard methods of science, the results of which were distributed and communicated via the wider methods of the scientific community. Methods designed to weed out falsehood and maximise objectivity.These are the exact methods that "creationist scientists" obviously have to avoid as they are, by very definition, incapable of being objective or of deriving objective conclusions. How can one be objective whe one "knows" the conclusion being sought?The uncovering of Haeckel's fraud was a victory for the objectivity of results as derived via the methods, institutions, bodies and practitioners of science. Not "creation science" as you stupidly claim. The false data is not being used as evidence for evolution.
Aspects of the ideas Haeckel proposed are however being re-examined and indeed advocated in the paper in question.You seem to be confusing and conflating the faked evidence with the potential validity of the underlying idea under examination. Whether your flawed position is derived from incomprehension of the difference between the two or bloody minded determination to make a false point I am not sure.Again I ask - Are you saying Haeckels ideas, or ideas of any similarity, have actually been empirically refuted?If not what exactly is your problem here? Which facts are inaccurate?
How do you explain the initial development and subsequent regression of hind limb buds in whale embryos in creationist terms? Are you saying the pelvis contracts? Do you have empirical evidence for your answer or are you just making assertions in line with your beliefs? Fairly treating the data? And yet you advocate "creationist science" with its inherently and indisputably predefined conclusions as a valid form of scientific investigation? Isn't that a tad hypocritical........?