Why Lie? (Re: Evolution frauds and hoaxes)

quote:

---

Don't you think Haeckel's forgeries and their influence via the false concept of the biogenetic law would have to be the longest running forgery?

---

Not at all, since Haeckel's embryos and his belief that "ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny" was discarded as early as 1909. Haeckel believed that evolution could only craft new biological elements on the tail end of development. Not so! This was the theory that was discarded, since we do know that evolutionary changes can affect a creature at any point in development.What was retained, however, became modern embryology and more up-to-date knowledge about embryos and their role in understanding evolution. For example, even mammalian embryos have a non-functional yolk sac... this only really makes sense when you account for the fact that it was retained from their reptilian ancestry.Here's a few sources:Haeckel's EmbryosWells and Haeckel's Embryos

There are two points you seem to be making here: First, you're arguing that modern scientists have retained bad, outdated science from Haeckel, and that this bad, outdated science is still being taught in schools.On the first point: when Haeckel first made the argument that "ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny" he meant that as organisms develop the embryo would go through a fish stage, then an amphibian stage, then a reptilian stage, then to the mammalian stage. This idea has been rejected for decades.However, the more basic point is that embryos have features that are retained from ancestral forms... and this indeed is correct (see the yolk sac example I gave above).On the second point, here's PZ Meyers' review of the Campbell biology textbook on the matter:

quote:

---

I found nothing in what Campbell has written which is objectionable. He begins with the point that "Closely related organisms go through similar stages in their embryonic development", and illustrates that with a photograph of an avian and mammalian embryo. This statement is correct, and the figure backs up the point. He ends the section by explicitly correcting Haeckel's ideas, saying that "The theory of recapitulation is an overstatement. Although vertebrates share many features of embryonic development, it is not as though a mammal first goes through a 'fish stage', then an 'amphibian stage', and so on. Ontogeny can provide clues to phylogeny, but it is important to remember that all stages of development may become modified over the course of evolution." This is entirely correct. I do not see any errors of fact in Campbell's treatment of the subject, although I do think it is unfortunate that so little space can be spared for it.

---

Ken Miller, one of the scientists who worked on the Miller and Levine biology textbook, also argued the point that Haeckel was wrong and used a proper example of ancestral remnants found in embryos. So no, it looks like the major textbooks do not repeat Haeckel's error. The scientific community as a whole would not like to see the public misinformed on the matter... if high school biology teachers do still maintain Haeckel's position (and honestly I wonder why they would... it's a rather bizarre proposition) it's their problem, not the problem of the science.If you still want to refer to this as a "watered-down" form of Haeckel's theory, at least take into account the fact that good science is retained and bad science is rejected. This is the way science in general is done (after all, we went through something like four models of the atom before we got to the current model, discarding bad elements and retaining good ones), and it can't be legitimately used as a targeted criticism against evolution.

quote:

---

Additionally, the idea that the yolk sac is non-functional is wrong and discredits the claim Darwinism promotes better science, as we have a history of things erroroneously declared non-functional due to evos wanting to find evidence for their ideas.

​

http://ajpendo.physiology.org/cgi/content/full/282/3/E721

​

Btw, human embryos don't have gill slits either.....just to head off the usual argument.

---

I don't understand what your point is here... the yolk sac having coopted a role in the exchange of calcium between mother and fetus is a wonderful example of a vestigial organ.I suppose it's my fault for saying that the yolk sac is nonfunctional though... most vestigial structures still have a very subtle function, but it is a function far removed from its original use.EDIT: I'll have to dig through my anatomy books again, but IIRC while human embryos don't have gill slits, the same structures in embryos that develop into gill slits in fish instead develop into the bones of the inner ear in humans. Again, a wonderful example of cooption of an organ.Edited by BeagleBob, : Addressing another point.

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?

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?

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.

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?

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.

quote:

---

Now I know this tract is not scientific, but I went and looked up a Jack Chick tract and it appears identical to the one I read in the 80s. I don't want to discuss the details of it, but take note that one part mentions Haeckel's data being faked. Now, of course, this isn't science, but it demonstrates that claiming Haeckel faked his data has been standard creationist criticism for some time, even on a low level such as Jack Chick material.

​

Chick.com: Big Daddy?

​

This book was published in the 80s and contained criticism that Haeckel faked his data. The author also publicly debated this issue quite a bit.

---

Creationists have also written books claiming that "evolutionists need to stop using Piltdown Man as an example of evolution" even now, but that doesn't make it true that evolutionary biologists still appeal to Piltdown Man. Just because Creationists keep writing books about controversies that were resolved long ago doesn't mean those controversies still exist.

Richardson and Keuck seem to be using Haeckel in a historical context, and are clearly distinguishing Haeckel's incorrect view from modern embryology:"Throughout the article, we consider how Haeckel's work has influence modern scientific ideas about evolution and development, and examine Haeckel's theories in the light of contemporary and recent work. We identify criticisms of Haeckel's work based on legitimate scientific concerns, and try to distinguish them from confusion and ambivalence arising from a misunderstanding of the primary sources or scientific issues." (p498)
.
.
.
Richardson and Keuck DO display Haeckel's original diagrams, but they do so while pointing out the flaws, inconsistencies, and artifacts. R&K are pointing out the instances of fraud, not supporting them:"Fig. 1... Mid-somite embryos, supposedly of dog, chicken, and turtle... The woodcuts are identical, sharing the same irregularities in the somite series [e.g. boxed area, added by us]." (p497)"Fig. 2... The early chick embryo is possibly copied from Erdl and resembles the chick in the middle row of Haeckel's Anthropogenie plate IV." (p498)"Fig. 3... The pictures contain many anomalies." (p499)
.
.
.
R&K maintain that while Haeckel's specific views of tail-end development are rejected, the use of embryology to study evolutionary history is still legitimate, which is very much true. They also point out that Haeckel's fraud shouldn't sour modern biologists, and they shouldn't close their minds to an embryological approach:"A common view is that, although Haeckelian views have been rejected, there is nonetheless some degree of parallelism between ontogeny and phylogeny... Over-reaction " (p501)
.
.
.
It does sound like R&K are a little frustrated that some sources are rather vague on the issue, and fail to be more specific on certain issues. I think the Guttman quote is what you're talking about, but I'd have to see it in context:"Thus, Guttman (1999: p. 718) gives an unusual form of recapitulation which envisages ontogeny as a series of recapitulated ancestral embryonic forms." (p502)
.
.
.
This is as far as I can get for now. I've got an experiment running.

quote:

---

Evos are claiming that Haeckel's drawings are "evidence for evolution" so in fact, they are indeed trying to use faked data as evidence. If you notice the quotes, you'd see that despite creationists and perhaps others detailing Haeckel's fraud from the 1800s until this very day, evos have continued to try to use the fraudulent data during that whole time.

​

As criticism becomes more intense (the internet helped), evos tend to back off but as we see in the 2002 paper, it's typically only a few short years before they are back at it again, trying to promote the biogenetic law in some form or another.

---

Please look at the post I wrote, #193. Just a cursory look at it shows that the 2002 paper you posted rejects Haeckel's theory. From what I've read of it, the only confusion between Haeckel and modern embryology that really crops up seems to be in a high school textbook rather than in scientific papers, which is tragic but has nothing to do with the science behind it.Haeckel was wrong, but the idea of shared developmental paths is a legitimate one... after all, a mammalian species isn't going to rewrite its entire developmental structure when it evolves from a reptilian species.

quote:

---

Really? How can you say this when the 2002 paper states the opposite, namely that Haeckel's drawings are "evidence for evolution"?

​

Is it your contention that faked data is acceptable as scientific evidence?

---

Richardson and Keuck DO display Haeckel's original diagrams, but they do so while pointing out the flaws, inconsistencies, and artifacts. R&K are pointing out the instances of fraud, not supporting them. R&K are also using Haeckel's sketches to make a historical point and contrast it with genuine embryological science:"Fig. 1... Mid-somite embryos, supposedly of dog, chicken, and turtle... The woodcuts are identical, sharing the same irregularities in the somite series [e.g. boxed area, added by us]." (p497)"Fig. 2... The early chick embryo is possibly copied from Erdl and resembles the chick in the middle row of Haeckel's Anthropogenie plate IV." (p498)"Fig. 3... The pictures contain many anomalies." (p499)The 2002 paper in no way supports Haeckel's original drawings or his original theory. The 2002 paper cites Haeckel to contrast his work against real embryological science.It's not an endorsement on their part, it's a criticism. This is the second time I've had to repeat myself.

quote:

---

Ramoss, despite their admitting that the data was faked, they nonetheless claim the data is "evidence for evolution."

​

How do you explain that?

---

I would explain that by saying the preservation of ancestral development stages is a legitimate field of inquiry in evolutionary biology.For example, the human body is divided into bands along its length, dermatomes, which mimic the segmentation of annelid ancestors. This feature is shared by pretty most animals that evolved from annelids.All scientists are doing is applying this same logic to certain features of the embryo. Where's the fraud in that?

quote:

---

Here is where they do that for those that are just jumping in here.

---

And in the very next section, the writers argue that "While some criticisms of the drawings are legitimate, others are tendentious." Which is perfectly fine... don't throw the baby out of the bathwater so to speak, and don't abandon the embryological analysis of evolution just because Haeckel screwed up one approach to it.

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.

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?