Haeckel in Biology Textbooks

I do not believe Haeckel did this, in his own words:

quote:

---

Many naturalists have especially blamed the diagrammatic figures given in Anthropogeny. Certain technical embryologists have brought most severe accusations against me on this account, and have advised me to substitute a large number of elaborated figures, as accurate as possible. I, however, consider that diagrams are much instructive than such figures, especially in popular scientific works. For each simple diagrammatic figure gives only those essential form-features which it is intended to explain, and omits all those unessential details which in finished, exact figures, generally rather disturb and confuse then instruct and explain. The more complex are the form-features, the do simple diagrams help to make them intelligible. For this reason, the few diagrammatic figures, simple and rough as they were, with which Baer half a century ago accompanied his well-known "History of the Evolution of Animals," have been more serviceable in rendering the matter intelligible than all the numerous and very careful figures, elaborated with the aid of camera lucida, which now adorn the splendid and costly atlases of His, Goette and others. If it is said that my diagrammatic figures are "inaccurate", and a charge of "falsifying science" is brought against me, this is equally true of all the very numerous diagrams which are daily used in teaching. All diagrammatic figures are "inaccurate".
  —Earnst Haeckel

---

(From the preface to the third edition of The Evolution of Man, vol. 1)To the best of my knowledge, there is not a single feature in Haeckel's drawings that is not present in the real embryos. Haeckel's purpose in "fudging" the drawings was, it seems in the context of his work, not to misleadingly emphasise his case but to show the features clearly to those not familiar with looking at biological organisms.And, frankly, I don't find this unreasonable. It's pretty much standard practice when explaining anything to use diagrams that omit extraneous detail to the point you're making, no-one is going to look a this diagram and complain it's "fudged": yet it is further from reality than Haeckel's drawings.

He did it because fiction worked better than fact could have. The facts don't support the story. He seemed to have been desparate to have other people believe what he wanted to believe and he liked evolution as an explanation for life a LOT!! The earliest stages are not most similar, that is the point, so his embryological 'discoveries' were not discoveries at all, they were fraud and deception trying to prove a non-existant point -how can that later become supportive of the theory? Some quote from Darwin that Haeckel's embryos constituted the best evidence for his theory at a particular point -can't find the quote but have heard it often. It is NOT true.Haeckel's story is not true.Evolutionists sure can fool themselves -the story is fraudulent so they just change it to carry on believing in any case. Evolutionists don't mind, there is very little that would or could convince them that evolution is not true. We, on the other hand, keep pointing out the many fraudulent and pure rubbish stories that have been used to convince people of the 'truth' of evolution over the past century plus. This is only one of many.

I have pulled out the first textbook that I could find. It is new. It has Haeckel's embryos in it. It may not call them Haeckel's embryos but it still clearly shows the earliest stages as being the most similar.Haeckel's fraud lives on. Edited by Beretta, : Incomplete

That's because - gasp - they are.Really, if you're going to criticise science textbooks you should bother to learn some science first.

People who lie generally have good excuses for why they did it -it's called justification. It is supposed to turn them from a liar into a person with an excuse for doing what they did.

Am I to understand, then, that you have no actual answer to his reasoning?

Could you indulge us by telling us which textbook, by which publisher, in which year? Are you sure they are Haeckel's embryos? Maybe they are, but they may also be modern reworkings of their style to correct the problems with the originals. An example of this kind of thing would be in the Miller and Levine book where they have these rather stylised pictures, in a style similar to Haeckel but rendered from photographs.

If you are an honest campaigner against people exaggerating to make their points, why are you exaggerating to make yours? The I.D. people use schematic drawings of bacterial flagella to make their point of design. The drawings are designs by humans, and look like little designed machines, but photographs of these flagella do not resemble the drawings or machines to the human eye at all. The drawings and models used are far more radically divorced from reality than Haeckel's diagrams.The schematics are illustrations to show how the flagella function a bit like our motors, and this kind of thing is standard practice. It's no good Wells and his cronies using the technique of explanatory illustration (perfectly valid), then complaining at its use by Haeckel or anyone else.

As Dr. Jack and others have been telling you, this is wrong. The earliest stages of embryonic development are the most similar across species. The precise period during which they're most similar is called the phylotypic stage, described here in the textbook Principles of Developmental Biology: You can see why it almost has to be this way if you think about it for a minute. Would it make sense to you if chicken and human embryos started out very different and became more and more similar during development? Of course not. I can't find the quote either, but I found something that mentions it at the National Center for Science Education's website, see Haeckel's Embryos. Jonathan Wells evidently quoted from the sixth and last edition of Darwin's Origin of Species where Darwin laud's Hackel for his work on phylogeny, not embryology. The book predates Haeckel's embryological work by a number of years but has a chapter noting the similarity of embryos across species in early development stages. Also, Darwin's Descent of Man contains two embryological drawings, neither from Haeckel.But this is all just trying to set the record straight. Independent of Darwin's opinions on Haeckel's embryo work, the earlier stages of embryonic development *are* more similar across species than later ones. I don't know where your error in thinking the opposite comes from, but error it clearly is.--Percy

I'm curious. Do you actually deny that embryos of different species at earliest stages look like each other? Because for one thing they actually are pretty darn similar to each other at the earliest stages. So, are you lying for jesus or just playing dumb?

No, once again, that is not what he was doing. He was fraudulently representing the earliest stages of embryonic development as the most similar and again, this is not true. The midstages are the most similar -so he lied, selected only those cases that supported his case and represented the midstages as the early stages.Even Olsen in Flock of Dodos concedes that the drawings are fraudulent, but he states on camera that "you don’t find them" in recent textbooks as evidence for Darwinian evolution.So what if they are fraudulent, you won't find them in the textbooks in any case. But you do. So they are fraudulent and found in extremely recent textbooks still. I have found the Haeckel's embryo fraudulent scenario in a 2007 textbook -how more recent would you like it? If they are acknowledged as fraud -see my earlier quotes by embryologists as well as Olsen's admission along with his disclaimer that anyone uses them anymore, and add to that Gould's admission that they can only be called fraudulent and you have fraud and deception.
To say that it is only because the drawings were simplified misses the point -the earliest stages are NOT most similar -which was the point of the drawings.

They are not most similar in the earliest stages as Haeckel clearly said they were -they are clearly distinguishable and only become more similar in the midstages. Are you playing dumb or are you deceived OR are you lying for the cause of evolution and it's propogation as truth?

Charles Darwin thought that "by far the strongest" evidence that humans and fish are descended from a common ancestor was the striking similarity of their early embryos. According to Darwin, the fact that "the embryos of the most distinct species belonging to the same class are closely similar, but become, when fully developed, widely dissimilar . reveals community of descent."
But you're right, Haeckel only developed his fraud later to illustrate the point. It would not make sense if evolution were true; but it happens nonetheless so maybe......evolution is not true?!! No, not true. A quote from your article on developmental biology that says they are most similar during the phylotypic stage rather than during the earlier or later stages of development. So obviously by the reckoning of your own article, the phylotypic stage is not the earliest stage and that is my repeated point.So 1)are you trying to deceive me?
2) Were you hoping I would not read the article?
Or 3) did you not read it yourself?Edited by Beretta, : Incomplete

What textbook? I would be interested to look this up.

If you look at the molecular level and see the way the different proteins function together to make the flagella work, the schematic is illustrating the principle apon which the motor works via the inter-related protein parts.Haeckel lied completely misrepresenting his whole point and making the drawings fit the lie - putting the flagellar motor concept next to Haeckel's fraud is just plain ridiculous.