Haeckeling, trying to wrap it up....

Responding to Message 147: Taking a minor incident and grossly exaggerating its importance does constitute myth making. It still looks to me as if the "significant influence" had to be on embryology, not on evolution. ToE is not a theory of embryology. Therefore evidence on embryo development could not provide more than minor circumstantial evidence in support of ToE.

---

What shall it profit a nation if it gain the whole world, yet lose its own soul.
(paraphrasing Mark 8:36)

Responding to Message 148: If correct, that might be evidence of misrepresentation. But it would not constitute evidence against the theory of evolution.Even if all claims about recapitulation are correct, they would constitute only minor circumstantial evidence in support of evolution. If such claims are all false, then the theory of evolution still stands. So what you are aguing is not evidence against ToE.You said "that present embryology and false claims ...". That's using the present tense. So where is this currently being presented as evidence for evolution?

---

What shall it profit a nation if it gain the whole world, yet lose its own soul.
(paraphrasing Mark 8:36)

Use them for what?If I were to use one of Haeckel's drawings as a avatar, would you claim that doing so refutes ToE?I thought they stopped the Salem witch trials a few hundred years ago. I'm wondering why you are reviving them. And what does this show?I haven't seen Mayr's book. If Mayr used them to misrepresent, then shame on Mayr (but that wouldn't refute ToE). If Mayr used them honestly, then shame on randman. Whose statement, robinrohan's or Richardson's?I don't have any reason to doubt either of them. I'm troubled by the way you are using this for an unwarranted witch hunt.

---

What shall it profit a nation if it gain the whole world, yet lose its own soul.
(paraphrasing Mark 8:36)

In my opinion, you are being dishonest.Here is a rewrite: Sure, the embryologists are likely evos. But by writing that in terms of evos rather than embryologists, you seriously distort what is being said. I have read it several times. More dishonesty. You should have said It seems to me that you are taking an internal debate within embryology, and misrepresenting it as a evolutionists' conspiracy. I'm not an embryologist. I am in no position to judge.What you have is a peer reviewed article by embryologist Richardson criticising the peer reviewed work of several other embryologists. If I had to guess, then I would go with the majority.The Richardson paper is now out there. Over time, others will attempt to replicate his work. It will be either confirmed or refuted. In the meantime, the best advice is to go with the conventional wisdom within the discipline.Either way, this has to do with embryology, not with ToE.

I gave you a completely honest answer, randman. Your problem is that you read everything through your own biases and misconceptions. The reason you refer to evos, is that you are making a thoroughly dishonest attempt to insinuate guilt by association.Older evolution books wrote of recapitulation. Richardson is using "conserved embryonic stage". That sounds like a very unlikely expression to be used in a book on evolution. However, it is right in line with the kind of technical language that embryologists would use.I will say it again. You are taking an internal debate within embryology, and you are deliberately misrepresenting it as malfeasance by evolutionists. Shame on you, randman.

quote:

---

The same post to someone else applies to your post.

​

This idea has been pushed back into the news recently by the news that Haeckel's drawings of embryonic similarities were not correct. British embryologist Michael Richardson and his colleages published an important paper in the August 1997 issue of Anatomy & Embryology showing that Haeckel had fudged his drawings to make the early stages of embryos appear more alike than they actually are! As it turns out, Haeckel's contemporaries had spotted the fraud during his lifetime, and got him to admit it. However, his drawings nonetheless became the source material for diagrams of comparative embryology in nearly every biology textbook, including ours!

​

Haeckel's Embryos

---

What is it that you don't understand about "diagrams of comparative embryology"?The Miller web page clearly states "In 1998 we rewrote page 283 of the 5th edition to better reflect the scientific evidence. Our books now contain accurate drawings of the embryos made from detailed photomicrographs." If this is all part of a bogus argument for evolution, one would expect Miller to remove that argument, rather than replace the drawings with more accurate ones. I don't have Miller's book, but it sure looks as if this is from a discussion of comparative embryology.

---

What shall it profit a nation if it gain the whole world, yet lose its own soul.
(paraphrasing Mark 8:36)

Richardson's comments and Miller's comments are about the use of the drawings in comparitive embryology.

Why are you misrepresenting what they say, randman?

You say that they are in the books as evidence for evolution.If I have time, and if I remember, I might check some day. But without checking, I have no evidence of your assertion.As I already said in Message 7, evidence on embryo development could not provide more than minor circumstantial evidence in support of ToE. So with respect to evolution this is a silly issue. At worst, it is a tempest in a teapot. And maybe Miller is actually correct in saying that the diagrams are being used for comparitive embryology. I happen to believe that honesty is important. I refuse to "admit" what I do not know to be true.

Shame on you randman, for repeatedly pressuring me to "admit" what I do not know to be true.

No, they quite clearly DO NOT say that.They talk of "an early stage that resembles a fish embryo", of "fish-like" early stages, of stages that are "rather similar to those found in living fishes". But they never say "fish stage" in the material that you quote.Fish-like or similar to fish, is far weaker than "fish stage" would be. You are again misconstruing what is being said. No, it isn't interesting. It is FALSE.Firstly, they are saying "fish-like" and not claiming that there is a fish stage. Secondly, that's a web page on the genetic control of development. It is NOT being used as evidence for evolution.

---

What shall it profit a nation if it gain the whole world, yet lose its own soul.
(paraphrasing Mark 8:36)

All that says, is that you are using "fish-like" to mean something different from what Levine means. Your argument has been thorougly debunked in this thread, randman. You are just too blind to see it. That only shows that you are WRONG, randman. Evolution is being used to explain genetic control of embryonic development.

Embryonic development IS NOT being used as evidence for evolution.