|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Haeckeling, trying to wrap it up.... | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
randman  Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: |
Often, I am accused of misrepresenting the facts on the use of Haeckel's work. This proposed topic is to help clarify the issue, and hopefully see it resolved.
My point here is that Haeckel's diagrams were relied on by evos in their studies, research, textbooks and peer-reviewed work, at least until 1997. The topic is thus very narrowly defined in order to try to get some resolutions on this one point. This is taken from a 1997 peer-review study by an evo.
Another point to emerge from this study is the considerable inaccuracy of Haeckel’s famous figures. These drawings are still widely reproduced in textbooks and review articles, and continue to exert a significant influence on the development of ideas in this field (Wolpert 1991; Alberts et al. 1994; Duboule 1994). MK Rich Ardson - MK Blog Rich Richardson claims Haeckel's drawings up to 1997 exerted a significant influence "in this field" of scientific research, not just for textbooks, but that evos took the diagrams as accurate in peer-reviewed article as well. It's not just that the textbooks were out of date, but evos themselves were wrong here. The textbooks were actually in agreement with mainstream idea in that field.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
randman  Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: |
So robin, you not only agree that Haeckel's claims and drawings were used and widely relied on (the topic of the OP) until the late 90s, but that some evos still do?
Is that your point? In other words, let's settle the issue once and for all whether evos used Haeckel's diagrams and claims of a single phylotypic stage until at least the late 90s, or not. OK? This message has been edited by randman, 12-12-2005 06:15 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
randman  Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: |
So just want to make it clear. You do think evos rely and use Haeckel's drawings, right?
That's the topic of the thread. Just want to get something nailed down here. Evos use Haeckel's drawings and claims in their books, peer-review articles, textbooks, classes, research, etc,... Yes or no?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
randman  Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: |
This thread is about trying to get you guys to admit or deny a basic fact; that evos do use Haeckel's drawings and claims, at least to the late 90s.
Robinrohan has kindly pointed out that Mayr used the drawings in his 2001 book. The idea here is that we get this settled on whether the drawings were widely used as Richardson stated (see OP). You think his statement is right or wrong?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
randman  Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: |
Do you believe the drawings were used widely by evos until the late 1990s, or not?
I agree that they were denounced as fakes, but that did not stop evos from widely publishing the fakes and the false claims, until the false claims became accepted fact among evos of later generations. It's called myth-making, and that's what we have here. But back to the OP: can you make a stand admitting the drawings and claims were widely used, used in nearly every introductory textbook at the college level, used in peer-review articles, etc,....? We can deal with whether they are really fakes. I am getting tired of you guys claiming first they were not widely used though known to be wrong, or trying to switch and claim they are valid. Take a stand. Were they widely used as Richardson admitted in 1997, or not? Yes or no, please.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
randman  Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: |
You claimed you had Haeckel as evidence against the theory of evolution. Wrong. I claim and it is true that evos used and still use, it seems, Haeckel's false claims as evidence for evolution. The purpose of this thread is to discuss whether or not Haeckel's drawings were widely used until the late 1990s. We can open another thread after this one to discuss the implications of this fact, but for now, let's just see if we can get some concensus on this. Did evos widely use and rely on Haeckel's drawings until the late 1990s, if not presently, or not? Yes or no will do, please.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
randman  Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: |
of course it seems that most if not all of the examples you gave are discussing the Haeckel figure in historical context, and/or point out specifically where it is flawed. Uh, wrong. I have given absolutely no examples of evos using Haeckel's drawings strictly in a historical context except mentioning robinrohan's citation of Mayr which you seem to challenge. Richardson stated in 1997 that evos still used Haeckel's set of drawings and his claim widely at that time, not for historical analysis but as factual claims. He says that evos relied on Haeckel's claims of a phylotypic stage without further substantation, and that evos habitually published Haeckel's drawings in textbooks to validate those claims. Was he right or not? Please answer. A simple yes or no answer will do.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
randman  Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: |
Use them for what? Richardson clearly states that evos relied on Haeckel's claims of a phylotypic stage without further citations, and states that evos publicized widely Haeckel's drawings to validate that concept well into the 1990s. Why don't you read the quote and the link in the OP? This is taken from a 1997 peer-review study by an evo.
Another point to emerge from this study is the considerable inaccuracy of Haeckel’s famous figures. These drawings are still widely reproduced in textbooks and review articles, and continue to exert a significant influence on the development of ideas in this field (Wolpert 1991; Alberts et al. 1994; Duboule 1994). MK Rich Ardson - MK Blog Rich Do you agree with Richardson's statement or not? This message has been edited by randman, 12-12-2005 10:16 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
randman  Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: |
Ok, we have one straight answer. Ned has his doubts about Richardson's claims in the 1997 study in this area. So we will have a little work to do to see if the references to a phylotypic stage are correct.
Maybe Ned you could look them up since they are cited in the OP? If not, I will be on the road for a few days but maybe can get to them when I get back. Do you also disagree on the references to textbooks widely using them? I would think you'd agree with that since earlier we cited the Brown biology professor who also writes textbooks, make the same claim. This message has been edited by randman, 12-12-2005 10:28 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
randman  Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: |
jar, you are getting ahead of the game. We all know that Haeckel's conclusions were more than questioned but repeatedly referred to as frauds for a very long time.
The issue is that evos relied on his drawings and claims nonetheless.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
randman  Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: |
Please provide a link to the Richardson work, Read the OP. The link is right there. MK Rich Ardson - MK Blog Rich Looking for a straight answer.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
randman  Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: |
They were accepted by mainstream evolutionists, and used in every textbook I know of as evidence for evolution. The fact some few continually pointed out to evos the claims were fraudulent didn't matter to evos. They kept using them.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
randman  Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: |
It's just an isolated line in his discussion, with no elaboration or details. Isolated line? What the heck are you talking about? This is from the first 2 paragraphs of the abstract.
Some authors have suggested that members of most or all vertebrate clades pass through a virtually identical, conserved stage. This idea was promoted by Haeckel, and has recently been revived in the context of claims regarding the universality of developmental mechanisms. Thus embryonic resemblance at the tailbud stage has been linked with a conserved pattern of developmental gene expression - the zootype. However, their accuracy has been questioned and only a narrow range of species was illustrated. In view of thecurrent widespread interest in evolutionary developmental here the first review of the external morphology of tailbud embryos, illustrated with original specimens from a wide range of vertebrate groups. We find .... Contrary to recent claims that all vertebrate embryos pass through a stage when they are the same size, we find a greater than 10-fold variation in greatest length at the tailbud stage. Our survey seriously undermines the credibility of Haeckel’s drawings, which depict not a conserved stage for vertebrates,but a stylised amniote embryo. Note the phrase "recent claims" of a highly conserved stage. Richardson unequivocally lays out that:
Haeckel’s drawings of the external morphology of various vertebrates remain the most comprehensive comparative data purporting to show a conserved stage. That Haeckel is thus used to make "recent claims", and goes on to state that Haeckel's data is wrong. This is the abstract. It's the whole dang paper, not some side point. Look at these comments later in the paper.
Our aim in this paper is to examine the idea that embryos from all or most vertebrate clades pass through a highly conserved stage; and that at this stage their external form is virtually identical. Haeckel’s drawings of embryos at tailbud stages are widely used in support of this hypothesis. And here:
The idea of a phylogenetically conserved stage has regained popularity in recent years. It has been claimed that all vertebrate embryos pass through a conserved stage when they are the same size (Collins 1995). And this is the kicker:
One puzzling feature of the debate in this field is that while many authors have written of a conserved embryonic stage, no one has cited any comparative data in support of the idea. It is almost as though the phylotypic stage is regarded as a biological concept for which no proof is needed. MK Rich Ardson - MK Blog Rich Let me repeat that. "It's almost as though the phylotypic stage is regarded as a biological concept for which no proof is needed". Need anyone say more? This message has been edited by randman, 12-12-2005 10:49 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
randman  Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: |
Just can't give an honest and straight answer, can you?
The reason I refer to evos is Haeckel's drawings were generally used as one of the main evidences for evolution. Since evos made that claim to back their theory, dating all the way back to Darwin until the 1990s, it is not inappropiate to refer to evos making that claim.
One puzzling feature of the debate in this field is that while many authors have written of a conserved embryonic stage, no one has cited any comparative data in support of the idea. It is almost as though the phylotypic stage is regarded as a biological concept for which no proof is needed. MK Rich Ardson - MK Blog Rich Let me repeat that. "It's almost as though the phylotypic stage is regarded as a biological concept for which no proof is needed". Need anyone say more? This message has been edited by randman, 12-12-2005 10:54 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
randman  Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: |
Could you show me where Richardson says this? I can't seem to find it. Sure. Try reading THE OP.
These drawings are still widely reproduced in textbooks and review articles, and continue to exert a significant influence on the development of ideas in this field (Wolpert 1991; Alberts et al. 1994; Duboule 1994). What do you think "widely reproduced in textbooks" means? Please note the context here is reproducing the drawings and claims as evidence for a phylotypic stage, which the drawings reportedly show, which evos relied in in their review articles and textbooks.
Some authors have suggested that members of most or all vertebrate clades pass through a virtually identical, conserved stage. This idea was promoted by Haeckel, and has recently been revived in the context of claims regarding the universality of developmental mechanisms. Thus embryonic resemblance at the tailbud stage has been linked with a conserved pattern of developmental gene expression - the zootype. However, their accuracy has been questioned and only a narrow range of species was illustrated. In view of thecurrent widespread interest in evolutionary developmental here the first review of the external morphology of tailbud embryos, illustrated with original specimens from a wide range of vertebrate groups. We find .... Contrary to recent claims that all vertebrate embryos pass through a stage when they are the same size, we find a greater than 10-fold variation in greatest length at the tailbud stage. Our survey seriously undermines the credibility of Haeckel’s drawings, which depict not a conserved stage for vertebrates,but a stylised amniote embryo. Note the phrase "recent claims" of a highly conserved stage. Richardson unequivocally lays out that:
Haeckel’s drawings of the external morphology of various vertebrates remain the most comprehensive comparative data purporting to show a conserved stage. That Haeckel is thus used to make "recent claims", and goes on to state that Haeckel's data is wrong. This is the abstract. It's the whole dang paper, not some side point. Look at these comments later in the paper.
Our aim in this paper is to examine the idea that embryos from all or most vertebrate clades pass through a highly conserved stage; and that at this stage their external form is virtually identical. Haeckel’s drawings of embryos at tailbud stages are widely used in support of this hypothesis. And here:
The idea of a phylogenetically conserved stage has regained popularity in recent years. It has been claimed that all vertebrate embryos pass through a conserved stage when they are the same size (Collins 1995). And this is the kicker:
One puzzling feature of the debate in this field is that while many authors have written of a conserved embryonic stage, no one has cited any comparative data in support of the idea. It is almost as though the phylotypic stage is regarded as a biological concept for which no proof is needed. MK Rich Ardson - MK Blog Rich Let me repeat that. "It's almost as though the phylotypic stage is regarded as a biological concept for which no proof is needed". This message has been edited by randman, 12-12-2005 11:00 PM
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024