|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Haeckeling, trying to wrap it up.... | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
randman  Suspended Member (Idle past 4926 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 4926 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 9003 From: Canada Joined: |
It is beginning to appear that Richardson may have been wrong or overstating the case.
There doesn't seem to have been much made available to support what he says. I took it at face value at first but there doesn't seem to be much to support it. ABE It seems to me that the "significant influence" is clearly wrong. I'd have to see that spelled out. This message has been edited by NosyNed, 12-12-2005 10:18 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
pink sasquatch Member (Idle past 6049 days) Posts: 1567 Joined: |
Uh, wrong. I have given absolutely no examples of evos using Haeckel's drawings strictly in a historical context I didn't say "strictly in a historical context". I said "in historical context, and/or point out specifically where it is flawed." Thanks for refuting a strawman.
except mentioning robinrohan's citation of Mayr which you seem to challenge. I gave you the three contexts in which Haeckel was mentioned: 1. as founder of a separate field2. as a fraud 3. as dead wrong Does it sound to you like Mayr's text is guilty of what you claim?
Was he right or not? Please answer. A simple yes or no answer will do. Haeckel was wrong.Richardson was wrong, going strictly from your interpretation. Until you provide better substantiation, you are wrong. Please provide a link to the Richardson work, as well as to your examples of recent misuse of Haeckel in texts, so that I can give you a more reasonable answer.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 421 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Actually, according to the link provided by randman, Haeckels conclusions were questioned as early as 1894 by Sedgwick.
see the last paragraph of the link showing page 92. Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
randman  Suspended Member (Idle past 4926 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 4926 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 4926 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 421 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
If they were questioned and repeatedly referred to as frauds for a very long time then it's a non-issue. DOA.
Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
randman  Suspended Member (Idle past 4926 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
pink sasquatch Member (Idle past 6049 days) Posts: 1567 Joined: |
Crap, randman.
I thought you were posting Richardson's summary of some sort of textbook survey. It's just an isolated line in his discussion, with no elaboration or details. I'll dissect the Richardson text you continually quote:
Another point to emerge from this study is the considerable inaccuracy of Haeckel’s famous figures. Known for over a hundred years. I don't know that you've gotten too much disagreement on this point. A non-issue.
These drawings are still widely reproduced in textbooks and review articles, Again, no argument. A non-issue. Books that cover the intersect of evolution and embryology would be incomplete without these drawings. It's all about context.
and continue to exert a significant influence on the development of ideas in this field (Wolpert 1991; Alberts et al. 1994; Duboule 1994). Of course. Haeckel and his diagram began the field, so of course they exert a significant influence on the field. They even served as the foundation of the Richardson, et.al. paper itself. I don't see how Richardson supports your claims, except when you overstate and misconstrue.
Do you agree with Richardson's statement or not? Yes, but I don't agree with what you claim it states.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6412 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 4.5 |
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.
In my opinion, you are being dishonest. Here is a rewrite:
Richardson clearly states that embryologists relied on Haeckel's claims of a phylotypic stage without further citations, and states that embryologists publicized widely Haeckel's drawings to validate that concept well into the 1990s.
Sure, the embryologists are likely evos. But by writing that in terms of evos rather than embryologists, you seriously distort what is being said.
Why don't you read the quote and the link in the OP?
I have read it several times.
This is taken from a 1997 peer-review study by an evo. More dishonesty. You should have said
This is taken from a 1997 peer-review study by an embryologist.
It seems to me that you are taking an internal debate within embryology, and misrepresenting it as a evolutionists' conspiracy.
Do you agree with Richardson's statement or not?
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
randman  Suspended Member (Idle past 4926 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Omnivorous Member Posts: 3990 From: Adirondackia Joined: Member Rating: 6.9 |
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. Could you show me where Richardson says this? I can't seem to find it. I understand you would like to confine this thread to a "have you stopped beating your wife, yes or no" kind of question, but that ain't gonna happen. I want to see the passage from the article that can be fairly paraphrased as "evos habitually published Haeckel's drawings in textbooks to validate those claims." I don't think you can produce it. Save lives! Click here! Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
randman  Suspended Member (Idle past 4926 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
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024