Haeckeling, trying to wrap it up....

Sure. Try reading THE OP. 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. Note the phrase "recent claims" of a highly conserved stage. Richardson unequivocally lays out that: 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. And here: And this is the kicker: MK Rich Ardson - MK Blog RichLet 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

Need anyone say more than "almost as though"?Sure.

---

Save lives! Click here!
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC!

How many times does this need to be shown, repeated, etc,...for you to acknowledge it?

It is an isolated line. An isolated line about the use of the diagrams in textbooks, with no mention of it being used as evidence for evolution. It is the only mention of textbooks in the whole paper. Isn't that whole point of this discussion? Whether or not Haeckel's fraud was being used/taught as evidence for evolution?Given the rest of your post, which is a strawman argument, it seems that you are much more interested in discussing Haeckel's influence on embryology than evolution.Let's be clear about what the Richardson paper is: It is an embryology paper resting on the foundation of evolution, and NOT an evolution paper resting on the foundation of embryology.You've got the direction of your evidence ass-backwards.

Richardson's paper is about: MK Rich Ardson - MK Blog RichIs that so hard to understand? Haeckel's drawings were illustrations of this claim. They were used in textbooks and by evos in their peer-review work. They were wrong. There is no highly conserved embryonic stage.The study lays out the claim that this is had been claimed in textbooks and in peer-review work, RECENTLY (as of 1997), and so the study is there to see if the underlying data used to make these claims is right, and the underlying data is Haeckel's work.You want to know one reason they probably decided to look at the data?It could have something to do with creationists printing books, articles, web articles, and doing classes and seminars across the nation showing that the drawings were fakes.This message has been edited by randman, 12-12-2005 11:15 PM

Yes, we've all read the OP, Rand, give that crap a rest. Sorry, Rand, that quote cannot be reasonably paraphrased as "evos habitually published Haeckel's drawings in textbooks to validate those claims."1. No mention of evolution or "evos."2. No description of the purposes to which those drawing were put in either textbook or journal.3. No quantification of "widely" or for that matter any support for its use.4. No assessment of how the drawings were addressed in the vaguely referred to texts.They are not equivalent statements, Rand. You have added your own nasty spin to arrive at that paraphrase, and you cannot even see the difference.The assertions you are relying on most don't say what you claim they say, and they are the most generalized, unsupported assertions in the article. You see, it's not just creationists whose unsupported assertions one must be wary of, eh?I see that there are 72 citations for this article in Google scholar. Did you look at any of those, Rand? If not, why not? If the article has been refuted in any significant part, wouldn't that make you guilty of perpetuating a fraud when you could simply have looked to see? You didn't, did you? Need I say more?BTW, have you stopped beating your wife? Yes or no? Can't give a simple honest answer, can you?

---

Save lives! Click here!
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC!

randman asks:

quote:

---

So just want to make it clear. You do think evos rely and use Haeckel's drawings, right?

---

Wrong.At least, not the ones you're referring to.Haeckel was trying to justify his claim of "ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny." It turns out that he had it backwards: Phylogeny recapitulates ontogeny.Haeckel's investigation into embryology is extremely important and the work that he did is invaluable. Yes, he committed fraud in his drawings and was in error concerning the conclusion he was trying to justify.But only someone who thinks in black-and-white, all-or-nothing terms would claim that this is a reason to throw everything out. We often see this in creationists and other fundamentalists who seem to think that if even a single word of the Bible is in error, that means the entire thing is worthless.In science, however, we are willing to try and salvage good work out of the wreckage of the bad.

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

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.

What are your claims? I am just trying to get you to take a stance here. Are you saying these drawings were not used in presenting evidence for evolution widely or habitually in textbooks?This guy disagrees with you. Haeckel's EmbryosJust so you know who the author above is: Why not just admit the truth? That Haeckel's drawings were "the source material" for evolutionist's embryonic claims in textbooks, and worse than that, in peer-reviewed work.The Brown biology professor admits it. He says that although revealed as frauds, they nonetheless became the source material for evos "in nearly every biology textbook".Can't you admit that? Didn't you yourself have the same drawings presented to you when you were taught evolution in college and high school, if not before?

The same post to someone else applies to your post. Haeckel's EmbryosJust so you know who the author above is: Why not just admit the truth? That Haeckel's drawings were "the source material" for evolutionist's embryonic claims in textbooks, and worse than that, in peer-reviewed work.The Brown biology professor admits it. He says that although revealed as frauds, they nonetheless became the source material for evos "in nearly every biology textbook".Can't you admit that? Didn't you yourself have the same drawings presented to you when you were taught evolution in college and high school, if not before?

I agree, but the point of the OP is to see if evos were still relying on Haeckel's drawings as the source material for their embryonic claims of a phylotypic stage, which is what the drawings purport to show, and Richardson says they were.Do you think evos were still relying on Haeckel's drawings as source material?How about for textbooks?

YOU ARE WRONG, AND YOU MISREPRESENT WHAT RICHARDSON STATES.Richardson states that THE FIGURES were used, NOT THE CLAIM.You have not established THE CONTEXT in which THE FIGURES were used.It is all about CONTEXT, since these are HISTORICALLY and FRAUDULENTLY important FIGURES. YOU MISREPRESENT AGAIN.Or perhaps you are so obtuse you cannot tell the difference between "embryology" and "evolution" - they are both pretty long words, and they do both begin with the letter E.Let's be clear about what the Richardson paper is: It is an embryology paper resting on the foundation of evolution, and NOT an evolution paper resting on the foundation of embryology.

Sigh. Do you read any of the quotes?The title of the paper is: The subject is the claim of a phylotypic stage, and the paper basically attacks Haeckel's claims in this regard because Haeckel is what people are relying on.This is from the abstract. MK Rich Ardson - MK Blog RichThey mention Haeckel's data in the abstract and throughout the paper because Haeckel is the source material for evos regarding this claim.Here is how a Brown university professor described the paper's claims. Haeckel's EmbryosJust so you know who the author above is: Is it clear now?This message has been edited by randman, 12-12-2005 11:37 PM

What were the "evolutionist's embryonic claims" in Miller's textbook?Say, those pictures look kinda similar...do you think there's some common descent there?BTW, have you stopped beating your wife?

---

Save lives! Click here!
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC!

First, are you admitting that Haeckel's drawings were the source material for textbooks, or not?