Randman, can we settle once and for all that Haeckel's 19th century drawings were spotted as partial fakes almost immediately--by contemporaneous scientists, not by modern creationists--and that the debate over the evolutionary and embryologic developmental principles continues? Because that is what your citation describes.
I thought you were going to show how Haeckel's drawings have been nearly universally used without quibble by evolutionists from the day they first appeared. Your cited journal article says otherwise:
Haeckel’s ideas soon came in for strong criticism. His
drawings are also highly inaccurate, exaggerating the
similarities among embryos, while failing to show the
differences (Sedgwick 1894; Richardson 1995; Raff
1996). Sedgwick (1894) argued that even closely related
species of vertebrates can be told apart at all stages of
development, but that the distinguishing characters are
not necessarily the same as those used to distinguish
among adults. Lillie (1919) argued that embryos show as
much proportional variation as adult stages, but that
adults look more divergent because of differential growth
and an increase in size and complexity of organisation.
The idea that embryonic stages are more resistant than
other stages to evolutionary change was criticised by de
Beer (1951). Summarising more than a century of comparative
embryology studies he concluded:
. there are no grounds for the view that an organism as it develops
passes through systematic categories of differing ”values’, or
of differing degrees of estrangement from organisms of other
groups. (de Beer 1951).
The idea of a phylogenetically conserved stage has regained
popularity in recent years.
The picture I get is one of a debate that began in 1874, a debate that continues in altered form today. I would be curious to follow citations of this article forward to see if it has as thoroughly settled the debate as its authors believe it has.
Interestingly, the article concludes (emphasis added):
These modifications of embryonic development are difficult
to reconcile with the idea that most or all vertebrate
clades pass through an embryonic stage that is highly resistant
to evolutionary change. This idea is implicit in
Haeckel’s drawings, which have been used to substantiate
two quite distinct claims. First, that differences between
species typically become more apparent at late
stages. Second, that vertebrate embryos are virtually
identical at earlier stages. This first claim is clearly true.
Our survey, however, does not support the second claim,
and instead reveals considerable variability - and evolutionary
lability - of the tailbud stage, the purported phylotypic
stage of vertebrates. We suggest that not all developmental
mechanisms are highly constrained by conserved
developmental mechanisms such as the zootype.
Embryonic stages may be key targets for macroevolutionary
change.
...suggesting that embryologic studies promise to further our understanding of evolution, not falsify it.
Finally, I see two significant mentions of textbooks:
There has been no textbook of descriptive comparative embryology
in English, covering all the major vertebrate groups, for over 70 years (Jenkinson 1913; Kerr 1919).
Clearly this field has not been a hotbed of evolutionary scheming.
and
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). Sedgwick (1894) and
Richardson (1995) have argued that Haeckel’s drawings
are inaccurate, and we have now provided persuasive evidence
that this is indeed the case.
Please note that the citations include authors
highly critical of Haeckel and his drawings, then and now.
Many of the fossil frauds of the 19th and 20th century are discussed and pictured in textbooks as well, but that doesn't mean the frauds are being perpetuated.
So what are we left with?
A fraud unchallenged by evolutionary science and perpetuated uncritically in textbooks that assert Haeckel's ideas as gospel?
Or a fraud almost immediately detected, yet one whose author had tremendous impact on the history of the biological sciences and whose famous theory and drawings properly belong in any treatment of science's history?
Apparently, despite his fraudulent drawings, some of his conceptual framework continues to be debated today.
What you have presented with this article does not bear the weight of your charges against contemporary evolutionary scientists.
Save lives! Click here!Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC!
™ Version 4.2
