Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Haeckeling, trying to wrap it up....
nwr
Member
Posts: 6408
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 46 of 93 (268559)
12-12-2005 11:39 PM
Reply to: Message 40 by randman
12-12-2005 11:23 PM


Re: Credible evidence?
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)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by randman, posted 12-12-2005 11:23 PM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by randman, posted 12-12-2005 11:44 PM nwr has replied

pink sasquatch
Member (Idle past 6022 days)
Posts: 1567
Joined: 06-10-2004


Message 47 of 93 (268561)
12-12-2005 11:40 PM
Reply to: Message 39 by randman
12-12-2005 11:21 PM


Re: So?
Don't argue from authority - Kenneth Miller was obviously an ignoramus on the subject of evolution if he used Haeckel's original drawings as support for evolution.
Funny, they didn't use Haeckel's original drawings, from your source:
Although neither of these drawings are identical to his, they are based on the work of Ernst Haeckel (portrait at left), a 19th century German Biologist who was a pioneer in the study of embryonic development.
Where are the figures used in the textbooks up until 1997? More importantly, WHAT WERE THE CLAIMS MADE REGARDING THE FIGURES?
How are we to judge the horror of the c1996 version of the figure if we don't have a copy?
You do realize that even though they switched from the drawing version of the figure to the photographic version of the figure, BOTH figures are "based on Haeckel's drawings".
BUT - I do appreciate the link.
It is nice of you to point out that those in the biology community not only correct their mistakes, BUT ADVERTISE THEIR MISTAKES so that others do not repeat them.
Such a conspiracy!
worse than that, in peer-reviewed work.
Examples???

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by randman, posted 12-12-2005 11:21 PM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by randman, posted 12-12-2005 11:51 PM pink sasquatch has replied

randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 48 of 93 (268564)
12-12-2005 11:44 PM
Reply to: Message 46 by nwr
12-12-2005 11:39 PM


Re: Credible evidence?
Let's stick to the OP first, shall we?
Do you agree with Richardson's comments in 1997 and this Brown biology professor that Haeckel's drawings were being used as the source material for evolutionist claims?
Richardson states they were used for claims of a phylotypic stage which he wrote in 1997 was inaccurate, and not a factual claim, and that the source material was Haeckel's to make that claim and faked.
The Brown professor says the drawings were the source material for "nearly every textbook."
Do you agree with those statements or not?
Were the source material for "nearly every textbook"?
Is there really any valid reason for doubting the professor admitting this?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by nwr, posted 12-12-2005 11:39 PM nwr has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 55 by nwr, posted 12-13-2005 12:02 AM randman has replied

pink sasquatch
Member (Idle past 6022 days)
Posts: 1567
Joined: 06-10-2004


Message 49 of 93 (268565)
12-12-2005 11:45 PM
Reply to: Message 41 by randman
12-12-2005 11:26 PM


Re: embryology
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
Randman-
Please provide a SINGLE example of the above. It should include:
1. Use of Haeckel's original figures.
2. Claim of a phylotypic stage based upon the figures.
3. Claim that said phylotypic stage is support for the theory of evolution.
4. Use and claims all made by an evolution biologist.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by randman, posted 12-12-2005 11:26 PM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 54 by randman, posted 12-12-2005 11:56 PM pink sasquatch has replied

Omnivorous
Member
Posts: 3978
From: Adirondackia
Joined: 07-21-2005
Member Rating: 7.3


Message 50 of 93 (268566)
12-12-2005 11:46 PM
Reply to: Message 45 by randman
12-12-2005 11:38 PM


Re: So?
So far you have presented evidence that drawings after Haeckel were used in Miller's textbook in discussions of comparative embryology, and that they were replaced with more accurate images.
You have not documented their use there, or elsewhere, to substantiate anyone's claims about evolution.
Now, I must refuse to answer any more questions until I know whether or not you have stopped beating your wife.
Yes or no, please.
BTW, have a safe trip, Rand. I'm to bed.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by randman, posted 12-12-2005 11:38 PM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by randman, posted 12-12-2005 11:53 PM Omnivorous has not replied

randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 51 of 93 (268573)
12-12-2005 11:51 PM
Reply to: Message 47 by pink sasquatch
12-12-2005 11:40 PM


Re: So?
Kenneth Miller was obviously an ignoramus on the subject of evolution if he used Haeckel's original drawings as support for evolution.
He says nearly every textbook used them. Note: the drawings "based on" Haeckel's drawings meant they colored them.
Richardson says Haeckel's data was used by embryologists in maintaining a phylotypic stage up to 1997 at least.
Are they all ignoramuses now?
Where are the figures used in the textbooks up until 1997? More importantly, WHAT WERE THE CLAIMS MADE REGARDING THE FIGURES?
Quite the rage, but to be expected when truth hits someone's core beliefs.
Did you see where the Brown professor stated they were used as the source material in "nearly every textbook"?
Did you see where Richardson asserts they were "widely used" in textbooks?
It is nice of you to point out that those in the biology community not only correct their mistakes, BUT ADVERTISE THEIR MISTAKES so that others do not repeat them.
It just took 125 years, and some evos like yourself still won't admit to the error. Could that be because there is something inherently wrong with the reasoning process of evos in regard to ToE? indoctrination rather than education?
Examples???
Read the OP.
(Wolpert 1991;
Alberts et al. 1994; Duboule 1994).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by pink sasquatch, posted 12-12-2005 11:40 PM pink sasquatch has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 58 by pink sasquatch, posted 12-13-2005 12:20 AM randman has replied

randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 52 of 93 (268574)
12-12-2005 11:53 PM
Reply to: Message 50 by Omnivorous
12-12-2005 11:46 PM


Re: So?
You have not documented their use there, or elsewhere, to substantiate anyone's claims about evolution.
I have documented where 2 respected evos admit that the drawings were widely used in textbooks, one even stating they were used in "nearly every textbook."
I think it's clear you just don't want to admit it, not that you have a reasonable doubt. Your stance validates and illustrates my overall point on the non-objectivity evos bring to the subject.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by Omnivorous, posted 12-12-2005 11:46 PM Omnivorous has not replied

pink sasquatch
Member (Idle past 6022 days)
Posts: 1567
Joined: 06-10-2004


Message 53 of 93 (268576)
12-12-2005 11:54 PM
Reply to: Message 43 by randman
12-12-2005 11:36 PM


Re: just being dishonest here
Sigh. Do you read any of the quotes?
Of course, I read all of them. Twice or more. It's silly for you to simply keep reposting the same quotes. Can't come up with anything else, huh? Can you believe it is a Brown professor! Wow! And the word "evolution" is even in the title of the Richardson paper! Yippee!
You "sigh"ed. Which is no response to my point, which you quoted:
pink sasquatch writes:
Richardson states that THE FIGURES were used, NOT THE CLAIM.
Richardson says nothing about the way in which the figures are used. The figures may well be the basis of a discussion about how the figures are flawed, and Haeckel was wrong.
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.
Doesn't matter, because in any case, you are again discussing embryology, not evolution.
You either intentionally misconstrue, or you have a serious reading comprehension problem.
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.
Is it clear now?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by randman, posted 12-12-2005 11:36 PM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 56 by randman, posted 12-13-2005 12:04 AM pink sasquatch has replied

randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 54 of 93 (268578)
12-12-2005 11:56 PM
Reply to: Message 49 by pink sasquatch
12-12-2005 11:45 PM


Re: embryology
Instead of acting with hysteria and trying to get me to repost the whole dang paper, why not try reading the link in the OP for yourself. It's a good starting point, has lots of references, and detailed pics and descriptions.
MK Rich Ardson - MK Blog Rich
This message has been edited by randman, 12-12-2005 11:57 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by pink sasquatch, posted 12-12-2005 11:45 PM pink sasquatch has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 59 by pink sasquatch, posted 12-13-2005 12:22 AM randman has not replied

nwr
Member
Posts: 6408
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 55 of 93 (268580)
12-13-2005 12:02 AM
Reply to: Message 48 by randman
12-12-2005 11:44 PM


Re: Credible evidence?
Do you agree with Richardson's comments in 1997 and this Brown biology professor that Haeckel's drawings were being used as the source material for evolutionist claims?
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?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by randman, posted 12-12-2005 11:44 PM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 57 by randman, posted 12-13-2005 12:06 AM nwr has replied

randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 56 of 93 (268582)
12-13-2005 12:04 AM
Reply to: Message 53 by pink sasquatch
12-12-2005 11:54 PM


Re: just being dishonest here
Richardson says nothing about the way in which the figures are used.
Uh, did you bother reading anything. The whole paper is about the claim of a phylotypic stage. Richardson states that Haeckel's data is the primary source material for this claim, and then spends the rest of the paper showing that Haeckel's data is wrong.
It's right there in the abstract.
Why do you think the title of the paper is:
There is no highly conserved embryonic stage in the vertebrates:
implications for current theories of evolution and development
Ya think he just might be trying to show there is not a phylotypic stage?
Couldn't be a paper refuting the idea of a phylotypic stage, could it?
The whole point of the paper is that a phylotypic stage is not accurate, as claimed, and he shows that by refuting the primary source material of evos in making that claim, Haeckel's drawings.
This message has been edited by randman, 12-13-2005 12:04 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by pink sasquatch, posted 12-12-2005 11:54 PM pink sasquatch has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 61 by pink sasquatch, posted 12-13-2005 12:32 AM randman has replied

randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 57 of 93 (268583)
12-13-2005 12:06 AM
Reply to: Message 55 by nwr
12-13-2005 12:02 AM


Re: Credible evidence?
nwr, and comparitive biology has been used as evidence for evolution, which is why the drawings were in Levine's and just about every other textbook.
Why can't you admit that?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by nwr, posted 12-13-2005 12:02 AM nwr has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 60 by nwr, posted 12-13-2005 12:24 AM randman has not replied

pink sasquatch
Member (Idle past 6022 days)
Posts: 1567
Joined: 06-10-2004


Message 58 of 93 (268586)
12-13-2005 12:20 AM
Reply to: Message 51 by randman
12-12-2005 11:51 PM


Re: So?
He says nearly every textbook used them.
Where does it say they were used to support evolution?
Richardson says Haeckel's data was used by embryologists in maintaining a phylotypic stage up to 1997 at least.
Gross overstatement.
- Some embryologists still today believe some sort of phylotypic stage occurs.
- Others do not - it remains a controversial point.
- The embryologists are well aware of the fraud.
- Haeckel's extensive non-fraudulent contributions are considered.
- The embryologists look at other data than Haeckel's.
Very different than your characterization of a bunch of ignorant embryologists building careers perpetuating Haeckel's fraud because they learned it in high school.
Did you see where the Brown professor stated they were used as the source material in "nearly every textbook"?
Did you see where Richardson asserts they were "widely used" in textbooks?
Yes. Yes. Are you an idiot?
I've agreed with you a hundred times that these figures are still widely used in textbooks. Several posts ago I described in great detail the context of the use of the figures in a 2001 textbook.
(Is your memory really that poor? Is that why you just keep making the same arguments over and over again?)
I've asked you repeatedly about the context of the figures, and instead of answering me, you accuse me of being enraged.
GIVEN THE REPEATED AVOIDANCE, I CAN ONLY ASSUME YOU HAVE NO KNOWLEDGE OF THE CONTEXT IN WHICH THE FIGURES ARE USED.
CONTEXT IS EVERYTHING FOR YOUR ARGUMENT.
Do you not understand that?
It just took 125 years, and some evos like yourself still won't admit to the error.
I am begining to think you are an idiot. I was the one who told you several months and several threads ago that the fraud was 125 years old; before that you were arguing that it was much younger.
Considering I'm the one that informed you of the age of the fraud, it is downright idiotic to claim that I "still won't admit the error".
I asked for examples of Haeckel used in the peer-reviewed literature. You give me:
(Wolpert 1991;
Alberts et al. 1994; Duboule 1994).
Straight from the Richardson paper, without even checking what kind of references they are:
Wolpert - an embryology TEXTBOOK
Alberts - a molecular biology TEXTBOOK
Duboule - a completely THEORETICAL paper on Hox genes
Doesn't seem like there is a hotbed of published research based upon Haeckel's fraud if you can't you come up with anything more substantial than that.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by randman, posted 12-12-2005 11:51 PM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 66 by randman, posted 12-13-2005 1:03 AM pink sasquatch has replied

pink sasquatch
Member (Idle past 6022 days)
Posts: 1567
Joined: 06-10-2004


Message 59 of 93 (268588)
12-13-2005 12:22 AM
Reply to: Message 54 by randman
12-12-2005 11:56 PM


Re: embryology
why not try reading the link in the OP for yourself
I already read the entire paper back at reply #20.
That is why I know you are misconstruing the quotes you present.
What? Did you think I was psychic?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by randman, posted 12-12-2005 11:56 PM randman has not replied

nwr
Member
Posts: 6408
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 60 of 93 (268589)
12-13-2005 12:24 AM
Reply to: Message 57 by randman
12-13-2005 12:06 AM


Re: Credible evidence?
and comparitive biology has been used as evidence for evolution, which is why the drawings were in Levine's and just about every other textbook.
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.
Why can't you admit that?
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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by randman, posted 12-13-2005 12:06 AM randman has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024