Haeckeling, trying to wrap it up....

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

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

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?

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

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

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?

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? 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 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? Read the OP.

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.

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 RichThis message has been edited by randman, 12-12-2005 11:57 PM

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: 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

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?

Cut the absurd all caps. The OP is quite specific, and there is no misrepresentation at all, and one of the most narrowly defined topics on the board right now.So either engage it or shut the heck up, please. Wrong, he devoted significant amounts of the papers by refuting Haeckel's drawings, specifying they were inaccurate, doctored, etc,...and does so because the authors unequivocally state Haeckel's data is the chief bit of data used to make the claims of a phylotypic stage. Yes, let's do that. It is a paper refuting both the phylotypic stage and the principal data used to make that claim.

Incompetence works just as well as ignorance, and is in fact a stronger statement in support of my claims here since incompetence includes ignorance whereas ignorance leaves open the possibility for a reasonable cause for that ignorance.Either way, evos presented and relied on false claims for 125 years, and this after those claims had been debunked.As far as claiming they didn't believe Haeckel's drawings were accurate, I think I've been pretty clear on the fact they did believe it. They did believe what they were publishing.It's you guys that won't admit that, not me.This message has been edited by randman, 12-13-2005 12:55 AM