Haeckeling, trying to wrap it up....

Good grief. You are really scared that evos did this, aren't you? Must rock your world or something.Here is the Levine quote again. Haeckel's EmbryosThey used Haeckel's drawings but colored them to present the appearances of embryonic stages in making the claim that "many of the stages that embryos pass through can indeed be understood as remnants of their evolutionary past."If you want to point out that they do not actually say squat about stages after that, I agree. They present muddled thinking as evos are want to do. They refer to a few small features like yolk sacs, and really don't properly deal with whole stages.But that's just more evidence evos are very confused in this whole area.The fact is they admit that they used Haeckel's drawings as their source material and so did nearly everyone else.It's just people like you that have a hard time owning up to mistakes evos have made.

So you are agreeing that the principal data evos relied on to make the claim of a phylotypic stage is Haeckel's data?Or are you switching back and claiming otherwise?

First off pink, anyone that has debated this is probably well aware of when Haeckel was first refuted, having been posted here on threads by me ad nauseum according to some. So please don't pretend you introduced some new information here.Secondly, the authors make the claim they relied on Haeckel's claims as their source material. Of course, they did not assert the Biogenetic Law. Evos only took around 75 years to correct that horrendous error from the textbooks. But they do assert they relied on Haeckel's comparitive data for making their embryonic claims.Consider the following from one of their links to their materials. NOVA Online/Odyssey of Life/Timing is EverythingThey clearly assert, just as Haeckel did, that vertibrates pass through "a fish stage." Now, they are no longer using Haeckel to make that claim, but they admit Haeckel was their source material until 1997.It's interesting though that they still essentially claim a fish stage, just as Haeckel to a degree, and use that as evidence for evolution. Of course, vertibrates don't actually pass through a fish-like stage, but facts like that never stopped evos before.This message has been edited by randman, 12-13-2005 01:26 AM

I thought you were referring to this thread, but now that I recall that, you acted just as unreasonable then, and failed to substantiate that Rutimeyer was an evolutionist, as you claimed.Considering the date, 1868, it is likely he was not an evolutionist, but I also pointed out that Von Baer was a creationist, and he spoke against the same idea of recapitulation prior to even Haeckel taking up the idea.

Fish-like or fish stage, it doesn't matter because it's not true either way.

Fish stage or fish-like stage, it's false either way. Clearly, I was not saying the fish stage, abbreviating it, meant all embryos were fish.You guys are just trying to dodge admitting the obvious. Wrong again, btw. Note the reference to evolution as the explanation for the claimed, but not observed, fish-like stage.This message has been edited by randman, 12-13-2005 01:52 AM

Page not found - WNDOne wonders about how long he could make statements like that, speaking the truth, before his colleagues start pressuring him to moderate those claims due to the beating the evos took from finally admitting the creationists were right all along.

Page not found – Evolution-FactsThe idea that similar anatomical features arise differently in embryos of different species is fairl strong evidence against ToE, but first, will the folks on this thread answer the OP or not?

I offered evidence that most biologists of that time were not evolutionists, and thus some sort of creationists of one sort or another.Besides, the first one to expose the fraud is not the issue. The relevant issue is how creationists kept refuting the fraud while evos kept using it, and still cling to vestiges of the Biogenetic Law in making claims like a fish-like stage for vertibrates. Haeckel's claims are so embedded into the psyche of evos that they still seem to be having a hard time extricating themselves from it.

You think so? You think the vast majority agree with the following: I strongly suspect that by now he is backpedalling as fast he can. I wouldn't be surprised if he now claims the drawings are good teaching aides or some such.This message has been edited by randman, 12-13-2005 02:07 AM

Your idiocy apparently knows no bounds. Just look at the study in the OP. It's peer-reviewed.

This would be funny if it wasn't so sad. Frankly, I am not sure who can help you. The Orwellian statements you are making speak for themselves.The authors specifically refer to embryonic evidence for evolution and include links for more data, and on these links detail more embryonic claims, and discuss how evolution and these claims work together. They most certainly are and do claim embryonic development as evidence for evolution.Your near hysteria in refusing to accept that ought to give you pause.This message has been edited by randman, 12-13-2005 02:17 AM

Wow. Can I write this down? Are you sure you aren;t going to insist otherwise in a few minutes. Richardson references some papers in the quote in the OP. Look them up for yourself if you don't believe him.

Did it ruin Haeckel's career? He was exposed, right? As early as 1868 even.Did it harm his career?Let me ask you something. What would you think of an evolutionist today recommending the fraudulent drawings as teaching aides?You think any credible evos do that still?