Why are Haeckel's drawings being taught in school?

Unless schoools are using amazingly old textbooks, they would not be teaching Haeckel's version of recapitulation. If they are using textbooks that old then I would suggest that they have more serious problems to worry about.There are probably some books around using the drawings as illustrations because they aren't that bad and (I suspect) because they are cheap - and possibly because they DON'T have that much to do with the text, so they haven't been seriously scrutinised.To the best of my knowledge these illustrations are on the way out.

With regard to your assertion that the Fifth Edition of Miller and Levine teaches Haeckel's drawings as facts here is what Kenneth Miller says :"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"Haeckel's EmbryosThe illustrations are shown on that page (in the box with the quoted text) and they are definitely not Haeckel's drawings.Sp can you explain why you claim otherwise ?

You neglected to explain why you explicitly listed the edition which did NOT feature Haeckel's drawings.If you or your source were wrong on that, then how can we be sure that you or they are right about the other books ? Especially those written since 1997

Well that explains it. You used a report by an antievolution organisation prepared by a member of questionable honesty.Quite frankly you would be wise not to rely on the findings in that document.

Peppered Moths sometimes rest on tree trunks, but it isn't their usual resting place. (Wells knew that but still sometimes tries to deny it).But picture this. You have camera equipment from the 1950s.
You want to compare the appearance of two moths against bark - and nothing more.
Do you go around climbing trees with delicate photographic equipment hoping to find two moths in a good position that will stay put or do you stage a shot ?Bear in mind that staging a shot will be a LOT easier and will probably produce a better result.And if you stage a shot its a lot easier to use dead moths pinned to the trunk (apparently the pins are visible in the better reproductions).Theres really no dishonesty here - just practical steps taken to produce a good photographic illustration.If anyone is being dishonest it is the creationists who use this as the basis of false accusations of fraud.

As I've pointed ot the apparent motivation was to support Haeckel's own distinctive (and non-Darwinian) ideas. Since it was Haeckel's rival, von Baer, whose ideas were accepted I don't think that there is any grounds for claiming that there is deliberate deception in the use of these drawings or even any clear harm in their use. That is not to say that it was right to use those illustrations, just that it wasn't very bad in any practical terms.

You don't actually address the points I raised.And it is quite clear from your reponse what this is about - it's another attempt at a smear. You haven't got any evidence of significnat dishonesty. But that doesn't stop you making accusatiosn you know that you can't support.Ever heard of the Ten Commandments ? Does "Thou Shalt Not Bear False Witness" ring any bells ?

You are misrepresenting my point (what a surprise).My point is that although it was wrong it had little practical effect. You have not shown that that was wrong or challenged my reasoning on that point. Remeber that the drawings are not that bad - only distorted to support views that aren't even taught.And I am CERTAINLY not arguing that the ends justify the means. That's a pure fabrication on your part. I never invoked the ends as a justification at all. My point is more along the lines of "no harm, no foul".So far as I can tell your behaviour is worse than anything you've actually made a case for. So you're in no position to talk about "corrupt means".And don't tell me you are trying to examine the evidence. What is the point of your little smear camapaign other than to avoid dealing with the evidence ?

quote:

---

It is actually more of a misrepresentation. If they had not knownthe drawings were faked, one could say they were ignorant, but here they acknowledge the drawings were faked, but then try touse the same drawings and get away with it by stating they are not backing the same ideas!

---

Yet another lie. They DON'T use the same drawings and you know that. They say that their drawings are BASED ON Haeckel's but they give no reason to suppose that their drawings contain the same inaccuracies.

quote:

---

First, Haeckel in my opinion had a good point. He did not think we should expect more different embryonic development for more different species, but that we would repeat the earlier forms' development. His prediction was wrong, but his logic that universal common descent predicted that has merit.

---

Well since it makes sense to you can you explain why embryonic development would pass through the ADULT stages of ancestral organisms ? That IS Haeckel's idea

Unless you can identify actual errors, you haven't got a real case. I see no reaon to assume that they would deliberately retain errors.

I don't see that I am justifying a fabrication because I am not. I am not even justifying the usage of Haeckel's drawings. My argument is that it was a harmless error.And even if I had it would not be claiming that the ends justify the means since I did not invoke the end as a justificaton at all. THat was an invention on your part.So considering that I did not attempt to justify the use of the drawings (I stated that it was wrong) and that I did not invoke the ends at all (I pointed out that there was no evidence of harm and no reason to suspect that any significant harm had been done) - the claim that I am saying that the ends justify the means is doubly false. A complete fabrication on your part.The fact that you haven't even bothered to find out what the actual inaccuracies are only emphasises the point that honest examination of the evidence isn't what you have in mind. What you want to do is to reject a valid use of the evidence from embryology (which is presented in more recent books with photographs - not Haeckel's drawings). And rather than doing so in a fair way you are doing so on a "guilt be association" argument.

Instead of making vague noises perhaps you would like to idnetify ACTUAL errors in the ACTUAL drawings under discussion ?I'm just not prepared to assume that scientists are being dishonest without actual evidence - rather than the word of someone who appears to be a malicious liar.

I didn't ask to switch the topic. I simply want you to back up your assertions.As to your quote, I note that you don't provide a source. If you googled it you could easily have produced a link. Nevertheess I will comment on your point 11) Human embryos do have "gill slits" in that that is an accepted name for the structure. The name is based on an error (although an understandable one - the external appearance is very similar) but nevertheless it has stuck.I would have to investigate point 2 further before commenting

As I'm sure you know the drawings under discussion are NOT Haeckel's - they are only based on Haeckel's. You claim that they have errors (but then you even claimed that they were Haeckel's) so lets see the evidence.As to the point you find "unbelievable" it is entirely true, and I notice that you don't actually dispute anything I said - preferring instead to attack things that you suggest that I would say.And equally unfortunately for you, the structure labelled "gill slits" does occur in fish and human embryos. The name may be bad, but it is far from the only case where an error was made in the early stages of science and "stuck" (a well known example is the flow of electic current - what is really flowing is electrons, but earlier scientists made a bad choice, so the direction of current flow is the opposite of the electron flow).