Why Lie? (Re: Evolution frauds and hoaxes)

MK Rich Ardson - MK Blog Richfew salient points.....1. The phylotypic stage was generally believed and held to be true, at least in 1997.2. The evidence for this was Haeckel's drawings which was considered the "most comprehensive comparitive data purposting to show a conserved stage" in 1997.3. The attitude or approach was "almost as though the phylotypic
stage is regarded as a biological concept for which no
proof is needed."I wonder why.Edited by randman, : No reason given.

I'll admit that I had to look up "phylotypic stage."However, from what I read (in the article you provided), the phylotypic stage is not the same thing as the Biogenetic Law.The Biogenetic Law said that each developing (e.g.) mammalian embryo started as a wormlike thing, then developed into a fish, then into an amphibian, then into a reptile, then into a mammal.The phylotypic stage suggested that all vertebrate embryos looked the same at a specific stage in their development. You are accusing evolutionists of holding on to fraudulent data, when, in fact, the data they are holding on to is not fraudulant. From the very first line in the abstract of your source:

quote:

---

Embryos of different species of vertebrate
share a common organisation and often look similar.

---

This is not controversial. And this is what evolutionists are holding on to. Some people take it too far and call it a "phylotypic stage," while others have argued against it. But, once again, the "phylotypic stage" argument is not the same as Haeckel's Biogenetic Law. Can you see how the Biogenetic Law could be wrong, but the phylotypic stage could still be right?I admit that, in light of the source you've provided, it looks like a lot of scientists held on to an exaggeratedly tidy "phylotypic stage" beyond the allowance of the data. But, I object to your insistence that this was fraudulant and a blatant attempt to conspiratorially promote evolutionary theory. And, remember, once again, it was evolutionary scientists who found, exposed and corrected this error (even though it was admittedly slow in coming).I said this earlier to Dont Be a Flea:Being wrong is not lying!

---

Darwin loves you.

True but it's a watered down version of it, as I explained earlier. Evos have been using the same terms since Haeckel to concoct some sort of recapitulation theory. It keeps getting watered down but never quite abandoned. Is that true? Which Biogenetic law? That's just the first version of it. Let's see what wikipedia says. Recapitulation theory - WikipediaPlease note that the term recapitulation and the biogenetic law are synonymous. I think if you look around you will see evos still arguing for recapitulation as viable but they mean watered down versions such as the phylotypic stage. But the data they relied on was faked, and moreover the paper details that there are far more significant differences than evos claimed and so much so, the phylotypic stage so well accepted by evos uncritically was incorrect. So? You are missing the point. Haeckel's data was accepted after over 100 years of sustained criticism that it was faked, and yet evos kept on inisting it was not. They were wrong, and they based their beliefs of the phylotypic stage on that faked data according to Richardson. Well, gross incompetence and refusal to consider facts is another plausible alternative. You have got to be kidding. Have you read nothing of what I've posted? There was over 100 years of sustained criticism from creationists and others exposing this fraud long before Richardson, which explains his vague comment on it being "challenged."He didn't expose it. He was just one of the first evos to come clean on it and provide data from that camp in a long time. It had been exposed quite a bit in the 90s and 80s and in fact, every decade prior to that. Any informed creationist knew it was faked. It wasn't that hard to tell and tenured creationist professors and others pointed out it was a fraud.If they didn't know, why?Heck, I knew as an undergrad student in the 80s. It was widely publicized. How is it they were unaware?Edited by randman, : No reason given.Edited by randman, : No reason given.

Now I know this tract is not scientific, but I went and looked up a Jack Chick tract and it appears identical to the one I read in the 80s. I don't want to discuss the details of it, but take note that one part mentions Haeckel's data being faked. Now, of course, this isn't science, but it demonstrates that claiming Haeckel faked his data has been standard creationist criticism for some time, even on a low level such as Jack Chick material.Chick.com: Big Daddy? This book was published in the 80s and contained criticism that Haeckel faked his data. The author also publicly debated this issue quite a bit.Amazon.comIt's hard to see how anyone educated on this debate was not aware Haeckel had faked his data. In reality, the criticism of Haeckel originates all the way back to the 1880s, and scientists especially creationists were quite critical and adament the depictions were faked and the data wrong.I've debated this topic before and researched this, and Haeckel's data being forged was written about not just in the 1880s but in a book in 1910 and pretty much every decade since. In the 50s, a prominent creationist made a huge stink about it, but evos wouldn't listen, and many of these guys detailed specifically how Haeckel had fudged his drawings.In the 80s, a creationist included it in a chapter in his book and it was publicized on the internet in the 90s. This was thrown in the face, with data, of evos for well over 100 years and evos just wouldn't budge.If you were me, what would you think? Before Richardson, every evo I argued this point with insisted I and anyone making these claims was just a crackpot.Frankly, I just cannot see how you can overestimate the significance of evo obstinance that even something as small as this, it took well over 100 years to get evos to back off and admit at least the data was faked. In fact, they are now trying to resurrect Haeckel and some form recapitulation to some degree.Edited by randman, : No reason given.

http://www.trueorigin.org/ca_it_02.asp

Now the fatal flaw of evolution is "evo obstinance"? Yes it was a blotch for too long. But it is a detail that has been corrected (or at least mostly corrected, you even seem to agree). I want to see some solid support data for that assertion. You may post such as a response to this message.And how about slowing down your posting rate? Maybe a few gem postings instead? Don't reply to this last part.Adminnemooseus

Richardson himself either lent his name or genuinely wrote the following in 2001 after bashing Haeckel in 1997, reversing his position almost entirely from his initial comments on Haeckel's stuff being the "biggest hoax" and "fraud" in biology. Also, MK Rich Ardson - MK Blog RichSo now one of the biggest frauds in the history of biology is a "good teaching aide" and even "evidence for evolution" despite being faked and doctored data. Guess he learned it's better for him to support the party line that admit creationists were correct all along on something. If you have a more charitable way to explain evos publishing in a peer-reviewed journal that faked data is "evidence", I am all ears....Edited by randman, : No reason given.Edited by randman, : No reason given.

What about them? Neither of them constitute the use of Haeckel's embryological drawings as evidence in the scientific literature. Richardson stating that they are evidence is not the same thing at all, especially not when it was part of a review specifically on Haeckel's embryos.TTFN,WK

It's worse than that. There was no scientific literature based on actual comprehensive analysis to support the widely accepted belief in the phylotypic stage that was indeed promoted by haeckel and others.So you can say, well, Haeckel wasn't used in the literature, and you may be right. Nothing was. haeckel was assumed to be right despite his bad track record.

quote:

---

Now I know this tract is not scientific, but I went and looked up a Jack Chick tract and it appears identical to the one I read in the 80s. I don't want to discuss the details of it, but take note that one part mentions Haeckel's data being faked. Now, of course, this isn't science, but it demonstrates that claiming Haeckel faked his data has been standard creationist criticism for some time, even on a low level such as Jack Chick material.

​

Chick.com: Big Daddy?

​

This book was published in the 80s and contained criticism that Haeckel faked his data. The author also publicly debated this issue quite a bit.

---

Creationists have also written books claiming that "evolutionists need to stop using Piltdown Man as an example of evolution" even now, but that doesn't make it true that evolutionary biologists still appeal to Piltdown Man. Just because Creationists keep writing books about controversies that were resolved long ago doesn't mean those controversies still exist.

Except in this case, evos did continue to use Haeckel. They admitted that. It was used in most textbooks and Richardson says relied upon to form opinion on the phylotypic stage. This occurred despite ample and sufficient, sustained criticism for over 100 years demonstratingn Haeckel forged his drawings.The college professor that first informed me of this also stated he had shown this fact to his colleagues. It was widely publicized.Why did evos keep using faked data after it was known it was faked?I'd like to hear a plausible and reasonable explanation for that. Miller's "everyone did it" defense meaning all the evos is not a valid excuse and suggests that evos refuse to hear factual criticism but as Richardson says, accepted it as something that needed no evidence for. Imo, this is generally true for evo "science." Claims are made and then when they are shown to be incorrect, evos just insist their critics have been refuted and keep on going.......at least that's how it looks to me. The Haeckel saga is a great example of that, and keep in mind they are trying to resurrect Haeckel as "evidenced for evolution" and "good teaching aides" right now, and that those claims were printed in peer-reviewed evo journals.How do you explain that? http://www.mk-richardson.com/PDFs/biolrevs.pdfHow is a scientific hoax and doctored data "evidence for evolution"? Heck, the whole paper is an exercise in trying to resurrect Haeckel's Biogenetic Law. They specifically use that term and talk about it's modern applications.Is this par for the course as far as "evidence" for evolution?Edited by randman, : No reason given.Edited by randman, : No reason given.Edited by randman, : No reason given.

I have not followed the full argument but my take on Haekels is as follows -Scientist are human. It is no surprise that advocates of a theory are more inclined to be positive about evidence that favours said theory than evidence against. It does not take a genius of psychology to realise that we are more prone to believing evidence for that which we support than evidence that opposes that which we support. This is human nature.So is established evolutionary theory just the above on a grand scale?If anything the whole Haekels debacle suggests not.
Who exposed Haekel? Scientists. Who ultimately acknowledged the errors in thinking and Haekels fraud? Scientists and science. Why is Haekels evidence no longer part of established scientific thinking? Because it has been refuted. By means of scientific fact based empirical investigation.The very purpose of the scientific method is to achieve objectivity and to free our conclusions from philosophical bias.
We as humans are very possibly incapable of true objectivity but the methods of science, the testing of theories validity against the realities of nature are our means of acknowldging this fact and overcoming our petty human limitations and restrictions.If anything the Haeckels situation is a fine example of a short term human desire driven error ridden conclusion being overturned by the methods of science and the underlying quest for truth that ultimately underpins all scientific investigation.The truth can always be questioned. Where philosophical positions lead to lies and errors regarding the natural world sufficient questioning will expose said lies and errors. Nature cares not for our prejudices and dispositions.The broad theory of evolution has stood up to such relentless questioning. Haeckels work did not. The reasons for this should be obvious.Unless of course you have your own philosophical axe to grind..... Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Richardson and Keuck seem to be using Haeckel in a historical context, and are clearly distinguishing Haeckel's incorrect view from modern embryology:"Throughout the article, we consider how Haeckel's work has influence modern scientific ideas about evolution and development, and examine Haeckel's theories in the light of contemporary and recent work. We identify criticisms of Haeckel's work based on legitimate scientific concerns, and try to distinguish them from confusion and ambivalence arising from a misunderstanding of the primary sources or scientific issues." (p498)
.
.
.
Richardson and Keuck DO display Haeckel's original diagrams, but they do so while pointing out the flaws, inconsistencies, and artifacts. R&K are pointing out the instances of fraud, not supporting them:"Fig. 1... Mid-somite embryos, supposedly of dog, chicken, and turtle... The woodcuts are identical, sharing the same irregularities in the somite series [e.g. boxed area, added by us]." (p497)"Fig. 2... The early chick embryo is possibly copied from Erdl and resembles the chick in the middle row of Haeckel's Anthropogenie plate IV." (p498)"Fig. 3... The pictures contain many anomalies." (p499)
.
.
.
R&K maintain that while Haeckel's specific views of tail-end development are rejected, the use of embryology to study evolutionary history is still legitimate, which is very much true. They also point out that Haeckel's fraud shouldn't sour modern biologists, and they shouldn't close their minds to an embryological approach:"A common view is that, although Haeckelian views have been rejected, there is nonetheless some degree of parallelism between ontogeny and phylogeny... Over-reaction " (p501)
.
.
.
It does sound like R&K are a little frustrated that some sources are rather vague on the issue, and fail to be more specific on certain issues. I think the Guttman quote is what you're talking about, but I'd have to see it in context:"Thus, Guttman (1999: p. 718) gives an unusual form of recapitulation which envisages ontogeny as a series of recapitulated ancestral embryonic forms." (p502)
.
.
.
This is as far as I can get for now. I've got an experiment running.

Creationist scientists, not evos. Problem is that it is still part of established evo thinking and evos are in the process of trying to resurrect Haeckel and a version of his biogenetic law. Keep in mind this isn't the first time we've been around this pole. Critics have consistently shown and pointed out Haeckel's fraud from near day one in the 1800s and evos have consistently promoted it anyway and are still trying to do so. Except evo science isn't really doing that as the 2002 paper trying to resurrect the biogenetic law demonstrates. This paper was published, peer-reviewed, and makes the astonishing claim that Haeckel's drawings are "evidence for evolution."Hopefully, as more and more critics continue to pile on and charge the evo community with irresponsible behaviour in promoting the fraud, it will eventually die but we are not there yet. Except it hasn't. The criticism just as with haeckel is swept under the rug and only consistent, sustained ridicule of such frauds, illogic, overstatements, etc,.....seems to work, and even then, the same old thing crops up again unless there is some vigilance in exposing it over and over again, especially to the public so that there is pressure to deal with the issue factually.

They flat out state that Haeckel's drawings themselves are "evidence for evolution" and they furthermore insist that Haeckel's biogenetic law is not adult form of recapitulation as many claim, and that it is relevant for modern embrylogy and evo theories.It's a straight-out defense and veneration of Haeckel, the biogenetic law aka as recapitulation and as such, is a stunning reversal considering just 5 years earlier one of the authors called it one of the "biggest frauds in all of biology."Notice they shamelessly deride creationist critics who were entirely accurate: Unbeleivable! First, note the date of 1915.....creationists pointing out Haeckel faked his data has a long history. Secondly, note their slur of "religious or political" motivations "which will not be discussed here." Their slur (anger?) at creationists who were right all along is noteworthy. Is this evidence the piece may well have been written to salvage the damage done to evo reputations in the 1997 paper which correctly pointed out the depictions were fraudulent, as oppossed to their claim here of being "evidence for evolution."How can anyone explain away or justify publishing and writing a paper insisting fraudulent data is "evidence for evolution."Edited by randman, : No reason given.Edited by randman, : No reason given.Edited by randman, : No reason given.Edited by randman, : No reason given.Edited by randman, : No reason given.