Haeckeling, trying to wrap it up....

In the other thread (off-topic), nwr claimed that you could produce no real evidence against the theory of evolution, which is why you make mountains of mole hills.You claimed you had Haeckel as evidence against the theory of evolution.So let's take the fact that Haeckel unethically misrepresented embryos in his drawings, in order to support his own theory (not the theory of evolution, though related). Another fact is that the fraud was uncovered almost immediately by other biologists.Let's add-on a hypothetical situation, that biology educators intentionally mislead students for the next 150 or so years. A nice big conspiracy to keep all us "evos" happy.So?How is this evidence against the theory of evolution?It may be evidence against the parties involved, scientists or not, but:The fact that an assortment of human beings lied about some embryonic structures for a century in no way refutes or falsifies any part of the theory of evolution.Human dishonesty does not change scientific fact and theory. If it turns out that a group of physicists have been lying for a century about a figure tangential to the theory of gravity, we will not all suddenly float off in to space.

Okay. I just wanted to be clear that the Haeckel fraud has no bearing whatsoever on the scientific theory of evolution. Sure they did, you've given us examples of that - of course it seems that most if not all of the examples you gave are discussing the Haeckel figure in historical context, and/or point out specifically where it is flawed.Many figures are also not Haeckel's, but are labeled "after Haeckel". Any inter-organism comparative embryology figure is essentially "after Haeckel", even the photographic ones that you produced as correct versions of the comparative embryology.Mayr's 2001 "What Evolution Is" text mentions Haeckel three times.1. As a founder of phylogenetic analysis.2. As a fraudulent embryologist, with the fraud specified.3. As a misguided evolution biologist, specifying that Haeckel's ideas of "ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny" were wrong.I would not continue to use Mayr's text as evidence for you argument if I were you.Haeckel was the first to diagram embryos with species comparisons. He was also an important, though flawed figure in the history of biology and evolution, and is thus worthy of mention in any historical basis of evolution.Haeckel essentially inspired the field of phylogenetic analysis. He contributed greatly to the field of biology in non-fraudulent ways.

I didn't say "strictly in a historical context".I said "in historical context, and/or point out specifically where it is flawed."Thanks for refuting a strawman. I gave you the three contexts in which Haeckel was mentioned:1. as founder of a separate field
2. as a fraud
3. as dead wrongDoes it sound to you like Mayr's text is guilty of what you claim? Haeckel was wrong.
Richardson was wrong, going strictly from your interpretation.
Until you provide better substantiation, you are wrong.Please provide a link to the Richardson work, as well as to your examples of recent misuse of Haeckel in texts, so that I can give you a more reasonable answer.

Crap, randman.I thought you were posting Richardson's summary of some sort of textbook survey. It's just an isolated line in his discussion, with no elaboration or details.I'll dissect the Richardson text you continually quote: Known for over a hundred years. I don't know that you've gotten too much disagreement on this point. A non-issue. Again, no argument. A non-issue. Books that cover the intersect of evolution and embryology would be incomplete without these drawings.It's all about context. Of course. Haeckel and his diagram began the field, so of course they exert a significant influence on the field. They even served as the foundation of the Richardson, et.al. paper itself.I don't see how Richardson supports your claims, except when you overstate and misconstrue. Yes, but I don't agree with what you claim it states.

It is an isolated line. An isolated line about the use of the diagrams in textbooks, with no mention of it being used as evidence for evolution. It is the only mention of textbooks in the whole paper. Isn't that whole point of this discussion? Whether or not Haeckel's fraud was being used/taught as evidence for evolution?Given the rest of your post, which is a strawman argument, it seems that you are much more interested in discussing Haeckel's influence on embryology than evolution.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.You've got the direction of your evidence ass-backwards.

YOU ARE WRONG, AND YOU MISREPRESENT WHAT RICHARDSON STATES.Richardson states that THE FIGURES were used, NOT THE CLAIM.You have not established THE CONTEXT in which THE FIGURES were used.It is all about CONTEXT, since these are HISTORICALLY and FRAUDULENTLY important FIGURES. YOU MISREPRESENT AGAIN.Or perhaps you are so obtuse you cannot tell the difference between "embryology" and "evolution" - they are both pretty long words, and they do both begin with the letter E.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.

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: 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! Examples???

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.

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: 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. 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.

Where does it say they were used to support evolution? 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. 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? 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: 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 genesDoesn'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.

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?

You are essentially correct (I am NOT defended the phylotypic stage by any means, so you bringing this up at all is a strawman argument. Yes, Richardson is presenting evidence against the phylotypic stage. He doesn't do this by refuting Haeckel's drawings so much as he does by bringing in many other species that Haeckel and others didn't examine/consider - you did read the paper, right?).BUT You are discussing embryology and sticking "evos" in their to make it seem as though the phylotypic stage has a bearing on the status of the theory of evolution.

You are intentionally misconstruing embryological controversy as evolution controversy.

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.

Absofuckinglutely! This is the umpteenth time I've agreed with you!How many times do I have to agree with you before you accept it?Are you such a conspiracy freak that even when I agree with you, you read it as though I do not?

Again, idiotic. I was the one who originally informed you of the age of the uncovering of the Haeckel fraud, so every time you point a finger at me for not admitting it you look more and more like an idiot.I asked: You reply: THEN THE BEST YOU CAN COME UP WITH IS THIS!: One of the most assinine quote-mines I've ever seen, considering the lines IMMEDIATELY preceding it is: Get it? It's your source after all! Evolution refuted the embryology; therefore the embryology was NOT the foundation of evolution.So I'll ask again:Where does it say they were used to support evolution?And I'll also answer:IT DOESN'T. In fact, it states the evolution was used to refute Haeckel.Again, you've got the direction of the evidence assbackwards, and you are essentially lying through your transparent quotemines.Ethics mean much to you?

You may not remember it, but I can easily remind you: In this post you claimed that Creationists were the first to reveal the Haeckel frauds in the 1970s.In my response I inform you that you are off by a hundred years; that the real date was 1868.But that's okay, I won't "pretend" that I was the one who informed you... I don't have to, since I really did it.