Haeckels' Drawings Part II

That randman can seriously propose that scientists could easily ignore well over a century of paleontological and taxonomical research in order to claim that whales evolved directly from fish indicates how little randman understands the biological sciences. [Emphasis added.]

You know full well I never made any claims that whales evolved from fish.

Are you suggesting that textbook authors are not evolutionists?

I did not respond because it was obvious.

I did not respond because it was obvious. Evolutionists includes textbook authors, college professors and high school teachers, evo authors, evolutionist scientists in institutions like the Smithsonian and the whole gamut.

It includes evos in their field who let false or unproven data be used in the teaching of evolution without challenging it.

Creationists were welcome to demonstrate why the diagrams were in error, rather than just asserting it. I've asked you to show this, and all you did was show me examples of creationists criticizing

Ontogeny recapitulates Phylogeny
Thank you Andrew for your nice remarks. I want to comment on your comment that the Recapitulation Theory died about 1925 and that it has not appeared in school textbooks for years. Almost ten years ago in Ontario, Canada, creationists had a successful campaign to remove this theory from the High School curriculum. It was removed but then slipped right back in again the following year. To my knowledge it is still there. If the theory died in 1925 would you not agree that this is a disgraceful move on the part of certain people in the Ontario Ministry of Education and would you be willing to help remove the nonsense from Ontario’s school textbooks?On page 277 of my book, In The Minds of Men, the illustration shows exactly how Ernst Haeckel cheated in 1868 to make the facts fit his theory. This was exposed as fraudulent in 1874 by Wilhelm His, and the theory should have died then and there, not in 1925. For those critics who would side-track the issue by pointing out that textbooks have replaced the old nineteenth century engravings of the embryos with modern drawings, this is of no consequence whatsoever. The textbook The Way Life Works by Hoagland & Dodson, 1995 published by Ebury Press, London, still used Haeckel’s drawings but took the trouble to colour them! Most readers will recall the famous row of embryos shown in the school textbooks. The usual argument for their retention is because although it is admitted that the stages of development (the vertical sequence) do not appear as Haeckel showed them, the horizontal likenesses of the early stages of the fish, the salamander, the turtle, the chicken the rabbit and the human are all virtually the same and illustrate embryonic homology. Michael Richardson, a lecturer and embryologist at St. George’s Hospital Medical School, London has recently exposed the so-called embryonic homology as another fraud. In his paper published in Anatomy and Embryology 1997, Vol.196 (2), p.91-106 he shows that the early embryonic stages of 39 different creatures including the fish, the turtle etc., are nothing like the same. Haeckel had simply repeated a series of look alike drawings for his 1874 Anthropogenie and, until Richardson reported the facts in 1997, no one had taken the trouble to actually check on Haeckel’s work! May I suggest that this was because Haeckel’s theory seemed such good evidence for evolution?

Ian Taylor, In the Minds of Men, TFE Publishing, Toronto, 1984, p. 184, who cites Peter Klemm, Der Ketzer von Jena, Urania Press, Leipzig, 1968. Return to Text..

I showed you where creationists specified particular over in Haeckel's drawings for decades. You are just ignoring that.

Creationists amply proved the drawings were fraudulent

The quote then goes on to assert that Haeckel's diagrams were inaccurate and uses Richardson's paper to back that up. It does not show anti-evolutionists/creationists demonstrating the inaccuracies before Richardson, which is what I was asking for. You say the book was published in 1996/84, but clearly the edition you are quoting from wasn't, since it references papers written in 1997.

He quotes Richardson in the article

The book does not quote Richardson

but came out with this way back in 1984.

Why is that so hard for you to admit?

As far as evos as a whole, it appeared many were surprised to learn that Haeckel's drawings were faked.

One can only assume they too believe the lie, unless you have evidence to the contrary.

And if they knew it was a lie, then it is indeed a little surprising they did not speak up about it more forcefully.