Why are Haeckel's drawings being taught in school?

Can you address my message to you in this thread.The original is at Message 62Which has been closed for topic drift. This is the appropriate thread for this discussion.

---

Organizations worth supporting:
Electronic Frontier Foundation | Defending your rights in the digital world (Protect Privacy and Security)
Home | American Civil Liberties Union (Protect Civil Rights)
AAUP (Protect Higher Learning)

With all due respect. The website you listed:http://users.rcn.com/...ltranet/BiologyPages/T/Taxonomy.htmlalso has this quote: Therefore they are explicitly not endorsing any kind of Haekel type ideas. Therefore this is not an example of evolutionist misrepresentation.The fact is that we do go through very similar stages of embryonic development to our nearest relatives. We should expect that if evolution is true, more distantly related species go through more different embryonic development and more closely related species go through more similar embryonic development. This is exactly what we see.

---

Organizations worth supporting:
Electronic Frontier Foundation | Defending your rights in the digital world (Protect Privacy and Security)
Home | American Civil Liberties Union (Protect Civil Rights)
AAUP (Protect Higher Learning)

Sorry friend: They explicitly state that they are not real. They are just used as examples to go along with the text. The fact is that differences in the embryonic development of vertebrates follow the same struture we would expect from common decent. This is a non-negotiably fact. This is what we observe.Haeckel was wrong for proposing that a human embryo ever became a fish during its development. That is not what that site is saying; neither in the text nor by its use of that image.

---

Organizations worth supporting:
Electronic Frontier Foundation | Defending your rights in the digital world (Protect Privacy and Security)
Home | American Civil Liberties Union (Protect Civil Rights)
AAUP (Protect Higher Learning)

It is not just the similarity of embryonic development that is significant but rather the differences. If common decent is true, we would expect there to be fewer differences in embryonic development between more related species. This should also match well against the data we get from morphology, genetics, and stratigraphy. There is no reason for these to correlate if common decent is not true. What we get are very good correlations and thus common decent gains in evidence.You can't turn around and say common decent is fasified because Haeckles ideas were wrong. The incorrect idea that ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny does not eliminate the similarities that DO exist in the embryonic development of related species.

---

Organizations worth supporting:
Electronic Frontier Foundation | Defending your rights in the digital world (Protect Privacy and Security)
Home | American Civil Liberties Union (Protect Civil Rights)
AAUP (Protect Higher Learning)

I think you missed the point.I thought of a good example to drive it home. Why would a whale need to go through a stage of embryonic development where it has hind limbs unless it REALLY is related to terrestrial quadrapeds?Combine that with the fact that we have found whale intermediates in the fossil records. Combine that with whale atavisms. Combine that with genetic comparisons. You have pretty solid case for common decent.Your claim that convergent evolution could account for the similarities is insufficient because convergent evolution never produces the exact same solution to a problem. Your remarks about convergent DNA are also moot because we do not have 1 single observed example of convergent DNA producing something like the mammalian inner ear independent of ancestry.You need to either produce an example, or retract the claim.

---

Organizations worth supporting:
Electronic Frontier Foundation | Defending your rights in the digital world (Protect Privacy and Security)
Home | American Civil Liberties Union (Protect Civil Rights)
AAUP (Protect Higher Learning)

First of all, I did post a link to the site where they explicitly state the drawings are schematic. Can you still claim that they are being dishonest when it is pretty plain that they explain the picture in the appropriate context with the appropriate disclaimer? What do you think is the biogenetic law and how do you feel it is being violated? In reality there is no such thing as a law in science. Even Newton's "Laws" of motion are not really laws. You are missing the point that people were trying to discover how embryos develop rather than to fit a preconceived notion. Science operates by drawing its conclusion after the evidence is gathered. In this case the conclusion was that Haeckles hypothesis was incorrect which lead to a new hypothesis which was confirmed by the data and also supports common decent.In other words, common decent was not relying on Haeckle being right. It certainly would have been stronger support for common decent is he was right but him being wrong does not constitute a falsification of common decent. Scientists change their theories when new data arises. Why would you expect any different? That scientists figured out something different about embryology does not indicate a falsification of the common decent. Yep. Just like whales/dolphins compared to their land mammal relatives. It is very difficult to tell the difference between a whale and a hippo embryo at first. Whales and hippos are close in terms of species but not at all in terms of anatomy. Yep. Whale embryos have legs. Hippo embryos have legs. Shark embryos do not have legs. I would also be curious to see if someone has done this with less obvious implications such as the case with the whale example. Of course, one would also expect there to be evidence for this if it were true. Don't you think? Until then it is just speculation.

---

Organizations worth supporting:
Electronic Frontier Foundation | Defending your rights in the digital world (Protect Privacy and Security)
Home | American Civil Liberties Union (Protect Civil Rights)
AAUP (Protect Higher Learning)

The textbook community and the general scientific community are not the same thing.Also, who discovered that Haeckle's drawing were wrong?

---

Organizations worth supporting:
Electronic Frontier Foundation | Defending your rights in the digital world (Protect Privacy and Security)
Home | American Civil Liberties Union (Protect Civil Rights)
AAUP (Protect Higher Learning)

The mammalian ear evolved from jaw bones twice independently? Please support this.With regards to the whale I am not talking about the pelvis. I am talking about actual legs embryo whales have real legs.It is actually a particularly common tactic employed by Kent Hovind to divert the topic to the whale pelvis when someone brings up whale embryology or whale atavisms. I would be carefull to avoid such tactics here. We are talk about real tangible appendages here that a normal healthy adult whale does not have.

---

Organizations worth supporting:
Electronic Frontier Foundation | Defending your rights in the digital world (Protect Privacy and Security)
Home | American Civil Liberties Union (Protect Civil Rights)
AAUP (Protect Higher Learning)

Your welcome but I dont understand. I did not make a statement I was asking you a question. In particular, this is to get you to show that there is some linchpin to the falsification of common decent that relies on some biogenetic law. I have never heard of this before and therefore the claim requires support. Nor, so it seems, have you given any evidence that convergent DNA is the actual cause of things such as similarity in embryo development, ERVs (highly unlikely), etc.

---

Organizations worth supporting:
Electronic Frontier Foundation | Defending your rights in the digital world (Protect Privacy and Security)
Home | American Civil Liberties Union (Protect Civil Rights)
AAUP (Protect Higher Learning)

If you can show that starting from a reptilian jaw, two different lineages of mammals developed the exact same inner ear structure down to the genes responsible completely independent of one another then I will admit that my understanding of convergent evolution is wrong. No. Real legs with bones and all. Some even are born with legs. Nope. Not fake legs or some kind of tissue scaffolding. Real actual appendages hardly indistinguishable from their hippo relatives. You asked for an example where similarities in embryo development between two morphologically unrelated species showed common decent. This is what I gave you. These are also fact. If you want to dispute the facts then maybe you need another forum. Normally they are reabsorbed before birth but not always.Another good example of this is snakes. Snake embryos have legs too. I think that they even have the forelimbs. And they most certainly DONT need them in any way.This message has been edited by Jazzns, 06-22-2005 01:01 PM

---

Organizations worth supporting:
Electronic Frontier Foundation | Defending your rights in the digital world (Protect Privacy and Security)
Home | American Civil Liberties Union (Protect Civil Rights)
AAUP (Protect Higher Learning)

I did. In the post that is actually listed as a response to yours. Please kindly read ahead before you accuse me of ignoring you.

---

Organizations worth supporting:
Electronic Frontier Foundation | Defending your rights in the digital world (Protect Privacy and Security)
Home | American Civil Liberties Union (Protect Civil Rights)
AAUP (Protect Higher Learning)

Being that this is a science form we do not indulge religious mythologies now do we? That snake embryos have legs is direct evidence for their ancestors being legged reptiles. Yes but the fossil sequence that shows the evolution of the mammalian inner ear proceeds from a reptilian like jaw to a mammalian like jaw with the bones descending into the inner ear. The fossil progression is a fact. Because that is what you are claiming, that convergent DNA is the reason why it looks like common decent when we compare genetic and morphological traits. I am not saying they have to be exactly the same genes, but the same genes that control inner ear development need to be the same if we are talking about two species that are not related yet look that way genetically and morphologically due to convergent DNA/evolution. I am certainly not backtracking. If you claim that as an alterative to common decent that creatures that only look related because of convergent evolution then it is up to you to show this. I am giving you a clear example that if you could show to be true would justify your claim. That is not the point. The point is that they are similar or different enough to diagnose common decent. No. If you could show that two species previously thought to have a common ancestor only looked that way because of convergent evolution then I would join you in your skepticism. Of course they did because the reason that monotremes are monotremes is because they were the first split from what we would consider the main line of mammalian evolution. Before the inner ear that is common to placental mammals evolved they monotremes were already a distinct taxa with their own evolutionary path.I hope you realize that this example not only does not support your claim but actually refutes it. Monotremes and placental mammals each developed acute hearing but did so using different evolutionary tools derived from their most recent common ancestry. Their similarities combined with their degree of differences is excellent evidence that monotremes and placentals had a common ancestor around the time that mammals in general had not yet developed the inner ear as we know it today.In order to contradict common decent between monotremes and placentals you would have had to show that the similarities between monotreme and placental evolution were due to convergent evolution. What you just did is show that they diverge from a semblance of commonality! This is exactly what we would expect if two different things had a common ancestry!I dont expect you to accept this because you have shown yourself to be highly skeptical toward criticism of your claims but I know that it will be clear to those reading that really what you just did here was step on your own argument.By the way...Why do baby whales have legs before they are born? Why are some baby whales born with legs? Why do whale embryos look indistinguisible from hippo embryos? Please address the parts of my post regarding the topic.Thank you,This message has been edited by Jazzns, 06-22-2005 01:54 PM

---

Organizations worth supporting:
Electronic Frontier Foundation | Defending your rights in the digital world (Protect Privacy and Security)
Home | American Civil Liberties Union (Protect Civil Rights)
AAUP (Protect Higher Learning)

I am sorry. I seriously do not understand what this sentence is saying. What is "falling on the whole to argue the details"? I really honestly and without malice do not understand what you are saying.To start off I would like to say that I misunderstood your position. I thought you claimed that the monotreme and placental inner ear were different and that this somehow disproved common decent. I attribute my misunderstanding to the following: No not clearly. You have given no indication that they are the same nor any evidence. Obviously there was so little evidence for this in your post that I originally thought you were arguing the opposite. The surprising thing about the discovery is that monotremes were found with less derived jaw/inner ear structure. This could mean that either the common ancestor between the two is less derived than previously thought or simply that placentals split later than previously thought. No I do not realize that anything is circular. We have a clear sequence that shows a transition from reptilian to mammalian jaws and ears. We have a split between the monotremes and the placentals each of which continued to evolve acute hearing independently. You have not shown that they are the same and in fact I got the impression from your previous post that you were saying that they are different. That is why I was shocked to see you trying to play that off as support for your position. Either way, you still haven't shown a clear example of your scenario.Surprisingly still, your evidence assumes that modern monotremes have followed the evolutionary sequence laid out by the fossil record. If evolution from a reptile to a platypus and from the same reptile to a monkey is not common decent I really don't know where the problem is. You cannot use evidence that relies on common decent to disprove common decent. Don't you see how ridiculous this is? Never did. I used the fact of the fossil transitional sequence from reptile to mammal with regards to the formation of the inner ear from the jaw bone. Similar in function but not form. I know you have been told this before. It is a very important difference. The ear of a whale and a bat can both echo locate but they are not built the same. Both placental and monotreme mammals have placental and monotreme ancestors with "incomplete" inner ear evolution. How does this do anything other than support common decent? I am perfectly aware of the fact. I just think it is slightly amusing that you think that this fact is somehow evidence against common decent rather than evidence for it. You really don't see it do you?What about the whale embryos? Please address the points that are part of the topic.

---

Organizations worth supporting:
Electronic Frontier Foundation | Defending your rights in the digital world (Protect Privacy and Security)
Home | American Civil Liberties Union (Protect Civil Rights)
AAUP (Protect Higher Learning)

Why did you respond to my post again? You are making things very confusing by doing this. You seem very pleased with yourself after assuming that you have actually shown anything. Given that you never said nor gave evidence for homology in inner ear structure between placentals and mammals one can not but expect the misunderstanding that produced: Given that it seemed your argument was reversed due to your lack of explaning anything, its hardly right to berate me.How about we get this back on topic? Why do whale embryos have legs if they are not derived from terrestrial mammals?

---

Organizations worth supporting:
Electronic Frontier Foundation | Defending your rights in the digital world (Protect Privacy and Security)
Home | American Civil Liberties Union (Protect Civil Rights)
AAUP (Protect Higher Learning)

The more I follow this thread the more I really do think the topic is a bit ridiculous. Except for this claim that it was creationists who debunked Haeckels drawings really this is a non issue.So there was an incorrect idea that was considered right for a period of time. So what? Scientists used to think that the space outside the earth was filled with ether. Scientists used to think that Newtonian laws of motion held true in all instances. Scientists used to think a lot of things that get overturned as time goes by. But just like every other tentative conclusion that science holds today, it still gets taught even if it may be overturned at a future date.There is an issue in this case of an idea that had already received criticism being propagated but the claims of some posters on this issue concerning conspiracy, brainwashing, indoctrination have only thus far been hard to support accusations. What needs to be shown is malicious intent in disseminating wrong information that is known to be wrong for the purposes of ideologue.Where this fails is the motive. Even if it can be down that somehow this was some kind of grand propagation of disinformation, the benefits of doing such are not very great. The ToE does not stand or fall based on the results of embryology. Embryology is one biological component affected by evolution. Evolution is supported by hordes of other sub-fields of biology including embryology that does not espouse recapitulation.Speaking as if it was the design of the evolutionist to propagate this information to support their dubious theory is simply rhetoric which is the only way to belittle the theory when no facts are available to do so on scientific terms. The truth of the matter is that scientific creationism has no scientific legs to stand on and therefore must resort to attacking scientific theories like the ToE, the Big Bang, etc on political and philosophical grounds. The whole basis of this argument is that there was a problem with Embryology related to Haeckels drawings thus all the rest of the ToE must answer to this crisis. This is ridiculous on the face of it yet is the one of the only fragile straws that creation science has to grasp upon.People like our Kent Hovinds continually berate this issue because their method of persuasion has nothing to do with presenting the actual facts. They are spin doctors whose goal is the propagation of their OWN brand of misinformation for the purposes of religion, greed, or both. To actually face the ToE on the grounds for which it is ACTUALLY supported is pure futility for these people because they either know it is unassailable by their methods of inquiry or simply do not care to invest the effort to pursue the issue legitimately.

---

Organizations worth supporting:
Electronic Frontier Foundation | Defending your rights in the digital world (Protect Privacy and Security)
Home | American Civil Liberties Union (Protect Civil Rights)
AAUP (Protect Higher Learning)