Why are Haeckel's drawings being taught in school?

Can you explain in some more detail. Is the above what happened? That is, did they simply "tie down" the moths in a place that they were naturally a lot of the time just to allow for taking a picture. To me this would really be something that doesn't affect anything. Or is there more to the fruhaha?

You think bugs are hard, try my teenagers!

Thank you. That is a useful expostion of the whole story. Another lie or near lie by some of the creationist sites. Tch tch.

and speciation seems to be accepted by many if not most creationists. In fact others accept the evolution of new genera as well. Not only that but they accept an enormous rate of evolution to boot.I still haven't figured out what the story is. There seems to be some different variation for every individual creationist. And sometimes several stories from one individual which contradict each other.Members should, maybe, have a bunch of check boxes on their profile at sign up.
Eg.,
Age of earth
a) 6,000 years,
b)under 10,000 and over 6,000,
c)anything up to 30,000,
d)4.5 billion years or so
Evolution
a)none at all,
b)variations within kinds (kind = species)
c)kind = genera,
d)kind = family (but not for humans)
e) everything evolved but not humans
f) everyting evolved including humans but some steps were magic (ID)
e)none of the above
The flood
a)it rained a lot,
b)the earth was torn apart by catastrophes of all kinds,
c)the tide came in big time AND it rained a lot
d)a bunch of things happened which I wil add to in an adhoc fashion

In spite of all the various disclaimers and the long history of carelessness with those dammed drawings I still think it is misleading to reproduce them.If one disclaimers the hell out of them but still shows drawings that are more similar to each other than is justifiable that is misleading and, to some degree, dishonest.However, what isn't clear is how "fudged" the drawings are. I am agreeing that they are becase many experts say they were. When I look at them and the posted pictures I see only a little fudge and not enough to invalidate the overall picture. There is, as noted elsewhere, some "fudge" in all drawings. That is part of the reason for doing them; To clarify something.

Well, the details that Haekel was propounding were wrong. But the prediction from common descent did hold true.I'd like from you to know just what is wrong with the drawings and just what prediction is not true.

Care to comment on:
homologous structures

quote:

---

So, what we have here is multiple lines of evidencelocation, function, several molecular markers, and developmental origins and processesthat converge to show that parathyroid glands and the gills of fishes have a common evolutionary origin.

---

What details do you need? Exactly which claims do you believe are false? What reasons do you have to believe they are false? So you agree that there are markers connecting them? How many do you need to be convinced? On what basis do you believe that what you have isn't enough to be strongly indicative if not definitive? Why isn't it reasonably definitive in light of the other data? Why not?Do you disagree with the development shown from the 5 week old embryo? Why? Why isn't this useful information for coming to a tentative conclusion? I don't know? Can't you find any criticisms? I think it is your turn to do so. This is an example of information that makes your claims seem to be a bit unfounded. Do you have arguments against it at the same level of detail? Has WK's post Message 245 answered this point for you? If not why not?

Of what relevance is this? We are discussing whether or not there are pharyngeal pouchs? They may have arisen through evolutionary processes (either common descent or convergence) or common design. The discussion is whether or not the embryos of various species show development of structures that have some relationship to each other. In other words to convince you it will take more information than is currently available. No problem, that is up to you. However, this is enough to convince me that there is a reasonable possibility (if not definitive) that it is not fraudulent to talk about the connections between embryos of different species and that is all that is being discussed here.In other words, your claim of unfounded, fraudulent assertions is wrong. Perhaps you should reread the article. Again, the way they get there isn't material to whether or not there is fraud. You seem to be suggesting that common design is the explanation for the relationships we see between embryonic structures. If there is any relationship for any reason then the claims we are discussing are not unfounded or fraudulant. They interpretation of them may be incorrect if your common design interpretation is right but that is a separate issue. The evidence is there to show that this is not a fraudulant suggestion. And the 'very little' is more evidence than you have for your suggestion of how it came about.

1. We agreed that Haeckel faked it way back at the beginning of the discussion.
2. There is good evidence that human structures are, in some way, related to gills in the developement of embryos. Therefore not a fraud even if you think it is a misinterpretation.
3. "proven"? The stage seemed to be there from looking at gross anatomy (not proven) but indicative. Since then other things have come to light which supports that. What is "proven"? No one waits for 100% proof before putting forward suggested explanations.

Well, I remember several agreeing that Haeckel faked it. Not a big deal; certainly not what you are making it out to be.The use of drawings arranged like Haeckel's has, in my opinion, been shown to be perfectly reasonable. The embryo's of various species do have similarities and do undergo transformations that follow a similar pattern. In fact, evidence has been shown that these similarities are much more than just "skin deep". The developement of parts of humans from the same structures that give rise to gills has been shown. This is what makes the terms used acceptable.The community uses them because they show an actual fact about embryonic development and should continue to do so. However, calling it the "evolutionist" community is a bit silly since it is really only very minorly involved with evolution but more with embryology.The community has published comments on Haeckel's fraud. In fact, the first I ever heard about or saw drawings of that type was in an article discussing the issue and showing that they were faked. What is sad is the creationist community misrepresenting the facts of the case and continuing to beat a dead horse. The use of drawings comparing the actual development of embryos in the way that Haeckel did (but without messing with them) is perfectly acceptable and shows facts of the development of them that you may not accept but that you have given nothing to suggest is wrong. You even decided that the explanation was either convergent evolution or ID seemingly accepting that there IS in fact a relationship between embryos to be explained by one of those two suggestions of yours. Of course, while you don't think the common descent explanation of the facts is adequately supported you have not yet offered any support for your two alternative explanations.

Dammed if I remember. More than a decade ago, probably less than 20 years and that was, as I said above, the first time I had heard of embryonic evidence being used. But then I've not had undergraduate level biology; I'm an interested amateur reader.This message has been edited by NosyNed, 07-06-2005 09:17 AM

Haeckel's claims are not interesting since they have been known to be wrong for many decades. This is exactly what the paper I referenced was talking about. It shows in detail. There are common origins for very dissimilar structures.YOu comment about convergent evolution instead of common descent is, as I said above, nothing to do with this thread. The claim of fact of the relationships between embryonic development is what you have been calling fraud. You know are offering an alternative explanation for those observations that you have been calling fraud. This is confused and confusing. I never claimed you said CE or ID was a fact. It was what I read you offering as an explanation for the nature of the development of human structures from pharngyeal arches. But we aren't (in this thread) interested in the explanation. We are interested in the nature of the development and how they compare across species. You were given one reference to the development pathways and ignored ost of the evidence in it or brushed it off as CE or ID. However, by suggesting CE or ID you seem to suggest that the development pathways are actually as described. If they are, you claim that pointing this out is a repeat of Haeckel's fraud is refuted. That is these development pathways show that there IS at least some good reason .pqsAgreed there should be such similarities. We need to find such information. However, while we are at that can you comment on where we are right now? It is not just the marker. It is several pieces of data all pointing to the same thing. This appears that you are now denying that the connection is there. However, you have also offerered CE (Convergent evolution) and ID as possible explanations of the connection. Could you pick which view you hold please? It is not just the gene. You have not yet commented on the starting points for the various stuctures that come from the pharngyeal arches and where they end up. I see a strong similarity in the early stage (5 week) with the layout of other animals and then these structures end up in rather interesting places in humans. I don't remember your comment on this. So what? Are you now evoking ID as the explantion for a connection between species that you claimed it was fraudulent to say was there?This message has been edited by AdminJar, 07-06-2005 10:43 AM

As you know I think they can be explained by shared ancestral stuctures. I am, however, as I have said several times before not arguing that here. What I have said is that there is evidence here of connections between these structures. That is using drawings that are laid out like (but not the same as) Haeckel's drawings is perfectly acceptable. The interpretation of what these structures mean is a separate issue.It is not a fraud if the drawings are done correctly and show connections which are actutually there.In the rest of your post you seem to agree that the connections are there. Therefore using correctly drawn diagrams of this type is perfectly acceptable. Therefore all the rest of your post is a non sequiter (if I can both spell that and have right what it means ).In this post you now argue for a different explanation for the connections between embryos of different species. Fine for another topic. However, this topic is about whether these type of comparisons can be honestly put forward to support common descent.While you may think they that there are other explanations do you not agree that they could just possibly support common descent as well? If not why not?

I find you a bit confusing. Are you sure there aren't two different people using your ID?If there are no connections what is your suggestion of convergent evolution or ID supposed to be explaining? Why exactly do you bring these concepts up in this thread at all?