Why are Haeckel's drawings being taught in school?

randman, Given that this discussion is about Haeckel's embryo drawings, I don't think asking exactly (with evidence as opposed to your opinion) where the fraud occurs, is misrepresenting anything, nor is logically fallacious. It seems to me to be a perfectly legitimate question, & one that you have failed to answer.It therefore seems a little hypocritical to be accusing RAZD of being fruitless in discussion.Mark

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't

Hi Randman,RAZD has already replied, but I'd like to take a slightly different tack. I agree. Everyone would agree. What RAZD actually said was somthing different. He said there are many theories that explain much but not all of the data. The unexplained evidence is not false, it is unexplained. For example, we know relativity theory doesn't apply on scales of the very small. That doesn't make our data about the very small false. It only means it is unexplained by relativity theory. We get by for now by using a different theory for the very small, quantum theory. I think you and RAZD are talking about two different things. RAZD is saying that in cases where we know two species have a common ancestor, we know with absolute certainty that they also at one time had common embryonic development. This is axiomatic, since prior to speciation they were one and the same species.I think you're disputing the "observed fact" portion of what RAZD said, because you characterize it as hypothetical, saying that in reality RAZD has no examples of such cases. I'm not sure what examples RAZD was thinking of, but for me the cichlids come to mind. I can't figure out why you say the opposite is observed. That would mean that we observe that the more closely related two species are, the more different is their embryonic development. But that's not what we observe at all, and I can't believe you'd argue that, for example, the embryonic development of a human being is more similar to a chicken than a chimp, so I must have missed your point. Could you explain this again?--Percy

Percy, on the issue of theory, the tone, manner, and assertations of most evolutionists I read or talk with is that "all of the evidence" etc, etc,...."only makes sense" and such like that with common descent, and it's a very large overstatement. These overstatements so characteristic of the teaching of evolution, imo, should cause one to look more carefully at the claims, and question if this is science education or indoctrination. Personally, I think it's the latter which is why Haeckel's drawings remained in use for so long. They "worked" not for science, but for what evolution education evolved early on to be really about. But RAZD was specifically talking about using embryonic evidence to support evolution and more specifically a phylotypic stage. If we have observed speciation, then a shared common ancestor is already an observed fact, and the whole premise of using more evidence to prove speciation occurred after we observed it is not really applicable here because the thing we would be trying to prove would be known.Frankly, I am not sure why RAZD would make the claim we observe speciation and then state we have compared those embryos.That would be useful, although no one has showed that on this thread.The argument for common descent put forward by evolutionists is that we should see, for example, in all vertibrates a highly conserved stage, but we don't. First off, the claim is not that more closely related species will be more similar embyros. That may be the watered down claim now, but it is not evidence for evolution at all. It merely claims that species that look and are more similar as adults are probably more similar as embryos.So what?The claim of ToE has been that species with a common ancestor will share highly conserved stage, a phylotypic stage. For example, all vertibrates were said to share a phylotypic stage early on and then diverge later.This turned out not to be true, but the theory was revived with the hour-glass model, and by revived I don't mean it was ever abandoned. Often, Haeckel's theory, the phylotypic stage theory, the hour-glass version, etc,...have been presented to the public by the same term, recapitulation.One can only assume the same term is used to describe different theories in order to maintain the appearance that evolutionary theory has been more accurate than it has, and in a sense, fool the public, sort of like one generation after the next learning about that recapitulation-thing, you know with embryos and gill slits, but never really facing the truth of how the theory of recapitulation has failed. I think the continued use of Haeckel's drawings helped maintain this illusion.But back to the hour-glass model, it has now failed too. Embryos don't pass through a phylotypic stage as evolutionists claimed, not very early on, and not in the middle (hour-glass model), and certainly not at the end.It is opposite in a lot of ways because the timing of the similarities do not fit in, not very early, not in the middle, etc,...Falling back now on claiming embryos are more similar to more similar adults is not even the same thing, and inconsequential.What was claimed was a highly conserved stage early on which diverged later. Early on the differences are often greater for some, and they don't converge, and of course they have to diverge to form the creature if they had ever converged. So the whole claim was bogus all along.

I agree with much of what you say. The expectation of phylotypic homogeneity for early embryonic development across a broad class of organisms such as the vertebrae was not borne out by research. It appears to be more complicated than that. For example, some studies indicate that the similaries are stronger in the middle of embryonic development.I can agree with what I think is your main point, that scientists erred in believing that embryonic development as understood at the time was another strong and simple independent line of evidence arguing for evolution, and Haeckel shares a good deal of the responsibility for that. The reality perhaps is too complicated for explication purposes.But it isn't bogus, either, just much more complex than originally thought. Increasing morphological similarity yields increasing embryonic development similarity. Creationists argue that similar forms simply require similar embryonic development, but this point fails because increasing genetic similarity yields even greater increasing embryonic similarity than morphological similarity, and this is extremely strong evidence for evolution.Touching on the thread's topic, Haeckel's drawings shouldn't be taught any more. They're hopelessly out of date, they do not communicate our current understanding.--Percy

Thanks for the tone of your post. On the following: I am not as sure about the claims in this area as you are, but regardless, I would not consider it "extremely strong evidence for evolution." There are going to be some commonalities due to the similarities in process. I am not convinced of greater increasing embryinic similarity than morphological similarity myself, and would not characterize that as particularly strong evidence for evolution.But it would be useful to get accurate data without any misleading assumptions coloring the perception of that data.I would hope by now evolutionists have done any number of very comprehensive studies indicating the degrees of similarities and differences to compare the differences and similarities in groups considered closer morphologically with other species that are considered closer genetically.Although not extremely strong evidence, imo, I would think it would be some supporting evidence if the embryos across the board of a wide range of such studies and species showed that embryos were much more similar with species genetically more similar but futher apart morhologically.Have such extensive, comprehensive studies been done?This message has been edited by randman, 06-26-2005 04:44 PM

I would say that this is fairly obvious from your posts. Certainly that would explain the lack of understanding.First off, I can't help but notice that your previous assertions that:were not substantiated. Accordingly they are now classified as tacitly admitted false statements. Thanks.Problem is, it seems you are still making this error of interpretations: See (1) above. You have failed to substantiate this claim specifically as it relates to current theory, which in effect is a tacit acknowledgement that it is a false statement in that regard, which you are now repeating. Alternatively, you are talking about discarded theories, which is a rather pointless exercise, similar to arguing that physics is wrong because the earth orbits the sun and the geocentric model has been falsified or that evolution still uses the piltdown hoax to teach descent.Let me clarify (if I can get through): Notice that you raise the issue of comparing embryos here, I haven't mentioned it at all in the previous post.In fact I am not talking about Haeckel's drawings at all or anything related to them in that post. I specifically referenced known speciation events (there are many, enough that AIG accepts speciation events as a fact and for you (again) to admit that it occurs) to discuss the actual relation between embryonic development and evolution, rather than discuss any reference to Haeckel's falsified hypothesis.Percy understood this when he posted One could have hoped that when you read his post, that you would have gone back and re-read my post to see if maybe, just maybe, you were wrong in your interpretation.That is what I have done when somebody else pointed out that I may have had it wrong, and in a couple of cases this was the case: the mea culpas are there to document this.Let me be very clear about this -- you said: I absolutely did not make the claim highlighted in cyan in any way in the message in question (repeated to save you the trouble of going back to the message to read it): Thus you are clearly (1) not understanding the post at all or (2) intentionally misrepresenting it. For the record, based on other evidence I think it is (1) rather than lying.Please read for comprehension of the actual words instead of any preconceived ideas of what is said. Notice that the above is actual evidence of you doing what you are accusing me of doing. Notice that you did not provide any such evidence to substantiate your claim, please do so or this too will be considered a tacit admission of making a false statement.Again, mark24 commented on this, and any such comment should make one review what was actually stated if one is going to pursue an honest debate. No further comment should be needed by me here, but ... What I was actually specifically talking about was what evolution theory would actually specifically predict for embryonic evidence and not the other way around, and then comparing that with the evidence. Lo and behold, it matches the evidence, including the "inconsistencies" with the phylotypic hypothesis.This (cyan highlighted) comment is another absolutely false misrepresentation of my post. What I posted was that change obviously occurs, but where it occurs is irrelevant to evolution, and this is necessarily NOT an argument for any perceived "phylotypic stage" whether embryonic or other. Point (8) specifically refutes your claim. An early change would disrupt any supposed "phylotypic stage" whether embryonic or other. Perhaps because that was not my argument? What the actual evidence of speciation events shows is that {zygote\blastocyst\embyro\fetus}development was similar (before speciation) but is now different. Obviously because I didn't make that claim at all in Message 177: this is just you repeating your own misrepresentation. Falsified by my Message 177. This shows your lack of comprehension of the argument.What we should see is change, the amount relative to the genetic distance, but change that can occur at any point in development, change that by general averages should appear similar (especially for closely related species), but change that also can occur early in embryo development. Please see the last paragraph of that message: Color added for emPHAsis.I await a considered response.Enjoy.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

You avoided my prior requests, created a straw man, and so basically RAZD, I am ignoring your post. Didn't even read it.You want to play nice, in a decent manner and address the points I raised, fine.You want to misrepresent my posts, then you can discuss the matter with someone else.Capische?

Well,I gave up on randman long ago...Amazing you guys could stand it for so long.But
surely after all this it's time to say goodbye?IasionThis message has been edited by Iasion, 06-27-2005 03:25 AM

Iason, I've had some good discussions, even with evolutionists, but not with all, and one reason is I expect a basic honesty in the discussion, not misrepresentation.This message has been edited by randman, 06-27-2005 03:27 AM

Another false accusation.This is another tacit admission that you are the one doing the misrepresentations as actually documented in the post you are ignoring, rather than as in your unsubstantiated and unfounded assertions (like the one quoted).Not because of any high and mighty principle, but because it appears you can't answer the post honestly without admiting your errors. To yourself?Enjoy your fantasy.This message has been edited by RAZD, 06*27*2005 07:05 AM

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

Funny. I've documented your misrepresentations.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

I am fairly ignorant of this topic, which is why I keep asking questions rather than making statements.I was actually beginning to think buried deep within your grandstanding about the indoctrinating evils of evolutionists worldwide, you might have something resembling a point. I was actually hoping to uncover this point and really delve into it.However, after watching RAZD carefully describe (with supporting quotes and relevant links to posts) where you were misrepresenting his position - stating that he was making claims that he was not, after watching him diplomatically stress that it was probably unintentional on your behalf, and watching him reiterate precisely what his position is, and after watching you fail to substantiate anything upon request and blow off all those efforts by crying 'straw man' (with no supporting evidence), I have to say I am no longer sympathetic to your position.If you were trying to help others see your point of view (and I really wanted to understand your position), you just failed. Which is a shame really.I'd like to thank RAZD for his time in trying to debate with you, and I think he has happily clarified a few points I was confused about - so thanks for that too.

Well, I am sorry you see it that way. The way it appears to me is that a fraud was used for 130 years, and that some here cannot accept that.The requests, for example, for me to waste my time showing them how Haeckel's drawings are wrong are bogus requests, which is why I don't respond. First off, I did show them the ways it was in error to a degree, and I included evidence that it is univerally acknowledged by all that they were fraudulent, and I provided photos for comparison.What more do they want?After awhile, I start tuning someone like RAZD out because he and some others seem to just be arguing for sake of argument.They don't acknowledge the use of frauds as wrong. When asked about modern textbooks, I give them an example of a 1997 textbook, where the authors basically apologized and admitted that somehow these fraudulent drawings had got mixed in, and they say, well, the drawings were only "based on them" and it strains the imagination that if the "based-on" drawings were accurate that these guys would apologize for using them.All the way down the line, there is the refusal to admit to the facts.Take the use of the term "recapitulation." That term was used to describe Hackel's theory, the phylotypic stage, the hour-glass model, and the newer watered down assertions.Why the same term to describe 4 modified theories?Why the use of fraudulent drawings to describe all 4 theories, and using the same term?You tell me.If I have not read RAZD's posts close enough and missed something, frankly I am not concerned seeing as how he completely dodges the point. Maybe I am mixing him up with several others, and that could be unfair since the general impression can come down to more "sides of a debate", but honestly, the decent thing for evolutionists to do is just admit the 130 year use of these drawings whether in exact form or to base new drawings off of was wrong. The drawings were fraudulent, and most importantly, the ideas the drawings were used to convey were false.There was no highly conserved stage, no stage where recapitulation occurs,no phylotypic stage.if evolutionists want to move the goalposts, fine, but they need to all come clean about the complete failure of common descent theorists in this area. I'll talk about the new stance, where they have moved the goalposts to, but only when we resolve what this thread is all about, namely why the use of fraudulent drawings by evolutionists.If RAZD wants to come clean and admit:1. the use of Haeckel's drawings were wrong
2. the continued use of the term recapitulation is wrong
3. Evolutionists were wrong for over 130 years and most still assert wrong conclusions today about what embryonic development shows. there is no phylotypic stage.
4. Thus, not only were the drawings wrong, but the ideas they were depicting were wrong as well, not just Hackel's recapitulation but the basic claim of a phylotypic stage.If he admits that's wrong, and only then, do I have time to read or reread his posts. If he's been diplomatic of late, I didn't bother reading because he refused to acknowledge the basic 4 facts above.This message has been edited by randman, 06-27-2005 01:23 PM

randman, I'm still waiting for you to tell us EXACTLY what is demonstrably fraudulent. Your entire case depends on this.MarkThis message has been edited by mark24, 06-27-2005 01:37 PM

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't

Despite evolutionist spin, these are the basic facts.1. The use of Haeckel's drawings were wrong, both in exact form and basing drawings on them2. The continued use of the term recapitulation is wrong since it is used to describe 4 different ideas; Hackel's theory, the phylotypic stage, the hour-glass modification of the phylotypic stage theory, and now the most watered-down version of greater similarity for embryos for species more closely genetically related. The use of the same term and same faked evidence is telling.3. Evolutionists were wrong for over 130 years and most still assert wrong conclusions today about what embryonic development shows. There is no phylotypic stage. It appears some are beginning to accept there is no phylotypic stage, but are still trying to use embryonic development as evidence for common descent, but acknoweledging there is no phylotypc stage.4. Thus, not only were the drawings wrong, but the ideas they were depicting were wrong as well, not just Hackel's recapitulation but the basic claim of a phylotypic stage.The question is why?Is it reasonable to think that something is inherently wrong with the way evolution is taught, believed, etc,...considering it has been so difficult for evolutionists to quit using such fraudulent drawings, evidence, and claims about what is observed?