Why are Haeckel's drawings being taught in school?

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

Modulous, first off you are not "my opponent" as if this was a debate between you and I.Secondly, you pretty much completely dodged the whole premise of the thread seeking to argue peripheal points to deflect from the obvious truth.Z said it all basically on the first page. So I will quote him, and no one has been able to adequately give an answer to either he or I. The only possible beef I could have with the statements above is that this is 2005, and it could be all those textbooks revised their error last year or a few years back and the info is old, but just go back a few years, and there is no doubt that most evolutionist textbooks contained the use of what I call the Big Lie, a propoganda tool perfected by propagandists a long while back, which is to use pictures in a deceptive manner.Evolutionists either knew or should have known that Haeckel's drawings and drawings based on their drawings were a gross error, but they kept using them because they were effective at expressing unproven claims. It was a form of lying, and the attidude of many here is not a proper one, of gee, how could we have blown it, but rather of denial.This was not an innocent mistake because as I have shown, the awareness this drawings were faked was well advertised, and even non-scientists, like myself, could check these claims and see they were totally bogus, which I did in the 80s when challenged to look into this stuff for myself.There is no excuse in perpetuating such a scientific fraud on the public, and there is no excuse, imo, in the attitude of evolutionists towards their critics in this area when the critics were right all along, for over 130 years, and the evolutionists just scoffed at them as imbeciles or something.Evolutionism is a form of ideological indoctrination. I know of no other reasonable explanation to explain their dogmatic use of fraud with such seeming sincerety.I cannot explain that all evolutionists are bald-faced liars. It seems more reasonable to me that the way evolution is taught does not encourage basic questioning and critical thinking over evidence considered fundamental to arguing for common descent, and thus few believers in evolutionism ever bothered to check the facts of what they were being taught, and were so dogmatic in this indoctrination, most refused to listen to critics who pointed out this fraud to them.I see it as more of form of mass delusion, very subtle and effective, something political campaigns use to foster support for their ideas and people, and demonization of their critics.Such propoganda ought to have no place in science education.In fact, it would probably be better for educating the mind if evolutionists downplayed the evidence, and understated the case, while quietly inviting the student to look at the evidence for themselves and see if the conclusions of the current state of science are correct.Then, the student will understand and either accept or reject instead of parrot a line back to the teacher for a grade.Unfortunately, I do not see evolutionists being willing to do that.

Ned, I think you are confused, and it goes back to much of what we discussed in the past. Every piece of evidence needs to considered in detail.You say because of these similarities, that can only be explained by homologous ancestral structures.I say, hogwash.There is absolutely no conclusive evidence at all this did not arise via convergent evolution, special creation, etc, etc,...That's the point.I am not making a claim of ID, or convergent evolution. I am just pointing out that you cannot claim common ancestry when other explanations work just as well.My point is I don't know, and you don't know, and evolutionists are greatly overstating their case, as usual, because they base their conclusions on faulty assumptions such as claiming that the similarities can only be explained by common ancestry.The fact that equal similarities presumably can arise according to evolutionists via convergent evolution alone proves my point.I asked for more studies because comparing evolutionists ideas on convergent evolution with common ancestry can be a useful means of making the claims of evolutionist more credible.For example, you guys offer a set of similarities, molecular, anatomical, etc,...to argue homologies, in other words common ancestry.But you have some sets of similarities that arose via convergent evolution, correct?So doesn't it make sense to do comprehensive comparisons? It still does not rule out special creation, but it is makes your argument stronger.For example, you say the presence of this gene marker indicates common anscestry.OK, but do we see similar situations of similar gene markers in similarities that arose via convergent evolution?That would move the argument forward some in making it a little more credible to think a common gene marker indicates common ancestry.At some point, according to evolutionists all these genes evolved independently.Is there any reason why this could not happen multiple times?If it could arise multiple times, how do you know if similarities indicate common ancestry? To me, that falsifies the claims that such similarities must equate common ancestry, and does so without even bringing creationism into the picture.Of course, the creationist argument is different, but for now, I think just trying to get a handle on whether the underlying assumptions used by evolutionists to consider evidence are correct is useful.I don't see those assumptions as correct.

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 am not even sure what you mean by "connections."I certainly do not think embryonic comparisions show the predictions of common descent, if that's what you refer to. There are levels of similarities in the sense that there are similarities with adults as as well, and heck, everything has some similarities. A rock is "connected to" a giraffe in that they both contain matter, but that's hardly a good argument that rocks and giraffe's have a common ancestor.

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?

Reduce the evidence down to what is empirical. You see the same gene marker or some other similarity in 2 different species, good.We're fine so far.What are the possible explanations?That's what we should be considering. You seem to want to immediately lump any similarity to being "connected" via common ancestry.The reason I don't give one complete answer is because, imo, we don't have sufficient evidence to make a viable claim, and that's generally my beef with evolutionists. They claim to make claims based on empirical evidence, and then complain really when you want to narrow down the evidence and look at each piece with a critical eye.They want to argue one model over another, and frankly this leads to them making gross errors such as false claims and false evidence such as Haeckel's drawings, but it doesn't matter so much if a claim is proven false because just about anything can fit into the model. They will just move the goal-posts and present the new findings as congruent.My point is what else is the data congruent with?Is a piece of data congruent with, for example:convergent evolution?
ID?
special creation?
common ancestry?Evolutionists need to rule out the other possibilities first before they can conclusively state common ancestry is the correct assumption on how a similarity evolved, and in order to do that, they need to know some things, which they apparently don't, namely:What is the limit on what can evolve independently? What are the limits of convergent evolution?To what degree are mutations random?Are there mechanisms within DNA mutation and chemistry and physics that provide a predisposition to certain sequences and forms?Is there contradictory evidence to the common ancestry assumption? For example, if there is a common genetic marker in gills and parathyroids, does this marker, and this seems to have been answered, exist in other places like the liver? Does it exist in the other creatures in the theorized ancestral evolutionary line, in the phylogenies? Has it seemed to arise anywhere else in a manner that suggests it can arise via convergent evolution?More pointedly, is this really a sign of common descent or common design? By that, common design would predict similar genetic markers be present for similar functions? How does common descent scenarios falsify the argument of common design, not overall, but just for this one piece of data, or any piece of data?How about the other "markers"? If we apply similar reasoning to other potential "markers", would they indicate relatedness in this one area, not overall, between species that are considered not that related?What is the nature of genes to function? Specifically, can you have similar function and similar genes arise convergently, or alternatively via common design, that do not seem to share a common ancestor that passed these traits down?These are questions that need to be answered, all of them, before any reasonable conclusions on any piece of data can be asserted.

There are, as I understand, several markers. There is the actual development that the various body parts undergo. Then their is in this case function and location. So there are several pieces of evidence for something. Explanations? Explanations for what??????? Rule out other possibilities for what? I thought the whole point of this thread is that there is an ongoing conspiracty to suggest connections between the development of different embryos. This sounds like you are saying there are connections that need one of a number of possible explanations. That is you offer these possibilities:
convergent evolution?
ID?
special creation?
common ancestry?Why? I have asked you why several times.The point is you have reconized that there is something to explain. The fact is that it is not fraudulent to draw a series of embryos and suggest that there are things in the development of them that need explaining. All of your suggested explanations assume that the different species do not develope in ways which are utterly separate from each other and therefore you offer 3 alternative explanations for why this is so.The issue is settled: Haeckel faked support for an hypothosis that was not correct. However, continued comparisons by biologists of different embryos is not fraudulent. The connections exist. One possible explanation for them is common descent.Now if you wish to open a thread to suggest other explanations for these phenomenae please do so.

Please answer what the heck you mean by connections?There is data, not "connections." That's the whole point.You offer a piece of data to argue "connectedness", and I say prove it. Where is the analysis that shows not the somehow this species could be "connected" but are indeed connected, and in order to do that, you need a whole lot more data and understanding of the process than you guys are putting on the table.The most basic questions, which I put forward above, must be answered first prior to assuming there is any "connection" at all, besides just the fact there exists some similarities in biological organisms.

You mean that no one has given you an acceptable answer to your understanding of the question. Have you ever looked in the textbook by Campbell? I am looking at it right now and there is no mention of Haeckel at all. Nothing in the index. Nothing in the section on evolution.In fact, on page 424, as I have pointed out earlier, there are two pictures comparing human and chicken embryos. Actual pictures! On page 425, there is a paragraph blatantly dismissing the "extreme view that 'ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny.'" Campbell even has the audacity to use a picture from the major source (Richardson) you are using to argue against the textbook's usage.If you don't believe me, take a look for yourself.The claim that Campbell's Biology 5th Ed. teaches Haeckel's claims as fact is false. The text even takes a paragraph to explain that Haeckel's claim of "ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny" is an "extreme view" and "an overstatement". (The text doesn't mention Haeckel by name. It refers to "late nineteenth century embryologists".)I do not have any of the other listed texts at my disposal at the moment. I have used Futuyma's text before, but cannot remember anything about Haeckel in it. The inclusion of Haeckel's drawings in textbooks that are not created by those doing work in the many varied fields related to evolutionary biology is not an indictment of those working in those fields. As a high school biology teacher, I have to tell you that comparative embryology is used in my class as evidence of homology. I use evidence showing the homologies in biochemistry and anatomy as well. After every piece of "evidence for evolution" is presented to my students, I have them come up with a means of falsifying each piece of evidence. There falsifications are then "tested" by them looking up arguments for their falsifications. Since I am lucky enough to have several computers at my disposal, this lesson only takes about a week. The conclusions are always the same--common descent is corroborated by more pieces of individually obtained evidence (individual students doing individual "research") than I could cover by just listing facts to my students. Does that sound like indoctrination? Are my students not encouraged to critically look at the evidence?Which sounds more dogmatic--looking up evidence for a scientific theory or just saying that "[e]volutionism is a form of ideological indoctrination"?Evidence exists regardless of how you perceive it. The evidence for evolution is extraordinary. Science is a self-correcting process that is not nice nor is it democratic. Hypotheses are brutally checked and challanged. Science is a cut-throat business that has no sympathy for weak ideas. There is no voting on whether an idea is right or wrong. The theories involved in biological evolution are still around because they have survived this "weeding out" process. More evidence is found every day that supports evolution. If the evidence did not point to evolution, then evolution would not still be one of the strongest and most robust theories we have in all of science.Also, the misuse of evidence to further a particular viewpoint, such as Haeckel's "ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny", does not dismiss the correct use of that evidence. Tarring the whole biological community with cries of "indoctrination" does not support your viewpoint either. This is a great quote. I honestly like it. I just think it should be applied to the opponents of a robust scientific theory who use false and misapplied claims to further their opinions.

The NCSE has handily sollated all of the figures Wells references. They are Figure 10 in the 'Haeckel's Embryos' page in their discussion of Wells' 'Icons of Evolution'. Only 3 of those diagrams could tenably be said to be substantially based on Haeckel's and in at least 2 of those cases, Futuyma and Guttman, the diagrams are used in a clearly historical context.Sadly I doubt that Randman has looked at what any of these books actually say.TTFN,WKThis message has been edited by Wounded King, 07-07-2005 06:20 PMThis message has been edited by AdminJar, 07-07-2005 06:33 PM

You have suggested that there might be ID, special creation or convergent evolution. Why do you suggest that there might be such things?

WK, "sadly" you forgot to mention that textbooks began to change after 1997, as I already stated on the other thread. So showing depictions after 1997 when finally evolutionists began to remove some of this fraud from textbooks, after 130 years of complaints, is hardly a good rebuttal.Same goes for the other poster ranting about how Campbell changed and quit using Haeckel's drawings. That's good. That doesn't change the fact they kept using them until the 1998 edition.Additionally, looking at the pics you posted, all of the ones, imo, that show multiple side by side comparisons are largely inaccurate, or appear that way to me when comparing these drawings, or selective pics, with actual photos.The exagerration charge thus still holds. I have never read Wells' book, and the distortions were common knowledge long before Wells, but if he is maintaining they are still exagerrating the evidence and presenting misleading drawings, it appears he is correct in that analysis.

Why? Because they are potential alternatives that can explain the existence of similarities in biological organisms.In other words, as I have now stated repeatedly, when you say such and such similarity is due to common ancestry, you need to discount any other reasonable hypothesis on how such a similarity could arise.For example, if you say such and such genetic marker exists in 2 different specie's organs, in a similar location, and have some functional relatedness, you argue, hey, that has to be common ancestry.But how do you know that?That's not exactly overwhelming evidence. Basically, the argument is the presence of a similar gene in parathyroids and gills means that the parathyroid evolved from gills, but that's a huge stretch.How about the rest of the genetic markers?How about the fact there are significant differences in function?How about the fact that what was the in-between stage or stages?etc, etc,...What if the constraints of natural selection dictate location, or if genes are predisposed to mutate in that direction, etc, etc,...?Evolutionists maintain similarities can arise independently. In other words, that similarities have arisen independently, and common ancestry passing on some similarities has been ruled out.Is it convergent evolution, or evidence that evolution is not the answer at all?I think evolutionists are essentially making exagerrated claims since they don't seem to have a full grasp on the questions I raised.Can you not answer any of them?This message has been edited by randman, 07-07-2005 07:07 PMThis message has been edited by randman, 07-07-2005 07:11 PM

But there are then, similarities. In fact there are similarities in the embryos of organisms. There are very detailed similarities in the development of rather different organisms.Thus it is perfectly reasonably to lay out pictures or drawings of the embryos of different organisms side by side to show some of these similarities.To you they may not prove common descent however, they are something that one might expect if common descent it true. Therefore it is perfectly reasonable to use these diagrams in any discussion of the idea of common descent.Therefore we have arrived at the fact that while Haeckel lied the continued use of such diagrams (honestly portrayed) is not dishonest.In fact, above we discover that one of the texts you listed as being an example of dishonest presentation is not. Perhaps you need to check your sources more carefully.The point of this thread is not whether or not the embryonic developement "proves" common descent. It is such a tiny part of the whole range of evidence that it doesn't matter much at all. The point of this thread is whether it is dishonest to show embryos with similar paths in development.You have agreed, it seems to me that it is not, since you have offered your own explanations for why they show these similar paths. If you don't think they have any similarities (connections or whatever you wish to call them) then why offer an explanation for them?Now if you wish to deny that common descent is at least a reasonable (if not proven) explanation you may open another thread on that topic. This one is about drawings showing the nature of embryos.