I don't get my science from the popular press. ... National Geographic ... Time magazine
ROTFL!
Why do the textbook to this day deceive children with Haeckel's embryo drawings that were denounced as fakes over 100 years ago?
Still waiting for evidence of this assertion.
No self-respecting biologist approves of this-evolutionist or no-but there they sit.
I have often seen this claim, in many forums, and I have often seen offers from textbook authors and publishers to fix the error
if only the poster will identify where to look for the error. Like you, no poster ever comes up with a modern textbook in which Haeckel's drawings are used without identifying their errors.
List the textbooks that do this and I will personally make sure the problem is fixed.
I already posted a link to PZ Myer's critique. He didn't sit, nor did Gould.
Wells and Haeckel's Embryos:
quote:
In the case of Haeckel, though, I have to begin by admitting that Wells has got the core of the story right. Haeckel was wrong. His theory was invalid, some of his drawings were faked, and he willfully over-interpreted the data to prop up a false thesis. Furthermore, he was influential, both in the sciences and the popular press; his theory still gets echoed in the latter today. Wells is also correct in criticizing textbook authors for perpetuating Haeckel's infamous diagram without commenting on its inaccuracies or the way it was misused to support a falsified theory.
Unfortunately, what Wells tries to do in this chapter is to take this invalid, discredited theory and tar modern (and even not so modern) evolutionary biology with it. The biogenetic law is not Darwinism or neo-Darwinism, however. It is not part of any modern evolutionary theory. Wells is carrying out a bait-and-switch here, marshalling the evidence and citations that properly demolish the Haeckelian dogma, and then claiming that this is part of "our best evidence for Darwin's theory." ...
In 1977, Gould wrote an excellent scholarly book on the intertwined history of embryology and evolution, titled Ontogeny and Phylogeny. As might be guessed from the title, Haeckel is a prominent character in the book, and his theories and their consequences in the field are dissected in detail and without mercy. Gould also returned to this topic in his column in Natural History magazine in 2000, centering his commentary on the discovery of a scathing critique of Haeckel by one of his contemporaries, Louis Agassiz. Gould has also written other related articles, disparaging textbook authors for their deplorable habit of recycling text and figures well beyond reason.
They call themselves Nat. Center for Scientific Ed. but promote only evolution.
RIght. They promote science. Creationism and ID are not science.
On one hand they promote ideas no self-respecting scientist would endorse ...
Such as?
... and on the other ridicule creationist as insane people?
Where does the NCSE ridicule creationists as insane people? The
only occurrence of the string "insane" on the NCSE website is in a quote from a flat-earther at
Morality, Religious Symbolism, and the Creationist Movement. You'r a liar ...
Why did Time magazine promote Haeckel's ideas in a fairly recent article?
The most recent mention of Haeckel in Time magazine was in 1925, in a book review.
Search Result. To what article do you refer?
Why do some evolutionist defend this?
Still waiting for evidence that there are evolutionists who defend the use of Haeckel's drawings.
Over and over I see these childish tactics like saying people of faith are stupid because they believe the earth is flat etc.
Where? Certainly not at the talkorigins.org page to which you linked.
Louis Pasteur proved life only springs from life more than 100 years ago yet many evolutionists still believe we descended from a rock
Sigh. Pasteur proved that
modern organisms do not arise spontaneously from
formerly living matter, which is true but has nothing to do with scietific theories of how life originally arose.
When these tactics are necessary to prove your point you need to look at yourself instead of attacking others.
You are, of course, referring to yourself. We have presented evidence, discussion, and references to more information, as is typicalof "evolutionists". You have ranted and raved and produced nothing but unsupported assertions.
Fraud in evolution is not a rare occurrence. It is only rare that is gets any press.
What are the statistics of the incidence of fraud in evolutionary biology?