Why are Haeckel's drawings being taught in school?

I don't think that many evolutionary biologists use this term either. I work in the field of embryology and we always talk about the pharyngeal arches or branchial arches in animals that do show gills, such as in developing tadpoles.What is entirely true is that both fish and human embryos have pharyngeal pouches which go on in fish to form the gills and in humans to form a number of craniofacial tissues, elements of the ear, the parathyroid and thymus. Presumably then you would want all instances of Bohr's atom to be removed from physics and chemistry textbooks. If you intend to remove all simplifications and generalisations in educational textbooks then you are going to have a hell of a job.It might also help if you could substantiate your claim that Baer's observations of general features developing in common at a particular stage and then diverging as development progresses is false. It is certainly true that early stages are also highly divergent but this doesn't show that there is no stage where there are such common feature, although there is evidence to show that there is no single chracteristic 'phylotypic' stage. Maybe you should take a look at some of the comprehensive embryological studies that have been done recently and with considerably more sophisticated techniques than were available 100 years ago. Arguably the whole field of evolutionary developmental biology (evo-devo) is an ongoing elaboration of exactly the sort of study you are describing.I would recommend you to read some of the research by Richardson which has gone in some detail into the discrepancies between actual development and Haeckel's drawings as well as showing a number of problems with an assumption of the existences of a true typical phylotypic stage. Some of Richardson's papers are freely available online. TTFN,WK

In fact, Randman, you will be held to supporting your claim in this regard. You are, in some cases, dealing with actual biologists. Not the best circumstances to be making wild claims without a thorough knowledge of the subject. You might want to tone down your rhetoric and be more cautious.

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)

Thanks for clarifying that "gill slits" is genuinely not the name of pharyngeal pouches.On the issue of illustrations, they should be done with as much clarity as possible. Here we see that Haeckel exagerrated the drawings and even substituted one creature's embryo for another. Accompanying that, generations were taught false tales such as claims of human gill slits, which we see many are still loathe to relinquish the right to use such faked evidence and terms, as PaulK's posts indicate.I find it telling that creationists for a long time said the use of gill slits and Haeckel's drawings were fraudulent, but that when a paper came out in 1997 stating the same, the evolutionist community was very surprised, and you still see some doubt in evolutionist circles. You see things written like "some science historians question."For me personally, and Ned should take note of this, the fact that this was a surprise to biologists and others suggests to me they never looked into the data for themselves, but unquestioningly acceptd this "evidence" for evolutionary theory. That alone is telling.I will read the study you linked to.Thanks for posting that.

Well, a number of scientists in the 1800s first denounced them, but creationists for years said they were fraudelent, but more recently, in 1997, Richardson and another evolutionist denounced them, and the evolutionist community acted surprised.The fact evolutionists, teachers, students, scientists, etc,...unquestioningly accepted fraudalent evidence speaks volumes to me.

Actually, this is completely wrong. The mammalian inner ear evolved independently within mammals, at least twice, or so the current reasoning goes. The inner ear including the 3 bones presumably evolved independently and produced more or less the exact same solution to a problem.Take the pelvic bones of the whale, if that's what you are referring to, they are necessary and serve a very important function. I don't know much about whale embryos, but "hind limbs" are necessary if what you are referring to are the development of pelvic bones and attached muscle structures.

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)

First, they overstate the case by distorting the evidence. It is inappropiate when giving evidence for something, not merely a useful illustration such as a map that should be limited in nature, to purposefully use distorted evidence. What the site and evolutionists are doing is trying to get people to believe in the concept prior to understanding and viewing the evidence, and in some respects never present the evidence fully. The mantra over and over again is that evolution is true, it and only it explains everything, etc, etc,....It's more or less a form of religious or at least ideological indoctrination, which is why so many were shocked to learn that the drawings they used for over 100 years were fraudulent. Thank you for your honesty in expressing this sentiment. I have maintained the current idea is basically a watered down version of the biogenetic law. Glad to see at least someone else recognizes that. I agree Haeckel being wrong does not in itself falsify common descent, but you made my point. It would have been stronger evidence for it, had he been right. The evidence for common descent from embryology is weaker than evolutionists present, imo, and in general, I think evolutionists overstate every bit of their evidence, and ignore criticisms, which is why they were surprised to learn Haeckel's drawings were faked. Creationists were telling them that, but they refused to listen to criticism. They adopt a believe first, understand later or not at all, approach in education, and it's wrong.Btw, education is what this thread is about, no, admin nosy?As far as convergent evolution, I have not to date seen any limits to the similarities that can be produced, and moreover, non-coding DNA exhibits some convergent tendencies so there is some internal predispositions as well as external influences acting to produce convergent forms.

Actually, he did fake his drawings, even substituting another creature's embryo to make the evidence look stronger than it was.The map analogy is not a good one because maps are suppossed to be about giving directions, and in a sense Haeckel's drawings do that. They direct you to believe something.The problem is that they are also meant to be the evidence for that belief. This would be like drawing a map with deliberately wrong directions, and then claiming the map is accurate.It's not accurate, and the data Haeckel submitted via the drawings was fraudulent.

If I support this, will you concede you were wrong? Will you admit your concepts of convergent evolution are wrong? What do you mean they have real legs? You mean they have leg bones, real legs, or really is what you refer to the development of the strong tail muscles, etc,....? In other words, this seems to me more like the gill slits example. You see something you call real legs, but they form a tail, not real legs, and are thus not really legs at all.Once again, this just goes to the fact whales are mammals. You guys want to make every common trait evidence of a common ancestor. Sorry, but that's just an idea on what might have occurred. There is essentially no testable method for showing that it did occur. So what happens to them?

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)

I am not sure what you and WK think I am claiming, but the fact the phylotypic stage has not been evident suffices to verify my claim.It is "an important cornerstone" in evolutionary biology, and it is strongly predicted by common descent theories, and yet after 100 years of research, we don't have a firm grasp that it occurs.MK Rich Ardson - MK Blog RichAs far as using general similarities, I don't see that as evidence because we are dealing with creatures that are more similar anyway.

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)