Why are Haeckel's drawings being taught in school?

The existence of polonium halos are known. What the {hoax\fraud} issue with them is the claim that they "prove" a young earth. This is patently false.I suggest you do some further reading.

---

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

Btw, thank you for posting those images. I do not know how to do that, but maybe can figure it out now. It would be helpful to post actual microphotographs as well to compare. There are several reasons why this is false. First, he did not simply alter details but actually used the same image but relabelled in several places. : Secondly, the story they illustrate has not stood the test of time. There has never been shown to be a phylotyptic embryonic stage to this date.And most importantly, this is suppossed to be the evidence, not just illustration of a point. The evidence itself is faked and hence conclusions drawn from the evidence are faked regardless if evolutionists in their delusions used such faked evidence for over 100 years despite being told the evidence was faked. It has not stood the test of time because the evidence was fraudulent all along, and it took well nigh 130 years to even begin to get evolutionists to quit using this faked evidence.Your comment below though proves that evolutionists have not yet completely abandoned these false claims. Yes, in fact I do deny that, as anyone that is educated on the subject should. The so-called tail is the backbone forming, and the so-called gill slits are "biomechanical flexion folds, caused by the embryo's head growing around the heart". linkI realize you see gill slits when in reality it is simply folded tissue there, but that's because the deception through the use of Haeckel's false depictions is such that it is hard for evolutionists to let go of the story, the myth, even when it is shown to be factually wrong.Humans never have gill slits. That's just wrong. You believe it because you were taught that, and never really looked into the evidence for yourself.This message has been edited by randman, 06-22-2005 09:14 PM

creationist frauds are not the topic of this thread. I think there may be a couple of old threads around on that topic.

the point is partly on topic as it relates to whether creationists are exposing fakes and frauds. the Haeckel drawings were exposed by scientists not creaionists. to claim otherwise is to make false statements.but fair enough. yeah, there should be one or 50 .... (I thought there was one about "what is your favorite creationist hoax?" or the like)

Compare: together with this message: [indent][blockcolor=tan][color=navy]withfish: chick: pig: human: I would submit that the differences between the renderings and the actual photos are massive, and moreover, that in the actual photos, we don't really see anything but that more similar looking species on the outside are more similar in their embryonic development and even that is questionable. In these photos, we see in the earliest stages humans looking more like fish than pigs and chicks, and then in the 2nd stage, the pigs and chicks looking more similar to humans than the fish. There is nothing here to support common descent.Moreover, we never see a single phylotyptic stage, which is what evolutionary theory predicts.This message has been edited by randman, 06-22-2005 09:22 PMThis message has been edited by randman, 06-22-2005 09:24 PM

No, you back up your claim. You claim creationists were not involved in exposing the fraud.Prove it.I've given you some links with the names of the scientists and authors of books that originally exposed the drawings as frauds. Prove they are evolutionists and not creationists, please, to back up your claim.All I am claiming in this area is that creationists in my lifetime said these were forgeries, and yet evolutionists did not agree and do any studies, it seems, until 1997 with Richardson's paper, and even then some evolutionists are hesitant to own up to the truth.Much of the time perdiod we are discussing predates the internet so it will be hard to find web-sites of the 1980s of creationists arguing the drawings were faked, but don't you find it interesting Richardson chose to conduct that study?Could it be that the criticisms of creationists finally forced evolutionists to take action on the matter?You claim that is not the case. Prove it please. Back up "your" contentions.

You are being absurd. First you claimed that it was creationists, and then you posted the scientist(s) involved ... a professor of zoology was the first, according to your own post. Thus we know they were scientists. The question is whether they were creationist, and this cannot be proven in the negative, but should be easy to prove in the positive.And I asked you to substantiate your claim that creationists were exposing frauds: this should be easy to do if in fact the people were creationists as there should be plenty of evidence of such.It is your original claim that is challenged.Until you do post that, your point is invalid.

(1) there are so many species of fish that finding pictures of one that looks very different should not be difficult. That first stage is unreadable in the picture and so the picture is useless ... perhaps you would like to sketch it to make it clearer? I would not be surprised to find other pictures that look similar to the drawing. The point is also what is emphasised: a schmatic drawing of a dead specimen will always appear different than a picture.(2) I also do see similarities between the human embryo pictures and the sketches, and between the chick embryo and the sketches. I am having trouble finding the pig in the sketches though ... (3) Gosh, that sure sounds like similar embryonic stages to me. And the more different the species the sooner the embryonic development stages differentiate. Ultimately there is one common stage for all life: the single cell.(4) Totally false. First off, every life form shares a single cell stage. Second, evolutionary theory does not require anything more from {zygote\embryonic\fetal} development than inherited genes from parent(s) with some mutations and some genetic {mismatches\mistakes}, and nothing more. Whether an elephant embryo developed from the tip of it's trunk or the tip of it's tail is irrelevant to evolution.{{{btw -- netsape gives me a free website where I can post copies of images and then link to those photos. all you need is a hosting site to do the same.}}}

---

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

You are the one being ignorant here. I will prove it to you, but will you have the character to admit it.1. Most biologists during Darwin's time were creationists. Your assumption that they were evolutionists is wrong.2. In terms of recent history, I gave you my testimony of what a creationist, also a scientist and university professor at NC State university presented, which is that these were frauds and the impression it had on me. That was back in the 80s.It seems to me that most evolutionists were nonetheless caught off guard by Richardson's 1997 study exposing Haeckel's drawings as fraudulent, but creationists had been insisting the evidence was fake for a very long time.Here is a link from a published article for example in 1995, long before Richardson's article. Reflections on the Emperor’s New Clothes | Answers in Genesis \Here is another article from 1996. Something Fishy About Gill Slits! | Answers in Genesis Creationists long argued and maintained that evolutionists were using faked drawings. Evolutionists seem to have only begun to withdrawn the use of such faked evidence in light of sustained creationist charges of fraud.Richardson's article, in fact, was one of the first categorically clear repudiation of Haeckel's drawings in recent history by evolutionists, and that was not until 1997, years after creationists throughout the 70s, 80s and 90s denounced the fraud.How you can sit there and claim it was evolutionists correcting themselves is beyond me, and frankly highly offensive.This message has been edited by randman, 06-22-2005 10:10 PM

In that posted picture? which are they? So you claim that embryos of different species are radically different? That in fact some take altoghether different paths in development (perhaps developing a whole hind foot first?)? Not to quibble but the end of the backbone is the coccyx, otherwise known as the tailbone. The leg buds appear about 1/3rd up from the end of the ... ?tail? end, and on every animal I know of that has an extension beyond the hind legs it is called a tail. It's a tail. It starts as a tail and it ends as a (vestigal) tail.I also did not say gill slits, as I am aware that slits are not involved. I have seen them called 'gill pouches' elsewhere (as in places where the gills will grow on fish), but certainly they are folds just as similar folds appear on fish and other species.

---

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

Here are some more references to creationists that denounced Haeckel's drawings. Developing Deception | Answers in Genesis Note the reference to the creationist scientist, Douglas Dewar who was arguing the same criticisms of evolutionary theory back in the 40s, 50s and 60s as today.Science in Christian PerspectiveCreationists denounced the fraudulent use by evolutionists of Haeckel's drawings for 130 years before the evolutionist community began to acknowledge the error, and even then, I wonder if the internet and the ID movement in the US had not gained strength if and when evolutionists would have ever abandoned this fraud.This message has been edited by randman, 06-22-2005 10:32 PM

but not all. thus your conclusion is false. sorry.those that were creationist would have published works showing that they are.everything else you said is beside this point.your point is invalid until you can show he was a creationist.

---

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

Um, no, my point is that evolutionists today only began to back off on the use of fraudulent drawings after decades of creationists criticizing the use of such drawings.I have shown you references, and my personal experience, from the 30s, 50s, 60s, 80s, and 90s. I am sure there is more, but you have offerred nothing to back up your claims that only evolutionists expose frauds.You have also used deception by suggesting that creationists are not scientists.

They are not gill pouches either. They have absolutely nothing to do with gills whatsoever.On the tail claim, all I can say is the tailbone in humans is not a tail.basically, when you boil all this down, all you guys have is some similarities, but they don't really match up convincingly, unless you have been already brainwashed to believe in universal common descent. That's why frauds such as Haeckel's drawings became popular. They were more effective than the truth in convincing people.Wonder why?

If you really believe this, you have been seriously misinformed. For example, a 1990 edition of the textbook Evolution describes the fradulent replacement of human embryo drawings with dog embryo drawings. (Though it is my understanding that even if Haeckel had used human images his point would have been well-made since dog and human embryos are so similar).If a standard biology textbook describes the fraud in 1990, it hardly stands to reason that the 1997 study blew away the scientific community. Your 1995 creationist article references a 1980 article by the (evolutionist) scientist Keith Stewart Thompson. (That's what the '8' at the end of the sentence links to.)I think you really have to ask yourself - if creationists had a handle on the situation for so long, then why do they have to cite evolutionist sources in their own articles?But really, all of this is moot, since scientists have been discrediting Haeckel's illustrations since 1868: So if you are correct, and creationists have known that Haeckel's drawings were fradulent since the 1970s, then the creationists are only a century behind the scientists who were Haeckel's contemporaries.

Get it? 1868. Not 1997.