Why are Haeckel's drawings being taught in school?

RAZD, you are the one moving the goalposts. You want evidence that they were frauds, and given with quite a few details, and then you want a piece by piece description, etc, etc,...Plenty of data has been given for you to fully see how they were fradulent.You can compare the pics yourself.You can look at the studies that specify exactly how they were fraudulent.You can look at the summaries of the studies indicating the pattern is false since there is no highly conserved embryonic stage, as evolutionists claimed for over 130 years and some still do today.You can look at particular false claims like claims of human gill slits.All this and more has been given.You don't see because you don't want to. You will insist on more and more details, never being willing to admit the obvious truth, the drawings were frauds and they were used by Haeckel and others not advocating Haeckel's same ideas to advovate false ideas, that there was at a minimum a highly conserved stage of embryonic evolution.This is a cornerstone principle in evolutionary theory that was never true at all.

Just to clarify, the concepts contained within errors in Haeckel's illustrations, intentional or otherwise, are not principle of evolutionary theory; let alone "cornerstone principles."

Well, you are disagreeing with mainstream science if you are claiming a phylotypic stage is not a cornerstone of evolutionary theory.Please note that Haeckel's concept of recapitulation was indeed rejected after awhile, but the concept of a phylotypic stage was not. MK Rich Ardson - MK Blog RichDarwin called it the strongest evidence for evolution (common descent).It is true that you can still argue for common descent without this piece of evidence. It is also true that this false claim was instrumental in convincing the scientific community and the public of common descent/evolution, and that since that time, that has colored the way evidence is viewed.

He's not. He's claiming that recapitulation is not a cornerstone of evolutionary theory. If you want to claim that a phylotypic stage is central that's fine. Has this phylotypic stage 'never [been] true at all'?

Modulous, the term "recapitulation" is still used by some evolutionists to refer to a phylotypic stage.But the history of why people accepted a phylotypic stage has been wrought with fraud. Specifically, Haeckel made an even more egrigious error, popularized it, and then people admitted well, that was wrong, but the idea somehow in a watered down version is right, which is why the term recapitulation is still used sometimes.But as it turns out, the watered down version of recapitulation, a phylotypic stage, is not true either.Try to look at it from someone that is not already convinced of evolution. First, they use the term recapitulation and Haeckel's drawings to suggest something disproven.OK, a mistake based on Haeckel's fraud.But then they keep using the same fraudulent drawings and argue that though "adult" stages are repeated, there is a highly conserved stage, a phylotypic stage, and teach that for decades on and on, despite the fact that there was no phylotypic stage. It was assumed, and therefore taught, and moreover, even taught via faked drawings.But it was total BS all along.Can you not see that?Now, I am sure evolutionists will fall back, as they have here, on the refrain, well, more similar creatures have more similar embryos, and my answer to that, is so what?That doesn't show squat one way or another.Evolutionary theory predicted a phylotypic stage, and even insisted on it as a cornerstone of evidence and for development biology, but hey, that's wrong too.That prediction, if you can call it that, was wrong. It was more of a faked observation than a prediction to be perfectly accurate, and in truth, probably some honestly made the mistake instead of just faking it, as if they knew it was wrong.But here is the point. This illustrates how the basic evidence is clouded by evolutionist presuppositions. It's not the facts support evolution, but that evolution is taught and believed first, and then the facts are spun to support evolution, and as Haeckel and the beleif in a phylotypic stage show, that "spin" is so strong within the belief system of evolutionists that they can go on believing in something as basic as whether there is a highly conserved embryonic stage for well over a 100 years, teaching, believing it, insisting it is scientific evidence, when all along the evidence was otherwise.If you are open-minded enough to consider that common descent could be wrong, I genuinely believe you'd start noticing the same systemic problems in the treatment of the evidence as I do.It's myth-making. Keep in mind even if the myth turned out to be true, it still wouldn't change what I am saying here.

Sasquatch simply said that "the concepts contained within errors in Haeckel's illustrations, intentional or otherwise, are not principle of evolutionary theory"You then said that a phylotypic stage is a cornerstone. This is clearly not what Sasquatch was saying. Whether or not this stage is a cornerstone to evolutionary theory is not the point, its whether what Haeckel was showing was a cornerstone. Do you think that what Haeckel was showing (or attempting to show) is a cornerstone? Was it known there was no 'phylotypic stage'? Was there reason to believe there was? Are you sure it was an assumption with no evidence? How was it taught? Where the drawings used acutally faked, or just exaggerated to demonstrate a point?I would like to see it - but you need to help me out here a little. It may have predicted it was likely, but I don't think was ever needed to be true for ToE to be true. It sounds to me like a strong hypothesis that was perhaps later falsfied. Perhaps that's true - but you'll need to do a lot of work to show that to be true. As has been said, Haeckel's ideas were falsified a long time ago, and I've yet to see it having been taught. I'm open to that idea, but so far the alternative makes no sense to me. I don't see these problems despite people trying to show them to me.

If it was not known, why would it be asserted that it was? Keep in mind this was not presented as a hypothesis, but an observed fact.Also, I made the point that Haeckel's drawings were not just used to back Haeckel's theory, but mainstream evolution's theory even today, that embryonic development exhibits stages of recapitulation, aka a phylotypic stage.It does not, but it was asserted that it did.Why was that? Here is the problem. You say "but so far the alternative makes no sense to me."So what?You don't need an alternative to show the errors with the first theory. That's something that is puzzling about evolutionists. In other fields, something can be shown to be unlikely and accepted as so, while people are trying to figure out the data.It seems that evolutionism, pardoning my use of "ism" here, is held onto out of a reaction against creationism since that seems to be the alternative.That, imo, is not a proper nor objective approach.

LOLI guess that means that you still do not have any evidence of creationist uncovered fraud. No answer to (2) in any event. Still trying to deflect the argument to other issues too ...My point is that no one has said that "salamander II is wrong" (for instance), and it would be rather the point of the argument that specific sketches in the specific drawings being published are wrong in {X} specific places. {image originally from http://users.rcn.com/...ltranet/BiologyPages/T/Taxonomy.html}To say Haeckel {faked\exagerated} certain sketches, and then say that his sketches are still being used without specifically making the above points is to make a logically incomplete argument.Note that in Message 130 you were asked the same kind of thing about the posted picture: Looking different than a picture is not the same as wrong btw, especially when comparing a picture of a live embryo with a sketch of a necessarily dead specimen.Surely you've studied the issue enough to be able to state exactly what the errors are in the above picture eh?

---

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

I would characterize the juxtapositioning of the embryos with deliberate exagerration of their features to make them more similar across the board, lengthening the "tails" in the first stage, depiction a non-existent similar curve, exagerrating the so-called slits in similarity, etc,....In fact, I would not consider one single sketch in the whole diagram to be accurate, and juxtapositioning the same inaccuracies side by side, imo, is evidence of deliberate fraud.For educators that are aware of the fakeness of these depictions, I consider their actions fraudulent, but probably most if not all were just unaware. Who among those that write textbooks really looks critically at embryos.

I don't want your opinion, I want to know preciseley what is in error.A longer tail is not necessarily an error unless it is significantly out of the normal realm of variation. Your opinion does not establish this. Scientific comparison with the factual evidence does.Same with the "non-existent similar curve" ... especially if you are claiming that some never curve.Or that none of these embryos have the folds in the area of the necks ... are the number of folds in error? What is the normal variation? Not one? But as noted previously the human and chick ones do look like the pictures, perhaps you are blinded by your thesis and not able to look objectively.It seems that you are making the same error that Haeckel made.Enjoy.

---

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

How was it presented, to whom? Perhaps because that is what was thought, but it is now no longer thought? You need to show your working here. What exactly was taught as fact? Why was it taught in that manner? What has caused the idea to be abandoned? The alternative to evolution being: Not evolution.

This displays a basic misunderstanding of science in all fields. I know of no theory that does not have some little quirks that are not explained by the theory.This does not mean that the theory is necessarily false, but that there is a level of incompleteness that is accepted because the theory involved has the best explanation to date of all the {facts\evidence\observations}Continuing to propound on errors is not contributing to the knowledge base, whereas proposing an alternate theory that does as well as the original on the other areas and that also explains the quirks does.Pointing this out on any theory involving evolution while at the same time accepting that kind of science in any other field is basically ignorant (you don't know) or hypocritical (you chose to ignore).Pointing out errors in an old theory while ignoring the results of more recent theories on the same topic that may even use the same evidence is irrelevant grandstanding. Now as far as evolution and the development of embryos goes:(1) What evolution has shown is that closely related species (events where speciation has been an observed fact) do in fact share a common ancestor.(2) From this we also know that they had a common embryonic development at that point.(3) Because we now have two different species, however, we also know that they no longer have identical {zygote\blastocyst\embyro\fetus} development (they don't become different species after birth).(4) From this we know that at some point in the development of the {zygote\blastocyst\embyro\fetus} a change in one (or both) due to {mutation\selection} occurs.(5) Where in the course of development of the {zygote\blastocyst\embyro\fetus} this occurs is irrelevant to evolution: all that is necessary for evolution to work is that there is change.(6) Certainly no change will be observed until differentiation of features begin, so the earliest point where change could be observed would be in the embryonic stage.(7) Just by the law of averages 3/4ths of the changes would occur after the first 1/4th of development has occured, thus it is highly probable that similar development will be observed in the earliest stages of all species, and also probable that the closer the species are related the more similar their development will be.(8) This does not rule out an early change in embryonic development, even in newly formed species.(9) We can extrapolate this same {observation\process} to match the physiological and genetic evidence of other species where speciation has not been specifically observed, and find that this {observation\process} adequately explains the existence of all species, existing and extinct -- both their existence and their observed embryonic development similarities.The fact that this general pattern is observed is just additional confirmation of evolution.And in addition, the actual variations around the basic pattern for when the changes in development of the {zygote\blastocyst\embyro\fetus} actually occur is just additional confirmation that change that results in speciation can occur at any point in that development: entirely as would be expected according to evolutionary theory.Enjoy.{{edited to add color and underline}}This message has been edited by RAZD, 06*25*2005 03:54 PM

---

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

First off, you are wrong on science. A theory that is accepted based in false evidence should be viewed with suspicion, not dogmatism. There you go again. You imply that the "they" in point 2 are species where "speciation has been an observed fact."We may well observe speciation or not, but the species whose embryos are being compared as evidence for common descent are not species where we have observed speciation.That is a fallacious argument but a very typical one for evolutionists. Except we observe none of what you just wrote. What you wrote is the prediction of evolutionists in arguing for common descent, but the exact opposite is observed.

LOLGetting desperate with those unsubstantiated assertions now? Which current theory is based on false evidence? -- Specifically state the theory, show that it is the current theory, then specifically state the falsified evidence, and give citation for falsification. Failure to do so will be taken as tacit acknowledgement that this is a false statement. Um, perhaps because it has happened, it has been observed and it is a fact? Several times. Do a google, learn. Asserting otherwise does not make evidence disappear, it just confirms a willful ignorance. Heck, even AIG acknowledges that speciation occurs: (From Arguments We Think Creationists should NOT use (click) -- the evidence is too overwhelming for them to deny. heh. Not the issue addressed in my post. Another strawman to try to deflect the argument. You made the (false) argument that Haeckel's recapitulation was a {foundation\prediction} of evolution. My post shows what the relevance of embryonic development to evolution actually is, and demonstrated that it is not a {foundation\prediction} at all. Demonstrate the logical fallacy. List the form and the error involved. Failure to do so will be taken as tacit acknowledgement that this is a false statement. Demonstrate the evidence for it being the exact opposite. Failure to do so will be taken as tacit acknowledgement that this is a false statement.Enjoy.

---

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

I didn't read past the first 2 paragraphs and I can see it is probably fruitless to respond to you anymore. You persist in misrepresenting my arguments to create a false straw man to argue with, and that's sad on your part because it prevents a real discussion.You claimed that we have observed speciation, which I agree that speciation occurs, but then you said we compared the embryos of the species we had observed speciate, and that's a false claim on your part. We have not observed the speciation of the embryos in question. We have not observed chicks, pigs, humans, etc,...speciate.If you want to deal with the issue, fine. If you cannot, that's fine too. I'd rather you not falsely make up stuff about me and what I have written, but I guess I cannot stop you.The bottom line in this debate is you guys won't come clean on the use of fraudulent "evidence." It's part of the DNA so to speak of evolutionism, and one reason I don't consider it real science.