Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,821 Year: 3,078/9,624 Month: 923/1,588 Week: 106/223 Day: 4/13 Hour: 0/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Haeckels' Drawings Part II
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 1 of 94 (222616)
07-08-2005 2:45 PM


This is a continuation of the closed (300 msg limit) thead:
Message 306
It appears to have worked down to trying to decide what the nature of specific structures are. That is what are the pharyngeal arches in embros.
This continuation is NOT intended to argue for an explanation of these structures. Just to see if it is possible to finish the argument about whether they are in any way connected across different species and if using diagrams showing them (and other structures) is dishonest or not.
That is we are not distinguishing, in the thread, between common ancestry, ID, convergent evolution or special creation as an explanation.

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by Chiroptera, posted 07-08-2005 3:17 PM NosyNed has replied
 Message 7 by Brad McFall, posted 07-08-2005 4:22 PM NosyNed has not replied

  
AdminJar
Inactive Member


Message 2 of 94 (222620)
07-08-2005 2:49 PM


Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

  
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 3 of 94 (222633)
07-08-2005 3:17 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by NosyNed
07-08-2005 2:45 PM


Connections across species
In jawless fish, the pharyngeal pouches develop into gills. This is the connection across species of jawless fish.
In jawed vertebrates with gills (jawed fish and amphibians) most of the pharyngeal pouches develop into gills, and a portion develop into jaws. This is the connection across species of vertebrates with gills.
In reptiles, most of the pharyngeal pouches do not develop into gills, but a portion of them develop into jaws, just like in jawed fish. This is the connection across species of non-mammalian vertebrates.
In mammals, most of the pharyngeal pouches do not develop into gills; but of the portion that is homologous to the portion that develops into jaws in reptiles, most of this develops into the bones of the mammalian jaw that are homologous to jaw bones of reptiles -- the remaining portion, which in reptiles develops into jaw bones that are missing in mammals, develops into two of the inner ear bones.
This is very simplistic since there are other structures that develop from the pharyngeal pouches, and I don't know enough about bird jaws to definitely say what happens there.
But there is your connection across species. The same embryonic structure that can be identified visually across species develops into homologous structures in various vertebrate species.
At the extremes, the pharyngeal pouches in jawless fish develop into quite different structures than in mammals; however, there are these intermediaries, where portions of the pharyngeal pouches develop into the same structures in jawless and jawed fish; portions develop into the same structures in jawed fish and reptiles; and portions develop into the same structures in reptile and mammals.
Edited to correct typos.
This message has been edited by Chiroptera, 08-Jul-2005 07:26 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by NosyNed, posted 07-08-2005 2:45 PM NosyNed has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by NosyNed, posted 07-08-2005 3:34 PM Chiroptera has replied
 Message 87 by Mirabile_Auditu, posted 10-27-2005 1:11 AM Chiroptera has not replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 4 of 94 (222638)
07-08-2005 3:34 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by Chiroptera
07-08-2005 3:17 PM


reptile to mammal jaws
Do we need to mention a time-ordered sequence of fossils that show the development of jaw parts in reptiles becoming more and more over time like the structures in mammals? In other words a sequence at least somewhat like the development of the mammalian embryo?
No!, we actually don't since it would be off topic here.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Chiroptera, posted 07-08-2005 3:17 PM Chiroptera has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by Chiroptera, posted 07-08-2005 3:36 PM NosyNed has replied

  
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 5 of 94 (222639)
07-08-2005 3:36 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by NosyNed
07-08-2005 3:34 PM


Re: reptile to mammal jaws
Oh, Ned! You don't realize just how hard it was to keep from mentioning the fossil record!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by NosyNed, posted 07-08-2005 3:34 PM NosyNed has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by NosyNed, posted 07-08-2005 3:38 PM Chiroptera has not replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 6 of 94 (222642)
07-08-2005 3:38 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by Chiroptera
07-08-2005 3:36 PM


Re: reptile to mammal jaws
I do to realize how hard it was!!
Too hard for me.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Chiroptera, posted 07-08-2005 3:36 PM Chiroptera has not replied

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5033 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 7 of 94 (222650)
07-08-2005 4:22 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by NosyNed
07-08-2005 2:45 PM


The last time I ever gave the function of the embryonic pouch thought, I thought it functioned homologically with cell death in the tail"" region. I havent thought of that lately.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by NosyNed, posted 07-08-2005 2:45 PM NosyNed has not replied

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 8 of 94 (228466)
08-01-2005 12:43 PM


Modulous, please back up your claim
The idea was that textbook makers were simply printing what their predecessors printed since little or no new work was being done in comparitive embryology.
First, can you back this claim up?
Secondly, if little or no new work was being done in comparitive embryology, then why was embrylogy used at all to substantiate evolution?
It boggles the mind that creationists knew these drawings were faked for over 100 years, but evolutionists were unaware of the problem. Why were evolutionists willing to use as prima facie evidence claims that had never been properly substantiated, claims that critics disputed?
Is it that evolutionists in general never took the time to verify the so-called factual evidence in support of evolution was indeed factual?
It sure looks that way to me.
We saw the same thing with the fossil record. For a long time the claim was the fossil record supported the slow, gradual evolution from one species to another, but they never saw that so PE was put forward in the 70s.
Don't you find it odd that evolutionists were largely unaware of the actual fossil record unless they were paleontologists, and yet exhibited such dogmatism over the data, as they did over embrylogical data.
Is that proper science?
Are there any basic claims concerning evolution where the data is well substantiated and understood, any area of proper science being done prior the theory being believed and accepted historically?
I cannot find one area. Maybe you can help me on that.

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by Yaro, posted 08-01-2005 2:00 PM randman has not replied
 Message 10 by Modulous, posted 08-01-2005 2:15 PM randman has replied

  
Yaro
Member (Idle past 6497 days)
Posts: 1797
Joined: 07-12-2003


Message 9 of 94 (228507)
08-01-2005 2:00 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by randman
08-01-2005 12:43 PM


Evidence Please
Since we are moving the topic here, again:
Please provided evidence where a MODERN, PRACTICING, EVOLUTIONARY BIOLOGIST, is promoting this debunked theory?
Note the emphasis on modern. Alot has changed in science over the centuries.
Any answers?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by randman, posted 08-01-2005 12:43 PM randman has not replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 10 of 94 (228514)
08-01-2005 2:15 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by randman
08-01-2005 12:43 PM


Re: Modulous, please back up your claim
First, can you back this claim up?
Nope. I admitted as much before - I presented an alternative hypothesis to show that your interpretation of the presented evidence can lead to an entirely different conclusion. Thus: more evidence is needed to differentiate the two interpretations. It is telling that you automatically assume one interpretation. Either you have more information than you are telling us, or you decided that you didn't want to believe in evolution and used this as a reason.
The two interpretations:
randman: Either deliberately or through some Evolutionary Indoctrination, evolutionists saw something that supported evolution and blindly accepted it, then they taught it to lots of kids so that they would blindly believe it. Evolutionists ignored the criticisms of the creationists as they always do, but as usual the creationists were right and the evolutionists were wrong.
Mod: Haeckel's comparitive embryology made it into the textbooks. After some time, the pictures were modified, and the known fakes were discarded. Comparitive embryology was a discipline that fell out of favour (probably due to genetic science coming to the fore), the last pieces of work into the field were all that textbook makers had to go on, so they printed the diagrams. Creationists, bless 'em said the diagrams were wrong. It seems they never showed why they were wrong, just pointed at the dirty history behind the pictures and as usual, made some bare assertions...they were ignored because, as usual, most of what creationists say is utter claptrap (*cough thermodynamics cough*).
It wasn't until comparitive embryology started to come back that a comparitive embryologist finally used modern technology to show why Haeckel's diagrams were erroneous, where he exagerated features, and more importantly omitted other features. This kind of work hadn't been done before, and in light of actual evidence textbook makers modified the diagrams.
If creationists were serious about their work, they would have done some comparitive embryology and shown the errors, it would have upped their credibility 1000-fold.
Secondly, if little or no new work was being done in comparitive embryology, then why was embrylogy used at all to substantiate evolution?
The work was done, the conclusions drawn. Why reinvent the wheel?
It boggles the mind that creationists knew these drawings were faked for over 100 years, but evolutionists were unaware of the problem
Actually some of the fake drawings were common knowledge, and thus were not used (at least you have not shown where the known fakes were used). The rest were generally regarded as being OK, though with some questions...the people who were unaware of the problem were the textbook makers, not the entire biological community of evolution scientists.
Why were evolutionists willing to use as prima facie evidence claims that had never been properly substantiated, claims that critics disputed?
The claims were thought to have been substantiated. Critics disputed it, critics dispute a hell of a lot of things. It's one thing to dispute something, its a whole world of difference to present evidence that falsifies a claim.
Is it that evolutionists in general never took the time to verify the so-called factual evidence in support of evolution was indeed factual?
It seems that nobody took the time to verify the evidence.
We saw the same thing with the fossil record. For a long time the claim was the fossil record supported the slow, gradual evolution from one species to another, but they never saw that so PE was put forward in the 70s.
Indeed, but both are right. IT is slow, it is gradual...however it is possible that a lot of changes happened in relatively short periods of time. But, that's off topic, so let's not get too bogged down here with the deadly sin of scientists who modify theories to fit the evidence.
Are there any basic claims concerning evolution where the data is well substantiated and understood, any area of proper science being done prior the theory being believed and accepted historically?
I cannot find one area. Maybe you can help me on that.
This is probably a whole thread in its own right (indeed it has been many times over).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by randman, posted 08-01-2005 12:43 PM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by randman, posted 08-02-2005 1:01 AM Modulous has replied

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 11 of 94 (228645)
08-02-2005 1:01 AM
Reply to: Message 10 by Modulous
08-01-2005 2:15 PM


Re: Modulous, please back up your claim
The work was done, the conclusions drawn.
Here is the problem modulou. The work was not done. It was faked, and it really looked to me, as I reviewed the evidence initially when I was still an evolutionist, that most of the so-called evidence for evolution was in this category.
About the only sound area of evidence, imo, is genetics. I don't think evolutionists really understood the fossil record for instance. They assumed it showed evolution, but unaware of even the need for Punctuated Equilibrium to deal with problems. They didn't think problems existed.
Likewise, they were unaware they had been making false claims in the area of embrylology because in typical evolutionist fashion, they said it was a fact so it had to be. There was no evidence, just faked assertions.
The claims were thought to have been substantiated. Critics disputed it, critics dispute a hell of a lot of things. It's one thing to dispute something, its a whole world of difference to present evidence that falsifies a claim.
Look, I was a student when I heard the drawings were faked and could tell that they were. All one had to do was make a quick visual comparison with any available photos or accurate drawings of the same periods of development.
If all evolutionists had decided to check what they were being taught, and make sure the data was correct, all of them would have known very easily the drawings were faked. I mean this is not something difficult to find out, and for a science major, grad student, post-grad, teacher, professor, etc,...I just no excuse except that thousands upon thousands, maybe millions, of evolutionists just accepted this nonsense uncritically.
When a large group accepts such a basic and easily verified error as true, something is wrong, especially if the error is a matter of factual materials easily verified and the field is suppossed to be one of science.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by Modulous, posted 08-01-2005 2:15 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by Modulous, posted 08-02-2005 8:36 AM randman has replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 12 of 94 (228745)
08-02-2005 8:36 AM
Reply to: Message 11 by randman
08-02-2005 1:01 AM


randman, please back up your claim
Here is the problem modulou. The work was not done. It was faked, and it really looked to me, as I reviewed the evidence initially when I was still an evolutionist, that most of the so-called evidence for evolution was in this category.
Evidently the work was not done, however it was perceived that the work was either done, or nothing of interest lay in its further study. I believe in this area of evolutionary study, heterochrony was the thing to be investigating. If you think that most of the evidence for evolution lies with embryology, you must have been taught it very oddly. I was always taught comparative embryology as an afterthought.
About the only sound area of evidence, imo, is genetics. I don't think evolutionists really understood the fossil record for instance
Neither did creationists - that's why the came up with the idea that life has changed on earth over time...no other explanation has explained the fossil record better.
They assumed it showed evolution, but unaware of even the need for Punctuated Equilibrium to deal with problems. They didn't think problems existed.
Fossil evidence is highly off topic, but the gaps in the fossil record have never been thought to not be a problem, it was just hoped that further excavations would close some of those gaps up a little.
Look, I was a student when I heard the drawings were faked and could tell that they were. All one had to do was make a quick visual comparison with any available photos or accurate drawings of the same periods of development.
Wow - wait a minute, you actually did comparative embryology with photographic evidence in the 80s? You should have written about it, you'd have beaten all the eminent embryologists in their own field. You could have at least given the photographs to a real scientist, say a creation scientist, and let him write a paper on it. Nevertheless, this is just an assertion. I've heard your assertions before. We're here to try and see what evidence for these assertions we can dig up.
If all evolutionists had decided to check what they were being taught, and make sure the data was correct, all of them would have known very easily the drawings were faked.
If all people checked the work of their forefathers in their field, they would have little time to do the work they are actually being paid for. If just one creationist checked, made sure the data was correct and presented a case for why the data was so wrong, millions of students would have not been exposed to these drawings.
I mean this is not something difficult to find out, and for a science major, grad student, post-grad, teacher, professor, etc,...I just no excuse except that thousands upon thousands, maybe millions, of evolutionists just accepted this nonsense uncritically.
Well, if they were anything like me somebody said to them "Embryos seem to have common structures during their development such as pharyngeal arches, here are some simple diagrams that show what we mean", and then they go an check and find out that these common features are well documented and they say "Excellent, now, on with my own life". It doesn't strike a whole lot of people to check the accuracy of diagrams in high school text books. Indeed, it isn't the job of your average evolutionary scientist to check these diagrams, it is the job of the textbook maker and his/her editor.
If creationists knew these diagrams were so bad, and did nothing but whinge about it to themselves, I would consider that negligence.
When a large group accepts such a basic and easily verified error as true, something is wrong, especially if the error is a matter of factual materials easily verified and the field is suppossed to be one of science.
What is this large group? What is the error? Are we talking all evolutionists? Most evolutionists aren't embryologists, indeed comparative embryology was (and I believe still is) a small section of the evolutionary community. So basically a small group of phDs didn't dispute one diagram that was in their high school text book. Reduces the problem somewhat to think of it like that.
Nevertheless, all you have done here is present your case that a problem occurred. I agree, but I think the problem was that of the textbook makers not the people that do the science. This is the point we reached the last time, and you have been unable to present any evidence that would differentiate between the two interpretations.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by randman, posted 08-02-2005 1:01 AM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by randman, posted 08-02-2005 11:26 AM Modulous has replied

  
Yaro
Member (Idle past 6497 days)
Posts: 1797
Joined: 07-12-2003


Message 13 of 94 (228805)
08-02-2005 11:09 AM


130 years ago != current science!
Yaro, the faked drawings were used in most textbooks until 1998, according to one textbook author who corrected the problem after Richardson's studies.
MOST textbooks? Well. That's a lofty claim! Do you have any proof? If you could give me a textbook ISBN anywhere from 1990-1998, where Haeckles drawings are presented as actuall fact, I will belive you.
However, I highly doubt it considering that we know have such excelent photographs to show. Most Bio. Books I have seen use photos not drawings.
I would also further add that a Highschool Biology text is hardly the sort of material that shapes the minds of PRACTICING EVOLUTIONARY BIOLOGISTS.
Imo, the fact you guys have such a hard time recognizing the simple truth here, that the use of these drawings showed that evolutionists in presenting "facts" were presenting something that was not a fact, and did so for over 100 years is amazing.
You have as of yet, not provided any single shred of proof that the viability of these drawings lasted more than a few decades. Proove that these drawings have been claimed true for over 100 years, PROVE IT, or retract the claim.
Also, it does not matter if you call someone not a "creationist." I may not be a creationist under someone's definition, but clearly you have failed to prove evolutionists corrected Haeckel's errors.
LOL, don't make me laugh.
When are you going to back up your claim?
I'm not making any. You are. When are you going to back yours up?
Also, what an evolutionary biologist does in his work is not all that germane to my claims since my claim really deals with how evolution is taught and believed. A particular area of study, such as evolution of some species or whatever, is not what I was referring to. That may be real science, but the general arguments and the way evolution is presented and believed is the area I consider reflective of ideological indoctrination.
What the general populace belives and what actual scientists belive has allways been diferent.
Why were Haeckel's drawings in textbooks despite creationists denouncing them?
Which textbooks? Show me one, ISBN will suffice. See, you are making the claims not me.
Clearly because evolutionists failed to closely examine if what they claimed was factual was indeed factual.
Proof please, proof!
The drawings worked, very well, if the goal was to get people to believe.
Yes, they worked back in the 1800's, well done. Thank god we invented photography, genetics, advanced microscopes. Do you realize how silly this all is? YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT EVENTS 130 years ago!!!
They failed miserably if the goal was education.
That's something I frankly am surprised you guys don't get.
Ooo, another insult. What's the matter? No evidence?
This message has been edited by Yaro, 08-02-2005 11:33 AM

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by randman, posted 08-02-2005 11:32 AM Yaro has replied

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 14 of 94 (228812)
08-02-2005 11:26 AM
Reply to: Message 12 by Modulous
08-02-2005 8:36 AM


Re: randman, please back up your claim
Modoulous, your whole post falls away with one simple fact.
The drawings were so far away from realiity that you didn't have to be a comparitive embryologist to know they were fakes.
That's the point.
Now, some of the finer points such as evaluating the claims of a phylotypic stage, I agree would be more difficult. That doesn't excuse evolutionists from claiming that as factual without ever documenting that, but the simple fact is anyone practically could have taken just a little time to learn that Haeckel's drawings were wrong if they just decided to question what they were being taught and look into it for themselves.
Contrary to what you claim, people can and should review and examine what their forefathers are teaching them in science to make sure, at least the basics, are sensible. That's how good science works.
Unfortunately, the ToE is not often good science.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by Modulous, posted 08-02-2005 8:36 AM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by Modulous, posted 08-02-2005 5:00 PM randman has replied

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 15 of 94 (228813)
08-02-2005 11:32 AM
Reply to: Message 13 by Yaro
08-02-2005 11:09 AM


Re: 130 years ago != current science!
Yaro, if I thought you were honest and man enough to really do what you claimed in the following, I would dig it back up for you.
If you could give me a textbook ISBN anywhere from 1990-1998, where Haeckles drawings are presented as actuall fact, I will belive you.
As such, I suggest you review the old thread where textbooks were listed, and where one textbook author admitted to using drawings based on Haeckel's drawings, and that most textbooks did so. Usually, the drawings just had color changed but were identical in structure and feature.
These textbooks include college textbooks.
If you review the old thread, you should come back and admit you were wrong, and apologize for falsely blasting me for telling you the truth.
But somehow I expect you to continue to deny, deny, deny, and defend the indefensible, just like this was some sort of political campaign, refusing to admit to facts, and I think this is probably due, imo, to the indoctrination rather than education being the basic approach in getting people to believe in evolution.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by Yaro, posted 08-02-2005 11:09 AM Yaro has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by Yaro, posted 08-02-2005 11:41 AM randman has not replied
 Message 86 by arachnophilia, posted 08-23-2005 10:08 PM randman has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024