Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,819 Year: 3,076/9,624 Month: 921/1,588 Week: 104/223 Day: 2/13 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Haeckels' Drawings Part II
Yaro
Member (Idle past 6496 days)
Posts: 1797
Joined: 07-12-2003


Message 16 of 94 (228819)
08-02-2005 11:41 AM
Reply to: Message 15 by randman
08-02-2005 11:32 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
So, your calling me a lier. Very nice, BRAVO!
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 this is the case, please link me to the proper thread and post number. If indeed, there is a textbook, ISBN and all that claims Haeckles drawings as 100% accurate, then you have the beginnings of a case.
After you prove this, then you will have to show how the MAJORITY of textbooks from that period also corrobarated the false claim. Once you have established that MOST textbooks did this... you have a case that science is being misrepresented.
You will have to take your research further now, to show that the same myth is being propagated at the college level, in particular Evolutionary Biology and Ebryology.
Then you have a case that evolutionists preach an outdaded idea.
So, if you could provide the name of the book and the ISBN, the link and post #, we will be on our way to establishing some modicrum of 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.
Right... uhu... and you know me? way to ARGUE IN GOOD FAITH!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by randman, posted 08-02-2005 11:32 AM randman has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by jar, posted 08-02-2005 11:49 AM Yaro has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 17 of 94 (228823)
08-02-2005 11:49 AM
Reply to: Message 16 by Yaro
08-02-2005 11:41 AM


Re: 130 years ago != current science!
The key point is Drawings based on Haeckel's drawings. There was never any support that those drawings contained any of the errors found in the originals.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by Yaro, posted 08-02-2005 11:41 AM Yaro has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by Wounded King, posted 08-02-2005 12:11 PM jar has replied
 Message 21 by randman, posted 08-02-2005 1:59 PM jar has not replied

  
Wounded King
Member
Posts: 4149
From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 18 of 94 (228831)
08-02-2005 12:11 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by jar
08-02-2005 11:49 AM


Re: 130 years ago != current science!
And indeed those textbooks which did contain exact reproductions of Haeckel's drawings were using them in a historical context to discuss the development of evolutionary thought including dead ends such as Lamarckian inheritance and recapitulation, with perhaps one eception.
TTFN,
WK

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by jar, posted 08-02-2005 11:49 AM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by jar, posted 08-02-2005 12:14 PM Wounded King has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 19 of 94 (228835)
08-02-2005 12:14 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by Wounded King
08-02-2005 12:11 PM


Re: 130 years ago != current science!
Yup.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by Wounded King, posted 08-02-2005 12:11 PM Wounded King has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by Yaro, posted 08-02-2005 1:03 PM jar has not replied

  
Yaro
Member (Idle past 6496 days)
Posts: 1797
Joined: 07-12-2003


Message 20 of 94 (228858)
08-02-2005 1:03 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by jar
08-02-2005 12:14 PM


Re: 130 years ago != current science!
I wonder if randman is going to drop off the face of the planet?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by jar, posted 08-02-2005 12:14 PM jar has not replied

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


Message 21 of 94 (228867)
08-02-2005 1:59 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by jar
08-02-2005 11:49 AM


Re: 130 years ago != current science!
Jar, saying that doesn't make it so. I provided proof, and you just stick your head in the sand and deny it.
I showed you the drawings with comparisons, showed you studies, including a peer-reviewed study, detailing that the drawings were wrong, and a textbook author admitting they used the faked drawings, and stating they were not the only ones, but most textbooks used these faked drawings.
You guys tried to weasal out of it by noting they used "drawings based on Haeckel's drawings" but that's still using the faked drawings. Moreover, it appears the only difference in the actual drawings were a color change and leaving out some species, at least in the ones available from the web.
There is no dispute the faked drawings were used, only denial of a provable fact, which shows just how twisted the claim of adherence to real science is among folks like you denying reality.
It's sad really because there should be no debate. The drawings were wrong. It's over and done with, but somehow because you don't want to deal honestly with why such fakes were used, you claim somehow that it was never established they were used in the first place, despite textbook authors admitting to it.
That's sad, but typical. It's as if evolutionists started claiming the sky was orange instead of blue, and we provide photos, statements, peer-reviewed studies showing the sky is blue, but no matter what the facts, you assert otherwise.
it's cult-like, if you ask me.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by jar, posted 08-02-2005 11:49 AM jar has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by Yaro, posted 08-02-2005 2:13 PM randman has not replied

  
Yaro
Member (Idle past 6496 days)
Posts: 1797
Joined: 07-12-2003


Message 22 of 94 (228871)
08-02-2005 2:13 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by randman
08-02-2005 1:59 PM


Re: 130 years ago != current science!
So... ya.... um... Link, Post #, book title and ISBN please?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by randman, posted 08-02-2005 1:59 PM randman has not replied

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


Message 23 of 94 (228922)
08-02-2005 5:00 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by randman
08-02-2005 11:26 AM


Re: randman, please back up your claim
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.
No, but you would have to independently compare embryos. Embryos aren't something we did a lot of comparing of in high school.
, 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.
Yes ANYONE. Not just 'evolutionists' but evolutionist's opponents, the creation scientists. Why did they engage in rhetoric and not science?
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.
Indeed, but its not always practical. One cannot force humans to do something, so somethings don't get rechecked...its a systematic error but an unassailable one. In science the checking is done by the curious or the sceptical. Should we go to the moon again just to ensure that it isn't made out of cheese?
Unfortunately, the ToE is not often good science.
Which is your opinion. Creation science is almost never good science, what's your point.
Once again, you have reasserted than an error was made, a rather fundamental error, one that is as a result of the system. That is all. I agree that an error (or a sequence of errors) was/were made. The onus is on you to actually provide some evidence that this error was anything more sinister than that. At this time we have just been discussing textbook makers. Let me clarify it one more time, The system of compiling textbooks is flawed in that the people that compile and edit the textbooks rely on other textbooks and what science is saying, and when science is silent about something, it just reports the last fundamental things.
Is evolution flawed because the scientists no longer wanted to engage in comparitive embryology? No. The textbook makers were in error for simply accepting an old piece of evidence because it was easy and clear, as opposed to such things as heterochrony which is not so straightforward.
Can you demonstrate that it is fair/logical to tar the scientists with same brush as the people that report the science in textbooks which get bought by schools?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by randman, posted 08-02-2005 11:26 AM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by randman, posted 08-03-2005 1:20 AM Modulous has replied

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


Message 24 of 94 (229025)
08-03-2005 1:20 AM
Reply to: Message 23 by Modulous
08-02-2005 5:00 PM


Re: randman, please back up your claim
The onus is on you to actually provide some evidence that this error was anything more sinister than that.
I have provided quite bit of evidence, but it would be helpful to review something. The older message was "ontology recapitulates phylogeney" which I believe was still taught in some form in the 50s.
Haeckel's drawings were used to show that.
Then, that claim was softened because it was so obviously false, but evolutionists notably used the same term "recapitulation" and the same drawings.
if you cannot see the significance of that, we don't have much to talk about it.
Clearly, there is no such thing as recapitulation, but evolutionists had an effective argument, even if untrue, and were not so willing to abandon it altogether, and tried to figure some way it might still be true, and tried to maintain some connection to the earlier discarded claims by using the same pictures and same term.
Evolutionists, as I showed in one link on the thread, even today will sometimes use a false claim of Haeckel's and the various forms of "recapitulation" and claim that embryos have fish gills, or gill slits, or gill pouches. All of these claims are factually wrong, but the practice still continues to a degree.
So here we have a blatant false claim, which every time it is shown to be false, rather than completely abandon the lie, evolutionists have tried in one form or another to resurrect the myth, sometimes even using the same faked drawings and same false term, recapitulation.
That is indicative of a process more religious in nature, and pseudo-religious in nature, than scientific.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by Modulous, posted 08-02-2005 5:00 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by Modulous, posted 08-03-2005 1:51 AM randman has replied

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


Message 25 of 94 (229031)
08-03-2005 1:51 AM
Reply to: Message 24 by randman
08-03-2005 1:20 AM


Re: randman, please back up your claim
I have provided quite bit of evidence, but it would be helpful to review something. The older message was "ontology recapitulates phylogeney" which I believe was still taught in some form in the 50s.
I'd be interested to see some references to this. I wouldn't be surprised given high school text book standards, but I would certainly agree that it would be a gross error.
Then, that claim was softened because it was so obviously false, but evolutionists notably used the same term "recapitulation" and the same drawings.
Amusingly, the Origin of Species had a chapter called 'Recapitulation and Conclusion'...simply using the word doesn't really hold any significance.
Clearly, there is no such thing as recapitulation, but evolutionists had an effective argument, even if untrue, and were not so willing to abandon it altogether, and tried to figure some way it might still be true, and tried to maintain some connection to the earlier discarded claims by using the same pictures and same term.
Once again you've jumped from textbook makers to evolutionists. Either show how you made the leap (perhaps by showing how the evolution scientists were continuing the work on /to claim ontology recapitulates phylogeny) or stop using this potentially dishonest tactic
Evolutionists...claim that embryos have fish gills, or gill slits, or gill pouches. All of these claims are factually wrong, but the practice still continues to a degree.
If you still dispute the existence of pharyngeal pouches despite one of your only primary sources discussing their existence and significance then we are truly stuck.
So here we have a blatant false claim, which every time it is shown to be false, rather than completely abandon the lie, evolutionists have tried in one form or another to resurrect the myth, sometimes even using the same faked drawings and same false term, recapitulation.
What's the false claim? About pharyngeal pouches? Show me some science which shows how they don't exist, aren't something that a lot of embryos from varying organisms share, and don't go on to develop into gills in fish. That is to say, pharyngeal pouches in human embryos are homologous with the structures in fish that go on to develop gills. You were even shown how the same arch/pouch goes on to perform some similar functions in humans as it does in fish (ie salt regulation).
I have provided quite bit of evidence
May I remind you, you have not provided any evidence that would differentiate our two models yet. Just more opinion, interpretation and assertions. If that is all we are going to do, is there any point?
You have also frequently conflated textbook makers with all people associated and involved evolutionary theory and its affiliated hypothesis.
This message has been edited by Modulous, Wed, 03-August-2005 06:54 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by randman, posted 08-03-2005 1:20 AM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by randman, posted 08-03-2005 3:04 AM Modulous has replied

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


Message 26 of 94 (229037)
08-03-2005 3:04 AM
Reply to: Message 25 by Modulous
08-03-2005 1:51 AM


Re: randman, please back up your claim
We are talking about indoctrination so in that context the textbooks and introductory teachers of evolutionists and authors that write books explaining ToE are the evolutionists, for this debate.
That's not dishonesty on my part, and you need to admit to that before we move on.
Note also I mentioned the use of "gill slits, gill pouches, fish gills", etc,...You guys need to read the prior thread because I already said in review that the term "pharyngeal pouches" is not a problem as the more I looked at it, it does not mean gill pouches. At one point, I had confused the term "branchial" with pharyngeal.
But "gill pouches" are used to describe human embryology, and that's false, and that's what I pointed out.
it's wrong to assert fish gills, gill slits, gill pouches occur in humans because that never occurs. That's a false claim but something that still crops up sometimes.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by Modulous, posted 08-03-2005 1:51 AM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by Modulous, posted 08-03-2005 4:14 AM randman has not replied

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


Message 27 of 94 (229044)
08-03-2005 4:14 AM
Reply to: Message 26 by randman
08-03-2005 3:04 AM


Re: randman, please back up your claim
We are talking about indoctrination so in that context the textbooks and introductory teachers of evolutionists and authors that write books explaining ToE are the evolutionists, for this debate.
That's not dishonesty on my part, and you need to admit to that before we move on.
What we are discussing here is the reasons why Haeckel's diagrams were used in textbooks discussing evolution, specifically those used by school pupils (the reason might be indoctrination, or it might be a fundamental problem with the text book making procedure). The responsibility for the content of these books does not lie with every human being that accepts the theory of evolution (evolutionists) but with the writers, editors, publishers and illustrators (where necessary).
Conflating the two, is not necessarily dishonest, but it isn't fair unless you can show that it is. Thus, unless you are going to refer to all evolutionists in general, it would be appropriate to begin to refer to the guilty party: text book makers.
Note also I mentioned the use of "gill slits, gill pouches, fish gills", etc,...You guys need to read the prior thread because I already said in review that the term "pharyngeal pouches" is not a problem as the more I looked at it, it does not mean gill pouches. At one point, I had confused the term "branchial" with pharyngeal.
Excellent. I agree that the term 'gill slits' isn't very good, but fortunately it is on its way out. It is one of those poor pieces of nomenclature that echos and remains, it has some relevance since they (the pouches) are indeed homologous with structures that become gills, but it isn't a very specific peice of terminology. Nowadays it seems to be just one of those simple term being used rather than the technical and correct term. I do not see any evidence that its usage was used to 'push/indoctrinate' evolution.
it's wrong to assert fish gills, gill slits, gill pouches occur in humans because that never occurs. That's a false claim but something that still crops up sometimes.
I agree, and its one of those problems text book makers have, geting the terms right. Gill pouches seems to be an almost acceptable term if used in the proper context (ie when discussing homology of structures), but basically text books language should be clear and unambiguous and unfortunately this is not always the case.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by randman, posted 08-03-2005 3:04 AM randman has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 28 of 94 (229050)
08-03-2005 4:35 AM


Just another questionable evo claim anyway
Skimming through these threads I may have missed some important line of thought, so posting now I hope I am not repeating something already discussed.
I was in high school in the late fifties and was definitely taught the "biogenetic law" or that "ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny." It was a sort of mantra. There were illustrations of embryos but I don't recall much about them, mostly took their word for the similarity and the claim that they proved that evolution really did occur, that even the way we develop from conception to birth recapitulates ancestral forms that evolutionism says we went through.
Although I continued to read popular discussions of evolutionism in various periodicals for the next few decades, many articles and columns by Stephen Jay Gould, for instance, and was quite addicted to Skeptical Inquirer, which defended the ToE against creationism, I never once saw anything that retracted that formula. Until quite recently, maybe even this discussion at EvC, if someone had asked, I would have said, yes, isn't the "biogenetic law" still a standard tenet of the ToE?
I just did some googling on the subject and it appears that although the old formula is repudiated "in its literal form" it is still very much used in an only slightly modified form, in such a way that I'm not sure it looks sufficiently different from the old to be clearly differentiated from it by anyone not reading extremely carefully.
Various online encyclopedias give the following carefully worded definition:
Just a moment...
biogenetic law
in biology, a law stating that the earlier stages of embryos of species advanced in the evolutionary process, such as humans, resemble the embryos of ancestral species, such as fish. The law refers only to embryonic development and not to adult stages; as development proceeds, the embryos of different species become more and more dissimilar. An early form of the law was devised by the 19th-century Estonian zoologist K. E. von Baer, who observed that embryos resemble the embryos, but not the adults, of other species. A later, but incorrect, theory of the 19th-century German zoologist Ernst Heinrich Haeckel states that the embryonic development (ontogeny) of an animal recapitulates the evolutionary development of the animal's ancestors (phylogeny).
Although they are officially repudiating the discredited formulation, it looks to me like they are still holding on to the main form of the same old claim. What does it mean that the earlier stages of embryos of species advanced in the evolutionary process, such as humans, resemble the embryos of ancestral species, such as fish? "Ancestral species" is certainly making the same old assumption about how this demonstrates the evolutionary relatedness of the species, if in this case only their embryos, and doesn't the reference to a supposed resemblance to FISH embryos suggest the discredited "gill slits" notion, simply retained in less specific guise? In other words, although they acknowledge that Haeckel went too far, they haven't given up on the basic claim his exaggerated drawings were intended to support.
Another online encyclopedia that reproduces that identical definition is the one at Answers.com, and their page on the topic also gives the following dictionary definition of the "law" without the slightest hint that it is discredited.
Answers - The Most Trusted Place for Answering Life's Questions
biogenetic law
n.The theory that the stages in an organism's embryonic development and differentiation correspond to the stages of evolutionary development characteristic of the species. Also called Haeckel's law, recapitulation theory.
That should certainly give someone the impression that the "law" is alive and well who doesn't read down to the later disclaimers.
Despite the disclaimers, they certainly do hold onto the idea in general however:
The fact that the literal form of recapitulation theory is rejected by modern biologists has sometimes been used as an argument against evolution by creationists. The argument is: "Haeckel's theory was presented as supporting evidence for evolution, Haeckel's theory is wrong, therefore evolution has less support". This argument is not only an oversimplification but misleading because modern biology does recognize numerous connections between ontogeny and phylogeny, explains them using evolutionary theory without recourse to Haeckel's specific views, and considers them as supporting evidence for that theory.
So it doesn't amount to a whole lot that Haeckel fudged his illustrations as what they were intended to affirm is affirmed by the ToE anyway in only barely modified form.
As for the topic of fraudulence, I would guess that perhaps "fraud" is too strong a word but that the certainty with which the ToE is believed in spite of the actual evidence might lead its aficionados to some fudging of facts in the clear conscience that they are only serving the truth in any case.
In any case the answer to all this is in the direction of emphasizing that there isn't a single claim evolutionistic biology makes about evidence for descent of species that isn't just as well explained by design. That is, of course embryos of many creatures show initial rough similarities. That's because they have rough design similarities. They have a head and limbs and in vertebrates a spinal column and similar internal organ arrangements. Similar design is all that evolutionists are using to prove descent but it only proves similar design. They have no real evidence except the extrapolation from similar design and the taxonomic hierarchy. Even the claim that the similarity of the genome between supposedly "related" species adds to the evidence for descent is easily answered by pointing out that if there is similarity of design in the phenotype why not also in the genotype? There is NO necessary reason to conclude that descent is the explanatory factor. Design is absolutely equal in explanatory power.

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by Wounded King, posted 08-03-2005 5:10 AM Faith has replied
 Message 30 by PaulK, posted 08-03-2005 5:10 AM Faith has replied

  
Wounded King
Member
Posts: 4149
From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 29 of 94 (229056)
08-03-2005 5:10 AM
Reply to: Message 28 by Faith
08-03-2005 4:35 AM


Re: Just another questionable evo claim anyway
It was a sort of mantra.
I think you have hit the nail on the head here. It was neat and catchy and people thought that it would explain everything, to the point where they ignored the numerous exceptions which kept turning up. But catchiness of a slogan, or an idea, is not enough to sustain it permanently.
Although I continued to read popular discussions of evolutionism in various periodicals for the next few decades, many articles and columns by Stephen Jay Gould, for instance, and was quite addicted to Skeptical Inquirer, which defended the ToE against creationism, I never once saw anything that retracted that formula.
You didn't for instance read Gould's 1977 book 'Ontogeny and Phylogeny' which gives a very detailed history of the recapitulationist movement and its subsequent fall from grace and eclipse by those interested in the actual mechanics of development.
Although they are officially repudiating the discredited formulation, it looks to me like they are still holding on to the main form of the same old claim. What does it mean that the earlier stages of embryos of species advanced in the evolutionary process, such as humans, resemble the embryos of ancestral species, such as fish?
I'm not even sure what this encyclopedia is talking about, the biogenetic law is very specifically Haeckel's theory. In fact given that the encyclopedia talks about humans being more advanced in the evolutionary process than fish, a pretty untenable claim without distinguishing between ancient and modern fish, I'm thinking that I won't be going to the Columbia Encyclopedia as a source of knowledge.
doesn't the reference to a supposed resemblance to FISH embryos suggest the discredited "gill slits" notion, simply retained in less specific guise?
No, it suggests the still highly credible notion that the embryos of fish and humans display a number of highly similar features, including the developing pharyngeal structures.
Another online encyclopedia that reproduces that identical definition is the one at Answers.com
Well it would be since they are both based on the Columbia Encyclopedia.
Since the dictionary definition is just that it can hardly be expected to provide the sort of information one expects from an encyclopedia.
So it doesn't amount to a whole lot that Haeckel fudged his illustrations as what they were intended to affirm is affirmed by the ToE anyway in only barely modified form.
This is simply your own interpretation, the 'modifications' to the relationship between ontogeny and phylogeny in Haeckel's theory and that of modern evolutionary and developmental biology are considerable.
In any case the answer to all this is in the direction of emphasizing that there isn't a single claim evolutionistic biology makes about evidence for descent of species that isn't just as well explained by design.
This is only true if you believe that to explain these all evolutionists do is say, "it evolved that way". The problem is that they aren't explained by design. Certainly 'they were designed that way' is given as an explanation, but it explains no more than simply claiming that 'Goddidit' but we can't understand his reasons for doing it. Modern evolutionary theory has a mechanism for both the genesis of evolutionary features, in terms of mutation, and the spread of such feature through populations and the selective maintenance of specific populations or sub populations on the basis of these features.
What exactly does 'Design' do to explain anything? What mechanisms does it propose? How was a 'designed' trait brought into being? The best answer I have ever come across are those such as Randman's interference at a quantum level, for which there is absoloutely no evidence, which might at least be amenable to some sort of experimental validation.
TTFN,
WK
This message has been edited by Wounded King, 08-03-2005 05:10 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by Faith, posted 08-03-2005 4:35 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by Faith, posted 08-03-2005 5:48 AM Wounded King has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 30 of 94 (229057)
08-03-2005 5:10 AM
Reply to: Message 28 by Faith
08-03-2005 4:35 AM


Re: Just another questionable evo claim anyway
The Columbiea Ecyclopedia entry is quite reasonable, and distinguishes Haeckel's ideas from the earlier ideas of Von Baer. You can't sensibly suggest that Von Baer proposed his ideas as a watered down version of Haeckel, when Haeckel's version of the biogentic law was discredited - nor, even, can you reasonably suggest that Von Baer was motivated by a desire to prop up Darwinian theory.
And yes the "gill slits" ARE the same basic structure in human and fish embryos and are a legtimate example of Von Baer's version of the "biogenetic law".

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by Faith, posted 08-03-2005 4:35 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by Faith, posted 08-03-2005 5:21 AM PaulK has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024