Why are Haeckel's drawings being taught in school?

I am not replying to the linked message here, but using it and this thread to pursue your reply to my message (where it was off-topic anyway) on: Sorry, but I seem to have missed where you posted the name of the person who originally exposed the fake drawings, together with a link showing his credentials as a creationist.Without that bit of information, all creationists are doing is making a parade float out of beating a dead horse.Just because they are on the bandwagon for clearing science of the 'adjustments' made by Haeckel doesn't give them any particular {{street-cred}} of the fraud exposure bit.They didn't expose it. Claiming that they did is fraud too isn't it?On the other hand, try googling paluxy man tracks, polonium halo's, Darwin recanted, ... and see what sites you get. heck, google "creationist hoaxes" and "creationist frauds" and you can see lists of known hoaxes and frauds that are still posted as if they were the truth.If creationists are exposing fraud they need to do a little cleaning up of their own backyards first.

---

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

how does posting this picture:
{from http://users.rcn.com/...ltranet/BiologyPages/T/Taxonomy.html}together with this message: (bold and red mine for emPHAsis)Constitute on-going fraud?and your other link says in part: As I understand it the drawings were fudged to make the similarities more apparent, not to make wholesale additions of features to embryos that did not in fact exist.Or do you claim that early human embryos do not have tails and gill pouches? Or that there are other species with similar embryonic developmental stages? Or that embryonic development is more similar the closer the species are related?It seems to me that presenting the drawing and then having a discussion about the accuracy of the depictions and then about the accuracy of the theory is a good way to bring awareness of {mistakes\fakes} and their effect on the understanding of what is correct into common awareness.And the question is: what is being taught in school (to bring this back to the topic) with these drawings? That Haeckel's theory is true or what we know to be the case?{{edited to add reference to picture}}This message has been edited by RAZD, 06*24*2005 08:05 PM

---

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

You aren't getting my point.Try reading for comprehension: the claim is not what the drawings depict but whether the {fudging\faking} was uncovered by other scientists or by creationists.My point is that it is other scientists, and that creationists are just on the bandwagon. This means they are NOT exposing frauds or fakes as you seem to claim.But you can prove me wrong by citing the original paper that exposed the drawings and then links showing that it was a creationist.Problem is, you already posted a reference that shows it was a scientist and not a creationist .... looks like my original point is still valid.capice?

---

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

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}}}

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)

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}}}

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}}}

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}}}

Let's consolidate some arguments: If you want to equivocate and abandon your original position, that is fine with me. So far all you can show is that creationists get on the bandwagon whenever there is any kind of misrepresentation (all, so far, uncovered by scientists), shout "fraud" and "therefore evolution is wrong" and other nonsense. You have not shown any evidence otherwise. Let's not equivocate here either eh? I said vestigial tail. It is still south of the pelvis where all tails are located, and the extent of the cellular material originally south of the leg buds gets absorbed in the further development of the {embryo\fetus}. That the folds do not develop into gills in humans does not mean that there is absolutely no connection with the original process that developed gills in the remote ancestors shared by humans and fish. I would also expect that the embryonic development of fish has also changed since that time. The arm and leg buds also do not develop fins, claws or hooves on their way to hands and toes. Does that mean they have nothing to do with hands and toes? You need to stop arguing with things that are NOT said, as that is just dishonest. My point was that all evolution needs is in the single cell zygote. How that becomes a surviving and reproducing adult is irrelevant to evolution. You have done nothing to refute this point, but rather ignore it to argue instead with strawman positions.You also have not refuted that the embryonic development follows a general process that is similar in all species, that the variations from that process are not radical departures totally unlike other species (such as developing organs and features in a totally different order). Again, evolution needs no predictions for embryonic development. You are confusing the study of biological development and evolution.That theories of biological development have made some false starts, had some problems with enthusiastic proponents of certain theories and the like ... is no different than any other field of science. The more it is studied, the more scientists uncover the false starts, mistakes and misrepresentations, the more real knowledge moves forward.Thus was it found that the earth orbits the sun. Thus was it found that the earth is more than 4 billion years old. Actually, (1) I said scientist (not evolutionist - that is only one branch of science) and (2) I said all you need to do is post ONE fraud that was exposed by a documented creationist.

---

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

This barely merits a response, as you still fail to show fraud being uncovered by creationists. All this shows is another bandwagon.No matter how much you try to move the goalposts on this one (and so far that has been the sum of your effort on this issue), the fact remains that {mistakes\fakes} are uncovered by scientists.

I doubt you'll get an answer to (2) ... that has been one of my points that randman keeps dancing around trying to move the goalposts, but not answeringThere is also (3) - not all Haeckel's drawings were {fudged\faked}, so when we talk about his drawings being used the question is whether the {bad} drawings are used or whether the {good} drawings are used.So far I have seen reference to specific drawings (eg the dog embyo) being faked, but the pictures I have seen that are used do not have these specific drawings in them.If the drawings used are all {good} drawings then there is no perpetuated fraud.I have yet to see a descriptive list of every drawing error that can be used to make that determination.So far it seems like "Haeckel faked some drawings, therefore all Haeckels drawings are bad, and any use of any of his drawings is bad" -- a logical fallacyEnjoy the lurking.

---

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

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 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}}}

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}}}