Why are Haeckel's drawings being taught in school?

umm, confirmation bias? They confirm his bias, and he doesn't have to slog through the hard reading of science texts to understand these things. All he wants to do is believe the Bible is factualy true, but to do this he has to find a way to discount science, history, logic, geology, archeology and there are a lot of people out there offering quick fixes, apologetics to let people believe the most fantastic things. Millions of people, perhaps, do this because they are unable or unwilling to understand science.I'm disappointed but that is the way things are.lfen

First, I would want to see that there were comprehensive studies showing where and how this gene "marker" is used elsewhere? In what other species is it used, what function does it serve, etc, etc,....Just saying it's used here with some species this way is not enough. It has to fit all the data, but only a very limited set of data is given.Secondly, I would want to see all the potential "markers", in other words, comprehensive comparisons of all of the genes related in any way to the parathyroid function and to gills, but also to other organs and other species so we could properly see the significance of this.I would also like to see clearly, as much as possible, morphological and molecular comparisons of the theorized evolutionary chain, as much as possible, to see if indeed it can be shown conclusively the evolution of the parathyroid is as the article claims, or if that is an assumption. For example, when did the parathyroid appear and in what presumed ancestor species, and what preceded the parathyroid theoritically? One marker hardly seems definitive, and I am not sure what "other data" you refer to. Function is not identical. Location is a weak argument. Convergent evolution or common design could also explain the marker. Maybe I need to reread, but could you elaborate a little more on this?On WK's post, he did a good job showing that there was an overstatement on the part of the creationist web-site, but there are still some significant differences in function. Personally, either convergent evolution or just a common designer working from a common design are plausible explanations for such similarities.In other words, if we assume common descent, then the evidence can fit this way. If we assume a common designer, then the evidence can support that as well. It is not very definitive, imo. There is some relatedness due to salt regulation, but there are differences, large ones, between a parathyroid and gills. It's not very conclusive evidence, imo. One marker and salt regulation?It just seems more like a stretch to me from very little evidence.

Maybe if people like yourself had slogged through the readily available data on Haeckel's drawings, I would think your ideas here had more credibility.You have to understand where I am coming from? I already believed the Bible and evolution at the same time. The Bible even has some parts supportive of evolution.But when challenged to look into the facts for myself, I found most of what I was taught as evidence for evolution was either an overstatement, hoax, etc,...Haeckel's drawings being used in textbooks and false and unproven claims on embryonic evidence in general was one of those areas I looked into, and found the creationists were telling the truth, and the evolutionists were either lying, or most likely, had deluded themselves, and still to this day, as this thread illustrates imo, evolutionists are loathe to just come clean on the issue and admit that if a college kid could find out humans did not have gill slits, that Haeckel's drawings were fraudulent, that there was no proof of a phylotypic stage, then certainly all the Phds, professors, teachers, and textbook writers could have least fact-checked this most basic claim of evolutionists to actually, you know, see if it is true before telling people the evidence was there when it was not.So forgive me if I don't buy your assessment of my opinion. When I see you doing the same thing I have done, and actually look over what you were taught to believe on evolution with a critical eye without first assuming evolution is true, then maybe you'll have a more informed opinion of those of us that have done that.

Of what relevance is this? We are discussing whether or not there are pharyngeal pouchs? They may have arisen through evolutionary processes (either common descent or convergence) or common design. The discussion is whether or not the embryos of various species show development of structures that have some relationship to each other. In other words to convince you it will take more information than is currently available. No problem, that is up to you. However, this is enough to convince me that there is a reasonable possibility (if not definitive) that it is not fraudulent to talk about the connections between embryos of different species and that is all that is being discussed here.In other words, your claim of unfounded, fraudulent assertions is wrong. Perhaps you should reread the article. Again, the way they get there isn't material to whether or not there is fraud. You seem to be suggesting that common design is the explanation for the relationships we see between embryonic structures. If there is any relationship for any reason then the claims we are discussing are not unfounded or fraudulant. They interpretation of them may be incorrect if your common design interpretation is right but that is a separate issue. The evidence is there to show that this is not a fraudulant suggestion. And the 'very little' is more evidence than you have for your suggestion of how it came about.

I don't know where you get the fraudulent claim from. I claimed the following were fraudulent:1. The use of Haeckel's drawings to depict various versions of recapitulation.
2. Asserting humans have gill slits, gill pouches, etc,..
3. Claiming a phylotypic stage as evidence prior to that being proven.As far as studying molecular markers, etc,...that's a good thing, and not fraudulent.I am though suspicious of continually trying to revive a false theory, which historically seems to be what evolutionists have done with embryonic claims to support common descent. Imo, the threshold should be very, very high before claims in this area are given serious consideration, and finding one marker that appears to link gills to humans, thus in some fashion resurrecting the earlier myth of human gills slits, should understandably be treated with a great deal of caution considering the past 100 years or so of evolutionist misrepresentation in this area.It is not fraudulent to publish some links in studying how gills and the parathyroid work, but it is borderline irresponsible, considering the past history, to jump to conclusions too early here and present this dogmatically as evidence of a common ancestral structure, especially with such scant evidence that has been put forth.

Have you looked? You could have got all this, and the relevant references, just from actually reading the original paper. If you had actually read the Okabe and Graham (2004) paper, and I can't think why you haven't since it is freely available, you would have found out that they not only look at Gcm2 but also at the expression of two zebrafish homologues of parathyroid hormone and a gene which encode a calcium level responsive receptor (CasR.While CasR isn't exclusive to the parathyroid gland it certainly shows a commonality of function between the parathyroid gland and the gills, especially when coupled with the production of parathyroid hormone.TTFN,WK

Haeckel's drawings are not the basis for evolution. When I took biology in college in the 60's we were taught that the old notion of "ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny" was not accurate. So Haeckel wasn't a part of the study of evolution, nor is the false notion of recapitulations.You are flogging a dead horse. Why? The horse is dead and it wasn't the work horse that built the theory anyway. You are right about Haeckel but that doesn't falsify ToE in the least. Cant' you find an even more marginal issue to basis your silly arguments on. Maybe Darwin once beat a horse or drank bad whiskey?lfen

1. We agreed that Haeckel faked it way back at the beginning of the discussion.
2. There is good evidence that human structures are, in some way, related to gills in the developement of embryos. Therefore not a fraud even if you think it is a misinterpretation.
3. "proven"? The stage seemed to be there from looking at gross anatomy (not proven) but indicative. Since then other things have come to light which supports that. What is "proven"? No one waits for 100% proof before putting forward suggested explanations.

Ned, to your credit, you agreed. Very few others agreed. Most persisted in defending the use of Haeckel's drawings in one form or another. I noticed you didn't jump in and reassert the fact they were totally unreasonable in doing so, and the same thing occurred with the defense of the claims of gill slits and gill pouches, one even arguing that "gill pouches" was acceptable because that's what they are called.Perhaps in some way your overall response here is indicative of why the evolutionist community persisted in using fraudulent drawings and fraudulent ideas such as human gill slits for 130 years.Instead of being willing to easily correct it's excesses, the evolutionist community seems all to willing to seek to silence and denigrate it's critics, regardless of the fact it's critics were correct, such as in the case of Haeckel's drawings.Nothing in my experience has suggested that the evolutionist community has abandoned this basic approach of evolutionism.I consider the approach entirely unscientific and sort of simialr to politics. I am not thus surprised that much of the debate and issue is moving into the political arena.If evolutionists truly deplored the politicization of the issue, they would abandon their dogmatic approach of defending evolutionism at any cost, and change their ways, but it seems the community is barely capable of seeing things straight enough to unequivocally condemn the use of fraudulent claims such as Haeckel's drawings, and probably does not see any real systemic problem but thinks 130 years of discounting critics and asserting a falsehood is a mere innocent mistake.That's sad, but hey, if you guys want to fall back on bashing creationism, religion, IDers, or whoever, that's your perogative.Just know that there's a reason a lot of people are not so willing to take evolutionist's word on this stuff anymore, and the reason is a darn good one.

Well, I remember several agreeing that Haeckel faked it. Not a big deal; certainly not what you are making it out to be.The use of drawings arranged like Haeckel's has, in my opinion, been shown to be perfectly reasonable. The embryo's of various species do have similarities and do undergo transformations that follow a similar pattern. In fact, evidence has been shown that these similarities are much more than just "skin deep". The developement of parts of humans from the same structures that give rise to gills has been shown. This is what makes the terms used acceptable.The community uses them because they show an actual fact about embryonic development and should continue to do so. However, calling it the "evolutionist" community is a bit silly since it is really only very minorly involved with evolution but more with embryology.The community has published comments on Haeckel's fraud. In fact, the first I ever heard about or saw drawings of that type was in an article discussing the issue and showing that they were faked. What is sad is the creationist community misrepresenting the facts of the case and continuing to beat a dead horse. The use of drawings comparing the actual development of embryos in the way that Haeckel did (but without messing with them) is perfectly acceptable and shows facts of the development of them that you may not accept but that you have given nothing to suggest is wrong. You even decided that the explanation was either convergent evolution or ID seemingly accepting that there IS in fact a relationship between embryos to be explained by one of those two suggestions of yours. Of course, while you don't think the common descent explanation of the facts is adequately supported you have not yet offered any support for your two alternative explanations.

Ned, actual photos of species at similar levels of development strongly contradict Haeckel's claims, and the drawings based on his drawings were thus extremely fraudulent since they showed a non-existent similarity.Can you show actual similarity via photos and other evidence that indicate embryos are more similar in the ways evolutionists proposed, a phylotypic stage, or even just that they are more similar via common descent than a theorized convergent evolution of similarities?I asked for the evidence, and none was given. I was not, as you claim, suggesting that convergent evolution or even ID was a fact. That's wrong, and I am frankly surprised you would say that.But interestingly, when asked for comprehensive studies detailing evolutionist claims, I got none, nada.Why is that?Shouldn't there already be numerous comprehensive studies confirming evolutionist claims here?For example, I would expect, based on evolutionist predictions, that embryos of more dissimilar species anatomically but considered closer genetically to have embryos that are far more similar than species more similar anatomically but considered farther apart genetically. I asked for comprehensive studies backing evolutionist claims, and got nada from you guys.Oh yeah, here is one study of a neck gland with a single genetic marker similar to gills, and hey, they both deal with salt regulation.Big freaking deal! if that's what amounts to evidence, you guys have nothing basically. In fact, if the gene is required and occurs only with the function of salt regulation, then that's even less evidence than you guys claim because all that means is that there is a gene necessary for this function.Does that mean the gene came from a mutual common ancestor?Nope. It could be. It could be that God puts this gene into any species with this function. It could be that the gene arose via convergent evolution.There's no real comprehensive evidence here to suggest gill slits and the parathyroid are homologous structures.Now, that's not to say there is a lot of evidence to the contrary. But let's wait and see when we have the full molecular evidence of all of the genes.Heck, I can't even seem to get a straight answer from the literature on whether similar function entails similar genes, or whether similar structures and function can arise convergently from differing genes.So rather than dogmatically insist that structures are homologous, we ought to actually have comprehensive studies on the claims of evolutionists, and apparently we do not.

What year was that?And what year did you first see or hear of embryonic evidence taught from Haeckel's drawings?

Perhaps because that is a ludicrously vague request. This could easily encompass every single evo-devo paper published in the last 20 years. Do you understand anything about either biology or science in general?Do you have any evidence at all that Gcm2 is required for salt regulation? What the paper shows is that Gcm2 is required for the development of the gills in the same way that it is required for the dvelopment of the parathyroid. It does not suggest any functional role in salt regulation for Gcm2.Have you actually read this paper yet?Despite your pretensions to want a proper scientific discussion you seem totally unfamiliar with any research beyond the pre-digested rubbish you are scraping from creationist web sites, i.e. Darwin-watch. The only paper you seemed to use to back up your argument about Haeckel is the Richardson reference, and you continuously overstate what that shows, and the only paper relevant to convergent evolution in DNA you ever came up with was the one that I gave to you. Apparently you do not know how to do a literature search. The work is ongoing, your complete unfamiliarity with it reflects badly on you, not the amount of research.TTFN,WK

I'm going away for a few days, so this thread is going to be closed I imagine by the time I return.My opponent, randman, has basically shown little enthusiasm in finding the truth behind any errors that were committed in education circles, and instead has simply restated what his opinion regarding those errors was.He has frequently misrepresented Richardson (Richardson didn't write a paper that overthrew evo-devo), by claiming things such as Richardson proved the phylotypic stage was wrong and that pharyngeal pouches were lies.Both claims were (hopefully) laid to rest. It has been shown that the pharyngeal pouches in fish that go on to form gills, go on to form a similar function in humans, using the same genetic markers, and located in the same relative position on the body. Pharyngeal pouches are part of a stage in embryology which two very different organisms share and which go on to do peculiarly similar, yet suitably different, things.My opponent's claim that there is a 'systematic deception' has been shown to be naught but opinion. In favour of my opponent he has highlighted a possible 'systematic error' which is common to textbook makers in areas where research is often overthrowing old theories. History and biology are two such areas. Textbook makers are too often ignorant of changes in the community they write about.Since most people would agree with all this I don't think my opponent has really shown anything new.Unfortunately, though I had more to say, I now have to catch my train. Take care everyone!

Dammed if I remember. More than a decade ago, probably less than 20 years and that was, as I said above, the first time I had heard of embryonic evidence being used. But then I've not had undergraduate level biology; I'm an interested amateur reader.This message has been edited by NosyNed, 07-06-2005 09:17 AM