157 replies to this topic

[Fred Williams]

Just a quick note. I emailed a Harvard professor about the fake Haeckel embryo picture he was using on his school-sponsored and hosted website to promote this illusion of evolution (in this case a fraud). In a round-about way he admitted they weren't accurate, but all he did on the website is put a small disclaimer that the embryos are just drawings, and that ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny has problems. But he still kept the fake drawings on his site and referred to them!!! In other words, he decided to keep the illusion going, despite the fact this nonsense was long sense disproven. I seldom use the word lie, but this professor was intentionally lying to his students and the public. Like Haeckel, he is a disgrace to truth and to science. If need be I'll try to find the site. The year I emailed him he had recently retired, so it's possible the web page may have since been removed only because of inertia due to his no longer being on the staff. This was at least 3 years ago.

A question I would ask is, if there truly is so much evidence for evolution, why would a biology professor at Harvard need to bother including evidence that has long since been proven to be a fraud?

Fred

[RockerforChrist14]

Amen brother. Amen amen amen. Wow!

[st_dissent]

Haeckel's illustrations might be incorrect but the fact that the embryos are similar is not in question. They are very similar! Sure there are some differences, however, that is to be expected since the degree of relation between animals is not equal. I am surprised that a professor still uses Haeckel’s illustrations because illustrations exist that are corrected for Haeckel’s errors.

Here is a great site showing the similarities visually with actual film footage:

http://www.pbs.org/w.../odyssey/clips/

Also, here is Kenneth Miller's response on the whole issue:

http://www.millerand...os/Haeckel.html

Note the part about how the illustrations have been fixed in most textbooks. This is why I can't believe that the professor Fred spoke of is still using those outdated drawings; these are just as convincing - even if the professor is part of some naturalistic conspiracy. Just glancing through the biology text that my campus uses shows Haeckel's embryo drawings and explains what is incorrect about it and shows a corrected version made from real photographs. The similarities remain quite striking!

By the way, I do not think life isn’t special, quite the contrary, I think it is amazing. I do support abortion, however it is not from a morality standpoint. Humans like to have s@x; we are one of the few animals that do it out of season just for pleasure. It is impossible to keep people from breeding and producing offspring and with significant decreases in birth spacing and subsequent increases in population levels, unwanted pregnancies usually lead to the continuation of poverty and crime. Outlawing abortion has ill effects on a community from a practical standpoint. If this were a fascist government it would be easy to implement morality on a population; unfortunately it is not so folks will have to be satisfied with implementing their morality on themselves and their immediate family (if that sort of control exists).

[st_dissent]

This, plus Piltdown man. Did so much to move evolution into the mainstream. Why not let it stay? Why not still let it be taught? Science had no problem with it back then, why even remove it now?

This was a hoax exposed by scientists. It shows that science is self correcting. The hoax was discovered because Piltdown man could not be reconciled with other hominid fossils (this is why it took 40 years to do it).

Look at the Creationist hoaxes: Malachite Man, Paluxy Footprints!

Whats the difference?

[st_dissent]

I also notice that you use the word error instead of fraud. Does the belief in theories allow frauds to become errors?

Oh no, they were definately fudged by Haeckel. Haeckel even admitted it himself. I used the word error not to imply mistake but to imply inaccuracy. Read Miller's response at the above link.

[st_dissent]

Quote from NCSE

Twentieth-century and current embryological research confirms that early stages (if not the earliest) of vertebrate embryos are more similar than later ones; the more recently species shared a common ancestor, the more similar their embryological development. Thus cows and rabbits - mammals - are more similar in their embryological development than either is to alligators. Cows and antelopes are more similar in their embryology than either is to rabbits, and so on. The union of evolution and developmental biology - "evo-devo" - is one of the most rapidly growing biological fields. "Faked" drawings are not relied upon: there has been plenty of research in developmental biology since Haeckel - and in fact, hardly any textbooks feature Haeckel's drawings, as claimed.

Thought this to be relevant!

[George R]

Quote from NCSE
Thought this to be relevant!

It is indeed a relevant conclusion.

The point is ... how well is this conclusion supported with facts and logic. It's no fun being relevant if a conclusion is not warranted by the evidence and by the choice of alternate explanations for that evidence.

Twentieth-century and current embryological research confirms that early stages (if not the earliest) of vertebrate embryos are more similar than later ones; the more recently species shared a common ancestor, the more similar their embryological development.

If true, one would expect a tight correlation between the (1) "commonality" of embryos at an "early" stage, and other evidence-based mappings of common descent.

If true, it would not beg the question "does common similarity" prove "common descent"? It would be replete with examples that could be explained no other way.

"Common similarity" is only strong proof if we already believe conclusion. For example, I find that human toes resemble rat fore-limb fingers in some ways. I cannot conclude from that alone that human legs were derived from rat fore-paws.

"Early stages" begs another premise or two. It seems to imply that a progressive embryonic development in stages is parallel across species, and that the maximum similarity occurs early and gradually trails off with decreasing similarity at all later stages.

Alas, Haeckel did a very selective choosing of what constitutes an "early stage" to maximize the visual effect. Do you find it of passing interest as to what an unbiased selection of the same embryo stages would be? Have you seen one? Does it bear the same correspondence?

Finally the circular howler: "more recently species shared a common ancestor, the more similar their embryological development."

This seems to unveil a slamdunk proof. It is a conclusion that says "when you select common ancestry based on common resemblance, the embryos also have a common resemblance.

Well, isnt that telling. It is really saying... Dog embryos are more similar to each other than dog embryos are to cat embryos,... What's the big lightning strike here? What a revelation ... whoda thunkit?

How about an Occam-like alternative explantion... Form and sttructure by design also shares a resemblance ... just like airplanes being built resemble each other more than they resemble houses being built ... the commonality of planned design is reflected in the commonality seen in early stages of construction.









\

[chance]

I wonder why this thread is being avoided?

Not sure it’s been avoided for any given reason, other than what is there to debate? Both sides admit that Haeckel’s used drawings not photo’s.

As to the why it took so long to correct I can only speculate, perhaps the differences between the drawings and an actual photo were not that significant, so they let it slide. But yes it’s too long for a correction.

Would this have changed how people perceive evolution?, I don’t know, evolutionary theory is certainly independent of embryonic development, so in scientific circles it should make no difference. To the layman if the “Haeckel evidence” were omitted, I doubt it would make any difference also, e.g. evolution was accepted before DNA and the method of inheritance was understood, arguable far more significant.

P.S. what is the connection to “Abortionists Vs Haeckel” as per the title of this discussion?

[xdisciplex]

The Haeckel pictures are a joke and basically one more proof that atheists cannot be trusted! They even use lies to support their religion! I would never trust an atheist when it comes to evolution. All they want is to refute God and they use anything they can find.