Who Is Your Creator message forum

 

Who Is Your Creator message forum
This Forum is Locked
Author
Comment
View Entire Thread
Thirdly: Haeckel's drawings and the corrective nature of science

Haeckel's drawings were an incorrect interpretation of the theory of evolution. This much cannot be contested. However, there are a few things to be noted, best viewed as a timeline:

1. On the Origin of Species was published in 1859 (note that this is BEFORE Haeckel)
2. Haeckel's hypothesis was first published in 1866
3. Haeckel's pictures were published in 1874
4. The first objection to Haeckel's drawings came in 1894...followed by...

William Garstang, 1922
Gavin de Beer, 1958
William Ballard, 1976
Stephen J. Gould, 1977
Richard Elinson, 1987
Jane Oppenheimer, 1987
Michael Richardson, 1995
Stephen J. Gould, 2000

All of these authors condemn the idea that embryonic development follows the evolutionary pattern - in no uncertain terms. Sedgwick, for instance, compiled an extensive list of objections to recapitulation as formulated by von Baer and Haeckel, and specifically rejected it as untenable - in 1894. This represents over a century of unambiguous denial of Haeckel's theory of recapitulation. The date can be pushed back even further, since von Baer published his critique of recapitulatory interpretations of his observations in 1828.

If you are trying to pretend that evolutionary biologists are all closet fans of Haeckel, where are the citations to prominent modern scientists defending his theories?

Haeckel's work was discredited in the 19th century, and has not been relevant to biology since the rediscovery of Mendel's laws of genetics. That the biogenetic law is false has been the consensus of biologists for over 100 years, and developmental biologists have been working constructively to provide alternative explanations, which have so far all been evolutionary in nature.

With regards to the drawing's use in textbooks:

"...one of the textbooks I was able to find that referenced Haeckel was one I've taught from for a number of years - Campbell's Biology. I took a close look at the relevant section of this particular book - this section is all of two paragraphs long, with one figure. It would be good to see more substance on this subject, especially in a book that is 1175 pages long. However, I found nothing in what Campbell has written which is objectionable. He begins with the point that "Closely related organisms go through similar stages in their embryonic development", and illustrates that with a PHOTOGRAPH of an avian and mammalian embryo. This statement is correct, and the figure backs up the point. He ends the section by explicitly correcting Haeckel's ideas, saying that "The theory of recapitulation is an overstatement. Although vertebrates share many features of embryonic development, it is not as though a mammal first goes through a 'fish stage', then an 'amphibian stage', and so on. Ontogeny can provide clues to phylogeny, but it is important to remember that all stages of development may become modified over the course of evolution." This is entirely correct. I do not see any errors of fact in Campbell's treatment of the subject, although I do think it is unfortunate that so little space can be spared for it."

To assume that Haeckel's drawings are actively being "promoted" by the scientific community is patently false. There is nothing wrong with the drawings being used in a textbook *for historical reasons*, but certainly if they are used to explain Haeckel's incorrect interpretation (and taught as such) they should be removed, which would clearly have the support of the entire biological scientific community.

Thus is the self-correcting nature of science.

Re: MOTHRA: And Other Mythical Moths in History

If that's a quote, the biased in your source is choking me.

Starting out with Mothra is an argument from ridicule.

The peppered moth's are actually a very good example of natural selection. There is an obvious relation. Pollution up-black moths up and white down. Pollution down- white moths up and black down. You must understand that birds and other predators don't see like us. The key lies in what they see. We don't understand why it is the population changed, but it is obviously a process by natural selection. Although I do agree that the dishonesty wasn't a scientific thing to do.

I honestly don't see why creationists like to point this out so much. It shows the power of natural selection. They didn't even change species.

This is showing power of natural selection, but all it really proved was micro (a change within species). It was evidence, but it was just for natural selection.

The Haekle embryo charts? His charts were drawings. He didn't falsify. He simply directed more attention to the similarities. They weren't fakes. His charts have been removed and are now only in textbooks for historical purposes. We now have actual embryo photos that are completely accurate. And you know what? They still support evolution.

Yes, I agree. The drawings shouldn't be promoted as facts. And they aren't. We have actual photos now.

"
Therefore my question to promoters of macro, Darwinian evolution is this: If your theory is so credible, why do some many of its promoters do so at the expense of truth? Why is so much fakery, flimflammery, and outright dishonest propaganda involved?

That is your burning question."

I can ask the same of you. I showed you just how these are not lies and are exaggerated by creationists to downplay the influence of evolution. Interesting how you chose such weak examples when evolution has evidence many times more reliable.

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

MOTHRA: And Other Mythical Moths in History


Mothra is of course a character in Japanese monster movies, but as mythical moths go Darwin’s enablers came up with their own moth myth first. For comparison, let us start with the vital facts on Mothra:

Mothra

Species: Divine Moth

Alias: The Thing
Form(s): Larval Form
Adult Form
Length: Larval form 30-120 meters
Adult form 24-65 meters

Weight: Larval form 8,000-16,500 tons
Adult form 15,000-22,000 tons

Wingspan: 75-175 meters

Air speed: Mach 3-80

Relationships Shobijin (Priestesses)
Battra (Dark twin in Godzilla vs. Mothra)
Mothra Leo (Son in Rebirth of Mothra)

Major enemies Godzilla
King Ghidorah
Battra
Death Ghidorah
Gigan

Major Allies Godzilla
Rodan
Miki Saegusa
Baragon

-Source: Wiki

A pretty impressive moth, one must admit. But in the “real” moth world, Darwin’s humanist apologists, while slyly pushing their religion on the unsuspecting, are ever ready to grab onto any lie that will promote their cleverly-devised fable. Such is the case with the peppered moths, used for generations in biology textbooks as a prime example of evolution. Pale-peppered moths in Britain supposedly changed to black and back to pale-peppered in response to the ebb and flow of industrial pollution. The problem is it never occurred the way it was written about and especially the way it was deviously pictured. (Ah, yes, the devious pictures, always the devious pictures).

First, the photos of the moths on tree trunks were staged. They were variously glued on and pinned in place on the trunks, which changed from light to dark in response to black soot in the air. Why is that important? Because in nature these moths almost never rested on tree trunks, they rested on the undersides of leaves where they were not likely to be seen by predator birds! The tree trunk colors were irrelevant in the context of what was being promoted. In later experiments, the moths were deliberately placed in unnatural positions on the trunks which the birds merely took advantage of for a free meal. But it was all designed for human consumption, had nothing to do with the natural order as was being deceptively portrayed, and in reality was pure, dishonest propaganda. (And what, pray tell, does dishonest propaganda have to do with any genuine scientific process?).

Gould alludes to this pathetic "scientific" joke as just more “proof” evolution is a fact (see “Evolution as Fact and Theory, 1994, 13th paragraph), yet when examined more closely, it is shown to be simply another "Just So" story disguised as science. (You will note that the story is being quietly moth-balled as the truth gets out).

It may come as a surprise, but Darwin considered embryos, not fossils, to be “by far the strongest single class of facts in favor of” his theory (as quoted in the “PIG Guide to Darwinism and Intelligent Design,” page 25). Falling in step with the party line in the 1860’s, German Darwinist Ernst Haeckel made some vertebrate embryo drawings which distorted the views of German embryologist Karl Ernst von Baer, who objected to the concept that “the various classes of vertebrates…were descended from a common ancestor.” –ibid, page 26. These fake drawings were used in millions and millions of textbooks and are still in use today in some, in spite of the fact that they are known to be falsified, all to promote a total lie.

Even the aforementioned evolutionary biologist Stephen Jay Gould in 2000 labeled Haeckel’s embryo drawings “fraudulent” and wrote: “We do, I think, have the right to be both astonished and ashamed by the century of mindless recycling that has led to the persistence of these drawings in a large number, if not a majority, of modern textbooks!” –ibid, page 28.

All of the forgoing barely scratches the surface of evolutionist fakery, and proves what Einstein said of pseudo scientists: “When the facts don’t fit the theory, change the facts.” These pseudo scientists have been doing just that from the dawn of Darwinism. At least in a movie about Mothra, we know our leg is being pulled. With the unprovable myth of Darwinism presented as fact, generations of humans are being morally-stunted by a joke, a lie and a moth-eaten myth being pawned off as reality, and they are being deliberately led to believe there is air-tight evidence for something that is simply not true.

Therefore my question to promoters of macro, Darwinian evolution is this: If your theory is so credible, why do some many of its promoters do so at the expense of truth? Why is so much fakery, flimflammery, and outright dishonest propaganda involved?

That is your burning question.

And your proof is?

In regard to your comment:

"I showed you just how these are not lies and are exaggerated by creationists to downplay the influence of evolution. Interesting how you chose such weak examples when evolution has evidence many times more reliable."

1. We don't use them to "downplay the influence of evolution."

We reference them to highlight the evolutionist's desperation in using such silly tactics when they could just point to all their 'supposed' evidence and crush the controversy.
Why these are still in textbooks is facinating ...

2. Please submit one piece of the evidence that is "many times more reliable" that proves evolution and we'll go over it together.


Also, on September 7th, you posted:

I'll be glad to find some evidence here later today, but let me preface my work with this:
Why can't it?
http://pub17.bravenet.com/forum/1424646898/fetch/728248

Did you forget to find it?

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

If that's a quote, the biased in your source is choking me.

Starting out with Mothra is an argument from ridicule.

The peppered moth's are actually a very good example of natural selection. There is an obvious relation. Pollution up-black moths up and white down. Pollution down- white moths up and black down. You must understand that birds and other predators don't see like us. The key lies in what they see. We don't understand why it is the population changed, but it is obviously a process by natural selection. Although I do agree that the dishonesty wasn't a scientific thing to do.

I honestly don't see why creationists like to point this out so much. It shows the power of natural selection. They didn't even change species.

This is showing power of natural selection, but all it really proved was micro (a change within species). It was evidence, but it was just for natural selection.

The Haekle embryo charts? His charts were drawings. He didn't falsify. He simply directed more attention to the similarities. They weren't fakes. His charts have been removed and are now only in textbooks for historical purposes. We now have actual embryo photos that are completely accurate. And you know what? They still support evolution.

Yes, I agree. The drawings shouldn't be promoted as facts. And they aren't. We have actual photos now.

"
Therefore my question to promoters of macro, Darwinian evolution is this: If your theory is so credible, why do some many of its promoters do so at the expense of truth? Why is so much fakery, flimflammery, and outright dishonest propaganda involved?

That is your burning question."

I can ask the same of you. I showed you just how these are not lies and are exaggerated by creationists to downplay the influence of evolution. Interesting how you chose such weak examples when evolution has evidence many times more reliable.

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

MOTHRA: And Other Mythical Moths in History


Mothra is of course a character in Japanese monster movies, but as mythical moths go Darwin’s enablers came up with their own moth myth first. For comparison, let us start with the vital facts on Mothra:

Mothra

Species: Divine Moth

Alias: The Thing
Form(s): Larval Form
Adult Form
Length: Larval form 30-120 meters
Adult form 24-65 meters

Weight: Larval form 8,000-16,500 tons
Adult form 15,000-22,000 tons

Wingspan: 75-175 meters

Air speed: Mach 3-80

Relationships Shobijin (Priestesses)
Battra (Dark twin in Godzilla vs. Mothra)
Mothra Leo (Son in Rebirth of Mothra)

Major enemies Godzilla
King Ghidorah
Battra
Death Ghidorah
Gigan

Major Allies Godzilla
Rodan
Miki Saegusa
Baragon

-Source: Wiki

A pretty impressive moth, one must admit. But in the “real” moth world, Darwin’s humanist apologists, while slyly pushing their religion on the unsuspecting, are ever ready to grab onto any lie that will promote their cleverly-devised fable. Such is the case with the peppered moths, used for generations in biology textbooks as a prime example of evolution. Pale-peppered moths in Britain supposedly changed to black and back to pale-peppered in response to the ebb and flow of industrial pollution. The problem is it never occurred the way it was written about and especially the way it was deviously pictured. (Ah, yes, the devious pictures, always the devious pictures).

First, the photos of the moths on tree trunks were staged. They were variously glued on and pinned in place on the trunks, which changed from light to dark in response to black soot in the air. Why is that important? Because in nature these moths almost never rested on tree trunks, they rested on the undersides of leaves where they were not likely to be seen by predator birds! The tree trunk colors were irrelevant in the context of what was being promoted. In later experiments, the moths were deliberately placed in unnatural positions on the trunks which the birds merely took advantage of for a free meal. But it was all designed for human consumption, had nothing to do with the natural order as was being deceptively portrayed, and in reality was pure, dishonest propaganda. (And what, pray tell, does dishonest propaganda have to do with any genuine scientific process?).

Gould alludes to this pathetic "scientific" joke as just more “proof” evolution is a fact (see “Evolution as Fact and Theory, 1994, 13th paragraph), yet when examined more closely, it is shown to be simply another "Just So" story disguised as science. (You will note that the story is being quietly moth-balled as the truth gets out).

It may come as a surprise, but Darwin considered embryos, not fossils, to be “by far the strongest single class of facts in favor of” his theory (as quoted in the “PIG Guide to Darwinism and Intelligent Design,” page 25). Falling in step with the party line in the 1860’s, German Darwinist Ernst Haeckel made some vertebrate embryo drawings which distorted the views of German embryologist Karl Ernst von Baer, who objected to the concept that “the various classes of vertebrates…were descended from a common ancestor.” –ibid, page 26. These fake drawings were used in millions and millions of textbooks and are still in use today in some, in spite of the fact that they are known to be falsified, all to promote a total lie.

Even the aforementioned evolutionary biologist Stephen Jay Gould in 2000 labeled Haeckel’s embryo drawings “fraudulent” and wrote: “We do, I think, have the right to be both astonished and ashamed by the century of mindless recycling that has led to the persistence of these drawings in a large number, if not a majority, of modern textbooks!” –ibid, page 28.

All of the forgoing barely scratches the surface of evolutionist fakery, and proves what Einstein said of pseudo scientists: “When the facts don’t fit the theory, change the facts.” These pseudo scientists have been doing just that from the dawn of Darwinism. At least in a movie about Mothra, we know our leg is being pulled. With the unprovable myth of Darwinism presented as fact, generations of humans are being morally-stunted by a joke, a lie and a moth-eaten myth being pawned off as reality, and they are being deliberately led to believe there is air-tight evidence for something that is simply not true.

Therefore my question to promoters of macro, Darwinian evolution is this: If your theory is so credible, why do some many of its promoters do so at the expense of truth? Why is so much fakery, flimflammery, and outright dishonest propaganda involved?

That is your burning question.

Re: And your proof is?

1. The moths are in there to show the power of natural selection. Explain why creationism has a problem with this when it doesn't even involve a change in species?

The embryo charts are in there for nothing other than historical significance.

2. ERVs. YOu never did reply to them when Kabane52 presented them to you.

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

In regard to your comment:

"I showed you just how these are not lies and are exaggerated by creationists to downplay the influence of evolution. Interesting how you chose such weak examples when evolution has evidence many times more reliable."

1. We don't use them to "downplay the influence of evolution."

We reference them to highlight the evolutionist's desperation in using such silly tactics when they could just point to all their 'supposed' evidence and crush the controversy.
Why these are still in textbooks is facinating ...

2. Please submit one piece of the evidence that is "many times more reliable" that proves evolution and we'll go over it together.


Also, on September 7th, you posted:

I'll be glad to find some evidence here later today, but let me preface my work with this:
Why can't it?
http://pub17.bravenet.com/forum/1424646898/fetch/728248

Did you forget to find it?

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

If that's a quote, the biased in your source is choking me.

Starting out with Mothra is an argument from ridicule.

The peppered moth's are actually a very good example of natural selection. There is an obvious relation. Pollution up-black moths up and white down. Pollution down- white moths up and black down. You must understand that birds and other predators don't see like us. The key lies in what they see. We don't understand why it is the population changed, but it is obviously a process by natural selection. Although I do agree that the dishonesty wasn't a scientific thing to do.

I honestly don't see why creationists like to point this out so much. It shows the power of natural selection. They didn't even change species.

This is showing power of natural selection, but all it really proved was micro (a change within species). It was evidence, but it was just for natural selection.

The Haekle embryo charts? His charts were drawings. He didn't falsify. He simply directed more attention to the similarities. They weren't fakes. His charts have been removed and are now only in textbooks for historical purposes. We now have actual embryo photos that are completely accurate. And you know what? They still support evolution.

Yes, I agree. The drawings shouldn't be promoted as facts. And they aren't. We have actual photos now.

"
Therefore my question to promoters of macro, Darwinian evolution is this: If your theory is so credible, why do some many of its promoters do so at the expense of truth? Why is so much fakery, flimflammery, and outright dishonest propaganda involved?

That is your burning question."

I can ask the same of you. I showed you just how these are not lies and are exaggerated by creationists to downplay the influence of evolution. Interesting how you chose such weak examples when evolution has evidence many times more reliable.

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

MOTHRA: And Other Mythical Moths in History


Mothra is of course a character in Japanese monster movies, but as mythical moths go Darwin’s enablers came up with their own moth myth first. For comparison, let us start with the vital facts on Mothra:

Mothra

Species: Divine Moth

Alias: The Thing
Form(s): Larval Form
Adult Form
Length: Larval form 30-120 meters
Adult form 24-65 meters

Weight: Larval form 8,000-16,500 tons
Adult form 15,000-22,000 tons

Wingspan: 75-175 meters

Air speed: Mach 3-80

Relationships Shobijin (Priestesses)
Battra (Dark twin in Godzilla vs. Mothra)
Mothra Leo (Son in Rebirth of Mothra)

Major enemies Godzilla
King Ghidorah
Battra
Death Ghidorah
Gigan

Major Allies Godzilla
Rodan
Miki Saegusa
Baragon

-Source: Wiki

A pretty impressive moth, one must admit. But in the “real” moth world, Darwin’s humanist apologists, while slyly pushing their religion on the unsuspecting, are ever ready to grab onto any lie that will promote their cleverly-devised fable. Such is the case with the peppered moths, used for generations in biology textbooks as a prime example of evolution. Pale-peppered moths in Britain supposedly changed to black and back to pale-peppered in response to the ebb and flow of industrial pollution. The problem is it never occurred the way it was written about and especially the way it was deviously pictured. (Ah, yes, the devious pictures, always the devious pictures).

First, the photos of the moths on tree trunks were staged. They were variously glued on and pinned in place on the trunks, which changed from light to dark in response to black soot in the air. Why is that important? Because in nature these moths almost never rested on tree trunks, they rested on the undersides of leaves where they were not likely to be seen by predator birds! The tree trunk colors were irrelevant in the context of what was being promoted. In later experiments, the moths were deliberately placed in unnatural positions on the trunks which the birds merely took advantage of for a free meal. But it was all designed for human consumption, had nothing to do with the natural order as was being deceptively portrayed, and in reality was pure, dishonest propaganda. (And what, pray tell, does dishonest propaganda have to do with any genuine scientific process?).

Gould alludes to this pathetic "scientific" joke as just more “proof” evolution is a fact (see “Evolution as Fact and Theory, 1994, 13th paragraph), yet when examined more closely, it is shown to be simply another "Just So" story disguised as science. (You will note that the story is being quietly moth-balled as the truth gets out).

It may come as a surprise, but Darwin considered embryos, not fossils, to be “by far the strongest single class of facts in favor of” his theory (as quoted in the “PIG Guide to Darwinism and Intelligent Design,” page 25). Falling in step with the party line in the 1860’s, German Darwinist Ernst Haeckel made some vertebrate embryo drawings which distorted the views of German embryologist Karl Ernst von Baer, who objected to the concept that “the various classes of vertebrates…were descended from a common ancestor.” –ibid, page 26. These fake drawings were used in millions and millions of textbooks and are still in use today in some, in spite of the fact that they are known to be falsified, all to promote a total lie.

Even the aforementioned evolutionary biologist Stephen Jay Gould in 2000 labeled Haeckel’s embryo drawings “fraudulent” and wrote: “We do, I think, have the right to be both astonished and ashamed by the century of mindless recycling that has led to the persistence of these drawings in a large number, if not a majority, of modern textbooks!” –ibid, page 28.

All of the forgoing barely scratches the surface of evolutionist fakery, and proves what Einstein said of pseudo scientists: “When the facts don’t fit the theory, change the facts.” These pseudo scientists have been doing just that from the dawn of Darwinism. At least in a movie about Mothra, we know our leg is being pulled. With the unprovable myth of Darwinism presented as fact, generations of humans are being morally-stunted by a joke, a lie and a moth-eaten myth being pawned off as reality, and they are being deliberately led to believe there is air-tight evidence for something that is simply not true.

Therefore my question to promoters of macro, Darwinian evolution is this: If your theory is so credible, why do some many of its promoters do so at the expense of truth? Why is so much fakery, flimflammery, and outright dishonest propaganda involved?

That is your burning question.