Stupid Christian Article on Evolution

[randman]

Ernst Haeckel addressed the issue with his Biogenetic Law, and his embryo drawings functioned as supporting data. We re-examine Haeckel's work and its significance for modern efforts to develop a rigorous comparative framework for developmental studies. Haeckel's comparative embryology was evolutionary but non-quantitative. It was based on developmental sequences, and treated heterochrony as a sequence change. It is not always clear whether he believed in recapitulation of single characters or entire stages. The Biogenetic Law is supported by several recent studies - if applied to single characters only. .....Haeckel recognized the evolutionary diversity in early embryonic stages, in line with modern thinking. He did not necessarily advocate the strict form of recapitulation and terminal addition commonly attributed to him.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1017/S1464793102005948/abstract

So there you have it. You accuse me of ignorance and cite a paper whose abstract (with more details in the paper itself) flat out agreeing with everything I said about the history of how Haeckel has been relied on and used.

To spell it out, Haeckel's Biogenetic Law is considered applicable in some respects by Richardson and does not and did not primarily advocate adult form recapitulation. Anyone could see that in the first place since they are not drawings of adult forms.

Geesh.

 

[randman]

The same paper states his drawings are widely used in textbooks, something you denied vehemently.

The embryo drawings are still widely printed in reference books and student texts, and have therefore been widely accepted as teaching devices (Gould, 2000). They are also used in technical scientific publications (Duboule, 1994 ; Butler and Juurlink, 1987). Their modern use is to illustrate one or more of the same three points that Haeckel intended, namely : embryonic resemblance as evidence of evolution ; phenotypic divergence ; and recapitu- lation. The eight embryos from NatuW rliche SchoW pfungs- geschichte (Haeckel, 1874c) are redrawn in the modern text Biology (Arms and Camp, 1995), and were used to illustrate embryonic development in The Study of Animal Life (Thomson, 1917).
The most widely reproduced of Haeckel’s embryo drawings are the set in the first edition of Anthropogenie (Haeckel, 1874 a). In several text books, the drawings are used as scientific illustrations to show the reader what embryos look like (Wilson, 1886 ; Lull, 1927 ; Cole, 1933). They have been widely used in numerous standard works (e.g. Alberts et al., 1994; Collins, 1995 ; Gilbert, 1997) and in countless student texts (e.g. Kardong, 1995; Gould, Keeton & Gould, 1996; Gerhart & Kirschner, 1997; Mu$ ller, 1997). Embryo plates from later Anthropogenie editions are copied by some authors (e.g. Platt and Reid, 1967; Leakey, 1986). These texts faithfully reproduce scientific errors in Haeckel’s original (e.g. his depiction of the forelimb bud of the chick embryo, in the middle row of the plate, as being a caudal member of the pharyngeal arch series).
Some texts appear to have copied their drawings second-hand, rather than directly from Haeckel. The version in Darwin and After Darwin (Romanes, 1892) is the commonest secondary source (Fig. 6). Some books (e.g. Phillips, 1975; Minkoff, 1983use other second-hand sources. The drawings in some textbooks have deteriorated in quality from Haeckel’s originals, and anatomical errors have been introduced during copying. For example, the set in Gray’s Anatomy (Collins, 1995) has eye and ear primordia in the wrong places.
(4) Scientific criticisms of the drawings
Haeckel presented the embryo drawings as data in support of his hypotheses. Therefore, scientists disagreeing with Haeckel’s views have often chal- lenged the accuracy of the drawings (Richardson et al., 1997), and their interpretation. Other criticisms of the drawings, which will not be discussed here, are religious or political in motivation (e.g. Assmuth & Hull, 1915).

Note the reference to the book in 1915! But he won't talk about them because they are "religious or political in motivation" which is good evo talk for a creationist. I point that out because creationists have loudly decried his drawings as fakes for 130 years and yet you guys didn't "widely" know about it until 1997?

Why is that?

Edit to add:

Haeckel is often accused of advocating absurd recapitulatory scenarios – such as fish gills in human embryos. However, we find that he explicitly rejected this scenario in some of his writings.

Note: he considers advocating "fish gills in human embryos" to be an absurd claim.

Can someone tell the other evos, please?

 

[Resume]

The same paper states his drawings are widely used in textbooks, something you denied vehemently.



Note the reference to the book in 1915! But he won't talk about them because they are "religious or political in motivation" which is good evo talk for a creationist. I point that out because creationists have loudly decried his drawings as fakes for 130 years and yet you guys didn't "widely" know about it until 1997?

Why is that?

Edit to add:



Note: he considers advocating "fish gills in human embryos" to be an absurd claim.

Can someone tell the other evos, please?

What's an evo?

 

[Brainache]

What's an evo?

A person who has been educated anywhere in the world outside of a few bible belt US states.

 

[A'isha]

The same paper states his drawings are widely used in textbooks, something you denied vehemently.

I told you exactly when Haeckel started popping up commonly in textbooks, and why he was there then, and why he's there now.

This does nothing to help your assertion that Haeckel's drawings were a critical part of the foundation of evolutionary theory as a whole, and as I keep trying to tell you, even kicking him to the curb doesn't do a single thing to put the Synthetic Model in doubt, since even the parts that Haeckel got right are such a minuscule part of the evidence for evolution that he could disappear completely from the pages of both science and history, and it wouldn't matter one bit to evolution.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1017/S1464793102005948/abstract

Ah, so now you trust Richardson's recent statements that Haeckel is important to evolution after all despite his faked drawings? What happened to the accusations of "backtracking"? Are you now saying that the use of Haeckel in evolutionary theory was not as bad as you've been saying all along, if you think Richardson's 2007 paper is trustworthy?

But in any case, once again you're completely misreading what Richardson is actually saying in an attempt to make him support what you're trying to argue, when it in fact does exactly the opposite. (EDIT: Specifically regarding your idea of Haeckel's ideas and their acceptance in and importance in the Synthetic Model, that is. Far from agreeing with you that Haeckel's ideas were part and parcel of evolutionary theory, Richardson admits they were tossed out and are not accepted among other evolutionary scientists. Richardson is arguing that Haeckel's views shouldn't be discarded entirely, as they have been up till now, because some of what he said was, in Richardson's view, really not as incompatible with the Synthetic Theory as everyone thought up till now, and therefore his ideas can add some new insight into our views of evolution. Which is...well, as I said above, pretty much the opposite of what you're claiming is Haeckel's role in evolutionary theory)

Richardson, in any case, holds a minority opinion on Haeckel's more generalized use of his recapitulation theory. Richardson himself acknowledges that Gould, Lehman, de Beer, Miyazaki, and Mikevich did not think Haeckel was so ambivalent about what he was really saying with his Law of Correspondence, since he was very specific about identifying correspondences in the embryonic structures to structures in the adult organism. The view of Gould and the others is supported by the fact that Haeckel was actually very explicit about the entire adult form of certain ancestor organisms being recapitulated, as even Richardson admits Haeckel did, though he tries to say the implications are more limited (Richardson uses the word "exceptional" to describe the specific times Haeckel uses that direct whole-form comparison).

Richardson even admits that, regarding Haeckel's Law of Terminal Addition, "The idea that new adult stages are added terminally, then telescoped or pushed-back into the embryonic stages of descendants, is assumed to be part of the Haeckelian package (Gould, 1977: pp. 74± 75; de Beer, 1951: p. 5; Lehman, 1987: p. 206; Richardson, 1999: p. 605; Miyazaki and Mickevich, 1982: p. 394) and can reasonably be inferred from his alphabetical analogy and some of his writings."

This stands in contrast to von Baer's idea that embryonic structures show similarities only to other embryonic structures, an idea expanded on and confirmed by science since then, without any need to rely on Haeckel at all, making his views actually irrelevant to phylogenetics in its currrent form. That's why no one in science really cares any more whether Haeckel was right or wrong in any of his specific theories in any context outside the historical. Richardson could be totally right and Gould totally wrong, or Gould could be totally right and Richardson totally wrong, and it wouldn't matter one whit to the current Synthetic Model.

Now please try and tear your attention away from this Haeckel red herring, and tell us what you think the problems with this 2007 study are, since it says everything you claim scientists rely on Haeckel for, and yet makes no reference at all to Haeckel or his drawings (and, indeed, accepts everything Richardson said in his papers regarding conserved stages).

 

[randman]

I told you exactly when Haeckel started popping up commonly in textbooks, and why he was there then, and why he's there now.

Yea and I told you Haeckel has been used in textbooks for decades.

This does nothing to help your assertion that Haeckel's drawings were a critical part of the foundation of evolutionary theory as a whole, and as I keep trying to tell you, even kicking him to the curb doesn't do a single thing to put the Synthetic Model in doubt

Never said debunking Haeckel debunks ND except to the extent it goes to show the way evos use or misuse data, even relying on faked data such as this and overstatements, illogic, etc, etc,....

Why did it take 130 years for the wider evo community to admit the drawings were faked when as you said, it was known as far back as the 1880s?

And whether you like it or not, Haeckel's "ontogeny recapitulated phylogeny" played a large role in the development and establishment of evolutionary theory in that it was cited as evidence for it in textbooks for decades.

Ah, so now you trust Richardson's recent statements that Haeckel is important to evolution after all despite his faked drawings? What happened to the accusations of "backtracking"? Are you now saying that the use of Haeckel in evolutionary theory was not as bad as you've been saying all along, if you think Richardson's 2007 paper is trustworthy?

Trustworthy? from an evolutionist? I think he admits some things long told by creationists and so some factual comments are correct but not the effort to rehabilitate Haeckel. But you are the one that cited the paper claiming I was ignorant and did not know much about Haeckel and the history there. I was just showing you were wrong.

Your own source you derided me for, claiming I had not read, which I have read a number of times actually, agreed with me on what Haeckel's original theory was.

You ought to just apologize and admit you were wrong.

As far as the rest, one point of the paper was to clear up for evos certain facts on Haeckel. You guys were never aware even that the drawings were faked for the most part until 1997, right?

 

[A'isha]

Yea and I told you Haeckel has been used in textbooks for decades.

And you were incorrect. At least insofar as which decades.

Never said debunking Haeckel debunks ND except to the extent it goes to show the way evos use or misuse data, even relying on faked data such as this and overstatements, illogic, etc, etc,....

No, they don't. When this false data started being used, its falsity was identified by an evolutionist. And as soon as it was known, other evolutionists stopped using it.

And now, that data is not even relevant one way or the other any more.

Why did it take 130 years for the wider evo community to admit the drawings were faked when as you said, it was known as far back as the 1880s?

Because no one was using those parts of Haeckel's drawings for anything during those years, and so no one bothered to look that closely. As soon as they did start using those parts, suddenly the fakery was uncovered, and those parts of the drawings were promptly disregarded as evidence.

And, as Richardson's own later papers show, the fakery wasn't as obvious as you think it was, which is why no one noticed for so long.

And whether you like it or not, Haeckel's "ontogeny recapitulated phylogeny" played a large role in the development and establishment of evolutionary theory in that it was cited as evidence for it in textbooks for decades.

No, it didn't. You replied as I was making my edit to this effect, so I'll repeat it here.

Far from agreeing with you that Haeckel's ideas were part and parcel of evolutionary theory, Richardson admits they were tossed out and are not accepted among other evolutionary scientists. Richardson is arguing that Haeckel's views shouldn't be discarded entirely, as they have been up till now, because some of what he said was, in Richardson's view, really not as incompatible with the Synthetic Theory as everyone thought up till now, and therefore his ideas can add some new insight into our views of evolution. Which is...well, as I said above, pretty much the opposite of what you're claiming is Haeckel's role in evolutionary theory

As far as the rest, one point of the paper was to clear up for evos certain facts on Haeckel. You guys were never aware even that the drawings were faked for the most part until 1997, right?

Because it didn't matter, since no one relied on those fake parts until the 90's, and as soon as we tried, someone noticed the problem and told everyone about it.

And we certainly don't rely on them now.

Now tell me what you think is wrong with this 2007 study, and why it doesn't even mention Haeckel or his drawings (or even the data described in those drawings), if Haeckel was so vital to evolution and the phylotypic stage is just a form of Haeckel's theory.

The paper mentions von Baer. Why not Haeckel, randman?

 

[randman]

Now tell me what you think is wrong with this 2007 study, and why it doesn't even mention Haeckel or his drawings (or even the data described in those drawings), if Haeckel was so vital to evolution and the phylotypic stage is just a form of Haeckel's theory.

The paper mentions von Baer. Why not Haeckel, randman?

First so far you've been wrong on what papers say. So who knows? Secondly, he certainly mentions Haeckel in the papers we've linked to so far.

Lastly, not mentioning Haeckel would be a good idea to try to put the whole embarrassing saga of evos relying on Haeckel to bed.

 

[John Jones]

Modern evolution theory (origin of species by natural selection) is not beholden to Haekel's "ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny" hypothesis.

Scientific theories adapt to conform to empirical evidence. This is the self-correcting nature of the discipline of science.

I have a couple of references you might like:

The Logic of Scientific Discovery, by Karl R. Popper.
The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, by Thomas S. Kuhn

Karl Popper himself once considered modern evolution theory unfalsifiable, and therefore unscientific, but he changed his opinion.

Read and enjoy!

 

[randman]

And you were incorrect. At least insofar as which decades.

Name a decade Haeckel's drawings were not used in textbooks then.

When this false data started being used, its falsity was identified by an evolutionist. And as soon as it was known, other evolutionists stopped using it.

Another fabrication on your part. I know you assume it must be true but why not actually take the time to determine if your statement is true. It's been used in textbooks for decades, not just the 90s.

Because no one was using those parts of Haeckel's drawings for anything during those years, and so no one bothered to look that closely. As soon as they did start using those parts, suddenly the fakery was uncovered, and those parts of the drawings were promptly disregarded as evidence.

Prove it then. It was used in the 70s and 80s in all the textbooks I saw. It was used in the 50s and 60s, and the evidence suggests much earlier. You are just making stuff up or repeating some propaganda you heard.

Because it didn't matter, since no one relied on those fake parts until the 90's, and as soon as we tried, someone noticed the problem and told everyone about it.

Wrong again as the 1997 paper indicates.

 

[A'isha]

First so far you've been wrong on what papers say.

So tell me where I'm wrong about that one.

So who knows? Secondly, he certainly mentions Haeckel in the papers we've linked to so far.

I'm not talking about Richardson. I'm talking about the paper (among many others) about the phylotypic stage in mouse embryos (and phylogenetics in general), which you claim is all based on Haeckel's drawings and Haeckel's concepts of recapitulation of phylogeny in an organisms ontology.

Where does the above paper talk about any of those things, if Haeckel is so important? What does it say, in fact, about Richardson's earlier conclusion regarding phylotypic stages?

Lastly, not mentioning Haeckel would be a good idea to try to put the whole embarrassing saga of evos relying on Haeckel to bed.

Why am I not at all surprised that this is the conclusion you draw from the above. "Evos" are just secretly hiding their reliance on Haeckel, which you can tell by the way they so deviously publish and discuss paper after paper which make no reference whatsoever to Haeckel, his theories, what people think of his theories, or anything he ever wrote or drew! In an area of science you say Haeckel created and which is basically his theories barely warmed over, no less!

 

[randman]

Here's evidence showing it was used in textbooks long before the 90s.

The embryos were reproduced in a majority of high school and college biology textbooks from the mid-1930s through at least the 1960s (See table). Generations of students took away the incorrect but easy to accept and generally cool idea that we pass through a fish-like stage, complete with gill slits, on our way to becoming human.

http://www.textbookhistory.com/?p=50

Here's the textbooks he is referring to.

Title Date Haeckels Embryos Source and Order Author(s)
Elements of Biology 1907 N Hunter, George William
First Course in Biology* 1908 N Bailey, L. H.; Coleman, Walter M
Applied Biology* 1911 Y 445 Ancestral relationships. Gill slits Credit: From Romanes after Haeckel. Gill slits. Fish, salamader, tortoise, chick, hog, calf, rabbit, man Bigelow, Maurice A; Bigelow, Anna N
Essentials of Biology 1911 N Hunter, George William
Elementary Biology: Plant, Animal, Human 1912 N Peabody, James Edward; Hunt, Arthur Ellsworth
A Civic Biology 1914 N Hunter, George William
Practical Biology* 1916 N Smallwood, W. M; Reveley, Ida L; Bailey, Guy A
Civic Biology* 1918 N Hodge, Clifton F. and Dawson, Jean
Elementary Biology: An Introduction to the Science of Life 1919 Y 277 Recapitulation, disclaimed Credit: Gruenberg (clearly references Romanes after Haeckel. Fish, salamader, tortoise, chick, pig, sheep, rabbit, man Gruenberg, Benjamin C
Biology for High Schools 1920 N Smallwood, W. M; Reveley, Ida L; Bailey, Guy A
Biology for Beginners 1921 N Moon, Truman J
Civic and Economic Biology 1922 Y 18 Discussed 352 Gill slits Credit: From McFarland, after Hackel (sic). Clearly from Romanes. Fish, salamader, tortoise, chick Atwood, Wm. H
New Essentials of Biology 1923 N Hunter, George William
The Biology of Man and Other Organisms 1923 N Linville, Henry R
Biology of Home and Community 1923 N Discussed 584 Trafton, Gilbert H
Living Things, An Elementary Biology 1924 N Clement, Arthur G
Biology and Human Welfare 1924 N Peabody, James Edward; Hunt, Arthur Ellsworth
New Biology 1924 N Smallwood, W. M; Reveley, Ida L; Bailey, Guy A
Living Things, An Elementary Biology 1925 N Clement, Arthur G
Biology and Human Life 1925 N Gruenberg, Benjamin C
New Civic Biology 1926 N Hunter, George William
An Introduction to Biology 1926 N Discusses recapitulation Kinsey, Alfred C
Biology for Beginners 1926 N Moon, Truman J
Biology 1927 Y 270 Classification, Recapitulation Credit: Hackel (sic). Clearly from Romanes. Fish, salamader, tortoise, chick Atwood, Wm. H
New General Biology 1929 N Smallwood, W. M; Reveley, Ida L; Bailey, Guy A
Advanced Biology 1929 Y 388 Evolution Uncredited (appears to be redrawn from Gruenberg 1919). Fish, salamader, turtle, chick, pig, rabbit, human Wheat, Frank M.; Fitzpatrick, Elizabeth T
Problems in Biology 1931 N Hunter, George William
Essential of Biology 1931 N Meier, W. H. D; Meier, Lois
Dynamic Biology 1933 N Baker, Arthur O; Mills, Lewis H
New Introduction to Biology 1933 N Kinsey, Alfred C
The Living World 1933 N Mank, Helen Gardner
Biology for Beginners 1933 Y 450 Evolution Credit: American Museum of Natural History (appears to be redrawn from Gruenberg 1919). Fish, salamader, turtle, bird, pig Moon, Truman J; Mann, Paul B
Biology for Today 1934 Y 589 Reproduction, relationships Credit: After Hackel. Fish, salamader, tortoise, chick, pig, sheep, rabbit Curtis, Francis D; Caldwell, Otis W; Sherman, Nina Henry
New Biology 1934 N Smallwood, W. M; Reveley, Ida L; Bailey, Guy A
Biology 1935 NH 428 Evolution Original. Single generalized stage II illustration showing "gill slits" Fitzpatrick, Frederick L; Horton, Ralph E
Our World of Living Things 1936 N Heiss, Elwood D; Osborn, Ellsworth S; Manzer, J. Gordon
Everyday Problems in Biology 1936 Y 429 Kinship / Classification Uncredited. 4 stage II illustrations only. Turtle, chick, pig, rabbit Pieper, Charles J; Beauchamp, Wilber L; Frank, Orlin D
New Biology 1937 N Smallwood, W. M; Reveley, Ida L; Bailey, Guy A
New Introduction to Biology 1938 N Kinsey, Alfred C
Adventure with Living Things 1938 N Kroeber, Elsbeth; Wolff, Walter H
Biology: a Revision of Biology for Beginners 1938 Y 518 Evolution Credit: American Museum of Natural History (appears to be redrawn from Gruenberg 1919). Fish, salamader, turtle, bird, pig Moon, Truman J; Mann, Paul B
Exploring Biology 1938 N Smith, Ella Thea
A Biology of Familiar Things 1939 N Bush, George L; Dickie, Allan; Rukle, Ronald C
Living Things and You 1940 Y 455 Undercuts recapit by botany analogy Uncredited. 5 stage I illustrations. Fish, salamander, tortoise, chick, calf Downing, Elliot R; McAtee, Veva M
Biology: a Revision of Biology for Beginners 1941 Y 518 Evolution Credit: American Museum of Natural History (appears to be redrawn from Gruenberg 1919). Fish, salamader, turtle, bird, pig Moon, Truman J; Mann, Paul B
Biology and Human Affairs 1941 Y 135 Recapitulation Uncredited. Appears to be a poor or simplified copy of Gruenberg 1919. Fish, tortoise, chick, pig Ritchie, John W
Science of Living Things 1941 N Clinton, Weymouth G
Dynamic Biology Today 1943 N Baker, Arthur O; Mills, Lewis H
Everyday Biology 1943 Y 574 Reproduction Credit: After Hackel. Fish, salamader, tortoise, chick, pig, dog, rabbit Curtis, Francis D; Caldwell, Otis W; Sherman, Nina Henry
Exploring Biology 1943 N Smith, Ella Thea
Biology and Man 1944 Y 459 Evolution Credit: After Hackel. Fish, salamader, tortoise, chick, pig, sheep, rabbit Gruenberg, Benjamin C; Bingham, N. Eldred
Biology for Better Living 1946 N Bayles, Ernest E; Burnett, R. Will
Biology: a Revision of Biology for Beginners 1946 Y 518 Evolution Credit: American Museum of Natural History (appears to be redrawn from Gruenberg 1919). Fish, salamader, turtle, bird, pig Moon, Truman J; Mann, Paul B
Biology for You 1946 N Vance, B. B; Miller, D. F
Modern Biology 1947 Y 626 Evolution Uncredited (appears to be redrawn from Gruenberg 1919). Fish, salamader, turtle, bird, pig Moon, Truman J; Mann, Paul B; Otto, James H
Biology and Human Affairs 1948 Y 63 Unity Uncredited. Appears to be a poor or simplified copy of Gruenberg 1919. Fish, tortoise, chick, pig Ritchie, John W
Elements of Biology 1948 H (barely) 535 Recapitulation Though not Haeckel's grid, in fact includes just one Haeckel-like embryo, the text presentes a very Haeckelian view of evolution and recapitulation. Claims, "embryology repeats phylogeny." (535) Smallwood, W. M; Reveley, Ida L; Bailey, Guy A; Dodge, Ruth A
Exploring Biology 1949 Y 405 Reproduction American Museum of Natural History (appears to be redrawn from Haeckel). Fish, salamader, tortoise, chick Smith, Ella Thea
Adventures with Animals and Plants 1950 NH 549 Evolution Original illustration. Includes yolk sacs. 2 separte sets. Stage I and Stage II and III. Very different one from the other. Fish, frog, turtle, chick, pig, man. (Compare to Hunter and Hunter, College Zoology, 1949). Kroeber, Elsbeth; Wolff, Walter H
Modern Biology 1951 Y 659 Evolution Uncredited (appears to be redrawn from Gruenberg 1919). Fish, salamader, turtle, bird, pig Moon, Truman J; Mann, Paul B; Otto, James H
Elements of Biology 1952 H (barely) 619 Recapitulation Though not Haeckel's grid, in fact includes just one Haeckel-like embryo, the text presentes a very Haeckelian view of evolution and recapitulation. Claims, "embryology repeats phylogeny." (619) Smallwood, W. M; Reveley, Ida L; Bailey, Guy A; Dodge, Ruth A (lead author)
Basic Biology for High Schools 1953 N Fenton, Carroll Lane; Kamby, Paul E
Exploring Biology 1954 Y 466 Evolution Credit: American Museum of Natural History (appears to be redrawn from Haeckel). Fish, salamader, tortoise, chick Smith, Ella Thea
Biology in Daily Life 1955 Y 460 Reproduction Uncredited. Very poorly redrawn Haeckel. Fish, turtle, chicken, calf, hog, rabbit Curtis, Francis D; Urban, John
Biology in Our Lives 1955 Y 414 Evolution - first and only in Hunter Uncredited. Redrawn Haeckel. Fish, salamander, turtle, bird, pig Hunter, George W; Hunter, F. R
Modern Biology 1956 Y 664 Evolution Uncredited (appears to be redrawn from Gruenberg 1919). Fish, salamader, turtle, bird, pig Moon, Truman J; Mann, Paul B; Otto, James H
Biology 1957 NH 482 Evolution Original. Includes yoke sacks. 2 separte sets. Stage I and Stage II and III. Very different one from the other. Fish, frog, turtle, chick, pig, man. (Compare to Hunter and Hunter, College Zoology, 1949). Krober, Elsbeth; Wolff, Walter H; Weaver, Richard L
Biology for You 1958 N Vance, B. B; Miller, D. F
Biology : The Living World 1958 Y 551 Development Uncredited. Very poorly redrawn Haeckel. Fish, turtle, chicken, calf, hog, rabbit Curtis, Francis D; Urban, John
New Dynamic Biology 1959 Y 444 Single illus. Recapitulation Single stage II pig. Identifies "gill slits, or clefts" Baker, Arthur O; Mills, Lewis H; Tanczos Jr., Julius
Exploring Biology 1959 N Smith, Ella Thea
Modern Biology 1960 Y 663 Evolution Uncredited (appears to be redrawn from Gruenberg 1919). Fish, salamader, turtle, bird, pig Moon, Truman J; Otto, James H; Towle, Albert
Your Biology 1962 N Smith, Ella Thea; Lisonbee, Lorenzo
BSCS "Green Version" aka Biological Science: An Ecological Approach 1963 NH 578 Adaptation, notes drawings are not on the same scale Original."Green" and "Blue" identical. Most extensive grid (7 x 7) of any biology textbook. Updated and differentiated. Includes yolk sacs. Shark, lungfish, salamander, lizard, chicken, chimpanzee, man Bates, Marston; Kolb, Haven C (Supervisors)
BSCS "Blue Version" aka Biological Science: Molecules to Man 1963 NH 307 Development, not disclaimed as in "yellow" Original."Green" and "Blue" identical. Most extensive grid (7 x 7) of any biology textbook. Updated and differentiated. Includes yolk sacs. Shark, lungfish, salamander, lizard, chicken, chimpanzee, man Deyrup, Ingrith; Welch, Claude (Supervisors)
Modern Biology 1963 Y 663 Evolution Uncredited (appears to be redrawn from Gruenberg 1919). Fish, salamader, turtle, bird, pig Moon, Truman J; Otto, James H; Towle, Albert
BSCS "Yellow Version" aka Biological Science: An Inquiry Into Life 1963 NH 609 Evolution Original. Updated, detailed and carefully drawn. Recapitulatilon disclaimed and undermined. Introduces 2 new "pre-stages," egg and bastula and a "post-stage," adult. Man, pig, salamander, chicken Moore, John A (Supervisor); Glass, Bentley (Co-supervisor, though not credited as such)
Biology 1965 NH 482 Evolution Original. Includes yoke sacks. 2 separte sets. Stage I and Stage II and III. Very different one from the other. Fish, frog, turtle, chick, pig, man. (Compare to Hunter and Hunter, College Zoology, 1949). Kroeber, Elsbeth; Wolff, Walter H; Weaver, Richard L
Modern Biology 1965 Y 186 Evolution Uncredited (appears to be redrawn from Gruenberg 1919). Fish, salamader, turtle, bird, pig Otto, James H; Towle, Albert
Exploring Biology 1966 N Smith, Ella Thea; Lawrence, Thomas Gordon
BSCS "Yellow Version" aka Biological Science: An Inquiry Into Life 1968 NH 584 Carefully redrawn. Uses photos to illustrate man (485) Dimensionalized versions of BSCS "Yellow Version" 1963 Moore, John A (Supervisor)
Modern Biology 1969 NH 187 Evolution w 'man' Reference not clear. Fish, bird, man Otto, James H; Towle, Albert

http://www.textbookhistory.com/?p=153

Looks like the copy and paste made a mess of it so go to the link and see for yourself all those textbooks using Haeckel that you say didn't exist.

 

[randman]

More comments showing how wrong it is to claim the use of Haeckel came about in the 90s. Keep in mind this is an evo article containing, imo, a clear bias for Darwinism.

Haeckel’s “icon” was and remains a potent and problematic image (see Ken Miller and Joe Levine’s note). Though it is true that Haeckel’s “schematic” illustrations gave way to better representations starting in the late 1940s, biology textbooks continued to present embryos, always vertebrates, side-by-side or in a comparative grid. It’s an arrangement that was designed to communicate Haeckel’s belief that embryonic development and evolutionary history were linked and that evolution was progressive. It is easy to argue that it still does, despite the disclaimers authors usually offer.

......But by the 1940s and into the 1950s, upwards of 60% of high school textbooks featured copies or close variations the 1874 original.

....

One explanation might be that biology textbooks, which are often authored by non-experts, are generally junk, always out of step and unrepresentative of the latest science. But not only is this not true, it does nothing to explain the increasing popularity of Haeckel’s drawings from the early to the middle of the twentieth century, nor the continued influence of his iconic scheme today

.

http://www.textbookhistory.com/?p=50

 

[John Jones]

How unfortunate, unusual, and shocking that old textbooks have been incorrect!

Oh my! Whatever shall we do? Stop teaching what we now know to be incorrect, or disregard everything we know about the physical sciences?

I know, that was a False Dilemma Fallacy, but what is your proposed solution?

 

[A'isha]

And why did it fade away so dramatically after 1969, to the point where very few textbooks published after 1980 contained the drawing (viz the survey I told you about earlier)?

And I see you missed the other points of that article, too, handwaving them away as "a clear bias for Darwinism" and ignoring everything else it said about the use of those drawings in both science and the textbooks involved.

Now about this 2007 study, and why it doesn't even mention Haeckel or his drawings (or even the data described in those drawings), if Haeckel was so vital to evolution and the phylotypic stage is just a form of Haeckel's theory...

 

[randman]

How unfortunate, unusual, and shocking that old textbooks have been incorrect!

It's a bit more than that. Evos still sometimes use the faked data and it was used widely until the late 90s despite creationists, IDers and some evos widely publicizing the drawings as fakes for well over 100 years.

Antpo said Haeckel started being used mainly in the 90s and then evos did a study in 1997 that found out he faked his data and that I was wrong on my understanding that Haeckel was used. I pointed this out but ANTpo wouldn't budge. So I brought on even more evidence.

The truth is ANTpo has no idea what he or she is talking about when it comes to how evos have used data in respect to Haeckel.

 

[randman]

And why did it fade away so dramatically after 1969, to the point where very few textbooks published after 1980 contained the drawing (viz the survey I told you about earlier)?

It didn't. This is getting ridiculous. When are you going to admit you were just wrong, that Haeckel has been used in textbooks all along.

First, you said he faded out about 100 years ago and was revived in the 90s. Now you are saying in the 60s?

Is that it?

Couldn't be you were just plain wrong? So is your new idea Haeckel was not used that much in the 70s and 80s? Is that it?

The reason the table does not list texbooks after 1969 is it only covers the years between 1907 to 1969.

This table includes data on the inclusion (or not) of variations of Ernst Haeckel’s grid of vertebrate embryos in 91 American high school and college biology textbooks published between 1907 and 1969.

Unbelievable.

 

[A'isha]

Antpo said Haeckel started being used mainly in the 90s and then evos did a study in 1997 that found out he faked his data and that I was wrong on my understanding that Haeckel was used. I pointed this out but ANTpo wouldn't budge. So I brought on even more evidence.

No, I said it didn't start being used as actual specific evidence for a particular phylogenetic theory by actual scientists writing peer-reviewed papers until the resurgence of comparative embryology at the end of the last century. And even that stopped immediately upon Richardson's 1995-1997 discoveries getting disseminated throughout the scientific community. That's not anywhere close to a bunch of school textbooks reproducing the drawings (with most of them talking about how wrong Haeckel was in his own theories about them were) up until the 60's and then tapering off until the aforementioned resurgence.

Nice try, though. Now about that study that you say is based entirely on Haeckel's drawings and repeats his theories, but that somehow fails to actually reference any of those things...

 

[A'isha]

It didn't. This is getting ridiculous. When are you going to admit you were just wrong, that Haeckel has been used in textbooks all along.

First, you said he faded out about 100 years ago and was revived in the 90s.

Among actual evolutionary scientists, yes.

Couldn't be you were just plain wrong? So is your new idea Haeckel was not used that much in the 70s and 80s? Is that it?

No, that's my old idea, which for some reason you keep ignoring.

The reason the table does not list texbooks after 1969 is it only covers the years between 1907 to 1969.

And I told you what textbooks published after 1980 said about Haeckel, and the numbers were rather dramatically different from what they were during the above period.

Unbelievable.

Yes. Yes it is.

Now, about that study...

 

[randman]

No, I said it didn't start being used as actual specific evidence for a particular phylogenetic theory by actual scientists writing peer-reviewed papers until the resurgence of comparative embryology at the end of the last century. And even that stopped immediately upon Richardson's 1995-1997 discoveries getting disseminated throughout the scientific community.

That's even worse. How in the world could working scientists have relied on such an obvious fake. It's not like it wasn't well know already they were fake.

Of 15 high school biology textbooks being considered for adoption by the Indiana State Board of Education in 1980, nine offered embryological recapitulation as evidence for evolution. Evolutionists themselves have conceded that the biogenetic “law” has become so deeply rooted in evolutionary dogma that it cannot be weeded out. For example, Paul Ehrlich observed: “Its shortcomings have been almost universally pointed out by modern authors, but the idea still has a prominent place in biological mythology” (1963, p. 66). It is time we began teaching the next generation the truth. All embryos are not the same, and embryonic humans are not the equivalent of fish, or reptiles. The evolutionists themselves have admitted as much. In their classic biology textbook, Life: An Introduction to Biology, George Gaylord Simpson and William S. Beck put it bluntly when they wrote: “Ontogeny does not recapitulate phylogeny.” Then, in a footnote at the bottom of the page where that statement appeared, they told the student: “You may well ask why we bother you with the principles that turned out to be wrong. There are two reasons. In the first place, belief in recapitulation became so widespread that it is still evident in some writings about biology and evolution. You should know therefore what recapitulation is supposed to be, and you should know that it does not really occur” (1965, p. 241).

http://www.apologeticspress.org/article/1003

You have absolutely no evidence Haeckel was dropped from textbooks beginning in the 70s, and anyone that went to school then, and is honest, knows it was still in there.

Just admit it.