• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Ernst Haeckel's embryological diagrams and biology textbooks

randman said:
Creationists have been showing Haeckel's drawings were fraudulent for decades.
Click to expand...

Proponent of the evolution theory have been showing creationism wrong for century. And you keep missing that Haeckel's was dismissed a loooong time ago. It is 2011 man , and you ARE still a creationist.
 
randman : you are like those people dismissing X ray / röntgen as existing, because N ray were demonstrated false despite having beeing held as a theory for some time, then you immediately spring to "modern physic is wrong".

LOL.
 
ThunderChunky said:
Can you point out anything demonstratively false that ANTPogo asserted in post #31 of this thread?
Click to expand...
Plenty....that creationists had no objection to Haeckel, and there is no documentation that the writer of the textbook was a creationist publication as he insinuates. He should provide evidence for that before making the claim.

The whole thing is just a character smear. The textbook was popular with whom?

Schools, not creationists.

The first edition has Darwin on the cover for example. The claim is made creationists influenced revisions by their objections. I guess the fact they couldn't completely get evo nonsense such as Haeckel thrown out is now somehow an indictment against them?

Fact is creationists long showed Haeckel to be fraudulent, and some evos did too, but the larger evo community stuck with the fraud, and some still do.
 
Last edited:
randman said:
Plenty....that creationists had no objection to Haeckel, and there is no documentation that the writer of the textbook was a creationist publication as he insinuates. He should provide evidence for that before making the claim.

The whole thing is just a character smear. The textbook was popular with whom?

Schools, not creationists.
Click to expand...

Some creationist like a broken clock can be right twice a day. Shall we bring up the thematic that creationist do not understand isotopic dating and thermodynamic ? Or even the hundred of other error ? Creationist are protesting EVERYTHING is evolution theory, WITHOUT a justification, without evidence, without understanding. That they got correct protesting *ONE* point back in the 60th is an accident.
 
randman said:
This is completely wrong. See my post above.
Click to expand...

In 1969 what textbooks were using the erroneous 1874 illustrations? From what I can tell, your creationists source is not referring to the 1874 illustrations, but the subsequent revisions. If that is the case, you have not falsified ANTPogo's claim.
 
ThunderChunky said:
In 1969 what textbooks were using the erroneous 1874 illustrations? From what I can tell, your creationists source is not referring to the 1874 illustrations, but the subsequent revisions. If that is the case, you have not falsified ANTPogo's claim.
Click to expand...
Defend Haeckel all you want. I already provided a link showing an image from a 2010 textbook still using the faked drawings, and Gould said in 2000, he knew of at least 50 textbooks still using them.

Here it is.

Sylvia Mader's 2010 textbook, Biology, uses colorized versions of Haeckel's embryo drawings with only a few small modifications. As seen in the side-by-side comparison above, the black and white drawings are Haeckel's original drawings and the colored drawings are from Mader's 2010 textbook. Just like Haeckel's original drawings, Mader's colorized drawings obscure the differences between the early stages of vertebrate development in order to give students the following misleading caption: "At these comparable developmental stages, vertebrate embryos have many features in common, which suggests they evolved from a common ancestor. (These embryos are not drawn to scale.)" (Sylvia S. Mader, Biology, p. 278 (McGraw Hill, 2010).)
Click to expand...

http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/showdetails.php/id/1496

image below

http://www.ideacenter.org/stuff/con...05463c8e7be933ba098d0665e/misc/mader_2010.jpg
Edited by Tricky: 
Editing images to links.


You want to defend the fraud? Fine. Says a lot.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
randman said:
Defend Haeckel all you want. I already provided a link showing an image from a 2010 textbook still using the faked drawings, and Gould said in 2000, he knew of at least 50 textbooks still using them.
Click to expand...

When have I defended Haekel. I asked for you to falsify a claim and the reference you provided failed to do so.

Here it is.
Click to expand...

Those aren't Haeckle's 1874 illustrations. Those are obviously modified... with several of the drawings having significant changes.

You want to defend the fraud? Fine. Says a lot.
Click to expand...

Your use of strawmen says more.
 
ThunderChunky said:
When have I defended Haekel. I asked for you to falsify a claim and the reference you provided failed to do so.



Those aren't Haeckle's 1874 illustrations. Those are obviously modified... with several of the drawings having significant changes.



Your use of strawmen says more.
Click to expand...
Oh, they colored them in a little....modified, significant changes, eh?

The same faked data is included. There are a few changes. The babies head is bigger. Still not shown to scale and still utter bs.

Evos just cannot seem to drop this despite all the evidence humans don't have gill slits, etc, etc,...

Haeckelism lives!

It must be so.
 
Last edited:
randman said:
Creationists have been showing Haeckel's drawings were fraudulent for decades.
Click to expand...

Are L. Rutimeyer and Wilhelm His, Sr., the creationists you refer to?

randman said:
image below

You want to defend the fraud? Fine. Says a lot.
Click to expand...

As ANTpogo has shown, there are several different versions of Haeckel's drawings, depending on which edition of his books you look in. On which version of the drawings are the illustrations in Mader's book based? Stating, like the homepage you link to, that they are based on "Haeckel's original drawings" means nothing, as the drawings in later editions of Haeckel's book are also "original".
 
Randman, I suggest you stop getting your information from ID/Creationist websites.

ANTpogo has shown clearly that textbooks do not use the drawings in question, and have not for a long time. He has shown examples from many textbooks dating back several years which demonstrate unequivocally that Haeckel's embryo drawings were not used.

You, on the other hand, dismiss all of this, quoting a handful of creationist/ID websites which claim (falsely) that the drawings are still used. This thread has seen large amounts of evidence showing that claim to be erroneous. Yet you only use Creationist/ID websites which support your initial claims.

A non-biased person would pause to wonder at this. Why do the websites you keep claiming that textbooks used Haeckel's embryos until recently, when this claim is demonstrably false. Why are only Creation/ID websites making this claim? It makes you wonder how accurate the rest of their information is...

Which naturally leads to the question of why you keep using websites which are wrong? Have you considered the possibility that your sources of information are less-than-honest? That they might be lying? Given the information in this thread, it is clear that the drawings in question have long been discarded. Claiming otherwise is a lie. Why do you only reference websites which are demonstrably lying?


Related question: Do you understand the difference between modern embryology and what Haeckel proposed? Can you explain how the modern images differ from Haeckel's? If not, there are many here who can help you out.
 
randman said:
Defend Haeckel all you want.
Click to expand...

There was absolutely no defense of Haeckel, so this is pretense.

Do you understand that when you so obviously distort what people are saying, you lose credibility? I'm not a biologist, and I can't argue the technicial issues here that others are doing so well. But based on your history of posts like what I just quoted, my default assumption anytime you post is that you are distorting the truth. (And that's the nicest way to say it.)
 
Even if we assume randman's right and there are scientists who still believe Heackel's work is valid (there aren't, they merely think it's useful) it doesn't matter--ANTpogo has clearly demonstrated that there are many, many, many scientists who DON'T. Which means that EVEN IF RANDMAN IS CORRECT in his facts, his conclusion is wrong.

Also, why is randman obsessed with textbooks? I get why ANTpogo did it--it was to counter a specific Creationist claim, and randman has yet again revealed the depth of his intellectual dishonesty by ignoring the fact that his argument has been conclusively disproven--but randman seems to think that textbooks are somehow representative of current scientific knowledge. This is false. They are tools for teaching. As such, they often include what can be called useful lies--figures that aren't 100% true, simplifications, examples of disproven theories during discussions of the history of an idea, etc. If randman wants to prove that scientists still use a figure, a theory, a test, or anything really he has to show that it's used in the peer-reviewed literature. THAT is where the cutting edge of science lies. Textbooks are always going to be well behind that cutting edge, because they are designed to teach students and you can only approach the edge AFTER you've learned the material.

In short, randman's arguments are factually incorrect, and even if they were 100% factually true they would still fail.
 
On a related note, they still teach the Lewis and Bohr models of atoms in schools.
But we know these models are not representative of actual atoms.

Therefore chemistry is wrong!!!

Same logic...
 
Kotatsu said:
Are L. Rutimeyer and Wilhelm His, Sr., the creationists you refer to?



As ANTpogo has shown, there are several different versions of Haeckel's drawings, depending on which edition of his books you look in. On which version of the drawings are the illustrations in Mader's book based? Stating, like the homepage you link to, that they are based on "Haeckel's original drawings" means nothing, as the drawings in later editions of Haeckel's book are also "original".
Click to expand...
No, but they certainly were not the last ones to show they were false.

There's the creationist book titled "Haeckel His Frauds and Forgeries" in 1910 and from that point on a consistent stream of creationist and sometimes evolutionist denunciation. At one time, I had documented something from every decade, the 20s, 30s, 40s, 50s, 60s, 70s, 80s, 90s, 2000s......that would take awhile to redo but note the 1969 quarterly CFR creationist publication with the article on this very thing.

Evos keep using it, defending it, etc,....because it's not real science for so many of them.
 
ANTpogo has shown clearly that textbooks do not use the drawings in question, and have not for a long time. He has shown examples from many textbooks dating back several years which demonstrate unequivocally that Haeckel's embryo drawings were not used.
Click to expand...

ANTpogo actually stated haeckel's use widespread in the 90s and has admitted haeckel's use was widespread from the 30s to 60s. There is this bizarre argument from ANT, that Haeckel fell out of use in the 70s and 80s and then came back into use in the 90s.

For some reason, you guys seem to think that vindicates rather than condemns evolutionist practices. The fact Haeckel would be dropped is worse for evos (although I know that's not the case as I provided textbooks with Haeckel in them and attending school in the 70s and 80s myself can say they were in the textbooks we used, and those were prestigious schools).

Astonishingly one could plead ignorance (willful blindness) if the drawings had never been dropped but to drop them out because they were wrong and then bring them back in?

As far as today, you'd think there wouldn't be one textbook still using Haeckel or the terms "the biogenetic law" or "recapitulation" but there still are. The use of the faked drawings has likely lessened. The false claims have not so much.

It's embedded into the mythology of evolutionism that you guys just can't get away from it.
 
randman said:
ANTpogo actually stated haeckel's use widespread in the 90s and has admitted haeckel's use was widespread from the 30s to 60s. There is this bizarre argument from ANT, that Haeckel fell out of use in the 70s and 80s and then came back into use in the 90s.

For some reason, you guys seem to think that vindicates rather than condemns evolutionist practices. The fact Haeckel would be dropped is worse for evos (although I know that's not the case as I provided textbooks with Haeckel in them and attending school in the 70s and 80s myself can say they were in the textbooks we used, and those were prestigious schools).

Astonishingly one could plead ignorance (willful blindness) if the drawings had never been dropped but to drop them out because they were wrong and then bring them back in?

As far as today, you'd think there wouldn't be one textbook still using Haeckel or the terms "the biogenetic law" or "recapitulation" but there still are. The use of the faked drawings has likely lessened. The false claims have not so much.

It's embedded into the mythology of evolutionism that you guys just can't get away from it.
Click to expand...

If you repeat all of this enough times, it just might suddenly become true.
 
X said:
Randman, I suggest you stop getting your information from ID/Creationist websites.

ANTpogo has shown clearly that textbooks do not use the drawings in question, and have not for a long time. He has shown examples from many textbooks dating back several years which demonstrate unequivocally that Haeckel's embryo drawings were not used.

You, on the other hand, dismiss all of this, quoting a handful of creationist/ID websites which claim (falsely) that the drawings are still used. This thread has seen large amounts of evidence showing that claim to be erroneous. Yet you only use Creationist/ID websites which support your initial claims.

A non-biased person would pause to wonder at this. Why do the websites you keep claiming that textbooks used Haeckel's embryos until recently, when this claim is demonstrably false. Why are only Creation/ID websites making this claim? It makes you wonder how accurate the rest of their information is...

Which naturally leads to the question of why you keep using websites which are wrong? Have you considered the possibility that your sources of information are less-than-honest? That they might be lying? Given the information in this thread, it is clear that the drawings in question have long been discarded. Claiming otherwise is a lie. Why do you only reference websites which are demonstrably lying?


Related question: Do you understand the difference between modern embryology and what Haeckel proposed? Can you explain how the modern images differ from Haeckel's? If not, there are many here who can help you out.
Click to expand...


Let me see. I give you my own personal experience. In the 70s and 80s, the textbooks we used had Haeckel in them. In evolutionist and creationist debates, public debates, Haeckel was brought up. The evo side would say he was discounted. The creationist side would say from traveling all over the world visiting college campuses, Haeckel was invariably used. That always scored a point because the students could look and see for themselves the creationist or IDer was telling the truth.

I think there was even a tract being handed out, maybe a Chick tract or something, that talked about Haeckel faking the drawings. It was common knowledge.

I found out from a botany professor at NC State that was visiting the campus I was at and giving a talk. Ian Taylor had included it in a book in 1983. There were internet articles on it in the mid-90s. I linked here a 1969 paper in a creationist quarterly detailing the fraud with the original published paper scanned, not just a soft copy.

Richardson's 1997 paper flat out says it was a fraud. That's not from reading a website but from reading the paper itself.

The link to the Brown university biology professor explaining how they used Haeckel but everyone else did too is from HIS WEBSITE. It's his own admissions.

The only ones lying are those that are still trying to pretend and cover up this horrible instance of scientific fraud and deny it ever happened or try to play it down.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom