It's heartwarming to see that your degree of honesty has not deteriorated in the eight months since we spoke last, randman. In this world of ours, where neoliberal populism is winning ground everywhere, it is a breath of fresh air to see someone as stoutly constant as you are in your opinions.
Please note the comment that the evo claim of a phylotypic stage was accepted, promoted, advocated and worked into peer-reviewed studies as a matter of faith, being "regarded as a biological concept for which no proof is needed"
The two are not equivalent. Just because no one cites specific data supporting a point does not necessarily mean that it is a matter of faith. It may very well be, certainly, but it may also be because a certain statement is felt to be so well established that no reference is, indeed, necessary. I do not, for instance, support such statements as "Ischnoceran lice will typically die a few hours after leaving their host", "lice are ectoparasitic insects" or, indeed, "Phthirapterans are permament ectoparasites lacking a free-living dispersal stage" when I write on lice. This does not mean that I take these statements as a matter of faith. It means that I feel these two statements are well-founded enough in the literature of the last 150 years that I do not specifically need to mention any sources, because the vast majority of my prospective readership will have read the same papers and books as I have, and have seen this evidence themselves.
Potentially, in some branches of science, where regard for previous researchers is not as high as in my field (taxonomy, systematics and phylogenetics), and adequate respect to the pioneering authors of the past is not always paid, a source may also be neglected because the author does not have access to older material, or doesn't feel it is relevant to cite 100-years old data or material.
It may be called careless or inconsiderate of future generations of students, certainly, but without an analysis of why a specific author has neglected to mention a source for a claim, a conclusion as general as the one you draw is impossible. However, if you have evidence that your conclusion is the correct one, please present it. That is, to be clear, evidence that the authors referred to by Richardson
et al. (1997) as having recently revived interest in Haeckel's ideas choose not to cite any sources for their claim that "members of most or all vertebrate clades pass through a virtually identical, conserved stage" did so because they took the validity of this statement to be a matter of faith.
You will kindly note, also, that Richardson
et al. do not actually say what you claim they say. They do not say that the phylotypic stage was "regarded as a biological concept for which no proof is needed". They say that it is "
almost as though the phylotypic stage is regarded as a biological concept for which no proof is needed" (emphasis mine), which is not the same thing.
exactly as critics of mainstream evo practices have pointed out, published papers, articles, books, etc,....for over 100 years showing this was wrong, not real science, not based on data, promoted through fraud and fakes.
Do you have evidence for that
e.g. the authors Richardson
et al. (1997) cite as criticizing Haeckel are/were "critics of mainstream evo practices", that what they are/were criticizing is "mainstream evo practices", and that this is at all relevant to your belief in Davison's god-based explanation of animal diversity? I refer, more specifically, to Sedgewick (1894), Lillie (1919), de Beer (1951), all of whom are mentioned as critics. Before you present evidence that, for instance, Sedgewick was a "critic of mainstream evo practices", it will be very hard to reconcile your statement that:
Too actually over 130 years to get evos to even come a little bit clean over this and still, as evidenced by this thread, evos don't want to own up to their error fully here and so pretend they did nothing wrong.
with your quote in post 1619, where you explicitly cite a reference to Sedgewick (1894), a paper published a mere 20 years, not 130 years, after Haeckel's
Anthropogenie, leaving one to assume that either it took 20, not 130, years before evos came clean over this, assuming no one else criticized Haeckel between 1874 and 1894, or Sedgewick was a critic of mainstream evo practices (which category, you will recall, you will also need to show that the dishonest method Haeckel used to make his drawings belongs to).
This may very well be the case; I have not read Sedgewick, Lillie or de Beer, and know nothing about their opinions of evolution and mainstream evo practices. However, you must surely see that in a discussion where you bring up the failure to adequately cite sources as a form of evidence for your view, it would reflect badly upon you, yourself, were unable to do the same when asked.
Or have I misunderstood your stance? Do you mean, when you write:
Please note the comment that the evo claim of a phylotypic stage was accepted, promoted, advocated and worked into peer-reviewed studies as a matter of faith, being "regarded as a biological concept for which no proof is needed", exactly as critics of mainstream evo practices have pointed out, published papers, articles, books, etc,....for over 100 years showing this was wrong, not real science, not based on data, promoted through fraud and fakes.
that critics of mainstream evo practices were criticizing these findings of Haeckel while at the same time people who were not critics of mainstream evo practice did the same, as certainly, until you provide evidence to the contrary, Sedgewick, Lillie and de Beer appear to have done?
Do you more truthfully mean that "critics and non-critics of mainstream evo practices [-- if you can show that Haeckel's drawings do indeed belong in this category --] alike pointed out, published papers, articles, books, etc,... for over 100 years showing this was wrong, not real science, not based on data, promoted through fraud and fakes"? If so, this still cannot be reconciled with your statement that it took 130 years for evos to come a little bit clean over this.
