Could Wikipedians be cracking down on the defenders of Haeckel’s fake embryos?

_{Denyse O'Leary

June 11, 2011

Darwinism, Evolution, Intelligent Design}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

Just when it was noted that Amazon has been going all negative on “I haven’t read the book but … ” “noviews”, Wikipedia carries a notice on the Haeckel’s embryos page (June 11, 2011):

This article’s use of external links may not follow Wikipedia’s policies or guidelines. Please improve this article by removing excessive and inappropriate external links.(August 2010)

The links may well have been cleaned up since then; at one time, much material on the Internet defended the fakes and attacked those who exposed them. Thoughts?

Follow UD News for breaking news on the design controversy.

Comments

DrREC, you may appreciate this video: Albert Einstein - Special Relativity - Insight Into Eternity - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/6545941/bornagain77_{June 11, 2011
June
06
Jun
11
11
2011
04:04 PM
4
04
04
PM
PDT}

f/n actual photos; http://www.intelldesign.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/12/richardson-embryos1-1024x385.jpg ============= Intelligent Design vs. the Imagination http://www.intelldesign.com/2008/12/13/intelligent-design-vs-the-imagination/bornagain77_{June 11, 2011
June
06
Jun
11
11
2011
02:33 PM
2
02
33
PM
PDT}

DrREC, and exactly why are these ACTUAL photos not used??? Haeckel’s Bogus Embryo Drawings – The faked drawings compared to actual pictures http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Image:Ontogeny2.jpg ,,,instead of the fakes that repeatedly keep popping up in textbooks??? Current Textbooks Misuse Embryology to Argue for Evolution Casey Luskin - June 2010 Excerpt: To say the least, students who are taught that the earliest stages of vertebrate embryos are highly similar, without being told of significant embryological evidence that challenges that view and the very existence of the conserved developmental stage portrayed in many textbooks, are not being adequately informed about the evidence regarding evolution. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2010/06/current_textbooks_misuse_embry035751.html DrREC, Should not a entire lesson be taught to students on the fraudulent history of these drawings, with the actual photos used to clarify, so as to teach students critical thinking skills which are so necessary for science??? ============ Icons of Evolution 10th Anniversary: Haeckel’s Embryos – January 2011 – video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W0kHPw3LaG8 Haeckel’s Bogus Embryo Drawings – video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ecH5SKxL9wkbornagain77_{June 11, 2011
June
06
Jun
11
11
2011
02:23 PM
2
02
23
PM
PDT}

DrREC states:
'On the other extreme, they might be using photos of embryos to demonstrate similarities in development –which molecular genetics reveals largely exist not just in morphological similarity, but in the genes used to execute those programs, with key differences that track with phylogeny'
Actually no DrREC, much like junk DNA, this is just another example of neo-Darwinian evolution leading research astray!!!: The mouse is not enough – February 2011 Excerpt: Richard Behringer, who studies mammalian embryogenesis at the MD Anderson Cancer Center in Texas said, “There is no ‘correct’ system. Each species is unique and uses its own tailored mechanisms to achieve development. By only studying one species (eg, the mouse), naive scientists believe that it represents all mammals.” http://www.the-scientist.com/news/display/57986/ A Primer on the Tree of Life (Part 4) Excerpt: “In sharks, for example, the gut develops from cells in the roof of the embryonic cavity. In lampreys, the gut develops from cells on the floor of the cavity. And in frogs, the gut develops from cells from both the roof and the floor of the embryonic cavity. This discovery—that homologous structures can be produced by different developmental pathways—contradicts what we would expect to find if all vertebrates share a common ancestor. – Explore Evolution http://www.evolutionnews.org/2009/05/a_primer_on_the_tree_of_life_p_3020171.html#more Neo-Darwinism’s Gene Homology Problem – video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_6P6bXA50c0 Marsupial Embryos Challenge Common Ancestry – Casey Luskin – audio podcast http://intelligentdesign.podomatic.com/entry/2011-02-09T16_33_21-08_00 ================= Fearfully and Wonderfully Made – Glimpses At Human Development In The Womb – video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4249713bornagain77_{June 11, 2011
June
06
Jun
11
11
2011
02:13 PM
2
02
13
PM
PDT}

I essentially posted this point before, but my question went unanswered, and I see two more posts on "Haeckel’s fake embryos." I think we need to clarify terms. Is any textbook author or wikipedian actually defending Haeckel's "Biogenetic Law" which says development of higher species passes through the adult stages of lesser species, and evolution proceeds by tacking new developmental processes onto the end of old ones? I really really doubt it. (Though the Biogenetic Law is somewhat valid with single traits). If so, they are dissenters from Darwinian evolution, as Haeckel is attempting to fuse Darwin, Lamark, and Goethe, and ends up with a hybrid, with levels on a pyramid of life determined by how many developmental stages that organism had acquired. On the other extreme, they might be using photos of embryos to demonstrate similarities in development --which molecular genetics reveals largely exist not just in morphological similarity, but in the genes used to execute those programs, with key differences that track with phylogeny, etc etc... Continuing to post on “Haeckel’s fake embryos" without some definition of what you mean by that (all photos of embryos??), or link to these textbook images risks total obfuscation.DrREC_{June 11, 2011
June
06
Jun
11
11
2011
01:36 PM
1
01
36
PM
PDT}

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply