Blind Guides

_{Cornelius Hunter

July 27, 2010

Intelligent Design}

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

Biology textbook authors George Johnson and Jonathan Losos are leaders in the life sciences. They are accomplished researchers and professors from leading universities—they are also blind guides. In their otherwise well written and highly produced textbook The Living World ((Fifth Edition, McGraw Hill, 2008), Johnson and Losos badly misrepresent science and make fallacious arguments when they present evolution to the student. It is yet another example of smart people spreading lies and foolishness. Read more

Comments

--molch: "Congratulations Stephen! I wish I had your power of logic!" Modesty forbids acknowledgement.StephenB_{July 30, 2010
July
07
Jul
30
30
2010
11:46 AM
11
11
46
AM
PDT}

Maybe we could make some progress in the discussion if Mr Kairosfoscus could provide images of embryos he finds accurate. I looked at his links and these photos were faaaar to small for me - I am as nearsighted as a mole ;-) Moreover, the photos in the link were compared to Haeckel's original drawings. I'd love to see them compared to images currently used. Then together we could decide if the textbooks are fraudulent.Kontinental_{July 30, 2010
July
07
Jul
30
30
2010
11:40 AM
11
11
40
AM
PDT}

They [the textbooks] have used their Haeckel-based drawings to overstate the actual similarities between early embryos, which is the key misrepresentation made by Haeckel. They then cite these overstated similarities as still-valid evidence for common ancestry Interesting. I looked again at the Discovery Institute article and it doesn't really say what the differences are that the Darwinists aer trying so hard to gloss over. I didn't see any links there either that would point to what these differences are. Can anyone help me with what they are?San Antonio Rose_{July 30, 2010
July
07
Jul
30
30
2010
11:38 AM
11
11
38
AM
PDT}

---molch: "StephenB @ 121 was any of this supposed to be an answer to 118, 119 or 72?" No. Try to be patient. Consult @124. Also, look up the word,"eisegesis" in the dictionary.StephenB_{July 30, 2010
July
07
Jul
30
30
2010
11:26 AM
11
11
26
AM
PDT}

---molch: "And if you still insist that earlier embryos are more dissimilar than the later embryo stages depicted in the illustrations, I’d like to see some evidence for that?" So would I inasmuch as I am not saying that or anything close to it. Since you disapprove of my second hand report, let's just go with Luskin's quote: ..."They [the textbooks] have used their Haeckel-based drawings to overstate the actual similarities between early embryos, which is the key misrepresentation made by Haeckel. They then cite these overstated similarities as still-valid evidence for common ancestry." Do you have an answer or don't you? Why not simply go to the website, look at the drawings, analyze the way they were used, and then come back and comment on the matter after you have immersed yourself in the evidence? That way you don't have to do all this guessing. ---"You are claiming that he uses Haeckel’s drawings AND that he draws like Haeckel. There is only one set of drawings in the book." You are getting worked up over your own creation. Only your last sentence makes any sense. ---"Or is this your superior power of logic striking again?" How sour can grapes get?StephenB_{July 30, 2010
July
07
Jul
30
30
2010
11:20 AM
11
11
20
AM
PDT}

@allen macneill #10 -"Par for the course, though, for the cadré of intellectual charlatans" If it's charlatan you're looking for then look no further than your fellow materialists/darwinists such as dawkins, dennett, pinker et al. They seem to have made an art out of being charlatans in fact.above_{July 30, 2010
July
07
Jul
30
30
2010
11:14 AM
11
11
14
AM
PDT}

StephenB @ 121 was any of this supposed to be an answer to 118, 119 or 72?molch_{July 30, 2010
July
07
Jul
30
30
2010
11:02 AM
11
11
02
AM
PDT}

I operate on the premise that it is always a mistake to provide a Darwinist with too many variables to discuss since even one variable is typically more than they can handle. The more complicated the discussion, the more permutations and combinations there are that will be available for them to muddle the discussion and escape rational scrutiny. As we know from past experience, they cannot respond to rational scrutiny because they don’t even accept rationality as principle, a point they have confirmed many times. In that context, please remember that clarity is the Darwinist's greatest enemy and confusion is the Darwinist’s greatest friend. Thus, one can make a strong case for keeping things as simple as possible, knowing that even the obvious points for which there can be no dispute will, nevertheless, be disputed. We have mountains of evidence to make that point. Ask a Darwinist a rational question, and you will most certainly get an irrational answer. Do effects need causes? Not necessarily. Can wind, water, and sand build a perfect model of a Corvetter Sting Ray? Sure. Do reason’s principles inform evidence? Nope. Is it a lie to use discredited fake drawings to mislead students about the true nature of evidence supporting evolutionary theory? Not at all. And so it goes. Why would one expect a rational answer about deviations from the truth from partisan ideologues who believe neither in truth nor rationality? It is not our business to convince irrational people about anything. Rather it is our task to expose their irrationality to onlookers in order to save the latter from that very same descent into intellectual quicksand--one from which they, like our adversaries, will likely never be able to extricate themselves.StephenB_{July 30, 2010
July
07
Jul
30
30
2010
10:41 AM
10
10
41
AM
PDT}

As a premed student, I took a course in embryology. As objects of study, we used embryos of the chicken and the mouse. We also reviewed the frog. It was possible to dissect these model organisms and study slides of the various stages in their embryological development because of the extensive similarity between them and human embryos. Why should this be so? All four organisms are vertebrates. All vertebrates have the same basic body plan. So it’s no surprise that their early developmental programs should be similar. A basic biology course that doesn’t present such information would be deficient, in my view. As to Haeckel’s gilding of the lilies, that’s a historical point not relevant to any pedagogical goal.Adel DiBagno_{July 30, 2010
July
07
Jul
30
30
2010
10:30 AM
10
10
30
AM
PDT}

Molch: Have a look at the photos in the linked at 117. Gkairosfocus_{July 30, 2010
July
07
Jul
30
30
2010
10:23 AM
10
10
23
AM
PDT}

StephenB @ 106 continued "He exaggerates the similarities in much the same way that Haeckel exaggerated them. He knows that he is not telling the truth, and he is using Heackel’s drawings as evidence to support his lie." You are claiming that he uses Haeckel's drawings AND that he draws like Haeckel. There is only one set of drawings in the book. So, it can only be one or the other. Which one are you claiming? Or is this your superior power of logic striking again? The answer to the first claim would be: No. The drawings in his book are not Haeckel's drawings. For the answer to the second claim see my last question in 118. And if you still insist that earlier embryos are more dissimilar than the later embryo stages depicted in the illustrations, I'd like to see some evidence for that?molch_{July 30, 2010
July
07
Jul
30
30
2010
10:11 AM
10
10
11
AM
PDT}

StephenB @ 106 “—molch:……. “Or are you claiming that earlier embryos are more dissimilar than the embryo stages depicted in the illustration, and that that’s why the choice of illustration is misleading.” You are starting to show signs of life.” So, you ARE indeed claiming that “earlier embryos are more DISSIMILAR than the [LATER] embryo stages depicted by the illustration”, and then you use this caption from Miller’s book “…all of these embryos are similar in appearance during EARLY STAGES of development….During certain embryological stages, vastly different organisms show similarities. During LATER stages of development, profound changes occur. Thus the adults bear little resemblance to one-another.” as proof for this assertion, although it states the exact opposite of what you just claimed? Congratulations Stephen! I wish I had your power of logic! “He exaggerates the similarities in much the same way that Haeckel exaggerated them.” Could you kindly point out where exactly those drawings misrepresent the photographic evidence to support this new blunt assertion.molch_{July 30, 2010
July
07
Jul
30
30
2010
08:50 AM
8
08
50
AM
PDT}

F/N: Onlookers might find the discussion of haeckel and his embryological frauds (and corrective photos) here and here interesting. The photos in particular will help to put modern textbook presentations in context.kairosfocus_{July 30, 2010
July
07
Jul
30
30
2010
06:39 AM
6
06
39
AM
PDT}

Petrushka: Pardon, but I must be quite direct. In 112 above, you go totally beyond the pale of reasonable discussion:
Taking things to their logical conclusion, any ~~simplification of science~~ [willfully material misrepresentation of the degree of warrant for claimed facts or theories explaining those accepted facts] for an introductory course is a lie.
I trust you can see the difference between what you wrote and I struck out, and how I corrected. If you cannot, your conscience and intellect are being eaten out by the radical relativism that has been the fatal error of evolutionary materialistic worldviews since Plato warned against it in his The Laws Bk X, 2,300 years ago. In the primary case in view in the original post, let me cite what I wrote in 30 above:
this latest claim about a string of reconstructed artistic impressions from a span of a dozen or more MY on a timeline, is so deeply embedded with assumptions and inferences that to call it evidence of a “fact” of macroevolution is a travesty. An out and out deception . . . . [A discussion of issues on dating, the pivotal claim about the figure in the original post, follows; and in direct response to dismissive objections from you.] There are some things we do not know for sure, and we cannot know beyond reasonable doubt. If our ideologies are so fragile that they lead us to pretend to a greater knowledge than we have, and lend it the august presence of the holy lab coat, then that is telling us something not so good about the current state of science and science education.
To ignore or suppress the difference between what we know as fact and what we infer as theory or as conclusion, is a gross breach of duties of care. So is a misleading summary built on such breach. Especially in an educational context. And that has happened with the Haeckel fraud, and it is happening with the claimed "observation" of Macroevolution in the textbook Dr Hunter correctly critiques; though I do not like the tone he used. GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{July 30, 2010
July
07
Jul
30
30
2010
05:26 AM
5
05
26
AM
PDT}

Petrushka: I think, on fair comment [even though I take your correction on a fairly minor point], you are crossing a serious line there. Sadly, AGAIN. (A reminder: You already are over the line on your earlier insinuation that I quote mined Lewontin and failed to give adequate information on source. At all times, you were just a link away from evidence to the contrary, and were careless at best. So, your onward attempt comes across as a turnabout rhetorical tactic in the teeth of having had to be corrected on earlier topics and points, which you have never acknowledged. Kindly, stop it.) Now, as a baseline for the further remarks to follow, let me cite and correct myself at 30 above, on the specific matter of PhD dissertations:
Piltdown man fooled the scientific world for was it nigh on 1/2 century [NB: notice my primary remark], complete with people doing PhDs on [NB: this is where I went too far, cf below] a fake that had they simply had access to the actual skull would have been a patent fake [filed teeth and obvious chemical staining] — trade secret: most paleontologists work with casts, at least one stage removed from the actual facts.
Now, I plainly should have been more generic in my remarks, i.e. it is true that few or no people would have done PhD's ON Piltdown as the focal or pivotal topic as such. Also, had I known that there is apparently an Internet rumour that "500 PhD's" were done ON Piltdown man, I would not have written as I did. I must also bring the focus back to the substantial issue, as my first cited clause said: Piltdown man fooled the scientific world for was it nigh on 1/2 century. This is plainly true, and it is the main matter that needs to be addressed seriously. On this, I observe that CMI makes the interesting cite that in an article in Nature, The Piltdown Bones and ‘Implements’ (Nature 174(4419):61–62, 10 July 1954; p. 61) we find this significant admission:
"More than five hundred articles and memoirs are said to have been written about Piltdown man."
For that time, that is a heavily cited and discussed "fact" indeed. One that, per Nature, was plainly the/a focal topic of 500 professional grade research articles. Now, I was in error to simply make a toss-off from memory that I did not fact check first, but the plainly substantial fact is that as Nature documented in 1954, over 500 research grade articles were focussed on Piltdown man across a run of about 40 years; presumably the vast majority of which were premised on its presumed factual accuracy. Also, the said 500 articles also plainly meant that research students and others who had access to the same casts and knowledge base that indeed revealed the fraud to several workers by 1923, were following the herd, instead of checking the facts. (And those few who had access to the actual skulls etc should have been even more quick to spot the problems. Especially the file marks, the painting of darkening agents, and the chewing gum patch question.) So, first, let us all resolve to do more fact checking. But, the substantial issue must not be overlooked or buried under distractions. Namely, on inadequate fact-checking using accessible casts and in a more restricted circle, the actual fossils, a hoax was embedded into the mainstream science that studied human ancestry; to the tune of 500 articles with it as a main point, and countless others where it was simply passed on as an accepted fact. For 40 years or so. Since, in addition, I have been in effect accused of saying that no-one objected [which I plainly did not; as the cite I made in 55 above will show, as well as the actual excerpt from 30 . . . ], let me be clear: the primary objection I have is to the embedding of theory-burdened over-interpreted and ill-founded or biased evidence into the category of generally acknowledged, assumed or asserted "fact." I must also note and underscore how this distraction has been used to divert attention from a cluster of serious issues and well-warranted comments in 30 above. (The proverb on straining at a gnat while swallowing a camel comes to mind.) Also, I must draw attention to a climate where serious questions and critiques of weak points in such generally accepted claims are too easily brushed aside or discarded. Obviously it is a fact of life in science that you will be more or less able to find a objector with due credentials on just about any topic. But, very often, such objections are on the fringes and the objectors are routinely disregarded and sometimes even dismissed with contempt as the discipline as a whole advances on its generally accepted facts and theories. (To then go back and dig up such fringe objectors when they turn out to be right, as though that were the main storyline, is therefore highly misleading damage control tactics. And, on fair comment, that is what I am seeing in too many Darwinism-based reports on Piltdown.) Let us cite Wiki as a further hostile witness on the point [on top of Harter in 55 above], noting how it does not elaborate on why the fossil -- despite the objections noted -- was generally accepted by "the Scientific Community" after the sort of serious objection by a qualified anatomist that Wiki is highlighting. So, what does that mean, but that the fossil was routinely treated as an established fact of human ancestry suitable for building further research on and citing in educational contexts?
As early as 1915, French paleontologist Marcellin Boule concluded the jaw was from an ape. Similarly, American zoologist Gerrit Smith Miller concluded Piltdown's jaw came from a fossil ape. In 1923, Franz Weidenreich examined the remains and correctly reported that they consisted of a modern human cranium and an orangutan jaw with filed-down teeth. Weidenreich, being an anatomist, had easily exposed the hoax for what it was. However, it took thirty years for the scientific community to concede that Weidenreich was correct. In 1915, Dawson claimed to have found fragments of a second skull (Piltdown II) at a site about two miles away from the original finds.[1] So far as is known the site has never been identified and the finds appear to be entirely undocumented. Woodward does not appear ever to have visited the site.
Let me again cite the relevant page as I did yesterday [cf. 55 above, as cited from Richard Harter]:
On the whole the British paleontologists were enthusiastic; the French and American paleontologists tended to be skeptical, some objected quite vociferously. The objectors held that the jawbone and the skull were obviously from two different animals and that their discovery together was simply an accident of placement. [My note: I think this hints that the human jaw is of more or less parabolic geometry, not the more boxy U-shape or vee-shape of other relevant mammals. Also, did tooth count patterns, sizes and shapes properly match?] In the period 1912-1917 there was a great deal of skepticism. The report in 1917 of the discovery of Piltdown II converted many of the skeptics; one accident of placement was plausible — two were not. [My Note: And obviously the possibility of a willful hoax was not being seen at that time.] It should be remembered that, at the time of Piltdown finds, there were very few early hominid fossils; Homo neanderthalensis and Homo sapiens were clearly fairly late. It was expected that there was a “missing link” between ape and man. It was an open question as to what that missing link would look like. Piltdown man had the expected mix of features, which lent it plausibility as a human precursor . . . . [And BTW, the other major "early" finding at that time, Java Man, was equally questionable as to how the evidence was gathered and interpreted, as well as the suppression of a much more modern appearing fossil found in the general area, for decades. I need not underscore how Neandertals were given an exaggerated ape-like mien and posture at that time. People were seeing what they "needed" in the evidence they had.]
Some fairly pointed questions are in order: 1 --> Petrushka, are you willing to claim in the teeth of the above cites, that Piltdown was not accepted as one of the early ape-men, and was not duly embedded into the matrix of credible "facts," for the discipline as a whole, circa 1920? 2 --> Are you further willing to assert that it was not used or cited as such, not only in the 500 articles where it was a main topic, but in research-paper literature surveys by fully-fledged professionals, in academic discussion including literature surveys by relevant students [inclusive of Graduate Students] etc? 3 --> Are you willing to claim that the plaster casts that in the end helped point to the hoax were not available to students and to fully fledged academics, for decades prior to the 1950's exposure? 4 --> Are you willing to claim that Piltdown was not a museum, textbook, magazine and newspaper article figure of note for decades until it was exposed? 5 --> Do you not see how by diverting to accusations of lying etc, you have overlooked many serious issues and points raised in 30 above? 6 --> Do you not see the strawman caricature you are setting up and knocking over, and the pattern of straining at a gnat while swallowing a camel, a la True Origins? [To make it plain: The substantial issue at stake is not primarily PhDs that specifically studied Piltdown as their main topic [which you obviously want to focus on as though it were the main point], but not only PhDs and other serious studies by students in training and articles by fully fledged professionals that should have properly fact checked the plaster casts and even the original skulls -- e.g. the chewing gum patch question; but even educational works that had a similar duty of fact checking. And, as my observation on Java Man noted, it was not just Piltdown. Even Neandertal was being over-read through the eye of evolutionary faith.] So, it is plain from what has already been cited that despite current attempts to deflect inference from the ease with which a hoax was embedded in the claimed fact-base of the relevant disciplines, it should have been clear that something was wrong, and any number of not only professionals but serious level students should have detected and been in an environment where they could have freely reported it without fear or favour. And, when serious figures pointed out what should have been fairly obvious facts that pointed to the fraud, it is clear that their work should have been followed up promptly and on the merits, instead of having to wait 30 years -- a generation -- for final vindication. Now, I am not accusing the professionals and students taken in by the Piltdown hoax, of lying. I am saying that this is a capital example of what happens when the procedures, methodologies, traditions, institutional authority and assumptions of a discipline fail to be duly cautious and restrained in how they handle and report on evidence from the remote, unobserved past. I am saying that this is what happens when false "facts" are embedded in a discipline. And, I am saying that over 50 years later, authors of textbooks by major publishers, who are professors in leading universities, and who were doubtless fact checked and reviewed by others of like ilk, should not be making the sort of gross exaggerations and confusions of theory and fact that Mr Hunter complained of in respect of the original post. Indeed, when they assert that dating techniques that are riddled with theoretical inferences and circularities are independent facts, and when they assert that reconstructed animals claimed to be in a descent sequence from over a dozen million years, claiming that this is an observation of macroevolution, this is gross -- and outright willfully deceptive -- neglect of duties of care for educators and spokesmen of science who should know better on the inherent limitations of reconstructions of the unobserved, unobservable past. [Onlookers, scroll up to 30 above to see what I actually had to say in the main, which has been ducked and diverted from in haste to "prove" me a liar . . . ] That holds regardless of the fact that I am not happy with Mr Hunter's tone. Please, do better than that, Petrushka. G'day, GEM of TKI PS: Onlookers, take a look at AiG's summary report and cautionary tale here.kairosfocus_{July 30, 2010
July
07
Jul
30
30
2010
05:04 AM
5
05
04
AM
PDT}

He exaggerates the similarities in much the same way that Haeckel exaggerated them. Wow, I didn't know that. The photographs in the book I used did make them seem very similar. Were those photos doctored to emphasize the similarity and hide the differences?San Antonio Rose_{July 30, 2010
July
07
Jul
30
30
2010
04:44 AM
4
04
44
AM
PDT}

Petrshka,
"Asserting that no one questioned the find or thought it to represent bones from two different things. These myths have been debunked so many times that anyone who promulgates them is obviously lying. "
The issue is that these were seen as fudged data back in the 1870's and yet appeared in textbooks into the 1990s and beyond. And when was the popular press book written by Denton which unambiguously demolished these "conclusions" based upon independent peer-reviewed data...was it 1980 what? Do you have any savory comments about these undenialble facts? Or, are you just in it for the glitter? No? And while we are at it - are you calmed down enough to address the evidence that you've skillfully ignored up to this point? You've made it clear that you think I am an asshole, but still I must press on. You can shut me up with observable facts at any time. By all means, tell me of a verifiable unguided source for the type of specificity and semiotic information processing we find inside the cell. Or heck, just give me a non-agent source of information. Any at all. I await at your pleasure.Upright BiPed_{July 29, 2010
July
07
Jul
29
29
2010
08:51 PM
8
08
51
PM
PDT}

What, in YOUR PERSONAL OPINION would justify a charge of lying?
Asserting that PhD theses were written using the Piltdown find as evidence, without viewing the original. Asserting that no one questioned the find or thought it to represent bones from two different things. These myths have been debunked so many times that anyone who promulgates them is obviously lying. Apparenty, based on arguments made here, any idealized image is a lie. Images of atoms, for example, or the solar system. Or flagella. Taking things to their logical conclusion, any simplification of science for an introductory course is a lie.Petrushka_{July 29, 2010
July
07
Jul
29
29
2010
07:21 PM
7
07
21
PM
PDT}

Petrushka@#19
I don’t trust.
Surely you don't trust in your lack of trust?
You really want to judge religion or science by the worst of its practitioners?
EVERYONE practices "science" and EVERYONE practices "religion. So where does your challenge get us?
The charge was lying. I don’t see that justified in the case presented here.
What, in YOUR PERSONAL OPINION would justify a charge of lying? Can you see how your own personal opinion about what might justify a charge of lying might differ from what in another person's opinion might justify such a charge? How do you explain all this as a result of the blind impersonal forces in which some stuff that happened or did not happen was favored over some other stuff that happened or did not happen which resulted in differential survival?Mung_{July 29, 2010
July
07
Jul
29
29
2010
06:47 PM
6
06
47
PM
PDT}

Allen MacNeill:
From this, what can one conclude?
Absolutely nothing?
That Dr. Hunter is the one who is lying, both about Johnson and Losos’ interpretations of the fossil record and their motivations for such interpretations. Indeed, Dr. Hunter’s statements in this case (for which he has presented no evidence whatsoever and about which he has asserted complete confidence) verge very close to the legal definition of libel.
I guess your own lack of evidence and display of complete confidence must appear at least vaguely familiar.
Par for the course, though, for the cadré of intellectual charlatans who fancy themselves to be “Christians”…
You disgust me. You really do. I'm all in favor of free speech. Hopefully I won't be banned for mine, and I don't want you banned for yours. Go ahead. Yell fire in a crowded theater. The more people present the more likely your inflammatory statement will be seen for what it is. You are supposed to be an EDUCATOR. What sort of standard does that set for you?Mung_{July 29, 2010
July
07
Jul
29
29
2010
06:36 PM
6
06
36
PM
PDT}

Allen MacNeill:
Dr. Hunter has presented no evidence whatsoever that Drs. Johnson and Losos have deliberately perpetrated what they knew to be a falsehood.
What would be EVEN WORSE is if they DID NOT KNOW they were perpetrating a falsehood.Mung_{July 29, 2010
July
07
Jul
29
29
2010
06:23 PM
6
06
23
PM
PDT}

SB, "Be careful, a Darwinist will interpret that to mean, “the designer is God.” In this one instance, they'd be right. :)Upright BiPed_{July 29, 2010
July
07
Jul
29
29
2010
05:52 PM
5
05
52
PM
PDT}

---Upright Biped: "Personally, I think my mesquite-grilled MahiMahi with a pinch of Herbs de Providence is much better." Be careful, a Darwinist will interpret that to mean, "the designer is God."StephenB_{July 29, 2010
July
07
Jul
29
29
2010
05:33 PM
5
05
33
PM
PDT}

---molch:....... "Or are you claiming that earlier embryos are more dissimilar than the embryo stages depicted in the illustration, and that that’s why the choice of illustration is misleading." You are starting to show signs of life. Typically, these writers promote the idea that vertebrate embryos are extremely similar therefore share a common ancestor, using Heackel-like drawings as valid evidence to make their case for common ancestry. Miller’s book, for example, reads, “However, as you can see in Figure 13-16, [Heackel-like drawings] all of these embryos are similar in appearance during EARLY STAGES [my emphasis] of development.” (pg. 283) The caption reads: “During certain embryological stages, vastly different organisms show similarities. During later stages of development, profound changes occur. Thus the adults bear little resemblance to one-another.” He exaggerates the similarities in much the same way that Haeckel exaggerated them. He knows that he is not telling the truth, and he is using Heackel’s drawings as evidence to support his lie. Case closed.StephenB_{July 29, 2010
July
07
Jul
29
29
2010
05:17 PM
5
05
17
PM
PDT}

Onlookers: Observe the attempted excuses for the inexcusable and/or distractions from what was done that was wrong:
P: So in order not to lie, you have to include a graduate course in embryology within the high school curriculum. M: Are you gonna accuse every illustrator of every book of fraud now, because they might have made a drawing of something that looks similar to something that someone else used for fraudulent purposes?
All that is being asked is that in the first decade of C21, students looking to teachers and textbooks to inform them accurately and fairly not be misled by a patently untrue claim, backed up by misleading drawings that were first exposed as misleading 100+ years ago, or slightly updated but equally misleading versions. Let us remember Gould, in 2000 (in light of the again linked):
We should… not be surprised that Haeckel’s drawings entered nineteenth-century textbooks. </But 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! [Stephen Jay Gould, "Abscheulich! (Atrocious!)," Natural History, March 2000, emphasis added]
Now, what was it that tracing back to the late C19 and coming up to the turn of C21 was sufficiently bad that Gould spoke in terms of SHAME? ANS: The use of willfully misleading drawings, to claim that embryos recapitulate the history of life, to one extent or another, thus showing their ancestry. So, diverse animals show similar embryos at key stages. Of course, stages where this is NOT so are being suppressed, and evidently superficial similarities are being played up while known strong divergences in embryological development [such as formation of similar structures in quite diverse ways from quite different parts of the embryo as it develops] are being suppressed. So let us hear that review of the recent books abusing the drawings again (and remember the article has the actual pages and notes on the problems).
To avoid confusion, let me point out that we are not claiming that Haeckel's embryo drawings and recapitulation theory are the bedrock of evolutionary biology in 2007. Nor are we arguing that every textbook that has used Haeckel’s fraudulent drawings (or some near-identical colorized version) therefore promoted the idea that “ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny.” As Jonathan Wells points out in his recent article, The Cracked Haeckel Approach to Evolutionary Reasoning, “Many modern biology textbooks inform students that Haeckel’s dictum, ‘ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny,’ has been discredited, but the same textbooks often use Haeckel’s drawings (or modern versions of them) to persuade students that human embryos provide clues to our evolutionary history and evidence for Darwin’s theory.” Therefore, what we are claiming is that various modern textbooks have used Haeckel’s embryo drawings in precisely the manner that Darwinists now deny: # (1) They show embryo drawings that are essentially recapitulations of Haeckel's fraudulent drawings — drawings that downplay and misrepresent the actual differences between early stages of vertebrate embryos; # (2) They have used these drawings as evidence for evolution — in the present day — and not simply to provide some kind of historical context for evolutionary thought; # (3) Even if the textbooks do not completely endorse Haeckel’s false “recapitulation” theory, they have used their Haeckel-based drawings to overstate the actual similarities between early embryos, which is the key misrepresentation made by Haeckel. They then cite these overstated similarities as still-valid evidence for common ancestry. Some Darwinists continue to deny that there has been any misuse of Haeckel in recent times. If that is the case, why did Stephen Jay Gould attack how textbooks use Haeckel in 2000?
Taking just the first example:
Textbook I. Peter H Raven & George B Johnson, Biology (5th ed, McGraw Hill, 1999), pgs. 416, 1181 . . . . (1) As seen here, the textbook uses a colorized and slightly edited version of Haeckel’s original fraudulent drawings. This version obscures the differences between the EARLIEST stages of embryos as egregiously as Haeckel’s original drawings did. (2) The drawings are presented as valid evidence for the modern theory of evolution, and are not merely used to provide historical context. They come from a section entitled "Embryonic Development and Vertebrate Evolution." The caption reads: “Embryonic development of vertebrates. Notice that the EARLY embryonic stages of these vertebrates bear a striking resemblance to each other, even though the individuals are from different classes (fish, amphibians, reptiles, birds, and mammals). All vertebrates start out with an enlarged head region, gill slits [grossly false, e.g. a human embryo never has GILL slits . . . one of the Haeckel points], and a tail [really now!] regardless of whether these characteristics are retained in the adult.” (pg. 1181) The text states: “The patterns of development in the vertebrate groups that evolved most recently reflect in many ways the simpler patterns occurring among earlier forms. Thus, mammalian development and bird development are elaborations of reptile development, which is an elaboration of amphibian development, and so forth (figure 58.16).” (pg. 1180) Although Haeckel is mentioned, it is clear that the textbook authors regard these drawing as evidence apart from Haeckel’s interpretation. (3) The text not only discusses “ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny” but also affirms it, albeit in a slightly different form. This entire discussion comes from a subsection entitled “Ontogeny Recapitulates Phylogeny,” in which the authors repudiate Haeckel’s claim but then defend a reformulated version of it: “The developmental instructions for each new form seem to have been layered on top of the previous instructions, contributing additional steps in the developmental journey. This hypothesis, promoted in the nineteenth century by Ernst Haeckel, is referred to as the ‘biogenetic law.’ It is usually stated as an aphorism: ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny; that is, embryological development (ontogeny) involves the same progression of changes that have occurred during evolution (phylogeny). However, the biogenetic law is not literally true when stated in this way because embryonic stages are not reflections of adult ancestors. Instead, the embryonic stages of a particular vertebrate often reflect the embryonic stages of that vertebrate's ancestors.” (pg. 1180, emphases in original) Earlier the text stated: “In many cases, the evolutionary history of an organism can be seen to unfold during its development, with the embryo exhibiting characteristics of the embryos of its ancestors.” (pg. 416) The basis for the text’s claims that the law holds is the fraudulent Haeckel-derived drawings, which obscure the differences between the embryos.
There is no excuse for such behaviour, and it draws our attention soberingly to the issues Plato raised in The Laws Bk X, as was already cited above, earlier today at no 54. GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{July 29, 2010
July
07
Jul
29
29
2010
05:01 PM
5
05
01
PM
PDT}

Molch ad Petrushka could you explain to me why Haeckels drawings being used in modern day textbooks evoked this comment by Gould? I am assuming you know who he is ( was). "We should… not be surprised that Haeckel’s drawings entered nineteenth-century textbooks. But 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!" [Stephen Jay Gould, "Abscheulich! (Atrocious!)," Natural History, March 2000, emphasis added] Vividvividbleau_{July 29, 2010
July
07
Jul
29
29
2010
04:35 PM
4
04
35
PM
PDT}

Ernie, The modern biology textbook is the result of untold hours of work by hundreds of thousadns of working biologists. It is a marvel of human determination. It is also, very unfortunately, a tool crafted to support a worldview that is neither scientific by most descriptions, nor supportable by the underlying (and observable) evidence.Upright BiPed_{July 29, 2010
July
07
Jul
29
29
2010
04:30 PM
4
04
30
PM
PDT}

I have to laugh at the struggles of the darwinists to get around the plain fact that haekel's drawings are fraudulant, and everything in those textbooks is at the very least misleading (a type of dihonesty). It's clear that modern bilogy text books are hazaedous to the minds of our kid's.Ernie Bubublio_{July 29, 2010
July
07
Jul
29
29
2010
04:24 PM
4
04
24
PM
PDT}

Molch, I am moved by your passion. This injustice! I plan to be just as indignant as you next time someone tells me a moustrap can be used for a tie clip, and the clasp makes a fine toothpick ...so Behe is lying for Jesus.Upright BiPed_{July 29, 2010
July
07
Jul
29
29
2010
04:15 PM
4
04
15
PM
PDT}

Or are you claiming that earlier embryos are more dissimilar than the embryo stages depicted in the illustration, and that that’s why the choice of illustration is misleading?
That seems to be the latest goalpost position. So in order not to lie, you have to include a graduate course in embryology within the high school curriculum.Petrushka_{July 29, 2010
July
07
Jul
29
29
2010
04:12 PM
4
04
12
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 5 … 7 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply