Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

To: Ichneumon
5. This is often taken as evidence of conscious fraud, but more prosaic explanations are possibilities as well. Haeckel may not have had actual specimens of those species at that stage of development, and drew what he actually believed they would look like, for example.

That's because it was a conscious FRAUD....a fraud that seemed to live on and on and on, for some strange reason, in virtually every textbook. Take it from the folks who actually publish textbooks for a living:


British embryologist Michael Richardson and his colleages published an important paper in the August 1997 issue of Anatomy & Embryology showing that Haeckel had fudged his drawings to make the early stages of embryos appear more alike than they actually are! As it turns out, Haeckel's contemporaries had spotted the fraud during his lifetime, and got him to admit it. However, his drawings nonetheless became the source material for diagrams of comparative embryology in nearly every biology textbook, including ours!


Haeckel and his Embryos

For more information, see:

Biology Textbook Fraud

Quote referenced from the above:

Thompson: Haeckel, who in 1868 advanced this "biogenetic law" that was quickly adopted in textbooks and encyclopedias throughout the world, distorted his data. Thompson explains: "A natural law can only be established as an induction from facts. Haeckel was of course unable to do this. What he did was to arrange existing forms of animal life in a series proceeding from the simple to the complex, intercalating [inserting] imaginary entities where discontinuity existed and then giving the embryonic phases names corresponding to the stages in his so-called evolutionary series. Cases in which this parallelism did not exist were dealt with by the simple expedient of saying that the embryological development had been falsified. When the `convergence' of embryos was not entirely satisfactory, Haeckel altered the illustrations of them to fit his theory. The alterations were slight but significant. The `biogenetic law' as a proof of evolution is valueless." W. R. Thompson, "Introduction to The Origin of Species," p. 12.

96 posted on 07/06/2005 8:16:19 AM PDT by Michael_Michaelangelo (The best theory is not ipso facto a good theory. Lots of links on my homepage...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies ]

To: Michael_Michaelangelo; Ichneumon
The `biogenetic law' as a proof of evolution is valueless." W. R. Thompson, "Introduction to The Origin of Species," p. 12.

DUH! If the biogenetic law were true it would have to mean there is some mechanism which ensures that modifications in embryological development are always appended to the end of the process. IOW there would have to be some mechanism the actively prevents variations from occurring and becoming fixed in earlier stages of development.

Absent such a mechanism Haeckel's law would (if anything) tend to cast doubt on evolution, at least as a natural process, because it would appear that something had chosen to make modifications occur only at the end of development.

BTW, I missed the part where you refuted any of Ichneumon's rebuttal points.

122 posted on 07/06/2005 10:07:54 AM PDT by Stultis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 96 | View Replies ]

To: Michael_Michaelangelo
[This is often taken as evidence of conscious fraud, but more prosaic explanations are possibilities as well. Haeckel may not have had actual specimens of those species at that stage of development, and drew what he actually believed they would look like, for example.]

That's because it was a conscious FRAUD....

Stamping your feet and declaring it so isn't the same thing as being able to support your belief, I'm afraid. Nor does the material you quote provide adequate support, since they are also consistent with the kind of unintended fraud I describe above. You should be really familiar with that kind of fraud, since creationists have done it *countless* times -- they make the mistake of believing that their presumptions are fact, and then cheerfully publish these unconscious frauds for the public. For just one example (out of literally *thousands* I've read), see Duane Gish's confident (but wholly fraudulent) claim about proteins:

One example is Gish's "bullfrog proteins." In 1983, in a PBS show on creationism, Gish claimed that while humans and chimpanzees have many proteins which are identical or differ by only a few amino acids, there are also human proteins which are more similar to a bullfrog or a chicken than to chimpanzees. Gish was repeatedly pressed to produce his evidence. Two years later, Philip Kitcher challenged Gish to produce his evidence or retract his claim in a debate at the University of Minnesota. Gish refused to respond. Kevin Wirth of Students for Origins Research (a pro-creationist organization) begged Gish to respond in the pages of Origins Research regarding the claim. He refused. (See Robert Schadewald, "Scientific Creationism and Error," Creation/Evolution XVII (vol. 6, no. 1, 1986).)
-- from Creationist Whoppers

Duane Gish, a protein biochemist with a Ph.D. from Berkeley, is vice president of the Institute for Creation Research (ICR) and creationism's best-known spokesman. A veteran of perhaps 150 public debates and thousands of lectures and sermons on creationism, Gish is revered among creationists as a great scientist and a tireless fighter for the truth. Among noncreationists, however, Gish has a reputation for making erroneous statements and then pugnaciously refusing to acknowledge them. One example is an unfinished epic which might be called the tale of two proteins.

In July 1983, the Public Broadcasting System televised an hour-long program on creationism. One of the scientists interviewed, biochemist Russell Doolittle, discussed the similarities of human proteins to chimpanzee proteins. In many cases, corresponding human and chimpanzee proteins are identical, and in others they differ by only a few amino acids. This strongly suggests a common ancestry for humans and apes. Gish was asked to comment. He replied:

If we look at certain proteins, yes, man then -- it can be assumed that man is more closely related to a chimpanzee than other things. But on the other hand, if you look at other certain proteins, you'll find that man is more closely related to a bullfrog than he is a chimpanzee. If you focus your attention on other proteins, you'll find that man is more closely related to a chicken than he is to a chimpanzee.

I had never heard of such proteins, so I asked a few biochemists. They hadn't, either. I wrote to Gish for supporting documentation. He ignored my first letter. In reply to my second, he referred me to Berkeley geochronologist Garniss Curtis. I wrote to Curtis, who replied immediately.

Some years ago, Curtis attended a conference in Austria where he heard that someone had found bullfrog blood proteins very similar to human blood proteins. Curtis offered an explanatory hypothesis: the "frog" which yielded the proteins was (he suggested) an enchanted prince. He then predicted that the research would never be confirmed. He was apparently correct, for nothing has been heard of the proteins since. But Duane Gish once heard Curtis tell his little story.

This bullfrog "documentation" (as Gish now calls it) struck me as joke, even by creationist standards, and Gish simply ignored his alleged chicken proteins. In contrast, Doolittle backed his televised claims with published protein sequence data. I wrote to Gish again suggesting that he should be able to do the same. He didn't reply. Indeed, he has never since replied to any of my letters.

John W. Patterson and I attended the 1983 National Creation Conference in Roseville, Minnesota. We had several conversations there with Kevin Wirth, Research Director of Students for Origins Research (SOR). At some point, we told him the protein story and suggested that Gish might have lied on national television. Wirth was confident that Gish could document his claims. He told us that if we put our charges in the form of a letter, he would do his best to get it published in Origins Research, the SOR tabloid.

Gish also attended the conference, and I asked him about the proteins in the presence of several creationists. Gish tried mightily to evade and/or obfuscate, but I was firm. Doolittle provided sequence data for human and chimpanzee proteins; Gish could do the same -- if his alleged chicken and bullfrog proteins really exist. Gish insisted they exist and promised to send me the sequences. Skeptical, I asked him pointblank: "Will that be before hell freezes over?" He assured me that it would. After 2-1/2 years, I still have neither sequence data nor a report of frost in Hades.


In the same sentence, Gish claimed that he sent me his "documentation," and Wagner quite naturally assumed that meant at least the tape. But Gish sent me neither, nor has he sent copies of said tape or transcript to others requesting them. As with his chicken proteins, we have only Gish's word for their existence.

For the record, it is no longer important whether Gish's original statements about chicken and bullfrog proteins were deceptions or incredible blunders. It is now going on four years since the PBS broadcast, and Gish has neither retracted his chicken statement nor attempted to justify it. (Obviously, the lysozyme apologetic doesn't count, but it took Gish 2-1/2 years to come up with that!) And if the Curtis story is all he knows about his chimpanzee protein, on what basis did he promise to send me its sequence at the 1983 National Bible-Science Conference? Gish has woven himself into an incredible web of contradictions, and even some creationists now suspect that he has been less than candid.

Gish's steadfast refusal to acknowledge the facts seems to characterize creationism.

Nothing you've posted indicates that Haeckel's errors were the result of *conscious* fraud, as you emptily assert, versus possibility of the kind of *unconscious* fraud (i.e., believing your own incorrect presumptions) that creationists make so frequently.

For more information, see: Biology Textbook Fraud


Anyone who actually goes to Michael_Michaelangelo's link in the hopes of finding "information" will be at imminent risk of filling their heads with falsehoods, misinformation, and lies.

Not surprisingly, since it's a creationist website. I counted over twenty blatant falsehoods before I gave up, and that was just on the first couple of screens.

Michael_Michaelangelo, again and again I have asked you to either learn enough about biology to be able to tell solid material from complete horse manure, or stop posting creationist material WHICH YOU HAVE REPEATEDLY DEMONSTRATED YOU ARE COMPLETELY UNABLE TO VET FOR EVEN THE MOST MINIMAL LEVELS OF ACCURACY, RELIABILITY, OR CREDIBILITY.

Why do you keep ignoring this advice? I'm getting tired of you presenting huge servings of lies to your fellow Freepers. You're doing them a huge disservice.

When you can't tell s*** from roast beef, it's really not a good idea for you to keep trying to bring everyone lunch.

133 posted on 07/06/2005 10:40:41 AM PDT by Ichneumon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 96 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794 is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson