Bible Research Tools Discussion Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

News:

The Bible Research Tools Discussion Forum is now online!

Pages: [1]

Author Topic: Haeckel's Embryos  (Read 298 times)

Administrator

  • Administrator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 115
    • View Profile
    • Bible Research Tools
Haeckel's Embryos
« on: February 03, 2018, 08:17:14 PM »

I recently read an April 2015 article by Casey Luskin that claims Haeckel's fradulent embryo drawings were still found in Biology textbooks. This is the link to the article:


This is truly astonishing since, according to Dr. jonathan Wells, Haeckel's embryos have been known to be fraudulent for over a century:

"Haeckel's embryos seem to provide such powerful evidence for Darwin's theory that some version of them can be found almost every modern textbook dealing with evolution. Yet biologists have known for over a century that Haeckel faked his drawings; vertebrate embryos never look as similar as he made them out to be. Furthermore, the stage Haeckel labeled the"first" is actually midway through development; the similarities he exaggerated are preceded by striking differences in earlier stages of development. Although you might never know it from reading biology textbooks, Darwin's "strongest single class of facts" is a classic example of how evidence can be twisted to fit a theory."[Jonathan Wells, Haeckel's Embryos, "Icons of Evolution." Regnery Publishing, Inc., 2002, Chap 5, pp. 82-83]

Your input will be appreciated.

Dan
Logged

Rev20

  • Moderator
  • Regular Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 27
  • Partial Preterist
    • View Profile
Re: Haeckel's Embryos
« Reply #1 on: February 03, 2018, 10:58:03 PM »


I recently read an April 2015 article by Casey Luskin that claims Haeckel's fradulent embryo drawings were still found in Biology textbooks.


Those "scientists" are never going to give up on Haeckel.  His fraud is about all the "proof" they have. In the following segment, Ken Miller, co-author (with Joe Levine) of a popular Biology text book, gives the impression he has not known of Haeckel's fraud for most, if not all of his career, even though it was exposed about a century ago:


Found on Miller's and Levine's web site is this statement:

"This idea has been pushed back into the news recently by the news that Haeckel's drawings of embryonic similarities were not correct. 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!" [Miller & Levine, "Haeckel and his Embryos - A Note on Textbooks." 1997]


Is Miller saying that Haeckel's fraudulent drawings would still be in his textbooks if Richardson and colleagues had not pushed Haeckel back into the news?  Is he saying he knew Haeckel's drawings were frauds, but he placed them in his text books anyway?  Would you buy a used car from that fellow? 

Wait, it gets better. This is Miller promoting artist drawings from incomplete fossil skeletons as "whale transition fossils".  He is not only promoting it, he is arrogantly trying to make the creation scholars look foolish:


The problem is, even with 1,000 such fossils, in varying degrees of "transition", that would not be proof of macroevolution. 

Since Miller's clown show it has been revealed one of the transitions was highly questionable due to improper eye placement, as well as uncertainty about the existence of a blowhole. The digger of another transition had imagined key body parts to make it appear to fit the line [note: these videos are found on the BRT "Age of the Earth" page]:



But, like Haeckel's embryos, fradulent evolution icons are hard to get rid of:


This one has removed Rodhocetus, but retained Ambulocetus:

https://www.amnh.org/exhibitions/whales-giants-of-the-deep/whale-evolution

Rev
Logged

LXXResearcher

  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 63
    • View Profile
    • Youtube Channel
Re: Haeckel's Embryos
« Reply #2 on: February 04, 2018, 01:26:53 AM »


I recently read an April 2015 article by Casey Luskin that claims Haeckel's fradulent embryo drawings were still found in Biology textbooks.

This is truly astonishing since, according to Dr. jonathan Wells, Haeckel's embryos have been known to be fraudulent for over a century:


Dan & Rev, have you read this paper?


The author, Robert J. Richards, claims Haeckel was not attempting to defraud.  I have Haeckel's books, but I don't know enough about embryology to know the difference.

In any case, if Richards is correct, does that mean the evolutionism book pushers are the ones who have been defrauding us (rather than Haeckel)?

What do you think?

LXX
Logged

Administrator

  • Administrator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 115
    • View Profile
    • Bible Research Tools
Re: Haeckel's Embryos
« Reply #3 on: February 04, 2018, 08:11:12 AM »


The author, Robert J. Richards, claims Haeckel was not attempting to defraud.  I have Haeckel's books, but I don't know enough about embryology to know the difference.

In any case, if Richards is correct, does that mean the evolutionism book pushers are the ones who have been defrauding us (rather than Haeckel)?


Old Icons Die Hard!  In the following video, Dr. Jonathan Wells, an embryologist with a PhD in Molecular Biology from U.C. Berkeley, and author of Icons of Evolution: Science or Myth?, depicts Haeckel's Embryos as one of the false Icons of Evolution (he mentions the Miller & Levine book):


Watch until the 39:08 mark for the entire segment.


This next video is a presentation on Dr. Well's book Zombie Science: More Icons of Evolution, which is an update on the continued use of Haeckel's Embryos to promote Darwinism:



In both videos, at the 31:21 and 24:42 marks, respectively, a quote was attributed to Darwin, Origin, 1859, which I could not find in that edition, nor in the 1861 3rd edition, though there are other statements promoting embryonic similarities. However, I did find the exact quote in the 1871 edition.  The second quote (following "This is") is from a letter to Asa Gray dated September 10, 1860, and is an exact quote.


In the following article, Dr. Wells analyzes a poorly researched critique on this subject by the so-called National Center for Science Education (NCSE):


Dan

Logged
Pages: [1]