Book review in New Scientist discusses the long-drawn-out “lies” of Ernst Haeckel’s fake embryos

_{Denyse O'Leary

January 22, 2015

Darwinism, Education, Intelligent Design, News}

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

Here. A review of Haeckel’s Embryos: Images, Evolution, and Fraud

Fraud?

Shoot. At one time, the Haeckel fakes were just another Darwin sneery (= Sure, he lied, but so what? You people need to be lied to!)

So now it matters that someone is lying, even though his lies support Darwin?:

Haeckel wanted to convince his readers that all vertebrates share a common ancestor, and that, as he put it, “ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny” – our embryonic development repeats our evolutionary past. This aphorism was soon disproved, but the use of Haeckel’s drawings persisted, particularly in education. There were waves of criticism, from the 1870s when the drawings were published, up to 1997 as Haeckel’s “fraud” was rediscovered and exploited by creationists.

Excuse O’Leary for News, but all that the creationists did was point out that the embryos were fraudulent.

And a natural question arises, so what else is fake, if these lies were protected so long?

I remember being preached to about the embryos in the sacrosanct halls of science. Apparently, people had known for decades even then that the embryos were one of biology’s famous fakes.

And Darwin’s followers, from whom you may shortly be hearing below, actually wonder why people don’t believe them?

Why we insist on the right to offer dissenting views?

When counselling women trapped in toxic relationships, I tend to say: Here is a key indicator of sociopathy: He doesn’t see why you should care so much that he lied to you. Chances are, he is lying now. Get OUT of the relationship. And get out now. Look, we could get the police to help you. But it can likely be done much more discreetly and conveniently, which is better for you.

Maybe some wavering Darwin followers need this sort of advice too, especially if they are trying to integrate Darwinism with any traditional morality or philosophy.

See also: Sportscaster to be fired for supporting ID on live TV? If so, Darwin’s followers are raising the stakes. Don’t think you can watch the game in peace any more—not unless you acknowledge their prophet. Gosh, you must care about him a lot, to keep doing that.

Follow UD News at Twitter!

Comments

Zachriel: The fact remains that vertebrate embryos more closely resemble one another than do their adult forms.
However not near as close as Darwin, Haeckel and you would like.
Petrushka: Close enough (...)
So why did Haeckel fake it?Box_{January 23, 2015
January
01
Jan
23
23
2015
08:39 AM
8
08
39
AM
PDT}

Box: Haeckel and you The fact remains that vertebrate embryos more closely resemble one another than do their adult forms.Zachriel_{January 23, 2015
January
01
Jan
23
23
2015
08:26 AM
8
08
26
AM
PDT}

Zachriel: We have no preference.
Haeckel and you are both liars.Box_{January 23, 2015
January
01
Jan
23
23
2015
06:48 AM
6
06
48
AM
PDT}

Box: However not near as close as Darwin, Haeckel and you would like. We have no preference. It is what it is. The fact remains that vertebrate embryos more closely resemble one another than do their adult forms.Zachriel_{January 23, 2015
January
01
Jan
23
23
2015
06:41 AM
6
06
41
AM
PDT}

Close enough that you probably couldn't name the species from the embryo.Petrushka_{January 23, 2015
January
01
Jan
23
23
2015
06:18 AM
6
06
18
AM
PDT}

Zachriel: The fact remains that vertebrate embryos more closely resemble one another than do their adult forms.
However not near as close as Darwin, Haeckel and you would like.Box_{January 23, 2015
January
01
Jan
23
23
2015
06:11 AM
6
06
11
AM
PDT}

bornagain77: Charles Darwin considered this fraudulent evidence as the ‘strongest class of facts’ in favor of his theory The fact remains that vertebrate embryos more closely resemble one another than do their adult forms.Zachriel_{January 23, 2015
January
01
Jan
23
23
2015
05:36 AM
5
05
36
AM
PDT}

Ironically, Charles Darwin considered this fraudulent evidence as the 'strongest class of facts' in favor of his theory:
"The embryos of the most distinct species belonging to the same class are closely similar, but become, when fully developed, widely dissimilar." This is,,, "by far the strongest single class of facts in favor of my theory." Charles Darwin - Origin of Species (1859), Letter to Asa Gray (1860) The Strongest Single Class of Facts – 2011 Excerpt: “Embryology is to me is by far the strongest single class of facts in favor” of my theory of evolution, was the claim of Charles Darwin. The nineteenth century embryological evidence was pivotal for the development of Darwin’s theory of evolution. Just two months before the release of the first edition of The Origin of Species in September 1859, Darwin wrote to Charles Lyell, “Embryology in Chapter VIII is one of my strongest points I think.” http://www.darwinthenandnow.com/2011/11/the-strongest-single-class-of-facts/ Haeckel’s Embryos Excerpt: In The Origin of Species, Darwin gave credit to Ernst Haeckel: “Professor Haeckel in his “Generelle Morphologie” and in [other] works has recently brought his great knowledge and abilities to bear on what he calls phylogeny, or the lines of descent of all organic beings. In drawing up the several series he trusts chiefly to embryological characters [to establish evolutionary sequences].” Based on what Darwin thought was scientific evidence concluded: “So again it is probable, from what we know of the embryos of mammals, birds, fishes, and reptiles, that these animals are the modified descendants of some ancient progenitor.” In The Origin of Species, Darwin wrote, “Thus, as it seems to me, the leading facts in embryology, which are second to none in importance, are explained on the principles of variation in the many descendants from some … ancient progenitor” http://www.darwinthenandnow.com/2009/11/haeckel%E2%80%99s-embryos/
Not much seems to have changed since Darwin's day in terms of Darwinists misrepresenting the actual scientific evidencebornagain77_{January 23, 2015
January
01
Jan
23
23
2015
05:13 AM
5
05
13
AM
PDT}

Zach You are defending the indefensible........ sad really.....Andre_{January 22, 2015
January
01
Jan
22
22
2015
08:43 PM
8
08
43
PM
PDT}

Don't forget this gem from a high priest of Darwin, not so long ago among us... "Haeckel had exaggerated the similarities [of his embryos] by idealizations and omissions. He also, in some cases--in a procedure that can only be called fraudulent--simply copied the same figure over and over again." -- "This View of Life", Stephen Jay Gould, Natural History magazine, March 2000, p. 44.EDTA_{January 22, 2015
January
01
Jan
22
22
2015
08:19 PM
8
08
19
PM
PDT}

"His dishonesty can thus not be denied."
Well it seems they ARE denying it and they will forever find a way to play word games to save their hero. But even if he was just sloppy as they claim, that doesn't say much for his trustworthiness as a scientist. Certainly he would have had good reasons to twist the facts a bit to support his and Cousin Charlie's views. And indeed, his drawings have been used as if they were accurate to influence many people - even after it was known that they were inaccurate. This is a lesson for those of us on the fence. Not all the claims we hear from the other side are true. Don't give away the farm, throw away your faith, or give up on God's Word just because some scientist makes a claim against it. We are dealing with history here and it cannot be repeated. Mistakes like this can easily occur when the scientific method cannot be used. Actually, now the scientific method can be used to verify those drawings and maybe even it could have been used then as well. That's the tragedy of this situation. It could have been avoided. Sloppiness or perhaps dishonesty like this does nothing to build confidence in the just so stories of evolution or in any scientific claim that cannot be tested.tjguy_{January 22, 2015
January
01
Jan
22
22
2015
05:38 PM
5
05
38
PM
PDT}

Haeckel admitted they were just schematic drawings. That doesn’t indicate fraud, but certainly he wasn’t as careful as he should have been. I for one would be interested in a science of "schematic drawings", because then we could really have some understanding here. Then too, we could use a science of fraud to help us out. Since Darwinism is all about science, and all about drawings, and not about fraud, then there must be sciences of schematic drawings and fraud if they are part of Darwinism or excluded from it.groovamos_{January 22, 2015
January
01
Jan
22
22
2015
01:02 PM
1
01
02
PM
PDT}

http://creation.com/haeckel-fraud-proven On investigating Haeckel’s illustrations technically, it becomes clear just how many things Haeckel distorted in the embryo illustrations. His dishonesty can thus not be denied.Silver Asiatic_{January 22, 2015
January
01
Jan
22
22
2015
07:04 AM
7
07
04
AM
PDT}

Silver Asiatic: We should excuse him taking license. Haeckel exaggerated the similarities in his drawings for his presentations, but the fact remains that vertebrate embryos more closely resemble one another than do their adult forms. Silver Asiatic: He was ignorant of the science he was explaining. No, it just means he relied on the work of others, as do all scientists. Silver Asiatic: "these images are a bit crude." Just a bit. Haeckel admitted they were just schematic drawings. That doesn't indicate fraud, but certainly he wasn't as careful as he should have been. The fact remains that vertebrate embryos more closely resemble one another than do their adult forms.Zachriel_{January 22, 2015
January
01
Jan
22
22
2015
06:48 AM
6
06
48
AM
PDT}

Richards, Haeckel’s embryos: fraud not proven, Biology and Philosophy 2009

There are several matters of historical importance that one must keep in mind when judging the veracity of Haeckel’s work. First, his lectures were meant for a popular audience, and thus some didactic license would have been permitted.
We should excuse him taking license.
Second, Haeckel was a marine biologist, not a vertebrate biologist, though highly skilled in the latter field. Consequently he borrowed and adapted many of his illustrations, with acknowledgment, from experts in vertebrate biology.
He was ignorant of the science he was explaining.
From our perspective, these images are a bit crude.
Just a bit. But that's ok for reasons 1 & 2.
If one compares Haeckel’s images of embryos at the intermediate stage with those used by Darwin in the Descent of Man (Fig. 3), one can appreciate the schematic character of images typical of the time. Indeed, Darwin acknowledged that he borrowed his images from two of the same sources as did Haeckel (Darwin 1871 , p. 16). Since Darwin also attempted to drive home the similarities of vertebrate embryos, perhaps not even he should escape condemnation.
Most conclusive of all, since Darwin used the same images to "drive home" his marvelous (ok, false) ideas - we would have to condemn him also. And who could possibly dare to condemn Darwin of "driving home" a biased and fraudulent agenda? It's unthinkable of course. If Darwin did the same thing, it had to be something good and noble. Thus, there's no evidence of fraud in Haeckel's case. I'm convinced!Silver Asiatic_{January 22, 2015
January
01
Jan
22
22
2015
06:39 AM
6
06
39
AM
PDT}

bornagain77: Contrary to recent claims that all vertebrate embryos pass through a stage when they are the same size, we find a greater than 10-fold variation in greatest length at the tailbud stage. Our survey seriously undermines the credibility of Haeckel’s drawings Haeckel clearly labeled his drawings as scaled to be similar in size. And that's just your first point!Zachriel_{January 22, 2015
January
01
Jan
22
22
2015
06:34 AM
6
06
34
AM
PDT}

Failures of Evolution: Phylogeny Recapitulates Ontogeny - video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qv1TyS09nLM There is no highly conserved embryonic stage in the vertebrates: - Richardson MK - 1997 Excerpt: Contrary to recent claims that all vertebrate embryos pass through a stage when they are the same size, we find a greater than 10-fold variation in greatest length at the tailbud stage. Our survey seriously undermines the credibility of Haeckel's drawings, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9278154 Actual Embryos - photos (Early compared to Intermediate and Late stages); http://www.ichthus.info/Evolution/PICS/Richardson-embryos.jpg Three Flawed Evolutionary Models of Embryological Development and One Correct One - Casey Luskin - 2011 Excerpt: When biologists carefully compare embryological data, they find that there is considerable variability at the purported phylotypic stage, leading increasing numbers of biologists to question whether this pharyngular stage exists. As a paper in Nature said last year: "both the model and the concept of the phylotypic period remain controversial subjects in the literature." PZ generally refuses to address this literature, but it nonetheless calls into question the very concept that defines this model and gives PZ's Pharyngula blog its name. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/07/three_flawed_evolutionary_mode048541.html Vertebrate Gene Expression and Other Properties Don't Support a "Phylotypic" Stage - Casey Luskin - June 14, 2013 Excerpt: a new article in PLoS Genetics, "The Hourglass and the Early Conservation Models -- Co-Existing Patterns of Developmental Constraints in Vertebrates," shows that,, an analysis of the genome based on Darwinian assumptions fails to confirm many predictions of the "phylotypic" stage. ,,, (as they report),,, "During development, vertebrate embryos pass through a "phylotypic" stage, during which their morphology is most similar between different species. This gave rise to the hourglass model, which predicts the highest developmental constraints during mid-embryogenesis. In the last decade, a large effort has been made to uncover the relation between developmental constraints and the evolution of the genome. Several studies reported gene characteristics that change according to the hourglass model, e.g. sequence conservation, age, or expression. Here, we first show that some of the previous conclusions do not hold out under detailed analysis of the data." (Barbara Piasecka, Pawe? Lichocki, Sebastien Moretti, Sven Bergmann, Marc Robinson-Rechavi, "The Hourglass and the Early Conservation Models -- Co-Existing Patterns of Developmental Constraints in Vertebrates Barbara Piasecka," PLoS Genetics, Vol. 9(4) (April, 2013).),,, http://www.evolutionnews.org/2013/06/vertebrate_gene073171.html Evolution by Splicing – Comparing gene transcripts from different species reveals surprising splicing diversity. – Ruth Williams – December 20, 2012 Excerpt: A major question in vertebrate evolutionary biology is “how do physical and behavioral differences arise if we have a very similar set of genes to that of the mouse, chicken, or frog?”,,, A commonly discussed mechanism was variable levels of gene expression, but both Blencowe and Chris Burge,,, found that gene expression is relatively conserved among species. On the other hand, the papers show that most alternative splicing events differ widely between even closely related species. “The alternative splicing patterns are very different even between humans and chimpanzees,” said Blencowe.,,, http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view%2FarticleNo%2F33782%2Ftitle%2FEvolution-by-Splicing%2F Richard Sternberg PhD – podcast – On Human Origins: Is Our Genome Full of Junk DNA? Part 2. (Major Differences in higher level chromosome spatial organization) 5:30 minute mark quote: “Basically the dolphin genome is almost wholly identical to the human genome,, yet no one would argue that bottle-nose dolphins are our sister species”,,, http://www.discovery.org/multimedia/audio/2014/11/on-human-origins-is-our-genome-full-of-junk-dna-pt-2/ "Where (chimps and humans) really differ, and they differ by orders of magnitude, is in the genomic architecture outside the protein coding regions. They are vastly, vastly, different.,, The structural, the organization, the regulatory sequences, the hierarchy for how things are organized and used are vastly different between a chimpanzee and a human being in their genomes." Raymond Bohlin (per Richard Sternberg) - 9:29 minute mark of video https://vimeo.com/106012299 A Listener's Guide to the Meyer-Marshall Debate: Focus on the Origin of Information Question -Casey Luskin - December 4, 2013 Excerpt: "There is always an observable consequence if a dGRN (developmental gene regulatory network) subcircuit is interrupted. Since these consequences are always catastrophically bad, flexibility is minimal, and since the subcircuits are all interconnected, the whole network partakes of the quality that there is only one way for things to work. And indeed the embryos of each species develop in only one way." - Eric Davidson http://www.evolutionnews.org/2013/12/a_listeners_gui079811.htmlbornagain77_{January 22, 2015
January
01
Jan
22
22
2015
06:27 AM
6
06
27
AM
PDT}

See Richards, Haeckel’s embryos: fraud not proven, Biology and Philosophy 2009.Zachriel_{January 22, 2015
January
01
Jan
22
22
2015
06:23 AM
6
06
23
AM
PDT}

Haeckel in popular culture Friends' Ross (talking to his unborn baby in pregnant Carol): "And everyone's telling me, you gotta pick a major, you gotta pick a major. So, on a dare, I picked paleontology. And you have no idea what I'm saying, because, let's face it, you're a fetus. You're just happy you don't have gills anymore."Silver Asiatic_{January 22, 2015
January
01
Jan
22
22
2015
06:01 AM
6
06
01
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 2

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply