Haeckel's Embryos

A snippet from "Flock of Dodos" on Haeckel's Embryos.

Category:

Education

Tags:

• Haeckel
• Embryos
• Flock
• Dodos
• Creationism
• Evolution
• Intelligent
• Design

[Dreammotive]

And whats amazing is these people are even trying to censor you and me by giving our comments negative ratings. Why would you do that unless you're just trying to hide truth?

[Mortison77577]

Incredibly, it seems that PZ Myers lied on his blog about this. He said that they're only in modern textbooks to illustrate a historical point and it's obviously not true. Myers may not have had access to all the information, but still. And if it's true that Olson was informed of this fact before the film was released then it's pretty much straight up lying on the part of Olson.

[shortist2003]

Kenneth Miller, PhD, Brown University, has the "Haeckel embryos" in the high school text book he authored, citing them as support for evolution even though the scientific community already knew they were a fraud. Miller admitted his use of the fraudulent pictures, agreeing to dispatch errata sheets only after being publicly accused. (See Intelligent Design / Evolution Debate 2/8 on YouTube at 7 min 50 sec.)

[arthurjeremypearson]

@allan3141 Why not? Why no list? Why shouldn't someone track down and identify all the textbooks that have Haeckel drawings? The sheer number of them should be shocking, overwhelming, shameful evidence of scientific laziness. Evidence usable in a court of law to indicate a conspiracy or fruad.

Quick search, showing 37,806 Biology books (search: valorebooks biology books) - plenty of books to look through.

[arthurjeremypearson]

@allan3141 Well, you COULD use it as a reference to the history of science, not actual science. It's the author's perogative to indicate that the Haeckel drawings show how early scientists were discovering parallels between embryos in modern textbooks, as long as more modern drawings are also included, and more accurate explanations as to exactly how embryos are simmular at that stage.

[allan3141]

@allan3141 yes anr it is till doing the rounds even today!

[allan3141]

The fraud was discovered and went public in 1874! It should not therefore be in any text books thereafter; 1914 or otherwise. Even Stephen J Gould wrote about the "persistent" problem in 1997. The documentary is scathing of Wells' Book saying "if even one of [his Icons] is wrong we have to worry about his whole book" What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander; so perhaps, according to Olson, we have to worry about the whole documentary!

[arthurjeremypearson]

@allan3141 I thought you'd know where the list was. Sounds like you don't know where the list is. That's ok.

I was going to compare the biology textbooks the Haeckel appears in to the number of biology text books ever published. I was also going to compare any opinions of the Haeckel books to non-Haeckel books, to see if there's a consensus of what scientists think of the Haeckel books. Gathering evidence.

Without evidence, my opinion could fall flat.

[allan3141]

@arthurjeremypearson you want a full list of books from 1874 to the present day?! But you are "Not curious enough to look for [yourself], just enough to ask someone"

Seems strange