Author Topic: We Shouldn't Always Believe What the "Leading Experts" Tell Us about Evolution (Read 16920 times)

loco · « **on:** September 23, 2007, 07:42:48 PM »

Quoting from http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evohome.html , courtecy of columbusdude82

"The evolutionary study of embryos reached a peak in the late 1800s thanks primarily to the efforts of one extraordinarily gifted, though not entirely honest, scientist named Ernst Haeckel"

"Haeckel was so convinced of his Biogenetic Law that he was willing to bend evidence to support it"
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/history/early_evodevo.shtml

"Unfortunately, Haeckel, apparently in his enthusiasm to make his point, modified the drawings of these embryos to make them appear more alike than they actually were. These fudged sketches (or versions derived from them) have appeared in many biology textbooks since then"
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/footshooting/IVthe_times.shtml

Haeckel was the primary enthusiast and popularizer of Darwin's theory of evolution in the late Nineteenth Century.

As if it wasn't bad enough that this great scientist committed fraud, to make matters even worse, many proponents of Darwin's theory are still using the same known fraudulent drawings and claims to sell evolution to school children that Darwin's leading proponent had used to sell Darwin's theory to the general public in 1900.

Many modern biology textbooks still include these fake drawings to overstate the actual similarities between early embryos. They cite these overstated similarities as still-valid evidence for common ancestry.

loco · « **Reply #1 on:** September 23, 2007, 07:44:43 PM »

Stephen Jay Gould was one of the most prominent and enthusiastic cheerleaders of biological evolution during the later decades of the Twentieth Century. As a Harvard professor who published many scholarly articles and books and taught biology, geology and the history of science, Gould was often viewed as a spokesperson for science and one of the most prestigious scientists in the world. As a frequent essayist in the popular press, Gould was also well known to the general public.

Gould was no friend to critics of evolutionary theory. Yet, he exposes an undeniable and incredibly revealing historical fact.

Quoting from his article:

Stephen Jay Gould "Abscheulich (Atrocious!) 2000

"We should therefore 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! Michael Richardson, of the St. George's Hospital Medical School in London, a colleague who deserves nothing but praise for directing attention to this old issue, wrote to me (letter of August 16, 1999):

If so many historians knew all about the old controversy [over Haeckel's falsified drawings], then why did they not communicate this information to the numerous contemporary authors who use the Haeckel drawings in their books? I know of at least fifty recent biology texts which use the drawings uncritically. I think this is the most important question to come out of
the whole story."

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1134/is_2_109/ai_60026710/pg_5

loco · « **Reply #2 on:** September 23, 2007, 07:47:29 PM »

Peter H Raven & George B Johnson, Biology (6th ed, McGraw Hill, 2002), pg. 1229:

loco · « **Reply #3 on:** September 23, 2007, 07:50:35 PM »

Douglas J. Futuyma, Evolutionary Biology (3rd ed, Sinauer, 1998), pg. 653:

loco · « **Reply #4 on:** September 23, 2007, 07:52:11 PM »

Cecie Starr and Ralph Taggart, Biology: The Unity and Diversity of Life (8th ed, Wadsworth, 1998), pg. 317:

loco · « **Reply #5 on:** September 23, 2007, 07:53:38 PM »

Joseph Raver, Biology: Patterns and Processes of Life (J.M.Lebel, 2004, draft version presented to the Texas State Board of Education for approval in 2003), pg. 100:

loco · « **Reply #6 on:** September 23, 2007, 07:56:19 PM »

Cecie Starr and Ralph Taggart, Biology: The Unity and Diversity of Life (Wadsworth, 2004, draft version presented to the Texas State Board of Education in 2003), pg. 315:

loco · « **Reply #7 on:** September 23, 2007, 08:04:46 PM »

William D. Schraer and Herbert J. Stoltze, Biology: The Study of Life (7th ed, Prentice Hall, 1999), pg. 583:

loco · « **Reply #8 on:** September 23, 2007, 08:06:03 PM »

Michael Padilla et al., Focus on Life Science: California Edition (Prentice Hall, 2001), pg. 372:

loco · « **Reply #9 on:** September 23, 2007, 08:07:44 PM »

Kenneth R Miller & Joseph Levine, Biology: The Living Science (Prentice Hall, 1998), pg. 223:

loco · « **Reply #10 on:** September 23, 2007, 08:08:47 PM »

Kenneth R Miller & Joseph Levine, Biology (4th ed., Prentice Hall, 1998), pg. 283:

loco · « **Reply #11 on:** September 23, 2007, 08:19:17 PM »

Watch

Haeckel's Bogus Embryo Drawings (Clip on YouTube)

Dos Equis · « **Reply #12 on:** September 23, 2007, 08:56:31 PM »

Interesting stuff. Thanks loco.

Necrosis · « **Reply #13 on:** September 23, 2007, 09:29:03 PM »

HAHA loco goes hard when in a debate, ill give him that

.

OTHstrong · « **Reply #14 on:** September 23, 2007, 09:46:17 PM »

loco, your the man!

Necrosis · « **Reply #15 on:** September 23, 2007, 10:03:49 PM »

i will mention that macroevolution hasnt been observed but is a logical conclusion based on the observation of microevolution(over long periods of time) and similarity in morphology, genetics, biochemical markers etc...

you asking if observation of macroevolution has been observed is like asking if super luminal communication has been observed. it hasnt, but based on observations of criteria it is a very logical implication, and can be theorized quite effectively.

the above is a bad example, i couldnt think of anything that occurs but cannot be witnessed.

so loco, i would agree that macroevolution is a point worth arguing, but you cant honestly beleive that biologists are out to decieve, your generalization from the above drawing, is like a bad christian being generalized to all. abiogenesis is also something you could argue, as the mechanisms are still up in the air. but it obviously occured

NeoSeminole · « **Reply #16 on:** September 23, 2007, 10:25:28 PM »

Quote from: usmokepole on September 23, 2007, 10:03:49 PM

abiogenesis is also something you could argue, as the mechanisms are still up in the air. but it obviously occured

damn straight.

columbusdude82 · « **Reply #17 on:** September 24, 2007, 05:23:06 AM »

loco, good job looking up these textbooks. This doesn't say as much about the science itself, as it does about a dishonest person and a few, rather lazy textbook authors. (Yes, I said "few," because there are so many more biology textbooks out there.)

Fortunately, I have never used or heard of any of these textbooks. Do you know if they are used in the high school level or at the college level?

Finally, let me quote again from S.J. Gould from that same article:

Quote

1. Haeckel's forgeries as old news (Agassiz's contribution): Tales of scientific fraud excite the imagination for good reason. Getting away with this academic equivalent of murder and then being outed a century after your misdeeds makes even better copy...

2. Haeckel's forgeries as irrelevant to the validity of evolution or Darwinian mechanisms (von Baer's contribution): From the very beginning of this frenzied discussion two years ago, I have been thoroughly mystified as to what, beyond simple ignorance or self-serving design, could ever have inspired the creators of the sensationalized version to claim that Haeckel's exposure challenges Darwinian theory or even evolution itself. After all, Haeckel used these drawings to support his theory of recapitulation--the claim that embryos repeat successive adult stages of their ancestry. For reasons elaborated at excruciating length in my Ontogeny and Phylogeny, Darwinian science conclusively disproved and abandoned this idea by 1910 or so, despite its persistence in popular culture. Obviously, neither evolution nor Darwinian theory needs the support of a doctrine so conclusively disconfirmed from within...

In short, the work of Richardson and colleagues goes by a simple and treasured name in my trade: good science. The flap over Haeckel's doctored drawings should leave us feeling ashamed about the partial basis of a widely shared bias now properly exposed and already subjected to exciting new research. But Haeckel's High Victorian (or should I say Bismarckian) misdeeds provide no fodder to foes of Darwin or of evolution.

PS: OneTimeHard, see what loco did here? He substantiated his claims. I am waiting for the day when you will do the same

columbusdude82 · « **Reply #18 on:** September 24, 2007, 05:26:28 AM »

PPS: loco, you have a duty to write these publishers and tell them about this shameful screw up

loco · « **Reply #19 on:** September 24, 2007, 05:31:56 AM »

Quote from: usmokepole on September 23, 2007, 10:03:49 PM

i will mention that macroevolution hasnt been observed but is a logical conclusion based on the observation of microevolution(over long periods of time) and similarity in morphology, genetics, biochemical markers etc...

That is all I keep saying, that macroevolution has not been observed, but NeoSeminole insists that it has. NeoSeminole seems to be an intelligent, educated person, but he does shoot himself in the foot when he posts sometimes.

Quote from: NeoSeminole on September 20, 2007, 07:25:51 PM

Macroevolution has been observed.

But anyway, this thread is not about macroevolution. We've debated that plenty already.

Quote from: usmokepole on September 23, 2007, 10:03:49 PM

so loco, i would agree that macroevolution is a point worth arguing, but you cant honestly beleive that biologists are out to decieve, your generalization from the above drawing, is like a bad christian being generalized to all. abiogenesis is also something you could argue, as the mechanisms are still up in the air. but it obviously occured

I have neither said, nor do I believe that biologists are out to deceive. After all, it was not creationists who expose this historical fact, but Stephen Jay Gould and Michael Richardson.

But we are not talking about just one dishonest, fraudulent, famous scientist here. Think of all the biology textbook authors, biology teachers, historians, and scientists over a period of some 100 years who allowed the use of Haeckel's drawings in biology books all these years. Many recent biology texts have used the drawings uncritically. They still include these fake drawings to overstate the actual similarities between early embryos. They cite these overstated similarities as still-valid evidence for common ancestry. These drawings had been known to be fake for over a century.

Why has all of this been kept under the radar in the media, Haeckel's fraudulent drawings and claims being used to sell evolution to school children, high school students and even some college students for so many years?

Why are some people today still denying this historical fact, thus rewriting history? They contradict the facts, the evidence and the testimony of people such as Stephen Jay Gould and Michael Richardson.

Necrosis · « **Reply #20 on:** September 24, 2007, 07:39:25 AM »

neo is probably right then, my field isnt evolutionary biology so my knowledge is self taught, so theres bound to be holes.

Hedgehog · « **Reply #21 on:** September 24, 2007, 08:45:55 AM »

What the fcuk does this have to specifically do with Evolution? (no offence loco, great job)

Any scientifically sound person will have a critical perspective to what they learn and not just accept everything they hear as the truth.

The Popper tradition is strong in the science world today.

Meaning that if you cannot prove something wrong, it's true.

Ie, there's been lots of proof that humans can't live to be 500+ years old (our organs don't hold up that long). So all the historical persons mentioned in the Bible living that long, are one of three things:

*Just myths

*Several persons, one name in the Bible representing a whole family living many generations.

*The time frame being much shorter than actually described in the Bible.

We can't know which of the above is the truth, and I'm sure there is probably some other possibility that escapes me right now, but the main thing is: Through science we've been able to establish that the Bible is not literally true in these parts.

Vet · « **Reply #22 on:** September 24, 2007, 01:08:55 PM »

Quote from: Hedgehog on September 24, 2007, 08:45:55 AM

What the fcuk does this have to specifically do with Evolution? (no offence loco, great job)

Absolutely nothing. Those mistakes have been acknowledged by more than one developmental anatomist. Its just fuel for the fire...

Quote

Any scientifically sound person will have a critical perspective to what they learn and not just accept everything they hear as the truth.

The Popper tradition is strong in the science world today.

Meaning that if you cannot prove something wrong, it's true.

Ie, there's been lots of proof that humans can't live to be 500+ years old (our organs don't hold up that long). So all the historical persons mentioned in the Bible living that long, are one of three things:

*Just myths

*Several persons, one name in the Bible representing a whole family living many generations.

*The time frame being much shorter than actually described in the Bible.

We can't know which of the above is the truth, and I'm sure there is probably some other possibility that escapes me right now, but the main thing is: Through science we've been able to establish that the Bible is not literally true in these parts.

The evolution argument is funny as hell to me. I hold my religious beliefs to myself (I'm Catholic), but they sure do seem to be able to coincide with what I know as a scientist and as a veterinarian. The bottom line with evolution is that simple physics principle of DeltaT or Change/time. Basically it says that everything changes with time. And in the Darwinian sense of things, those creatures which are best suited for a given environment will then go on to succeed and eventually reproduce, thus passing on their traits.

its prettymuch a brainless concept. Think about it, the best example is a college student..... that student as a freshmen will be a very different person than they are when they are finishing their disertation for thier PhD. They have changed over time. Not only that, but the student who is the most suited for completing the course of study for the PhD will be the one most likely to succeed and get it done first. Its that simple. Its also reasonable to think that someone who finishes a PhD within 4 years, will at some point pass on skills/traits/whatever to others be it their children or studnets so they too can succeed at finishing a PhD. This is "microevolution" in its simplist form. Its also something that occurs in universities throughout the world every year.

People make it way way more complex and harder to understand than what it really is. You cannot deny the fact that all things change over time.

loco · « **Reply #23 on:** September 25, 2007, 01:03:28 PM »

Quote from: columbusdude82 on September 24, 2007, 05:23:06 AM

loco, good job looking up these textbooks. This doesn't say as much about the science itself, as it does about a dishonest person and a few, rather lazy textbook authors. (Yes, I said "few," because there are so many more biology textbooks out there.)

Fortunately, I have never used or heard of any of these textbooks. Do you know if they are used in the high school level or at the college level?

Finally, let me quote again from S.J. Gould from that same article:

PS: OneTimeHard, see what loco did here? He substantiated his claims. I am waiting for the day when you will do the same

A few? No, not a few.

Stephen Jay Gould, a reliable resource on the subject, said "in a large number, if not a majority, of modern textbooks"

British embryologist Michael Richardson, another reliable source, said "I know of at least fifty recent biology texts."

I did a quick search on Amazon for High School Biology textbooks and randomly picked one. The one that I picked happens to be by Ken Miller and Joe Levine.

I then googled this textbook and authors to see if they had a website. They do. Quoting from their website.

"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!"
http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/embryos/Haeckel.html

Do you still have your high school and college biology textbooks? Open them up. Chances are, Haeckel's fake drawings are in there cited as evidence for common ancestry. Your biology teachers probably mentioned these drawings to you as evidence, but you probably just don't remember. Then again, maybe you got one of the few Biology textbooks that do not include these fake drawings.

Now that this is out, Biology textbooks are finally being updated and they are not including this fudged evidence.

OzmO · « **Reply #24 on:** September 25, 2007, 01:07:03 PM »

Wow, in the mists of all the intellectual elitists snobbery crap there seems to be a whole lots of contradicting stuff on something that's supposed to be such a FACT.

Props to you loco for going to extra mile to research it.

I still believe evolution still exists in some form or another, while it may not be entirely what the "scientists" think it is at the moment.