Haeckel's embryos: Is the Discovery Institute right?

[Jared Jammer]

So in short, both e2iPi and Squawk agree that lying is acceptable as long as you're lying for Darwin.

Disgusting. Absolutely shameful. :roll:

 

[e2iPi]

So in short, both e2iPi and Squawk agree that lying is acceptable as long as you're lying for Darwin.

Disgusting. Absolutely shameful. :roll:

Exactly what about my post allowed your mind to twist it into this ridiculous statement?

 

[bruhaha2]

So in short, both e2iPi and Squawk agree that lying is acceptable as long as you're lying for Darwin.

Disgusting. Absolutely shameful. :roll:

To help you come off as less ignorant, I would at least start by pointing out where they lied and make a reference that proves it or supports it. I also must inform you that evolutionists use a newly designed theory based on Darwin's book Origin of Species. The evolution we know today has been refined and explain in more detail as we have LEARNED and PROVEN more about the theory, instead of GUESSING and making CLAIMS.

Also, people who regard evolution as true don't worship Darwin as you seem to be implying.

 

[ExeFBM]

So in short, both e2iPi and Squawk agree that lying is acceptable as long as you're lying for Darwin.

Disgusting. Absolutely shameful. :roll:

I think what they actually said was that Haeckels embryos could be used as a teaching aid to get across a factual point. The story of Newton observing an apple falling and realising gravity was probably entirely fictional, but it can be used to show the actual truth of gravity.

Photo's have been taken of embryos now. The similarity between different species is readily observable. What Haeckel was showing is demonstrably true. The similarity is not a lie. Think of it as a parable if you prefer

 

[Squawk]

So in short, both e2iPi and Squawk agree that lying is acceptable as long as you're lying for Darwin.

Disgusting. Absolutely shameful. :roll:

Lol, no.

I won't put words into e2iPi's mouth, but my own opinion is that where an error is discovered it is acceptable to leave that error in place IF it does not impact on the truth value of the message being communicated and is appropriate for the situation.

Asserting that Haekels embryos are authentic is dishonest. Any reference to them in the peer reviewed literature should be scorned, and indeed would be if anyone were stupid enough to insist they were accurate. Acknowledgeing that they are faked but that changing them for actual images wouldn't impact the message in a text book is perfectly legitimate.

Now, do you wish to insist that all of Newtons equations should be eliminated from text books because they are in error? It is of course lying to assert that they are accurate as Einstein showed (I chose my scientists carefully in my opening rebuttal to you), they are accurate in certain circumstances (most circumstances actually) or at least give results that are close enough to reality as to be indistinguishable from accurate. I don't see any high school text books telling students they must use the equations of general relativity in their place.

Perhaps you could dissect my post line by line and have it explained to you. Actually a better idea, what would you propose we replace the images of Haekels embryos with? Authentic images showing the same thing?

 

[Vekin]

Eh. Nevermind.

 

[IrBubble]

So in short, both e2iPi and Squawk agree that lying is acceptable as long as you're lying for Darwin.

Disgusting. Absolutely shameful. :roll:

Anyone else smell that? It smells like photons shooting all over the cinema screen! Could this possibly be a projection?

I'll put it in simple terms so you'll understand. There's no point in giving a new driver a formula 1 car in which they are to learn to drive cars in general, it's just harder to understand and being taught how to drive a f1 car does not help your driving if you're not becomming a f1 driver. The same thing applies to biology, why give them accurate pictures in which the similarities might be hard to understand and see instead of giving them an easy to grasp explanation of it?

 

[GoodKat]

So in short, both e2iPi and Squawk agree that lying is acceptable as long as you're lying for Darwin.

Disgusting. Absolutely shameful. :roll:

I wonder if we could get a "don't feed the trolls" smiley.

 

[e2iPi]

I wonder if we could get a "don't feed the trolls" smiley.

Sorry, I sometimes can't help myself - they're so cute

Anywho, I was curious so I went and dug up both my general biology and animal biology books from college, no Haeckel's embryos.
So, then I went and dug up my wife's biology book from college, no Haeckel's embryos.
(yes, we actually kept most of our books, frightening isn't it)
So, in my unscientific survey of three undergraduate level biology texts, I didn't find Haeckel's embryos even mentioned although all three did have a section on embryology.

Oh yeah, these books are almost 20 years old, long before Icons of Evolution was published.

i^2

 

[FCAAP_Dan]

let's not forget that no drawing is real or accurate....it's a drawng. good thing we now have pictures.

 

[Aught3]

My own experience at uni involved the idea of 'ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny' and how it was wrong. The fraudulent embryo drawings were never brought up but we did look at a more recent example of scientific fraud and why it would not be a good idea for us to try it.

There are two separate ideas that stem from gross embryonic comparisons;
One is that the embryos are similar - true
The other is that they show ontogeny recapitulating phylogeny - false