Evidence For And Against Evolution

[YoursTrue]

Gould was accurate in what Haeckel did wrong, but he overstated how wrong he was. This has already been explained to you.

You also need to drop the black and white reasoning. That all but guarantees that you will be wrong since the correct answer is usually somewhere in between.

Gould went too far when he called them fraudulent.

It is not black and white reasoning. The teaching was for decades that Haeckel's drawings were true. So stop saying that point is not true. It is. The drawings of supposed (imagined) embryos were taught as truth, textbooks printed them with the errors for years, and students learned that theory as true. Yet they were not accurate, they were also fictionalized, and at this point, my friend, it is you doing the lying. The correct answer is, as promoted by pro-evolutionists, that Haeckel had deceptive drawings of supposed embryos and while many from the beginning (according to Gould) KNEW something was amiss, and later knew he was wrong, they published them anyway. And taught it to students. For a long time after that. That, my friend, is the truth. You have unwittingly perhaps shown me great truths about human behavior and duplicity. Again I thank you. I don't believe claims of others about prejudice in the field of science any more; you prove it. I can only hope you change your attitude towards truth. I am not asking you to believe what I believe. But admit what is true.

 

[YoursTrue]

Now you are not being honest again. Your own sources say that the drawings were not "imaginary".
...

Really? How about fraudulent then. You are sadly amazing.

 

[YoursTrue]

Do Gould's opinions about Haeckel's imaginary drawings and recapitulation theory matter?
I give Gould credit for being honest there about using the real evidence (not made up) of Haeckel's drawings and subsequent repeating them by educators over the years. Perhaps you didn't understand what I just said.

Gould told the truth about Haeckel's precepts. This is not to say Haeckel was evil. I don't know that. I don't know that much about Haeckel beyond this situation. If your idea of evidence is that which you claim as verifiably true in Haeckel's propositions (case), I'm dropping your class. You don't need to "teach me" more. Your basis for reasoning is gone as far as I am concerned because -- you deny the truth. Either his drawings were correct, or they were not correct. And as you said to me, it truly doesn't matter what you think. The drawings of embryos as yes, he imagined, as having been recapitulated in the womb, were misleading, wrong, and taught as truth for decades. I'm not even up to the fish gills, just the idea that you cannot admit the truth. The drawings are definitely without doubt evidence of his faulty imaginings in that respect. You can say whatever you want about the magnitude of Haeckel's teachings. The true and visible evidence shows his drawings were wrong about recapitulation, again I emphasize, which were taught for years and years as true in the public school system. Either that tells you something about the public school system, or it tells you something about truth not being taught when it is not expedient.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It is not black and white reasoning. The teaching was for decades that Haeckel's drawings were true. So stop saying that point is not true. It is. The drawings of supposed (imagined) embryos were taught as truth, textbooks printed them with the errors for years, and students learned that theory as true. Yet they were not accurate, they were also fictionalized, and at this point, my friend, it is you doing the lying. The correct answer is, as promoted by pro-evolutionists, that Haeckel had deceptive drawings of supposed embryos and while many from the beginning (according to Gould) KNEW something was amiss, and later knew he was wrong, they published them anyway. And taught it to students. For a long time after that. That, my friend, is the truth. You have unwittingly perhaps shown me great truths about human behavior and duplicity. Again I thank you. I don't believe claims of others about prejudice in the field of science any more; you prove it. I can only hope you change your attitude towards truth. I am not asking you to believe what I believe. But admit what is true.

No, Haeckel's claims were refuted rather early. Where do you get this garbage from? He was part of the history of evolution and there still is evidence from his drawings that support evolution. Do you know why? Because we can observe the same traits from photography.

Haeckel was not deceptive. That was a lie. Haeckel was rushed to publish and was a little sloppy. That is all. That was his "sin". He used the same drawing for more than one embryo for an early phase when there was almost no difference. That was the only wrong thing that he did. In later editions, when he had more time, he used individual drawings.


Here is a little info on when Haeckel was refuted:

"According to his Law of Recapitulation, every animal passes through all the stages of its evolutionary history as it develops as an embryo — thus humans would be said to go through single-celled, wormlike, fishlike, reptilelike, shrewlike, and monkey-like phases before becoming truly human. This idea may seem strange now, but it has been repeated to biology students ever since, even though it was largely refuted in the 1920s."

Ernst Haeckel's Refuted Theory of Recapitulation Explored in New Book | Inverse

Since the 1920's his hypothesis would not have been taught since he was wrong. His drawings of embryos were still valid since he had corrected his errors in that one early edition. It was just not evidence for his hypothesis once it was refuted. Yet embryology does support the theory of evolution. Embryology today is done with photographs. Haeckel had to draw and he would emphasize certain points but that was a common thing to do back then. Today you will see features circled, even though "they are not circled in real life".

How Does Embryology Provide Evidence for Evolution?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Gould told the truth about Haeckel's precepts. This is not to say Haeckel was evil. I don't know that. I don't know that much about Haeckel beyond this situation. If your idea of evidence is that which you claim as verifiably true in Haeckel's propositions (case), I'm dropping your class. You don't need to "teach me" more. Your basis for reasoning is gone as far as I am concerned because -- you deny the truth. Either his drawings were correct, or they were not correct. And as you said to me, it truly doesn't matter what you think. The drawings of embryos as yes, he imagined, as having been recapitulated in the womb, were misleading, wrong, and taught as truth for decades. I'm not even up to the fish gills, just the idea that you cannot admit the truth. The drawings are definitely without doubt evidence of his faulty imaginings in that respect. You can say whatever you want about the magnitude of Haeckel's teachings. The true and visible evidence shows his drawings were wrong about recapitulation, again I emphasize, which were taught for years and years as true in the public school system. Either that tells you something about the public school system, or it tells you something about truth not being taught when it is not expedient.

No, Haeckel was merely badly mistaken in parts of his life. His incorrect views were used by bad people at time, but that does not make him evil. The fact that terrorist blow things up at times does not make Nobel evil. And once again his drawings were correct. You still do not understand what he did wrong. Your use of the word "recapitulated" tells us that you do not even know what he proposed.

And you brought up Haeckel again. He is a red herring at this point. Don't you realize that you admit that you are wrong every time that you do this now?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Really? How about fraudulent then. You are sadly amazing.

Nope, you are relying on one overly excited source. Please, just a little honesty. I know that you can do it. You will find that most sources point out that Haeckel was not perfect. He should have taken the time to draw those few embryos that he did not have ready at press time. But that was his only sin. Since there was no attempt to mislead there was no fraud. You do not know the meaning of the terms that you use. His drawings for the most part were correct. You could find nothing wrong with them. You would not know what he did wrong if I did not tell you.

 

[YoursTrue]

Nope, you are relying on one overly excited source. Please, just a little honesty. I know that you can do it. You will find that most sources point out that Haeckel was not perfect. He should have taken the time to draw those few embryos that he did not have ready at press time. But that was his only sin. Since there was no attempt to mislead there was no fraud. You do not know the meaning of the terms that you use. His drawings for the most part were correct. You could find nothing wrong with them. You would not know what he did wrong if I did not tell you.

Gould was an overly excited source about the misinformation promoted and expounded by Haeckel,s this erroneous information shared by publishers of textbooks for decades, is that what you're saying? I am going to do some more research on Haeckel's hypotheses looking at more evidence.

 

[YoursTrue]

Gould was an overly excited source about the misinformation promoted and expounded by Haeckel,s this erroneous information shared by publishers of textbooks for decades, is that what you're saying? I am going to do some more research on Haeckel's hypotheses looking at more evidence.

PS I am not talking only about the drawings promoted by Haeckel, but of the textbook publishers for promoting it. And teaching it as truth. for decades. Even though as you say, Haeckel had his critics, but evidently they were overrun by educators for decades.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Speciation is not necessarily change from -- plants and fish to humans, is it?

Why on earth would you think that?

Macro-evolution is defined as evolution above the level of species. Speciation is when a population evolves to become a different species from the population that birthed. Hence, speciation is macro-evolution.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Gould was an overly excited source about the misinformation promoted and expounded by Haeckel,s this erroneous information shared by publishers of textbooks for decades, is that what you're saying? I am going to do some more research on Haeckel's hypotheses looking at more evidence.

You are now doubling down on your error. Do you think that everyone else does not know what Haeckel did wrong? Seriously?e

And you know the images in textbooks were not erroneous. Why make that claim? Since Haeckel corrected his own error all that was needed was to post the accurate drawings. It appears that Haeckel's evidence is a bit too much for you. Why else would you continue to attack relatively minor evidence for evolution?

 

[Subduction Zone]

PS I am not talking only about the drawings promoted by Haeckel, but of the textbook publishers for promoting it. And teaching it as truth. for decades. Even though as you say, Haeckel had his critics, but evidently they were overrun by educators for decades.

Once again, it was only Haeckel's idea of ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny that was shown to be wrong. His evidence still supported evolution.

Man, there must be something about his illustrations that you find very convincing.

 

[YoursTrue]

Why on earth would you think that?

Just wondering. Because it is said,isn't it, the fish developed in micro?or macro steps to become humans eventually. Or maybe I'm wrong. Maybe it was another line of organisms that doesn't involve fishes that finally became human beings.

Macro-evolution is defined as evolution above the level of species. Speciation is when a population evolves to become a different species from the population that birthed. Hence, speciation is macro-evolution.

Didn't these macro-evolved organisms have to first microevolve? So I can only guess that according to evolutionists, the fossils showing these little changes in complete organisms disappeared. And so the fossils are not there. Well,let me rephrase. Evolutionists have not found these fossils of the inbetween micro type changed organisms yet.

 

[YoursTrue]

Once again, it was only Haeckel's idea of ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny that was shown to be wrong. His evidence still supported evolution.

Man, there must be something about his illustrations that you find very convincing.

Convincing of errors that were promoted for years, that's for sure.

 

[YoursTrue]

You are now doubling down on your error. Do you think that everyone else does not know what Haeckel did wrong? Seriously?e

And you know the images in textbooks were not erroneous. Why make that claim? Since Haeckel corrected his own error all that was needed was to post the accurate drawings. It appears that Haeckel's evidence is a bit too much for you. Why else would you continue to attack relatively minor evidence for evolution?

The minor evidence you speak of was erroneous, and taught for years as truth to unsuspecting students. Don't you believe Stephen Jay Gould about this? He argued that Haeckel "exaggerated the similarities by idealizations and omissions." (idealizations and omissions)
Further, he also argued that Haeckel's drawings are simply inaccurate and falsified. (wikipedia article on embryo drawings, citing Gould's statement.) Don't you believe him on this?
Stephen Jay Gould (March 2000). "Abscheulich! - Atrocious! - the precursor to the theory of natural selection". Natural History.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Just wondering. Because it is said,isn't it, the fish developed in micro?or macro steps to become humans eventually. Or maybe I'm wrong. Maybe it was another line of organisms that doesn't involve fishes that finally became human beings.

Didn't these macro-evolved organisms have to first microevolve? So I can only guess that according to evolutionists, the fossils showing these little changes in complete organisms disappeared. And so the fossils are not there. Well,let me rephrase. Evolutionists have not found these fossils of the inbetween micro type changed organisms yet.

What are you talking about? There are countless transitional fossils. Seriously. You sound like you were looking at the fossils available hundred years ago or so.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Convincing of errors that were promoted for years, that's for sure.

Not really. I am sorry that you won't let yourself understand this.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The minor evidence you speak of was erroneous, and taught for years as truth to unsuspecting students. Don't you believe Stephen Jay Gould about this? He argued that Haeckel "exaggerated the similarities by idealizations and omissions." (idealizations and omissions)
Further, he also argued that Haeckel's drawings are simply inaccurate and falsified. (wikipedia article on embryo drawings, citing Gould's statement.) Don't you believe him on this?
Stephen Jay Gould (March 2000). "Abscheulich! - Atrocious! - the precursor to the theory of natural selection". Natural History.

None of it was "erroneous". Let's go over this again. The only thing that Haeckel did wrong was to rush to publish. For some very early embryos he used the same drawings. That was wrong.

And no, Jay Gould is making the error of applying modern standards when modern equipment did not work. Embryology is still studied today, but today they use photos. Haeckel's approach was wrong but it still is evidence for evolution.

But thank you for continuing to admit that you are wrong.

 

[Subduction Zone]

@YoursTrue we really should go over the concept of evidence so you can see if something is evidence for evolution or not. Or evidence for creationism or not. Please note, it is not one or the other. An observation could conceivably support both ideas or neither.

 

[YoursTrue]

@SZ + -- If the embryos really do pass through all the stages in all the evolutionary stages, have scientists taken out an embryo in a stage of that which is claiming to be fish and kept it alive watching as it fully developed into a fish? If that cannot be done, why do you think it cannot be done? (in other words, that it does not develop into a fish if taken out at that stage and somehow kept alive...) Again, I can only guess the answer is, "because it's a human, passing through a fish stage!"

 

[Subduction Zone]

@SZ + -- If the embryos really do pass through all the stages in all the evolutionary stages, have scientists taken out an embryo in a stage of that which is claiming to be fish and kept it alive watching as it fully developed into a fish? If that cannot be done, why do you think it cannot be done? (in other words, that it does not develop into a fish if taken out at that stage and somehow kept alive...) Again, I can only guess the answer is, "because it's a human, passing through a fish stage!"

They don't. That is where Haeckel was wrong. That does not mean that embryos are not evidence for evolution. You have been wasting your time trying to make a strawman argument.

How long ago did I tell you that "ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny" was refuted a long time ago. It was dead by the 1920's. But like it or not embryos are still evidence for evolution. Haven't you ever heard about someone being right for the wrong reason? That was Haeckel. Embryos are evidence for evolution. They are not evidence for evolution for the reason that Haeckel thought.