The Design Paradigm :: Flock of Dodos fact sheet :: April

April 26, 2006

Flock of Dodos fact sheet

Filed under: Evolution, Intelligent design, Disinformation by Wulfgar

We’ve started a website to catalog some of the false statements and propaganda techniques Randy Olson uses in his documentary, Flock of Dodos.

The whole website can be found here. We’ve included information on the argument from suboptimal design that Olson uses a lot.

In one of our more interesting pages we investigate Olson’s claims that Jonathan Wells lied. As we write:

In Randy Olson’s pseudo-documentary Flock of Dodos, Olson remarks that he has problems with some of John Calvert’s sources. To demonstrate, he asks Calvart about the faked drawings that Jonathan Wells says appears in several evolutionary textbooks. After a prolonged ransacking of Calvart’s library they finally do find Haeckel’s faked drawings — in an old 1914 book whose covers are falling off.

Okie dokie, so Wells is a liar. . . or maybe not. A couple of us had taken evolution classes where we had seen those fake drawings– was Cornell using 1915 textbooks or something more recent? We decided to check out a few biology textbooks to check who was twisting the truth.

Evolutionary Biology (3rd edition © 1998) Haeckel’s faked drawings are actually reproduced without any note to show they are fake (see below). Although there is some discussion in the text of problems with Haeckel’s biogenetic law, the drawing is presented as factually correct.

Read the rest here.

40 Comments »

The URI to TrackBack this entry is: http://designparadigm.blogsome.com/2006/04/26/flock-of-dodos-fact-sheet/trackback/

In Futuyma’s Evolutionary Biology (3rd edition © 1998) Haeckel’s faked drawings are actually reproduced without any note to show they are fake (see below). Although there is some discussion in the text of problems with Haeckel’s biogenetic law, the drawing is presented as factually correct.
Have you still not read the text on the pages of Futuyma’s textbook that you yourself have scanned? Here, let me remind you:

…’Ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny.’By this, Haeckel meant that in the course of its development, an individual successively passes through the adult forms of all its ancestors, from the very origin of the first cell to the present. Haeckel thus supposed that by studying embryology, one could read a species’ phylogenetic history, and therefore infer directly phylogenetic relationships among organisms.

Repeated in biology textbooks ever since, Haeckel’s ‘law’ is one of the most famous maxims in biology. But by the end of the nineteenth century, it was already clear that the law rather seldom holds. The real development of organisms differs in several important ways from Haeckel’s simple scheme (Gould 1977):

1. Adult features of ancestors seldom appear as intermediate stages in the ontogeny of a descendant.

2. Various features develop at different rates, relative to each other, in descendants than in their ancestors.

3. The preadult stages of any organism must grow and survive; to do so, they must require stage-specific adaptations suitable for the particular environment of the species.

4. … the strongest blow to Haeckel’s law was dealt by the discovery of paedomorphic species - species in which the juvenile morphology of the ancestor is retained throughout life… a terminal subtraction of stages of the ancestral ontogeny.
Other questions for you:
Any response yet to the Talk Origins debunking of Wells’ chapter, or Ken Miller’s rebuttal?

So is Olson lying, or is Wells really distorting the case? I think the textbooks themselves make it clear that the answers are “no” and “yes,” respectively.

Comment by Dan — April 26, 2006 @ 2:57 pm
I think this was pretty well adressed on the listserve and I don’t want to go beating a dead horse, so let me know if you still want to argue this. For the record, though, there is a difference in admitting problems with Haeckel’s law and admitting his pictures are fudged.

I’ve read Miller’s page and I think he acknowledges most of the points you’ve been contesting.

Comment by Freawaru — April 26, 2006 @ 5:01 pm
Much has been written on Haeckel, his drawings and his contributions to evolutionary theory. Much of it seems to be beating dead horse.

PZ Myers has already addressed the claims by Wells in some detail http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/wells/haeckel.html

A beautiful phylogeny is represented here: http://www.natcenscied.org/icons/figure08.jpg

As far as the Gishlick commentary is concerned with the pictures of the actual textbooks:

For any textbook to show Haeckel’s drawings themselves as unqualified statements of developmental anatomy or to advocate “recapitulation” in a Haeckelian sense would be inexcusable, but none of the textbooks reviewed by Wells appear to do so. Wells gleefully excoriates Futuyma for using Haeckel’s drawings, but apparently in his fit of righteous indignation, he forgot to read the text, in which the drawings are discussed in a historical context — stating why Haeckel is wrong — and Futuyma has an entire chapter devoted to development and evolution. Guttman uses them in an explicitly historical context as well. Wells states that books use “Haeckel’s drawings, or redrawn versions of them” (Wells 2000:255), but this is not true. Figure 10 shows Haeckel’s drawings compared to the drawings in the textbooks reviewed by Wells. It can be clearly seen that a majority of the drawings are not “redrawn.” Some textbooks show more accurate drawings; some use photos; only Starr and Taggart (and Raven and Johnson in their development chapter along with accurate drawings and photos) use what could be considered embryos “redrawn” from Haeckel. No textbook discusses embryology in any way that could be considered strongly “recapitulationist.” In most textbooks, embryology is presented in just one or two paragraphs, making it hard to discuss all the complexities of development. At a high school level, the aim of the book is to convey some basic concepts of biology, not to confuse students with the complexity of a subject.

For a recent paper looking at Behe and Wells’ claims on von Baer and Haeckel see the following paper

Iconoclasts of Evolution: Haeckel, Behe, Wells and the Ontogeny of a fraud
Publised in THE AMERICAN BIOLOGY TEACHER, VOLUME 67, NO. 5, MAY 2005

Support from embryology has been challenged throughout history in various ways by early critics of evolution including creationists, who now speak under the banner of “Intelligent Design.” Behe (1998) and Wells (1999) claimed that embryological support for Darwinian evolution is based on the drawings of 19th century embryologist Ernst Haeckel (1834-1919). They reiterate Richardson et al.’s (1997) work indicating what has been known since at least 1894 (Sedgwick): Haeckel’s embryological drawings are inaccurate and perhaps fraudulent. Accordingly, Behe (1998) claims that because of this, “ … the problem of development within evolution remains unsolved.” Later, Wells (2000, Chapter 5) claimed that the embryological support for Darwinian evolution is based on the work of another 19th century embryologist, Karl von Baer (1792-1876). Wells says that as von Baer was not a proponent of evolution, so Darwin’s use of his embryological contributions
in support of evolutionary theory is in fact misuse. Later in the same chapter, Wells (2000) claims that von Baer’s laws—which describe continual change and specialization during development—cannot accommodate reality because they do not allow for the Haeckelian notion of a conserved stage midway during development. As we will show, von Baer’s view, and not the subsequent view of a mid-embryological conserved stage, is
overwhelmingly supported by available data. Notwithstanding this, Behe (1998) and Wells (2000) both claim that the alleged existence of a conserved stage midway through development shows, also, that Haeckel’s biogenetic law, “ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny,” is false.

The authors then continue to show that

Here, we describe the history of modern embryology, the roles von Baer and Haeckel played in that history, and how that history relates to the formulation
of Darwin’s theories. In particular, we show:

• the validity, or lack thereof, of Haeckel’s drawings or his “biogenetic law” has no impact on Darwinian evolution because
Darwin published Origin some 15 years before Haeckel’s drawings were published
• Richardson et al.’s (1997) critical claim is that there is no conserved stage during development, and it is incidental that Haeckel’s drawings are in error
• von Baer’s rejection of Darwin’s paradigm is immaterial because his empirical data support Darwin (as happens commonly in science).

What I fail to understand is why ID proponents are still defending Wells’ work?

Comment by PvM — April 26, 2006 @ 5:30 pm
I’m not the one that took it from the listserv to the web/blogs, firstly.

Secondly, the conclusion on the listserv seems to be that Olson was portraying Wells unjustly, and his points are irrelevant; and that Wells portrays evolution unjustly - in a way such that he warrants such criticism.

Where does that leave us? Moving beyond a historical argument, and to a scientific one:
— we’re supposed to be debating biology, not
history, after all. So: ID people, what’s your explanation of the
striking similarity of early embryos of very different animals? Why
do placental mammals have useless, empty yolk sacs? Why should
animals that differ in appearance as adults exhibit similarities as
embryos? Why should human embryos have tails and build their faces from the same embryonic foundation that fish use to build gills?

“Common descent does a great job at explaining this, so since you
don’t accept common descent, what’s your alternate explanation? What
was the designer thinking with those yolk sacs?”

Comment by Dan — April 26, 2006 @ 5:36 pm
Dan, we are actually making a point about history, not about biology.

Comment by Wulfgar — April 26, 2006 @ 6:52 pm
Richardson et al, who documented some of the problems with Haeckel’s drawings comment

Our work has been used in a nationally televised debate to attack evolutionary theory, and to suggest that evolution cannot explain embryology (2). We strongly disagree with this viewpoint. Data from embryology are fully consistent with Darwinian evolution. Haeckel’s famous drawings are a Creationist cause célèbre (3). Early versions show young embryos looking virtually identical in different vertebrate species. On a fundamental level, Haeckel was correct: All vertebrates develop a similar body plan (consisting of notochord, body segments, pharyngeal pouches, and so forth). This shared developmental program reflects shared evolutionary history. It also fits with overwhelming recent evidence that development in different animals is controlled by common genetic mechanisms (4).

Letters Science 15 May 1998: Vol. 280. no. 5366, p. 983

They also comment on how Haeckel’s pictures are being used in some textbooks

Haeckel’s drawings are used in many modern textbooks, but not always as primary evidence for evolution. In Molecular Biology of the Cell (6), the drawings are used mainly to support hypotheses about the stages of development acted on by natural selection. It is only in this limited context that we have reservations about the implications of the drawings. Thus, certain “phylotypic” embryonic stages, which Haeckel showed as identical, may in fact be significant targets for natural selection.

They conclude that

Haeckel’s inaccuracies damage his credibility, but they do not invalidate the mass of published evidence for Darwinian evolution. Ironically, had Haeckel drawn the embryos accurately, his first two valid points in favor of evolution would have been better demonstrated.

I think that it is important to determine not only that the pictures are used but also how they are being used in textbooks.

The problem that I have with Wells is that he went much further than pointing out that there were problems with these pictures.

Alberts text states

The text states that “early developmental stages of animals whose adult forms appear radically different are often surprisingly similar,” and that Darwinian evolution explains why “embryos of different species so often resemble each other in their early stages and, as they develop, seem sometimes to replay the steps of evolution.”

http://www.boundless.org/2000/departments/pages/a0000367.html

Alberts responded as follows:

In an interview, Dr. Alberts said he believed Haeckel’s drawings were “overinterpreted,” or highly idealized, rather than outright fakes. But he said they would be removed from the fourth edition of the textbook, to appear at the end of this year.

Comment by PvM — April 26, 2006 @ 7:29 pm
Examples of Arguing from Suboptimal Design in Flock of Dodos

* The rabbit who eats excreted pellets
* The human heart

We respond to a variant of this argument at the IDEA Cornell objections page:

How can anyone believe in Intelligent Design when there are, for example, viruses that cause so much harm?

This common objection has its basis in religion, not science. It assumes first of all that the designer, if there is one, must be completely benevolent. This is a claim that ID theory does not make, i.e., this is not science, but religion. Moreover it also assumes that all the purposes of this benevolent designer are completely understood by us, this is neither science nor religion, but arrogant foolishness.

Sub-optimal design, as well as the appearance of evil in nature needs an explanation. IDers argues that ID says nothing about the designer(s) or their motives/capabilities etc and yet we can infer much of this via reverse engineering nature. ID thus has two problems: 1) in order to present scientific hypotheses it needs to understand how to limit its designer(s) 2) it cannot find such guidance from science or first principles without resorting to for instance theology.

This is a significant problem for ID. Many of the IDers are Christians and thus see evidence for design founded in a Christian tradition. If that is the case then ID needs to explain the observations in nature or the alternative is that ID accepts that it cannot make any predictions in this area and accept the observations as ways to understand the motivations and capabilities and interests of the ‘designers’.
Interestingly enough, working from the evidence alone, there seems to be a much better case for multiple designers as outlined by Richard B Hoppe (http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2004/09/introduction_to.html)

In other words, addressing sub-optimal design seems quite a relevant topic since it requires explanations by those who believe their designer is God and it requires explanations by those who hold that the nature of the designer cannot be addressed. And yet, based on the data we can make some hypotheses about the designer(s) and what may motivate them.

Comment by PvM — April 26, 2006 @ 8:06 pm
Dan–
Sure, we usually discuss biology, not history; but we didn’t like seeing someone slandered. This particular topic was definitely history (revisionist history in particular). As far as your conclusions:

Secondly, the conclusion on the listserv seems to be that Olson was portraying Wells unjustly, and his points are irrelevant; and that Wells portrays evolution unjustly - in a way such that he warrants such criticism.

I would agree with the first part of this statement, but we haven’t reached any consensus on the second, and supposing it was true, it doesn’t entail the third. Because someone is wrong in one particular area doesn’t warrant “such criticism” where the criticism in question is quite simply, lies; it warrants only criticism that is actually valid.
Olson was perfectly free to bring whatever real criticism he wanted to against Wells. Instead he appears to have decided to make things up.

Comment by Freawaru — April 26, 2006 @ 8:48 pm
Sure, we usually discuss biology, not history; but we didn’t like seeing someone slandered.
Yet, any such slander appears of the most trivial kind - Is Wells misrepresenting embryology and evolution in Icons of Evolution? Yes, he his, and badly. That was Olson’s point.

It still certainly seems that Wells’ mistakes are quite acceptable to you, while Olson’s exposure of the farce that Wells puts out there is unacceptable. Where’s the logic in that?

Basically, my point is, why are you still defending Wells when he clearly has it coming?

Comment by Dan — April 26, 2006 @ 10:05 pm
Dan–

I haven’t seen any documentation of misinformation on Wells’ part, so that is right now no more than an unsupported accusation which may or may not be true. I have seen documentation of Olson’s misinformation.

And no, I wouldn’t call what Olson did trivial. He didn’t consider it trivial either; he considered it a charge serious enough to completely destroy Wells’ credibility. Which means, if it is a lie, it is slander of a very serious kind.

Comment by Freawaru — April 26, 2006 @ 10:29 pm
I haven’t seen any documentation of misinformation on Wells’ part
Then you missed several of my emails where I talked about the Talk Origins article by PZ Meyers - he details Wells’ tricks nicely - my only wish about it was that Meyers should have directly quoted Wells, instead of interpreting it.

Now, I think you’ve shown that the drawings may have been used once or twice in various textbooks as accurate, but the evidence has also shown that the textbooks we’ve been discussing both note that Haeckel was wrong, and that the drawings (fudged or not) bear strong resemblance to actual embryological images anyway.

So basically, you’re still complaining that they used the drawings at all. And you’re right. But it’s not the terrible afront that you’re making it out to be - not even close.

Comment by Dan — April 26, 2006 @ 10:57 pm
Freawaru and Dan,

Could we not refer to the discussions on the listserve? I realize that Freawaru referred to them first, but I don’t think they’re helpful. I also think it’s important to keep the listserve and meeting discussions seperate from the blog discussions

Comment by Wulfgar — April 27, 2006 @ 6:03 am
I haven’t seen any documentation of misinformation on Wells’ part, so that is right now no more than an unsupported accusation which may or may not be true.

Interesting. I have seen quite a few papers, powerpoint presentations and websites showing the major problems with Wells’ arguments.

Which leads me to my question: Why would IDers still use such flawed arguments when they have been shown to be without much relevance?

Check out the paper I referenced about Behe, Wells and the ontogeny of a fraud which shows what’s wrong with Wells and Behe’s arguments.
I was sort of hoping to discuss this with IDers and perhaps MacNeill may want to take on this project as it may help understand why some IDers cling to poor science (for instance Wells on Icons, and Meyer on the Cambrian?)

Could anyone help me understand?

Comment by PvM — April 27, 2006 @ 6:19 am
Wulfgar–
Sure; sorry for starting that.

PvM (and Dan)–
I’m afraid I haven’t been able to follow all the links I’ve been given this week, simply trying to keep my head above water with classes. So please don’t make up any conspiracy theories :) about why I haven’t seen your favorite piece of evidence. When I get a chance (soon, hopefully! almost everything for the week is turned in) I’ll see if I can look at both sides and convince myself one way or the other; whether Wells is a) accurate and relevant b) accurate but irrelevant, or c) inaccurate or lying.

Why would IDers still use such flawed arguments when they have been shown to be without much relevance?

As I said, I don’t have a position on whether they are relevant or not; or even accurate or not. So it might be a better question for someone who has actually been using those arguments, as I expect they would have reasons for doing so. Our IDEA Club hasn’t.

Just so I know when I’m looking at the articles you reference– is your position b) or c) above?

Comment by Freawaru — April 27, 2006 @ 12:25 pm
PvM–
Another question; do you agree with the Gishlick commentary on Futuyma which you pasted above? The pages in question are scanned in on the website, with the surrounding text. Can you point to anywhere that might suggest the drawing was inaccurate? It seems to me– and I have read the text– that, though problems with Haeckel’s law are discussed, his drawings are given as completely factual.

Comment by Freawaru — April 27, 2006 @ 12:32 pm
“Can you point to anywhere that might suggest the drawing was inaccurate? It seems to me– and I have read the text– that, though problems with Haeckel’s law are discussed, his drawings are given as completely factual.”

Well, which is more important? The drawings being impeccably accurate, or Haeckel’s being wrong? From the point of view of teaching science, the answer seems clear to me.

This reminds me an awful lot of the peppered moths arguments. “The photos of the moths used as illustrations in textbooks don’t jive with the observations made by the researchers drawing the conclusions given in the text! Therefore the original observations and conclusions are false!”

Comment by Don Baccus — April 27, 2006 @ 5:00 pm
Don, you seem to think we are making a blanket case that everything taught in evolution textbooks is known to be wrong (or at least badly misleading); but that isn’t the case at all. The textbook presented fudged data as factual (in Futuyma, to lend support to von Baer’s law).
Their treatment of Haeckel’s law or another of the hundred subjects covered may be laudable, but that really is irrelevant. In general, I expect my textbooks not to print lies. It is the exceptions to that rule, and not the places where they are accurate, that are noteworthy.

Comment by Freawaru — April 27, 2006 @ 5:10 pm
Can you point to anywhere that might suggest the drawing was inaccurate? It seems to me– and I have read the text– that, though problems with Haeckel’s law are discussed, his drawings are given as completely factual.

Are they? Or are they presented as a historical example without realizing that Haeckel had presented a later version which was more accurate? Perhaps the text remains silent one way or the other while pointing out that Haeckel’s hypothesis was a flawed one?

Don: This reminds me an awful lot of the peppered moths arguments. “The photos of the moths used as illustrations in textbooks don’t jive with the observations made by the researchers drawing the conclusions given in the text! Therefore the original observations and conclusions are false!”

Yes!!! Moths do not typically rest side by side on a tree trunk, heck few moths have been found in their natural hiding/resting places. The photos, staged or not, serve to help students understand how a difference in visibility affects predation. Majerus has done some additional research in UVlight, where birds can see, and looked at more likely resting places and found basically similar findings as to the relevant crypsis offered.
How often does science simplify matters for didactic purposes? Linear laws? Even Newtonian physics is merely an approximation of the truth.
Thus it is regrettable that such arguments are used to distract from the importance of the work by Haeckel as well as Kettlewell et al.
It’s even more regrettable when poor arguments are made based on these data. Check out the paper I provided on ontogeny of a fraud.

Comment by PvM — April 27, 2006 @ 7:15 pm
PVM:Thus it is regrettable that such arguments are used to distract from the importance of the work by Haeckel as well as Kettlewell et al.

It’s swiftboating, pure and simple …

Comment by Don Baccus — April 27, 2006 @ 9:35 pm
Are they? Or are they presented as a historical example without realizing that Haeckel had presented a later version which was more accurate? Perhaps the text remains silent one way or the other while pointing out that Haeckel’s hypothesis was a flawed one?

PvM– No need to be hypothetical; the text of those pages can be read on the website. They are not presented as a historical example, they are presented as an example of what embryos look like.

But what do you mean by suggesting that the text “remains silent” one way or another? How can a textbook remain silent about illustrations it presents? Surely it is only reasonable to assume that if a textbook presents information without a note to the contrary, it is meant to be factual?

Comment by Freawaru — April 29, 2006 @ 2:14 pm
PvM– No need to be hypothetical; the text of those pages can be read on the website. They are not presented as a historical example, they are presented as an example of what embryos look like.

And they are wrong in overemphasizing similarities.

But what do you mean by suggesting that the text “remains silent” one way or another? How can a textbook remain silent about illustrations it presents? Surely it is only reasonable to assume that if a textbook presents information without a note to the contrary, it is meant to be factual?

So if the textbook does not state that the photos of lets say the moths are ’staged’ then it remains silent on such an irrelevant issue. Textbooks oversimplify science all the time. Does this suddently make the books fraudulent? Or worse as Wells seems to suggest, evidence of the flawed nature of evolutionary theory?

Comment by PvM — April 29, 2006 @ 6:05 pm
From the website you cited we find

For any textbook to show Haeckel’s drawings themselves as unqualified statements of developmental anatomy or to advocate “recapitulation” in a Haeckelian sense would be inexcusable, but none of the textbooks reviewed by Wells appear to do so. Wells gleefully excoriates Futuyma for using Haeckel’s drawings, but apparently in his fit of righteous indignation, he forgot to read the text, in which the drawings are discussed in a historical context — stating why Haeckel is wrong — and Futuyma has an entire chapter devoted to development and evolution. Guttman uses them in an explicitly historical context as well.
Both books use them in an explicitly historical context.

Wells states that books use “Haeckel’s drawings, or redrawn versions of them” (Wells 2000:255), but this is not true. Figure 10 shows Haeckel’s drawings compared to the drawings in the textbooks reviewed by Wells. It can be clearly seen that a majority of the drawings are not “redrawn.” Some textbooks show more accurate drawings; some use photos; only Starr and Taggart (and Raven and Johnson in their development chapter along with accurate drawings and photos) use what could be considered embryos “redrawn” from Haeckel. No textbook discusses embryology in any way that could be considered strongly “recapitulationist.” In most textbooks, embryology is presented in just one or two paragraphs, making it hard to discuss all the complexities of development. At a high school level, the aim of the book is to convey some basic concepts of biology, not to confuse students with the complexity of a subject.

Comment by PvM — April 29, 2006 @ 6:09 pm
Much has been written on Haeckel, his drawings and his contributions to evolutionary theory. Much of it seems to be beating dead horse.

Given the proto-Nazi nature of those with Haeckel’s urge to merge we might want to beat the horse a little more just to make sure that it is dead or just beat it for the hell of it. It seems that some horses that will not be led to water keep living on, even in textbooks that are supposed to be peer-reviewed and supposedly so very hard to get published given how rigorous peer-review is these days.

PZ Myers has already addressed the claims by Wells in some detail http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/wells/haeckel.html

Ironically, Myers makes a charlatan of himself because he just cannot resist the old gill-slit canard. It seems that he has the same urge to merge that Haeckel did.

A beautiful phylogeny is represented here: http://www.natcenscied.org/icons/figure08.jpg

It’s interesting how those who have gone out into Nature looking for any possible similarities are reduced to embryos and even there are reduced to arguments that may as well be as vacuous as: “When things are small they seem the same. This means that everything shares something in common, or somethin’.”

Myers:

Wells is flogging a dead horse by exclusively bashing Haeckel’s explanation, and ignoring modern ideas. Furthermore, he is not making any contribution to our understanding of why vertebrates develop the way that they do. Why should animals that differ in appearance as adults exhibit similarities as embryos? Why should human embryos have tails and build their faces from the same embryonic foundation that fish use to build gills? These are questions that Wells fails to address, and his approach seems to be to try to argue instead that they do not exhibit similarities as embryos. Yet they do. These similarities argue for common ancestry.
More importantly, why should animals develope and build themselves from similar sperm and ovum? I suppose that such a fact can be linked to the notion that there was once a general common sea of sperm and ovum that all have descendend from. So an original sea of sperm and ovum from which all sperm and ovum descended cannot be denied and is verified by the fact of organisms going through such a stage. Given that this is settled based on the overwhelming evidence of the existence of every single sperm and ovum currently, the only question remaining is which was the ancestor of the other originally…the sperm or the ovum?

Maybe Myers has the answer, I liked his rank speculation about the reproductive system that had to be propped up by mixing in some negative theology just as fans of linking ontogony to phylogeny here also have to prop up their inane arguments with “Why? Why? Why would God?”. Myers negative theology, “Why would God make the reproductive system so close to the excretory system?” The real question, why didn’t God let Myers come into being with his excretory system closer to his brains so that what is already true of him metaphorically might be true of him physically, all scientific like. At any rate, remember not to say that “ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny,” even if you’re essentially still trying to link the two in very similar ways. Is it really so hard to figure out why Wells would think that the facts undermine Darwinism given that Darwinists are still making still making same arguments?

Note what they’re reduced to, from gill-slits to: “Why should human embryos have tails and build their faces from the same embryonic foundation that fish use to build gills?”

The same embryonic foundation….wow, these little fellows have come a long way to be reduced to this. Hmmm, why should Myers and I go through a similar pattern of development? Am I ancestral to him or he to me based on the “This looks a little like that or somethin’.” type of overwhelming evidence that is typical to Darwinists?

Comment by mynym — April 30, 2006 @ 5:51 pm
Myers: “The differences…are not a problem for modern formulations of evolution. […] The deep similarities in the process of development for all vertebrates support the idea that they are part of a common lineage; furthermore, progress in the molecular biology of development has been steadily confirming even greater homologies-it is simply not an option to even suggest that these organisms did not have a common ancestor.”

Every similarity is included as evidence of a comon ancestor, no matter how ridiculous the reasoning has to be to do so, while every difference is discarded.

Apparently there is no difference that is a problem for the hypothetical goo used by those with the urge to merge, so any similarites can be mounded up into supposed mountains of evidence and all difference discarded. This sort of epistemic standard may be why some horses that are supposed to be dead seem to keep on running. I suppose this sort of unfalsifiable reasoning is to be expected from those who have set epistemic standards in which their own imaginations is included as evidence. Too bad that given their original standard most of the evidence is all in their imagination.

Comment by mynym — April 30, 2006 @ 6:13 pm
“More importantly, why should animals develope and build themselves from similar sperm and ovum? I suppose that such a fact can be linked to the notion that there was once a general common sea of sperm and ovum that all have descendend from. So an original sea of sperm and ovum from which all sperm and ovum descended cannot be denied and is verified by the fact of organisms going through such a stage. Given that this is settled based on the overwhelming evidence of the existence of every single sperm and ovum currently, the only question remaining is which was the ancestor of the other originally…the sperm or the ovum?”

All I can say is … “huh?”

Is this some sort of parody?

“a general common sea of sperm and ovum”? Where do you get that from?

Not science. That’s for sure. If you build crazy strawmen to knock down no one’s going to pay much attention to you …

Comment by Don Baccus — April 30, 2006 @ 11:34 pm
Every similarity is included as evidence of a comon ancestor, no matter how ridiculous the reasoning has to be to do so, while every difference is discarded.

that of course is incorrect. Let’s not create strawmen to knock down shall we? If you want to object to common descent then at least do it with scientific arguments and supporting evidence, rather than rethoric which exposes your unfamiliarity with these issues.

Comment by PvM — April 30, 2006 @ 11:41 pm
“Hmmm, why should Myers and I go through a similar pattern of development? Am I ancestral to him or he to me…”

Someone seems to have tripped over the simple phrase “common descent”. You and Myers share a common ancestor, you’re not one of you ancestral to the other.

Comment by Don Baccus — May 1, 2006 @ 12:34 am
All I can say is … “huh?”

Is this some sort of parody?

A satire of Darwinian reasoning….how about another favorite: “If I can imagine a way of this happening in a way that I label natural, then that is evidence it happened that way. If I can’t imagine things, then my theory will absolutely break down!”

You think that is satire? The satire writes itself if you begin with the material of satire.

As for my other, what, you don’t believe that the “common foundation” and similarity of things beginning as sperm and ovum reveals an ancient “common ancestry” that reveals the mystery of the origins of all form?

that of course is incorrect.

No, his text says that he’s looking for similarities while using the hypothetical goo typical Darwinism to overcome any differences. It’s litle wonder that some little fellows are overwhelmed by it all. That is also what he is doing when he goes through Nature looking for what “look like” similarities to him and relying on his own imagination if it doesn’t look the right way. The ironic thing about this sort of Darwinian reasoning: “This looks a little like that or somethin’, so that means they are related somehow…uh, like gravity. Did you know that the earth revolves around the sun? Well, I do!” is that they are the same people who have a problem with ID types finding evidence of design because things “look like” they are designed.

Let’s not create strawmen to knock down shall we? If you want to object to common descent then at least do it with scientific arguments and supporting evidence, rather than rethoric which exposes your unfamiliarity with these issues.

That seems to be charlatanism and implications about knowledge that you do not have when it comes to embryos, mainly because no one really knows why embryos develope and come together in the forms that they do. If I was frightened by charlatanism then I wouldn’t still be debating these issues because nerds always rely on charlatanism and people in science tend to be nerds. Not that there’s anything wrong with that. It’s their own pattern of development, don’t you know. But wow, the power of oknowledge and “Oh, I know more than you, trust me!” is all so overwhelming. Go on, overwhelm me, I’m waiting.

I know that you would already be refuting my arguments or picking apart my satires if you could. They’re far, far too close to the truth, is the problem. This can easily be verified by Darwinists’ own texts although any critic finds themselves arguing things like, “This is not a caricature.” For instance, there is little difference between my satiric summary of Darwin’s argument in which he includes his own imagination as evidence of his theory and the degenerate epistemic standards of evidence that Darwinists use to this day.

“Someone seems to have tripped over the simple phrase “common descent”. You and Myers share a common ancestor, you’re not one of you ancestral to the other.”

Do you admit that evidence sifted from or imagined about similarities between embryos may have little to do with how common ancestry is or what ancestral relationships are? I’ll grant you that Darwinists seldom ever trace back descent in an actual lineage of ancestry or make actual specific statements about ancestry, just a general “commonality” is good enough for those with the urge to merge. For them going through Nature and looking for any similarities among millions of organisms is usually enough. Then there are cases like this where it is not apparent why anyone should assume along with them that for some reason embryos must contain some sort of remnants of their ancestry that disappears later in development. Again, what would similarities or differences between my embryo and Myers actually mean about our family relationship?

It seems that Darwinists are imagining things and claiming their own imaginations as evidence again, making it easy on themselves this time by picking forms of life like embryos where forms seem easier to merge or blurr. Does the evidence at issue here such as the similarity of our embryos have any relevance when it comes to establishing family relationships? Only in trivially true ways that are reliant on a recognition of “form of life” and then assuming family relationships, nothing is actually being derived from similarities between embryonic form except that which is already recognized, while the empirical facts indicate that there is more to the development of embryos and their form than genes.

Comment by mynym — May 1, 2006 @ 2:28 am
PvM– what exactly are you disputing? In one post you seem to say, in response to my “they are not presented as a historical example, they are presented as an example of what embryos look like.”

And they are wrong in overemphasizing similarities.

And then you appear to wish to change the subject and discuss moths.

But in the next post you seem to go back on this, and claim again:

Both books use them in an explicitly historical context.

as if the use in Futuyma and similar textbooks was entirely legitimate. Are you simply reading and quoting random articles on the controversy from Myers and others, or have you read the pages in question? The historical context of Haeckel’s law is discussed, yes. But the pictures are not presented as historical, they are given as a factual illustration of a valid biological law.

Comment by Freawaru — May 1, 2006 @ 2:28 am
Are you simply reading and quoting random articles on the controversy from Myers and others, or have you read the pages in question? The historical context of Haeckel’s law is discussed, yes. But the pictures are not presented as historical, they are given as a factual illustration of a valid biological law.

If they are a factual illustration of a valid biological law then what is the problem?
I fail to see the problem here…
And no I am not changing the topic to moths, I am merely pointing out how similar strawmen are used to attack the moths story.

Comment by PvM — May 1, 2006 @ 3:49 pm
If they are a factual illustration of a valid biological law then what is the problem?
I fail to see the problem here…

Of course you do, Haeckel failed to see the problem too:

After this compromising confession of ‘forgery’ I should be obliged to consider myself ‘condemned and annihilated’ if I had not the consolation of seeing side by side with me in the prisoner’s dock hundreds of fellow-culprits, among many of the most trusted observers and esteemed biologists. The great majority of all of the diagrams in the best biological text books, treatises and journals would incur in the same degree the charge of ‘forgery’, for all of them are inexact, and are more or less doctored, schematized and constructed.
–Haeckel cf. Haeckel’s Frauds and Forgeries by J. Assmuth (Emphasis added)

It seems that anyone working to correct such things has to work against charlatans such as yourself who rather feverishly work to prop up the old charades. Why not just let them die, don’t you have “overwhelming evidence” to shift to? Creationists have noted:

The university textbook referred to above claims that ‘human embryos possess gill slits like a fish,’ although it has been known for many decades that humans embryos never have ‘gill slits.’ There are markings on a human embryo which superficially look like the ‘gill slits’ on a fish embryo. These ‘pharyngeal clefts,’ as they are more properly called, which delineate ‘throat pouches,’ never have any breathing function, and are never ‘slits’ or openings. They develop into the thymus gland, parathyroid glands and middle ear canals—none of which has anything to do with breathing, under water or above water!
Specialist embryology textbooks acknowledge that human embryos do not have gill slits. For example, Langman said,

‘Since the human embryo never has gills—branchia—the term pharyngeal arches and clefts has been adopted in this book.’14
However, most evolutionists still use the term ‘gill slits,’ especially in public presentations and when teaching students. The term prevails in school and university textbooks.
AiG

And no I am not changing the topic to moths, I am merely pointing out how similar strawmen are used to attack the moths story.

Strawmen? Only if you and Myers are made of straw, you still cite the same intellectually degenerate arguments that are apparently based in little more than the neurosis that is typical to those looking to crawl back in the womb of Mommy Nature.

This clinging to frauds seems to have more to do with shaping the worldview of the youth than much else, which is appropriate given Haeckel’s history in proto-Nazis times, e.g.:

I remember vividly a scene during a school picnic when I stood surrounded by a group of schoolboys to whom I expounded the gospel of Darwinism as Haeckel saw it.Goldschmidt claims that his experience of embracing this Darwinian worldview…was typical for educated young people of his day, and abundant testimony from his contemporaries confirms this. In 1921 the physiologist Max Verworn stated, “One can state without exaggeration that no scientist has exercised a greater influence on the development of our contemporary worldview than Haeckel.”

Ernst Haeckel, the most famous German Darwinist of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, enthusiastically adopted Darwin’s theory of natural selection and applied the struggle for existence to humans in many of his writings. He believed the most important aspect of Darwinism was the animal ancestry of humans, which would “bring forth a complete revolution in the entire worldview of humanity.”
(From Darwin to Hitler: Evolutionary Ethics, Eugenics and Racism in Germany
by Richard Weikart :11)

The prophet of “biological thinking,” that is only appropriate given that he sought to invert what goes on in the womb:

To be sure, other movements, Marxism and Soviet Communism, for instance, have also claimed scientific validity. But only the Nazis have seen themselves as products and practitioners of the science of life and life processes—as biologically ordained guides to their own and the world’s biological destiny. Whatever their hubris, and whatever the elements of pseudo science and scientism in what they actually did, they identified themselves with the science of their time…..
The contribution of the actual scientific tradition to this ethos was exemplified by the quintessentially German figure of Ernst Haeckel, that formidable biologist and convert to Darwinism who combined with ardent advocacy of the Volk and romantic nationalism, racial regeneration, and anti-Semitism. He was to become what Daniel Gasman has called ‘Germany’s major prophet of political biology.’
(The Nazi Doctors: Medical Killing and the
Psychology of Genocide
By Robert Jay Lifton :441)

Apparently the urge to merge is a sort of recurrent neurosis and so some horses that are supposedly dead have to keep on being beaten to death over and over again, otherwise charlatans such as PZ Myers try to revive them. It’s rather pathetic in a way to see you and Myers dragging these old dead horses around pretending that they yet have life in them, then demanding that they not be beaten on again. Quit dragging them around and maybe people will not have to beat a dead horse.

Comment by mynym — May 2, 2006 @ 1:16 am
mynym, I appreciate y9our need for ad hominems to respond to my inquiries, it underlines my observations about ID being scienfically vacuous.
Nice strawmen btw. But nothing to address the issue really. Are there any ID proponents who feel that Mynym is ‘out of line’ with his accusations and insinuations? Or is this to be expected?

Comment by PvM — May 2, 2006 @ 8:18 am
Mynym– let’s stick to arguments about the issues at hand; calling someone else a charlatan doesn’t help to support your case.

PvM–

If they are a factual illustration of a valid biological law then what is the problem?

The problem is that they are given as a factual illustration of a valid law, when in fact they nonfactual and fudged.

Comment by Freawaru — May 2, 2006 @ 10:59 am
If they are a factual illustration of a valid biological law then what is the problem?

The problem is that they are given as a factual illustration of a valid law, when in fact they nonfactual and fudged.

Ok, now I am confused, what valid law are they supposed to support? Recapitulation? Or Baer’s law?

Haeckel’s “Ontogeny recapitulates Phylogeny” idea was based on his drawings and was quickly discarded.

In spite of this, the embryonic development still shows some clear traces of its evolutionary past, such as the “gill slits” or to use a better term “pharyngeal slits” other examples include the yolk sac.

von Baer’s law

Von Baer’s Law

Early developmental stages of a characteristic tend to be more similar among related species than later stages. This means that most characteristics that differentiate taxa, and which are commonly used to distinguish among species, represent later modifications to a fundamentally similar developmental plan. Von Baer’s Law states that structures that form early in development are more widely distributed among groups of organisms than structures that arise later in development.

So I am still not sure as to what you are saying here.

Comment by PvM — May 2, 2006 @ 3:54 pm
So I am still not sure as to what you are saying here.

Okay, I’ll try to make it clearer :). If you look at the two page spread you see that two things are discussed; von Baer’s law and Haeckel’s law. Moreover, you see the drawing of Haeckel’s embryos. These drawings have been acknowledged to be fudged, but the text presents them as factual. The caption for the picture reads

An illustration of von Baer’s law: three stages in the development of several vertebrates. All the vertebrate classes share many common features early in development; many distinguishing features of the classes and orders appear later (from Romanes 1901.)

Therefere, the drawings were used in a non-historical context, contrary to Olson’s claim. That is where the problem lies.

Comment by Freawaru — May 2, 2006 @ 6:58 pm
Freawaru,
You’re still missing the point: the faked aspects of the drawings are minimal and insignificant - sitting here comparing the drawings to actual embryological images, I’m hard-pressed (as a non-embryologist, yet still a biologist) to find differences that are not attributible to mere unskillful drawing.

There are two issues here, perhaps: first, there are the details that are faked, and this is admitted; second, the texts are trying to discuss actual embryology - despite these two aspects of the texts, you’re claiming that because they discuss aspects of the drawings that are factual, they’re showing the drawings as implicit fact, which is a completely untenable dichotomy.

So, once again, while a picture is better than a sketch (faked or flawless), what’s so heinous about using drawings that, however faked, still look pretty damn close to the real thing, and support the point that the authors are trying to make (keeping the printing costs down)?

Comment by Dan — May 2, 2006 @ 7:50 pm
I guess I don’t see what is so insignificant about using faked data in textbooks. Usually I trust mine; if I have a diagram or picture in one of my textbooks that is supposed to represent the way things are in real life, I think I have warrant to believe it and draw conclusions from it. I even think those conclusions are well-supported. Putting fudged drawings in does away with a good deal of student trust– trust that is almost essential to learning.

But surely I’m not the only one who thinks it’s not-entirely-normal - what about this quote from S. J. Gould that was floating around?

“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.”

You also said:

you’re claiming that because they discuss aspects of the drawings that are factual, they’re showing the drawings as implicit fact, which is a completely untenable dichotomy.

No. But diagrams and pictures in textbooks are by default ‘implicit facts’. If you want to use fudged data, you have to put a note in saying it’s fudged. Just saying “Well, I never claimed anywhere it was completely factual!” is a pretty poor defense.

Comment by Freawaru — May 2, 2006 @ 9:42 pm
I guess I don’t see what is so insignificant about using faked data in textbooks
Ok, let’s try this approach - can you tell us specifically what aspects of the drawings were faked, and why these details preclude using the drawings.

Because, like I said, I have a hard time picking out the difference between drawings and images myself.

Comment by Dan — May 2, 2006 @ 9:49 pm
I guess I don’t see what is so insignificant about using faked data in textbooks. Usually I trust mine; if I have a diagram or picture in one of my textbooks that is supposed to represent the way things are in real life, I think I have warrant to believe it and draw conclusions from it.

Then you will be in for a surprise when you come to realize that textbooks, for educational reasons often simplify pictures and representations. Sigh… the attempts by ID to somehow paint evolution with a broad brush because the textbooks are somehow showing ‘frauds’ such as the Haeckel pictures or the the peppered moths that somehow evolutionary science is suspect.

Sure mindless recycling is a problem I wonder however if you realize how appropriate this statement may be to ID?
And yes, I am also not happy with the use of these pictures because they provide detractors with unnecessary ammunition.

“Well, I never claimed anywhere it was completely factual!” is a pretty poor defense.

And so you reject Newtonian physics, linearization of natural laws etc…

Ok, let’s try this approach - can you tell us specifically what aspects of the drawings were faked, and why these details preclude using the drawings.

Since Haeckel believed in ontogeny repeats recapitulation he overemphasized similarities and underemphasized differences. So he made the gill slits (pharyngeal pouches) appear to be too similar and he did not include examples of embryos which showed stronger dissimilarity.

Haeckel was attacked quite aggressively in his own days by some and many myths about him remain amongst creationists such as his supposed conviction of fraud. One of his most vocal detractors was His. In fact Haeckel did both respond to his accusers as well as updated his pictures.

As for Haeckel himself, he responded to some of these accusations in the preface to the third edition of his book The Evolution of Man:

Many naturalists have especially blamed the diagrammatic figures given in the Anthropogeny [The Evolution of Man]. Certain technical embryologists have brought most severe accusations against me on this account, and have advised me to substitute a larger number of the elaborated figures, as accurate as possible. I, however, consider that diagrams are much more instructive than such figures, especially in popular scientific works. For each simple diagrammatic figure gives only those essential form-features which it is intended to explain, and omits all those unessential details which in finished, exact figures, generally rather disturbed and confuse than instruct and explain. The more complex are the form-features, the more do simple diagrams help to make them intelligible. For this reason, the few diagrammatic figures, simple and rough as they were, with which Baer half a century ago accompanied his well-known-known “History of the Evolution of Animals,” have been more serviceable in rendering the matter intelligible than all the numerous and very careful figures, elaborated with the aid of camera lucida, which now adorn the splendid and costly atlases of His, Goette, and others. If it is said it that my diagrammatic figures are “Inaccurate,” and a charge of “falsifying science” is brought against me, this is equally true of all the very numerous diagrams which are daily used in teaching. All diagrammatic figures are “inaccurate.” (Haeckel 1876)

Though Haeckel defended the relative accuracy of his figures he nevertheless modified them in later editions of his book to make them more technically accurate, a fact even noted by Haeckel’s modern critic Michael Richardson. (Richardson 1998, p.1289) While it might be true that in hindsight both Haeckel and His’s figures were not always entirely accurate, none of the minor errors they may contain once corrected change the status of the evidence they illustrate for evolution.

see http://www.antievolution.org/topics/law/ar_hb2548/Haeckels_embryos.htm

Hope this clarifies this.
And read the following pdf http://nsmserver2.fullerton.edu/departments/chemistry/Evolution_creation/Web/Iconoclasts.pdf

which shows how Wells and Behe seem to have misunderstood Haeckel, von Baer and Darwin…
Sadly enough many myths have caused people to accept them as factual.
Just check out the confusion of many creationists of the concept of the “gill slits”… Quite educational…

Comment by PvM — May 2, 2006 @ 10:45 pm
An illustration of von Baer’s law: three stages in the development of several vertebrates. All the vertebrate classes share many common features early in development; many distinguishing features of the classes and orders appear later (from Romanes 1901.)

Therefere, the drawings were used in a non-historical context, contrary to Olson’s claim. That is where the problem lies.

But they do support von Baer’s law whether or not they are fully correct in all details. It was Haeckel’s law which benefitted from the increase in similarities and the decrease in differences.

Haeckel was also attacked by Brass.

Haeckel responded to Brass’s new charges in the December 29, 1908 number of the Berliner Volkszeitung in a long article that recounted the activities of the Keplerbund and its opposition to Darwinian theory and monism. Haeckel acknowledge that like virtually every illustrator he had “schematized” his depictions, removing features inessential to the point of the discussion.68 I think an impartial judge would recognize that Haeckel’s schematizations did not materially alter his essential message, namely, that the embryonic structures of vertebrates at comparable stages were strikingly similar and that the best explanation of the similarity was common descent.

also the following

As for Haeckel himself, he responded to some of these accusations in the preface to the third edition of his book The Evolution of Man:

Many naturalists have especially blamed the diagrammatic figures given in the Athropogeny [The Evolution of Man]. Certain technical embryologists have brought most severe accusations against me on this account, and have advised me to substitute a larger number of the elaborated figures, as
accurate as possible. I, however, consider that diagrams are much more instructive than such figures, especially in popular scientific works.
For each simple diagrammatic figure gives only those essential form-features which it is intended to explain, and omits all those unessential details which in finished, exact figures, generally rather disturbed and confuse than instruct and explain. The more complex are the form-features, the more do simple diagrams help to make them intelligible. For this reason, the few diagrammatic figures, simple and rough as they were, with which Baer half a century ago accompanied his well-known-known “History of the Evolution of Animals,” have been more serviceable in rendering the matter intelligible than all the numerous and very careful figures, elaborated with the aid of camera lucida, which now adorn the splendid and costly atlases of His, Goette, and others. If it is said it that my diagrammatic figures are “Inaccurate,” and a charge of “falsifying science” is brought against me, this is equally true of all the very numerous diagrams which are daily used in teaching. All diagrammatic figures are “inaccurate.” (Haeckel 1876)

Comment by PvM — May 2, 2006 @ 10:59 pm

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Line and paragraph breaks automatic, e-mail address never displayed, HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>

The Design Paradigm

April 26, 2006

Flock of Dodos fact sheet

40 Comments »

Leave a comment