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)

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…

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.

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.

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)?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.”

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.’

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.