Originally posted by Alliance
Yes. This is very true. Most texbooks cite published journals, but not always.Just goes to show maybe you should learn more before critiquing science.
I'm not critiquing science just the community.
and if most textbooks cite journals then my is proven. it was a hoax for 100 years.
Originally posted by Blue nocturne
I'm not critiquing science just the community.
and if most textbooks cite journals then my is proven. it was a hoax for 100 years.
Yes, it was a hoax. You need to show the textbook's presentation as well as any text accompanying it. I can't believe that a decent textbook does not address the hoax if it is showing his sketches, unless of course the textbook is not citing references properly. If such a sketch is in a textbook without addressing it I would seriously suspect the information in it. The research done for such a text is incomplete, and would not pass a proper peer review.
This concept was pretentiously called the ‘biogenetic law,’ which the German evolutionist Ernst Haeckel popularized in the late 1860s. It is also known as ‘embryonic recapitulation’ or ‘ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny,’ meaning that during an organism’s early development it retraces its evolutionary history. So, a human embryo supposedly passes through a fish stage, an amphibian stage, a reptile stage, and so on.Within months of the popular publication of Haeckel’s work in 1868, L. Rütimeyer, professor of zoology and comparative anatomy at the University of Basel, showed it to be fraudulent. William His Sr, professor of anatomy at the University of Leipzig, and a famous comparative embryologist, corroborated Rütimeyer’s criticisms.8 These scientists showed that Haeckel fraudulently modified his drawings of embryos to make them look more alike. Haeckel even printed the same woodcut several times, to make the embryos look absolutely identical, and then claimed they were embryos of different species! Despite this exposure, Haeckel’s woodcuts appeared in textbooks for many years.9
Has the ‘biogenetic law’ any merit? In 1965, evolutionist George Gaylord Simpson said, ‘It is now firmly established that ontogeny does not repeat phylogeny.’10 Prof. Keith Thompson (biology, Yale) said,
‘Surely the biogenetic law is as dead as a doornail. It was finally exorcised from biology textbooks in the fifties. As a topic of serious theoretical inquiry, it was extinct in the twenties.’11
However, even textbooks in the 1990s were still using Haeckel’s fraudulent drawings, including a textbook used in introductory biology courses in many universities, which said,
‘In many cases the evolutionary history of an organism can be seen to unfold during its development, with the embryo exhibiting characteristics of the embryos of its ancestors. For example, early in their development, human embryos possess gill slits like a fish … .’12
Despite the fraudulent basis of the idea and its debunking by many high-profile scientists, the idea persists.
Scientists who should have known better have promoted the myth of embryonic recapitulation in the 1990s. For example, science popularizer, the late Carl Sagan, in a popular article titled ‘Is It Possible to Be Pro-life and Pro-choice?’
Here's a paper from richardson in 1997 "Anatomy and embryology
http://www.mk-richardson.com/PDFs/Anat%20Embryol.pdf
Alright, now just to be clear I agreed that Heckel was a hoax.
I am unsure as to the purpose of your quote. It states that scientists proved Heckel wrong in 1868. It also states that some textbooks used them into the 1990's. It does not state how many textbooks used it.
I took a number of biology, physiology, human physiology, and evolution classes while doing my University work. I have never seen Heckel's sketches. I would assume that if the sketches were widespread I would have seen them. The most I ever heard in classes was one mention of Heckel and his drawings being fraudulent. I never read about Heckel in my texts, the one class was all I ever heard.
Biogenetic law does not refer to the process of evolution, it refers to an organism displaying characteristics of species it evolved from during emryonic maturation.
Originally posted by Regret
Alright, now just to be clear I agreed that Heckel was a hoax.I am unsure as to the purpose of your quote. It states that scientists proved Heckel wrong in 1868. It also states that some textbooks used them into the 1990's. It does not state how many textbooks used it.
It also said until 1950's heckels drawings was final removed from most textbooks.
more hoaxes have been created to further relgion.
There was an abundance of proof that explained evolution by natural selection. THe entire basis of evolution was not based off of Heckel.
It wan't untill around the 1950s that evolution really became prominent basic sicentific textbooxs anyway if I remember correctly.