Comments on: My Remedial Education: Haeckel’s Embryos

By: PZ Myers

PZ Myers — Sun, 08 Feb 2004 03:24:10 +0000

Go here: http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evohome.html
It’s a simple tutorial in evolutionary biology. In particular, read the “misconceptions” section — it covers the major errors creationists make, including the ones I see here.
A scientist who came up with a better idea than evolution would be the most thoroughly praised and appreciated biologist of all time. That would be the sure path to glory and fame in the field. I guarantee you that we’ve all been working our brains to the bone trying to find that better idea…and one of the signs that evolution is a really strong, solid idea is that we haven’t been able to beat it.

By: Samantha

Samantha — Sat, 07 Feb 2004 13:28:04 +0000

Actually, I think the point of a lot of people who have questions about evolution is that the theories can not be tested by science either. How do you recreate what evolutionists claim happened to get us to where we are today? The theory of evolution is only the “best and most powerful explaination available” if you’ve already decided that it is the only possible answer. I’ve been wondering why scientists haven’t come up with a better idea themselves for years now.

By: PZ Myers

PZ Myers — Fri, 06 Feb 2004 21:09:49 +0000

The difference is that “completely different developmental programs” would also be compatible with a “shared creator”. The creator hypothesis is untestable and has absolutely no explanatory power; it fits any situation you can invent, including many that are ridiculously incompatible with how life actually works.
The theory of evolution is valid because it has been tested every step of the way for over 140 years, and has been the best and most powerful explanation available. You’re welcome to come up with a better explanation, and every biologist will gladly jump ship and adopt it. However, inventing super-powerful invisible beings who know everything and can do everything, but for which you have no physical evidence, is not such an explanation.

By: Samantha

Samantha — Fri, 06 Feb 2004 03:34:09 +0000

So my question is, and always has been, why does the similarity between embryos from differrent species have to mean that they have common evolutionary ancestry?
As far as I can tell the only difference between
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.”
and
This shared developmental program reflects [a] shared [creator]. It also fits with overwhelming recent evidence that development in different animals is controlled by common genetic mechanisms.
is that you’ve already made up your mind about what the evidence will tell you.
Why is one considered valid science and the other not? Both take it on faith that their view is the right one.

By: tgirsch

tgirsch — Fri, 06 Feb 2004 00:58:23 +0000

Joe:
If biologists knew that these illustrations were not accurate why were they used as the basis for subsequent textbook examples?
Because, unfortunately, textbook publishers are not themselves scientists, and woeful inaccuracies creep into textbooks of all stripes.

By: tgirsch

tgirsch — Fri, 06 Feb 2004 00:54:50 +0000

I must admit, I had never seen those photos. And it was indeed a fraud. But to use that fact to try to invalidate evolution as a whole is disingenuous at best. Get the facts, man!

By: Scott Renner

Scott Renner — Thu, 05 Feb 2004 19:49:33 +0000

I found myself wondering what people have actually learned from the Haeckel drawing and its derivatives. What would a survey reveal for questions like these:
* Have you ever seen this picture before?
* Does it show that human embryos pass through various “animal stages” of devlopment (fish, amphibian, etc.)
* Is that evidence for the truth of evolution?
* Is it evidence against an intelligent designer?
I suspect that most would say “nope, never seen it before”…but most of the rest would answer “yes” to all questions. If my speculation proved correct, that would indicate a problem with biology education, right?

By: PZ Myers

PZ Myers — Wed, 04 Feb 2004 21:07:10 +0000

You have explicitly claimed that “The purpose of the illustration is to show that as an organism passes through embryonic development it re-traces every stage of its evolutionary ancestry”. That is the biogenetic law. That claim is completely false; biology hasn’t taught the biogenetic law in the last century, except to state that it is false. I’ve reviewed a lot of textbooks in introductory biology, on the order of a score of authors in multiple editions, in some cases going back to the 60s. Haven’t found any that claim that yet, and I’ve found some awfully obscure books.
For contemporary texts, look up Campbell or Purves or Guttman or Raven. Or Levine and Miller, since you’ve already cited and linked to them.
And I’m afraid that what you’ve said here is simply warmed over Wells, nothing particularly original and nothing particularly accurate. Think about what you are saying here.
Creationist says biologists teach X, which is wrong.
Biologists say yes, X is very wrong — which is why we don’t teach it.
You pounce on X and say aha, we were right, you’ve been lying to us, how can we ever trust you?
Biologists say no — we didn’t lie to you anywhere. We threw out X in the 1890s. Creationist lied when he says we teach X. How can you trust him?

By: Joe Carter

Joe Carter — Wed, 04 Feb 2004 20:43:19 +0000

With all due respect, PZ, you might want to actually read my post before you criticize it. You seem to be the one in error:
As for your errors, you have misinterpreted a scientific paper as providing evidence against evolution
I did no such thing. I used the paper to show that a picture that was used in textbooks when I took biology courses has been discredited.
Of course, it may not be your error: you seem to be parroting the grossly erroneous work of Jonathan Wells.
Please show me where I have

By: Rusty Lopez

Rusty Lopez — Wed, 04 Feb 2004 20:41:51 +0000

Per Richardson, “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.”
Per Chrysler, “On a fundamental level, Lee Iacocca was correct: All automobiles develop a similar body plan (consisting of a chassis, drive shaft, engine cavity, and so forth). This shared developmental program reflects shared evolutionary history.”