Re: Has Dembski located the orange book(s)?



r norman schrieb:

> On Wed, 11 Jan 2006 22:36:26 +0100, steve_h
> <steve.howarth@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

>>Posted at http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/646
>>by Bill Dembski:

>>>== Haeckel?s embryo drawings ? as of 2004 still going strong! ==
>>>
>>>Two biology textbooks with 2004 copyright dates feature Haeckel?s
>>>faked drawings (slightly redrawn and colorized). They are:
>>>
>>>Raven & Johnson, Biology Sixth Edition (ISBN: 0072921641)
>>>Voet & Voet, Biochemistry (ISBN: 047119350X)

>>>Further evidence for the longevity of evolutionary theory."


>>- is clearly using the drawings as an historical example of a scientist
>>getting something wrong, or getting carried away.
>>
>>- is not using slightly modified drawings, but new drawings which
>>may remind one of Haeckel's drawings, but don't repeat his errors.
>>What does slightly redrawn mean?

Snipped book details ( Have to get quoted text to less than own text)

> That book does have a figure (21.16, page 450) of a fish, reptile,
> bird, and human embryo that only somewhat resembles Haeckel's drawing.
> It clearly labels two structures "gill slits" and "tail". The figure
> caption says "Our embryos show our evolutionary history. The embryos
> of various groups of vertebrate animals show the features they all
> share in early development, such as gill slits (in purple) and a
> tail." Incidentally, the "slits" are, of course, not slits or
> longitudinally shapes holes, they are pharyngeal pouches.
>
> This type of statement and this type of diagram is quite typical of
> many texts. It reflects statements that are quite true. The pouches
> and the tail are, in fact present at some stage of development.

Snipped point about diagrams always being different from photos
for same reason as above.

> The criticism of Haeckel has always been that his diagram does not
> represent embryos at the same stage, that the sizes and proportions of
> structures are incorrect, that overlying structures have been removed
> without comment, etc. etc. The criticism has NEVER been that
> vertebrate embryos at some stage (different for different types) do
> not display pharyngeal pouches or a tail.


Thanks for looking this up. I must say, I am a little surprised to
read that textbooks still label "gill slits" on human embryos (I take it
the quotes around "gill slits" and the distinction between those and
pharyngeal pouches are yours here and not from the book), as I thought
that idea only survived in creationist strawman arguments.

Life just got a little bit more complicated for me - I was sure IDers
and creationist could only tell lies, but now I have to consider the
possibility of them throwing in an occasional grain of truth to
confuse matters. :(

I am reassured to hear that Dembski was not being truthful when he
said the book features Haeckel's drawings - not just diagrams which
somewhat resemble them. I was sure that either "features" or
"Haeckel's" would turn out to be misleading.




.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Homologous Myth (There are no gill slits)
    ... deals honestly with the various issues surrounding Haeckel's drawings. ... You are in no position yourself in judging who is or is not honest ... dishonestly claiming that the embryos are not strikingly similar. ... Haeckel's charts give dishonest Creationists such as ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Embryology
    ... >>> Haeckel drawings are highly schematic because of ... > there are really important similarities between all vertebrate embryos ... > not to mention the underlying cell and molecular biology). ... Drawings always emphasize particular details at ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Homologous Myth (There are no gill slits)
    ... fraudulent drawings. ... And these so-called "lies" are merely the extent to which real embryos ... Do real human embryos have no structures that are ... the same structure develops into jaws in all the jawed vertebrates). ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Inherit the wind in reverse
    ... Wow, that's a creative spin. ... The drawings purport to show ... become dissimilar only at later stages, thus confirming the Darwinian ... embryos are highly dissimilar at the earliest stages and become only ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Inherit the wind in reverse
    ... The drawings purport to show ... become dissimilar only at later stages, thus confirming the Darwinian ... prediction of how embryonic development should occur. ... embryos are highly dissimilar at the earliest stages and become only ...
    (talk.origins)
Loading