The Creation Wiki is made available by the NW Creation Network
Watch monthly Live-Webcast - Like us on Facebook - Subscribe on YouTube

Haeckel falsified his embryo pictures (Talk.Origins)

From CreationWiki, the encyclopedia of creation science

Jump to: navigation, search
Talkorigins.jpg
Response Article
This article (Haeckel falsified his embryo pictures (Talk.Origins)) is a response to a rebuttal of a creationist claim published by Talk.Origins Archive under the title Index to Creationist Claims.


Claim CB701:

Haeckel faked his pictures of embryos to make them look more alike than they are.

Source:

CreationWiki response:

Talk Origins is missing the point about this reference.

  1. Ernst Haeckel's faked embryos pictures are a major part of the history of the Evolution theory and as such the fact that they were faked is an important fact.
  2. Until the at least the 1990’s Haeckel's faked embryos pictures were still used in text books as evidence for evolution. As a result those who were taught using these text books need to be told the truth.

(Talk.Origins quotes in blue)

Haeckel's pictures are irrelevant to the question of whether the embryos are similar. What matters are the embryos themselves. Within a group, early embryos do show many similarities. For example, all vertebrates develop a notochord, body segments, pharyngeal gill pouches, and a post-anal tail. These fundamental similarities indicate a common evolutionary history. Other embryological similarities are found in other lineages, such as mollusks, arthropods, and annelids. These similarities have been long known. Professor Agassiz in 1849, for example, said, "We find, too, that the young bat, or bird, or the young serpent, in certain periods of their growth, resemble one another so much that he would defy any one to tell one from the other--or distinguish between a bat and a snake."
X mark.png
Warning:
This argument represents a
Circular reasoning.
Talk Origins is using circular reasoning here because they are using Evolutionary interpretations as evidence for Evolution. For example the use of terms like notochord, body segments, pharyngeal gill pouches, and post-anal tail to describe various features of an embryo are all labels based on the assumption of Evolution.

Further more, the claim that, “These fundamental similarities indicate a common evolutionary history” is only true if General Evolution theory is true.

It is also reasonable from a Creation perspective to expect some similarities in embryo development of similar organisms, since they have similar features as adults.

2. The embryos also show some differences, which Haeckel glossed over. However, differences should also be expected, since the animals are not all equally related. It is the pattern of both similarities and differences that displays patterns of descent. Organisms that are less closely related are expected to look less similar.

This just shows that how untestable Darwinism is, since they use both similarities and differences as evidence for evolution.

Further more, the claim that:

It is the pattern of both similarities and differences that displays patterns of descent. Organisms that are less closely related are expected to look less similar.

This is only true if General Evolution theory is true.

It is also reasonable from a Creation perspective to expect both similarities and differences in embryo development since there are both similarities and differences in adults.

3. When Haeckel's inaccuracies were exposed, authors started using corrected versions. Science tends to be self-correcting.

The problem is that at least some authors continued to use them at least till the end of the 20th century.

Personal tools