Creation & EvolutionForum for the discussion of this important topic. This forum is open to non-believers. There is a Christians-only forum in the Christians-only section too.
Modern books that still use Haeckel’s embryo drawings
This is an offshoot of something that was discussed in this thread, but I’d like to examine one particular aspect of the topic that was discussed there.
In that thread, Marktheblake made the assertion that Enrst Haeckel’s drawings of embryos are still commonly cited as accurately portraying similarities between them, even though it’s well-known at this point that Haeckel exaggerated the similarities in these drawings. Thistlethorn responded that he doubted this was the case:
Originally Posted by Thistlethorn
What prominent museum displays Haeckel's drawings as the truth of how embryos develop? If any museum does that, you could claim that the museum in question is doing the teaching of evolution a disservice. Haeckel's drawings have been oft criticized by evolutionary biologists - such as Steven Gould - for being exaggerated, and are only present in modern textbooks for their historical significance. Embryology is nowadays taught using photographs, not Haeckel's drawings.
I’ve been curious to know whether Thistlethorn was right about this. In that thread, I mentioned one book I could think of offhand that contains Haeckel’s drawings, without mentioning that they’re exaggerated: Donald Prothero’s 2007 book Evolution: What the Fossils Say and Why it Matters, which has them on page 110. Today, I was looking to see whether any of my other books about evolution do the same thing.
So far, I’ve found the same thing in two other books: Douglas Futuyma’s textbook Evolutionary Biology: third edition, which was published in 1998 and has them on page 653, and Ernst Mayr’s book What Evolution is, which was published in 2001 and has them on page 28. Both of these books use Haeckel’s drawings specifically as a depiction of how the embryos of all vertebrates are similar to one another, without mentioning that the drawings exaggerate these similarities. Mayr’s book states that this diagram is taken from Monroe Strickberger’s 1990 textbook Evolution, so that’s at least one other book that uses these images the same way. (I assume that Strickberger’s book doesn’t mention the similarities are exaggerated in these drawings, since Strickberger’s book is being cited by Mayr, and I doubt Mayr would use these drawings in a way that contradicts his source material.)
Split Rock mentioned here that the reason Prothero uses Haeckel’s drawings without mentioning they’re exaggerated might be because as a paleontologist, Prothero isn’t familiar with embryology. But I don’t think Mayr and Futuyma have that excuse. They are (or were, in Mayr’s case) two of the most highly-regarded evolutionary biologists in the world, and Futuyma’s book in particular is the single most oft-cited source about evolution that I’ve ever encountered. I find it kind of surprising that both of them made this mistake.
I would be interested to know if anyone can find any other evolution-related books (or museums, in the case of what Marktheblake was talking about) that continue to use these drawings as a demonstration of similarities between embryos, without mentioning their inaccuracy. The selection of books in which I’ve found this is just based on what books I happen to own (or my girlfriend owns, in the case of the Futuyma book.) Considering that the books which make this mistake include two of them by such highly-regarded authors, including one that’s used a source for a huge number of other books, I suspect that it’s pretty common.
As far as I’m concerned, the claim that these drawings accurately represent similarities between embryos is an evolutionary PRATT. In terms of both how widespread it is and how long ago it was debunked, it’s about as bad as anything we’ve seen from creationists. Does anyone have a theory about why authors as highly-regarded as Ernst Mayr and Douglas Futuyma are still propagating this claim, over 100 years after it was shown to be false?
__________________
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Last edited by Aggie; 7th September 2009 at 03:27 PM.
As I understand it, the only thing that was actually wrong with Haeckel's drawing, was that they were a gross exaggeration of the similarities.
I guess you could use them simply to illustrate the point, so long as you also point out the exaggerations, but I don't really see why anyone would bother, especially now we can easily take photos of embryological development, which is obviously a lot more accurate.
As I understand it, the only thing that was actually wrong with Haeckel's drawing, was that they were a gross exaggeration of the similarities.
According to Ludwig Rutimeyer, who originally pointed out the exaggeration, Haeckel’s “illustrations” of embryos from some of the animals on that chart are actually made from the exact same woodcut print that he used for the embryos of other animals. In other words, some of them are made from a woodcut that wasn’t even intended to represent the animals that they’re labeled as. Even if that’s “the only thing” wrong with these drawings, it’s a pretty big one.
Originally Posted by Alunyel
I guess you could use them simply to illustrate the point, so long as you also point out the exaggerations, but I don't really see why anyone would bother, especially now we can easily take photos of embryological development, which is obviously a lot more accurate.
But these authors don’t point out the exaggerations. They just say that these drawings show how the embryos of all animals are similar to one another, which is false—the embryos of all animals are similar to one another, but not in the way shown by these drawings. I’m looking for an explanation for why well-respected evolutionary biologists are propagating a claim that’s so obviously inaccurate.
__________________
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Aggie, you might be interested to know that I have Futuyma's "Evolution" (2005) and he doesn't use Haeckel's drawings there, but use photographs instead. So that's an improvement at least.
My guess is that old inaccurate drawings are mainly used out of tradition and nostalgia (though I'm also sure ignorance plays a part). Modern scientists tend to forgive the scientists of the past, who often let their bias creep into their work, because scientists today recognize that we live in a very different time. Today, biased and shoddy science ruins scientists' reputation, and deliberate distortion is considered the ultimate unforgivable crime. 100-150 years ago there wasn't the same awareness and focus on bias.
Mendel's work has also been shown to be practically statistically impossible. But his research is presented in just about any introductory book on genetics out there. If creationists were rejecting genetics, I'm sure they'd make just as much noise about Mendel and his experiments as they do about Haeckel's drawings.
Peter
Edited to add: In Futuyma's case it appears to have been ignorance. Several Google results say that he admitted his error in 2000 after consulting a developmental biologist.
Last edited by plindboe; 7th September 2009 at 01:31 PM.
Modern scientists tend to forgive the scientists of the past, who often let their bias creep into their work, because scientists today recognize that we live in a very different time. Today, biased and shoddy science ruins scientists' reputation, and deliberate distortion is considered the ultimate unforgivable crime. 100-150 years ago there wasn't the same awareness and focus on bias.
Apparently it could ruin scientists’ reputation in Haeckel’s time also. In the “false proofs” thread, I quoted a book from 1915 about what eventually happened to Haeckel because of this:
The Zoologists of Germany were, therefore, compelled, much against their will, to throw Haeckel overboard in order to save their own honor.
"A statement signed by 46 professors representing 25 German and Austrian universities and scientific schools discredited Haeckel's work (No. 8, Munchner Allgemeine Zertung) and 36 other scientists representing nineteen universities, botanical laboratories, etc., of Germany, Switzerland and Austria, including the University of Jena agreed in demanding 'that henceforth as in the past, German scientific research shall rest on an uncompromising love of truth.' 'Yet the past holds an ugly record.' In 1868, Haeckel printed off one and the same diagram three times in succession to show the marvelous similarity of the embryos of man, ape and dog. Rutimeyer called attention to this curious device, whereupon Haeckel conceded that he had been guilty of a thoughtless piece of folly. 'The end of his career is therefore worthy of the beginning (Augsburger Post-Zeitung, March 23, 1909)' Repudiation of Haeckel is now unanimous and complete; he is discredited by the signed verdict of eighty-two of the foremost German authorities."
I would like to know what other recent evolution books there are that still use these drawings, but I think I’ve reached the limit of what’s possible with the evolution books that I own. If anyone else has access to some well-known modern books about evolution that I haven’t mentioned, I’d be interested to know what the answer is for them.
In any case, it seems to be a common assertion among supporters of evolution that no modern books about evolution present these drawings as something that’s accurate, but I think I’ve shown that claiming this is the same kind of wishful thinking that Haeckel demonstrated with the drawings themselves. As beneficial as it is that Futuyma realized nine years ago that they were inaccurate, that’s still over 100 years after Rutimeyer first demonstrated this fact; a biologist of Futuyma’s stature never should have made this mistake to begin with. Hopefully after this thread, people here won’t continue to claim that modern books don’t use these drawings.
__________________
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
You're the King of Sophistry here. Maybe you could come up with a better phrase that makes Haeckel seem even less culpable... like you do with "Creation Scientists."
__________________ “The biblical story of the perfect and finished creation from which human beings fell into sin is pre-Darwinian mythology and post-Darwinian nonsense." -Bishop John Shelby Spong
"It is not the obligation of the State to reconcile various faiths with reality. Do it yourself." -Atomweaver
"We have designed our civilization based on science and technology and at the same time arranged things so that almost no one understands anything at all about science and technology. This is a clear prescription for disaster."
- Carl Sagan (Demon Haunted World)
Split Rock mentioned here that the reason Prothero uses Haeckel’s drawings without mentioning they’re exaggerated might be because as a paleontologist, Prothero isn’t familiar with embryology. But I don’t think Mayr and Futuyma have that excuse. They are (or were, in Mayr’s case) two of the most highly-regarded evolutionary biologists in the world, and Futuyma’s book in particular is the single most oft-cited source about evolution that I’ve ever encountered. I find it kind of surprising that both of them made this mistake.
I have Futuyma's first edition, and I cannot find it there... interesting that he added it in later editions. I actually took a course on Evolution with him at Stony Brook. Although Futuyma is not a developmental biologist or embryogist either, it was sloppy to include it.
Originally Posted by Aggie
As far as I’m concerned, the claim that these drawings accurately represent similarities between embryos is an evolutionary PRATT. In terms of both how widespread it is and how long ago it was debunked, it’s about as bad as anything we’ve seen from creationists. Does anyone have a theory about why authors as highly-regarded as Ernst Mayr and Douglas Futuyma are still propagating this claim, over 100 years after it was shown to be false?
I would say that the use of Haeckel's drawings is a PRATT, but not the argument it is used to support.
__________________ “The biblical story of the perfect and finished creation from which human beings fell into sin is pre-Darwinian mythology and post-Darwinian nonsense." -Bishop John Shelby Spong
"It is not the obligation of the State to reconcile various faiths with reality. Do it yourself." -Atomweaver
"We have designed our civilization based on science and technology and at the same time arranged things so that almost no one understands anything at all about science and technology. This is a clear prescription for disaster."
- Carl Sagan (Demon Haunted World)
I’ve been curious to know whether Thistlethorn was right about this. In that thread, I mentioned one book I could think of offhand that contains Haeckel’s drawings, without mentioning that they’re exaggerated: Donald Prothero’s 2007 book Evolution: What the Fossils Say and Why it Matters, which has them on page 110. Today, I was looking to see whether any of my other books about evolution do the same thing.
Prothero's book has a lot of details that make me want to throw things
I would be interested to know if anyone can find any other evolution-related books (or museums, in the case of what Marktheblake was talking about) that continue to use these drawings as a demonstration of similarities between embryos, without mentioning their inaccuracy. The selection of books in which I’ve found this is just based on what books I happen to own (or my girlfriend owns, in the case of the Futuyma book.) Considering that the books which make this mistake include two of them by such highly-regarded authors, including one that’s used a source for a huge number of other books, I suspect that it’s pretty common.
I could count the number of times I opened my evolution textbook (Ridley's Evolution, 3rd edition - I could check it for you once I'm back in Scotland) on my two hands, but I've seen the infamous drawings on more than one lecture slide.
As far as I’m concerned, the claim that these drawings accurately represent similarities between embryos is an evolutionary PRATT. In terms of both how widespread it is and how long ago it was debunked, it’s about as bad as anything we’ve seen from creationists.
I think we can agree on that. Thankfully, we have the good examples, too.
Does anyone have a theory about why authors as highly-regarded as Ernst Mayr and Douglas Futuyma are still propagating this claim, over 100 years after it was shown to be false?
My bet is on ignorance. Based on the publication info on wikipedia, Futuyma's research doesn't have a lot to do with vertebrate development.
Something that I can also see as contributing is availability. I'm pretty sure Haeckel's drawings (or derivatives) are very easy to obtain - is the same true of more accurate comparative pictures?
__________________ "There is much we do not understand about the history of life, and the same will be true of our grandchildren. But, then, if we knew all there was to know, scientific interest would cease. Textbooks may portray science as a codification of facts, but it is really a disciplined way of asking about the unknown." - A.H. Knoll, Life on a Young Planet
"Come on, put your bloody thinking caps on!" - Dr Tony Prave, geology lecture
Linear Mode
