- May 5, 2017
- 5,611
- 4,000
- 55
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- Married
Yesterday a creationist replied to one of my posts and mentioned "hoaxes". This was used as a means of justifying his extreme skepticism, I guess. But then I was perusing through some old posts of mine (when specific issues come up, I like to search to see if I have already dealt with them - saves time) and came across the post I re-post below. A creationist had quoted from an essay by creationist Randy G, who had figured he could "debunk" the debunking of the claims of Haeckel's embryos being used to teach even today! Did Randy G succeed? Nope...
****
This is the essay by the creationist engineer:
"Major Evolutionary Blunders: Haeckel's Embryos Born of Evolutionary Imagination"
In it, we see creationist engineer Randy Guliuzza write:
That number 3 citation is:
Keeton, W. T. 1972. Biological Science, 2nd Ed. New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 550.
I'm guessing ol' Randy was betting that nobody would be able to read this book. I bet he didn't think it was still available anywhere.
Poor Randy didn't know that it is available for free (to borrow electronically via The Internet Archive). Which I just did.
First, recall, Randy writes:
"This “fact” is seen in the supposedly nonhuman structures that humans possess during development. My textbook commented, “For example, the early human embryo has a well-developed tail and also a series of gill pouches in the pharyngeal region.”3"
Ok. That is on p. 344. But Randy only writes "550" in his citation. Weird... But not uncommon for creationist authors to try to trick skeptics.
Then on p.345, we see:
"The modern view is that Haeckel's idea was an oversimplification. Ontogeny does not repeat phylogeny in any strict or literal sense."
Which is odd, because ol' Randy claims:
DIRECT contradiction of what Randy the creationist at ICR claims the text indicates!
It is odd - Randy cites p. 550 of the text, but p. 550 does not mention Haeckel at all. And the drawing of embryos (p. 344)? NOT Haeckel's (they are from Romanes, 1901).
Randy then claims:
That 4 refers to:
Moore, K. L. 1989. Before We Are Born, 3rd Ed. Philadelphia, PA: W. B. Saunders Company, 70.
The Internet Archive only has the 5th Ed, but I have been using Moore and Persaud's human embryology texts for 25 years, and I know that their new editions generally only have new photos..
Anyway, let's see if Moore's 5th edition has the 'same drawings' and 'same concepts' as the other text he lied about...
Going to be tough... 'Haeckel' does not show up in a search or in the index... Nor does 'ontogeny' or 'phylogeny'... Going to have to do this the old fashioned way.
Maybe in the "historical highlights"? Randy says p. 70, but he biffed the page number with the other text.. and... nope. Nothing on p. 70. It is a different edition, so I will cut him some slack. Back to 'historical highlights'... No drawings or pictures of 'Haeckel's embryos' in the entire chapter. No mention of him or his ideas in the entire chapter.
Maybe in the chapter on the Pharyngeal Apparatus? You know, where the 'gill slits' are? Nope... Here we go! Chapter 6:
Nope.
Oh - wait - there it is, in the back, at the end of the chapter... In the 'clinically oriented questions' section...
And then - WAYYYY back at the end of the book, on p. 500, in the section with the answers to those questions, the answer:
Oh, the INDOCTRINATION! Those CONCEPTS! Those drawings!
Oh the humanity!
Oh, wait -
p. 501, there are some drawings of a bunch of embryos at early and later stages. No mention of Haeckel. No mention of 'ontogeny'. No mention even of evolution.
Oh the humanity!
Looks like Randy is just another carnival barker for Jesus, not to be trusted.
Most interesting - again even the professional creationists fib about these things.
****
This is the essay by the creationist engineer:
"Major Evolutionary Blunders: Haeckel's Embryos Born of Evolutionary Imagination"
In it, we see creationist engineer Randy Guliuzza write:
I didn’t escape being misled. In 1975 my sophomore biology textbook referred to a drawing very similar to Haeckel’s. Like most students absorbing this information for their first—and possibly only—time, I was somewhat shocked by the incredible fish-like similarity of all early embryos…especially humans. The visual evidence looked undeniable.
These drawings persuasively promoted three powerful evolutionary concepts. First, life evolved from “primitive” animals to complex humans. This “fact” is seen in the supposedly nonhuman structures that humans possess during development. My textbook commented, “For example, the early human embryo has a well-developed tail and also a series of gill pouches in the pharyngeal region.”3
Second, as my textbook went on to say, “Human and fish embryos resemble each other because human beings and fish share a common remote ancestry.”3 It presented the remarkable similarity of the embryos in the illustration as strong evidence for a universal common ancestor.
Third, a synopsis of the evolutionary history of life on Earth emerges as scientists map out all stages of embryonic development for every species. Remarkably, the stages of embryonic development for organisms, called ontogeny, supposedly reenacted or “recapitulated” their evolutionary history through time, which was called their phylogeny. Haeckel’s embryos were clearly time-lapse pictures of evolution itself.
Those concepts remain cemented in contemporary evolutionary thinking.
These drawings persuasively promoted three powerful evolutionary concepts. First, life evolved from “primitive” animals to complex humans. This “fact” is seen in the supposedly nonhuman structures that humans possess during development. My textbook commented, “For example, the early human embryo has a well-developed tail and also a series of gill pouches in the pharyngeal region.”3
Second, as my textbook went on to say, “Human and fish embryos resemble each other because human beings and fish share a common remote ancestry.”3 It presented the remarkable similarity of the embryos in the illustration as strong evidence for a universal common ancestor.
Third, a synopsis of the evolutionary history of life on Earth emerges as scientists map out all stages of embryonic development for every species. Remarkably, the stages of embryonic development for organisms, called ontogeny, supposedly reenacted or “recapitulated” their evolutionary history through time, which was called their phylogeny. Haeckel’s embryos were clearly time-lapse pictures of evolution itself.
Those concepts remain cemented in contemporary evolutionary thinking.
That number 3 citation is:
Keeton, W. T. 1972. Biological Science, 2nd Ed. New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 550.
I'm guessing ol' Randy was betting that nobody would be able to read this book. I bet he didn't think it was still available anywhere.
Poor Randy didn't know that it is available for free (to borrow electronically via The Internet Archive). Which I just did.
First, recall, Randy writes:
"This “fact” is seen in the supposedly nonhuman structures that humans possess during development. My textbook commented, “For example, the early human embryo has a well-developed tail and also a series of gill pouches in the pharyngeal region.”3"
Ok. That is on p. 344. But Randy only writes "550" in his citation. Weird... But not uncommon for creationist authors to try to trick skeptics.
Then on p.345, we see:
"The modern view is that Haeckel's idea was an oversimplification. Ontogeny does not repeat phylogeny in any strict or literal sense."
Which is odd, because ol' Randy claims:
"Third, a synopsis of the evolutionary history of life on Earth emerges as scientists map out all stages of embryonic development for every species. Remarkably, the stages of embryonic development for organisms, called ontogeny, supposedly reenacted or “recapitulated” their evolutionary history through time, which was called their phylogeny. Haeckel’s embryos were clearly time-lapse pictures of evolution itself."
DIRECT contradiction of what Randy the creationist at ICR claims the text indicates!
It is odd - Randy cites p. 550 of the text, but p. 550 does not mention Haeckel at all. And the drawing of embryos (p. 344)? NOT Haeckel's (they are from Romanes, 1901).
Randy then claims:
"Those concepts remain cemented in contemporary evolutionary thinking. During medical school in 1992, my graduate-level human development textbook contained the same drawings and concepts.4"
That 4 refers to:
Moore, K. L. 1989. Before We Are Born, 3rd Ed. Philadelphia, PA: W. B. Saunders Company, 70.
The Internet Archive only has the 5th Ed, but I have been using Moore and Persaud's human embryology texts for 25 years, and I know that their new editions generally only have new photos..
Anyway, let's see if Moore's 5th edition has the 'same drawings' and 'same concepts' as the other text he lied about...
Going to be tough... 'Haeckel' does not show up in a search or in the index... Nor does 'ontogeny' or 'phylogeny'... Going to have to do this the old fashioned way.
Maybe in the "historical highlights"? Randy says p. 70, but he biffed the page number with the other text.. and... nope. Nothing on p. 70. It is a different edition, so I will cut him some slack. Back to 'historical highlights'... No drawings or pictures of 'Haeckel's embryos' in the entire chapter. No mention of him or his ideas in the entire chapter.
Maybe in the chapter on the Pharyngeal Apparatus? You know, where the 'gill slits' are? Nope... Here we go! Chapter 6:
Nope.
Oh - wait - there it is, in the back, at the end of the chapter... In the 'clinically oriented questions' section...
1: I have heard that the early human embryo could be confused with the offspring of several other species, such as a mouse or chick. Is this true? What is the distinctive feature of early human embryos?
And then - WAYYYY back at the end of the book, on p. 500, in the section with the answers to those questions, the answer:
1. During the first few weeks, human embryos resemble the embryos of several other species because of common characteristics (e.g., large head, pharyngeal arches, and tail); thereafter, embryos acquire characteristics that are distinctly human...
Oh, the INDOCTRINATION! Those CONCEPTS! Those drawings!
Oh the humanity!
Oh, wait -
p. 501, there are some drawings of a bunch of embryos at early and later stages. No mention of Haeckel. No mention of 'ontogeny'. No mention even of evolution.
Oh the humanity!
Looks like Randy is just another carnival barker for Jesus, not to be trusted.
Most interesting - again even the professional creationists fib about these things.
Last edited:
