Casey Luskin stated those textbooks listed fell into at least one of these categories:
(1) Show embryo drawings that are either Haeckel’s originals or highly similar or near-identical versions of Haeckel’s illustrations — drawings that downplay and misrepresent the differences among early stages of vertebrate embryos;
(2) Have used these drawings as evidence for current evolutionary theory and not simply to provide some kind of historical context for evolutionary thinking;
(3) Have used their Haeckel-based drawings to overstate the actual similarities between early embryos, which is the key misrepresentation made by Haeckel, even if the textbooks do not completely endorse Haeckel’s false “recapitulation” theory. They then cite these overstated similarities as still-valid evidence for common ancestry.
Dan
For Pete's sake, I know what Luskin wrote, I've read it every time you linked to it.
I asked you what was incorrect about what Mader wrote about the embryology and what is anatomically incorrect about the illustrations she used.
It has become obvious that you are just going to parrot Luskin though rather than bother looking for yourself.
Besides, it seems to me that Luskins three points are rather spurious.
(1)
Show embryo drawings that are either Haeckel’s originals or highly similar or near-identical versions of Haeckel’s illustrations — drawings that downplay and misrepresent the differences among early stages of vertebrate embryos;
If the point of these drawings in the text book is to illustrate the similarities that modern embryology describes they need to be drawn in such a way as to clearly depict those similarities surely, as any illustrative drawing used as a teaching aid would do.
And they are not Haeckel's drawings as you first claimed, but modern versions.
(2)
Have used these drawings as evidence for current evolutionary theory and not simply to provide some kind of historical context for evolutionary thinking;
Not Haeckel's drawings. See above.
And you, or Luskin have yet to mention that modern embryology is an established part of current developmental biology and as such
should be mentioned in textbooks.
(3) Have used their Haeckel-based drawings to overstate the actual similarities between early embryos, which is the key misrepresentation made by Haeckel, even if the textbooks do not completely endorse Haeckel’s false “recapitulation” theory. They then cite these overstated similarities as still-valid evidence for common ancestry.
Ah, "Haeckel based" now is it? At least now you can stop saying they use Haeckel's drawings as you originally did.
See point (1).
As for the "
the textbooks do not completely endorse Haeckel’s false “recapitulation” theory" bit
, what a typically mealy-mouthed bit of creationist propaganda. They don't endorse Haeckel's recapitulation theory
at all.
Evolutionary developmental biology is a thing you know.... and it has nothing to do with recapulation theory.
Conclusion: You're tilting at windmills Don Quixote, maybe you'd be better off demonstrating the flaws of modern embryology if you want to claim that it provides no evidence or insights into the TOE.
.
