Modern books that still use Haeckel’s embryo drawings

[SLP]

<staff edit> The embryos, false transitionals. Is that all you have?

Embryology actually provides pretty good evidence for common ancestry, and simply declaring transitionals false, as creatonists are wont to do, doesn't make them so.

 

[ReverendDG]

I don't think this is a good analogy. As Aggie wrote, these simplified models of atoms are just that... models. When I was taught them, I was taught that they were simplifications. The embryo drawings were not models, and it is rare that anyone explains what they really are when they include them in a book.

it must depend on the school and the books being taught from, because i don't remember ever being told it wasn't how an atom was said to be till college
in fact on another website some idiot came up with the brilliant idea that solar systems are just macro atoms and he claims he's publishing it.
even after people pointed out that atoms aren't anything like solar systems.

my point was solely that many text books present complex things in simplistic and often times detrimental ways, because the concept is so inherently counter-intuitive that they make no sense to people otherwise.

i mean. have you seen people use the term "machine" for many parts of cells? people couldn't grasp the concept so they use machine, when in fact they are nothing like machines at all!

i honestly think text books in schools are the worst ever way to learn, since they end up doing things that hurt more than help people to learn.