Thread to collect Evolutionist Lies.

[KimberlyAA]

It's funny. Usually these supposed fragments of ape-men come after funding is given. In other words, paleoanthropologists are expected to produce results. I find it amazing that they can make an entire drawing of an ape-man family from a pig's tooth.

I'll add some :

Darwin’s finches. These do not support evolution. They are an example of natural selection but that does not generate any of the new genetic information needed for evolution to work.

The giraffe’s neck. A popular icon of evolution but with no fossil evidence and no plausible mechanism.

Natural selection. This goes the wrong way for evolution. It only sorts and removes genetic information that’s already there.

Peppered moths. Even if the experiments are valid, they would only demonstrate natural selection, and that is not evolution. Even evolutionists recognize that.

Speciation. Speciation is not evolution—new biological species form without any new genetic information. Speciation won’t turn ‘bacteria to man’.

Convergent evolution. A name invented to explain similarities in characteristics of animals that are unexpected and improbable. Sometimes it’s called homoplastic evolution. Such characteristics are powerful evidence for design.

Miller-Urey experiment. It used the wrong atmosphere, produced the wrong chemicals, and did not produce anything remotely like life. No one knows how life could possibly have arisen by naturalistic processes.

Transitional forms. There are no examples of transitional forms for which one could make a watertight case—just a handful of disputable ones :

• Horse series. An icon that has been long discarded by academic evolutionists.
• Lungfish. Another old idea that has been long abandoned.
• Archaeopteryx. Yet another old example that evolutionists have rejected. Its timing is wrong, even by evolutionists’ own dating, and is now regarded as a fully functional, flying bird.

Comparative anatomy. Sometimes evolutionists claim similar body plans support a common ancestor but at other times they don’t. It’s obviously subjective and there are many features in embryonic development that contradict the claim.

Embryonic development. This has long been abandoned as evidence for evolution. Haeckel’s drawings are blatantly fraudulent.

Distribution of plants and animals. A circular argument. Evolution is assumed to explain the distribution and then the distribution is taken to prove evolution. To the evolutionist everything is evidence of evolution, but there are other explanations.

Gene duplication. If you submit two copies of your assignment you won’t get double the marks. Copying does not produce new genetic information—it simply replicates what is already there. How did the information arise in the first place?

Human evolution. The hominid evidence can be sorted into human and ape fossils. The transitional claims are belief-driven interpretations based on cases where the evidence is scanty and ambiguous :

• Lucy. Human eyes, hands and feet drawn onto an ape do make it look half ape and half human. But Lucy was just an ape, as ‘her’ name, Australopithecine (‘southern ape’), indicates.
• Homo Habilis. A jumble of human and ape fossils, now widely regarded as an invalid taxon.
• Homo erectus. Nothing outside of the range of human variation.
• Cro magnon. Not a club wielding brute but fully human.
• Cultural evolution. Simply a belief-driven interpretation that really doesn’t make sense of the evidence.
• Mungo man. The remains of an aboriginal. The whole claim is based on the extreme radioactive dating result, which is based on assumptions and hotly disputed. As a result of Mungo man and other evolutionary stories people tend to view the aboriginal people as ‘primitive’. These speculations should not be taught this way as it fosters racist thinking.

 

[CabVet]

[It's funny. Usually these supposed fragments of ape-men come after funding is given. In other words, paleoanthropologists are expected to produce results. I find it amazing that they can make an entire drawing of an ape-man family from a pig's tooth. [/COLOR][/SIZE][/FONT]

Oh, you mean that people find things after they go look for them? Kind of hard to find them if you don't have the funds to go look.

Darwin’s finches. These do not support evolution. They are an example of natural selection but that does not generate any of the new genetic information needed for evolution to work.

Natural selection is the mechanism of evolution. You cannot separate one from the other.

The giraffe’s neck. A popular icon of evolution but with no fossil evidence and no plausible mechanism.

There are hundreds of examples of other animals without a fossil record, they do not disprove evolution.

Natural selection. This goes the wrong way for evolution. It only sorts and removes genetic information that’s already there.

See above. If you are not convinced, you should look up research on three spine sticklebacks, they are finding that new mutations are responsible for adaptation to different freshwater lakes. In other words, new genetic information. I can post references if you want, even though I know you won't read them.

Peppered moths. Even if the experiments are valid, they would only demonstrate natural selection, and that is not evolution. Even evolutionists recognize that.

See above.

[

Speciation. Speciation is not evolution—new biological species form without any new genetic information. Speciation won’t turn ‘bacteria to man’.

See above.

Convergent evolution. A name invented to explain similarities in characteristics of animals that are unexpected and improbable. Sometimes it’s called homoplastic evolution. Such characteristics are powerful evidence for design.

Convergent evolution has absolutely nothing to do with design. A designer would not make a Kangaroo that looked like a dog to "fill a niche". Evolution and biogeography offer an explanation for that, intelligent design does not.

Out of time, will answer the rest later, but you might as well have posted this on the other thread, the one collecting lies invented by creationists.

 

[Loudmouth]

It's funny. Usually these supposed fragments of ape-men come after funding is given. In other words, paleoanthropologists are expected to produce results. I find it amazing that they can make an entire drawing of an ape-man family from a pig's tooth.

I'll add some :

Darwin’s finches. These do not support evolution. They are an example of natural selection but that does not generate any of the new genetic information needed for evolution to work.

The giraffe’s neck. A popular icon of evolution but with no fossil evidence and no plausible mechanism.

Natural selection. This goes the wrong way for evolution. It only sorts and removes genetic information that’s already there.

Peppered moths. Even if the experiments are valid, they would only demonstrate natural selection, and that is not evolution. Even evolutionists recognize that.

Speciation. Speciation is not evolution—new biological species form without any new genetic information. Speciation won’t turn ‘bacteria to man’.

Convergent evolution. A name invented to explain similarities in characteristics of animals that are unexpected and improbable. Sometimes it’s called homoplastic evolution. Such characteristics are powerful evidence for design.

Miller-Urey experiment. It used the wrong atmosphere, produced the wrong chemicals, and did not produce anything remotely like life. No one knows how life could possibly have arisen by naturalistic processes.

Transitional forms. There are no examples of transitional forms for which one could make a watertight case—just a handful of disputable ones :

• Horse series. An icon that has been long discarded by academic evolutionists.
• Lungfish. Another old idea that has been long abandoned.
• Archaeopteryx. Yet another old example that evolutionists have rejected. Its timing is wrong, even by evolutionists’ own dating, and is now regarded as a fully functional, flying bird.

Comparative anatomy. Sometimes evolutionists claim similar body plans support a common ancestor but at other times they don’t. It’s obviously subjective and there are many features in embryonic development that contradict the claim.

Embryonic development. This has long been abandoned as evidence for evolution. Haeckel’s drawings are blatantly fraudulent.

Distribution of plants and animals. A circular argument. Evolution is assumed to explain the distribution and then the distribution is taken to prove evolution. To the evolutionist everything is evidence of evolution, but there are other explanations.

Gene duplication. If you submit two copies of your assignment you won’t get double the marks. Copying does not produce new genetic information—it simply replicates what is already there. How did the information arise in the first place?

Human evolution. The hominid evidence can be sorted into human and ape fossils. The transitional claims are belief-driven interpretations based on cases where the evidence is scanty and ambiguous :

• Lucy. Human eyes, hands and feet drawn onto an ape do make it look half ape and half human. But Lucy was just an ape, as ‘her’ name, Australopithecine (‘southern ape’), indicates.
• Homo Habilis. A jumble of human and ape fossils, now widely regarded as an invalid taxon.
• Homo erectus. Nothing outside of the range of human variation.
• Cro magnon. Not a club wielding brute but fully human.
• Cultural evolution. Simply a belief-driven interpretation that really doesn’t make sense of the evidence.
• Mungo man. The remains of an aboriginal. The whole claim is based on the extreme radioactive dating result, which is based on assumptions and hotly disputed. As a result of Mungo man and other evolutionary stories people tend to view the aboriginal people as ‘primitive’. These speculations should not be taught this way as it fosters racist thinking.

In a thread that is supposedly reserved for lies told by evolutionists we get a long list of lies told by creationists. How ironic.

Natural selection is a mechanism of evolution. It is not a lie to state that observation of natural selection is an observation of evolution since evolution is a change in allele frequency over several generations.

Transitional fossils are just that . . . transitional. Creationists denying the transitional features in fossils does not make them go away. Australopithecines have a pelvis that is more human-like than any other living ape. Homo erectus has basal ape features in it's skull that are not found in any modern human. They are transitional.

The others are equally dishonest. In trying to show the evolutionists the evils of their ways the creationists have only demonstrated their dishonesty.

 

[Trogool]

It's funny. Usually these supposed fragments of ape-men come after funding is given.

Yes, science typically is amazing to those who don't have any education in it. What surprises me is that you are somehow amazed that science requires funding to take place.

 

[Split Rock]

There are a few earlier threads we've had about this topic where other people came up with examples. One is here (posted by Wiccan_Child) and one is here (posted by me). In my opinion, this biggest single example is what I mentioned here. Haeckel's embryo drawings have been known to be inaccurate for well over a century, but they've still continued to appear in books published in the past 15 years, without any mention of what's wrong with them.

True, although that is improving... perhaps the one good thing Wells has done with his book. Keep in mind there is not much mention of any details concerning these drawings when they are published in books. Sometimes they are not even credited to Haeckel because they have been reprinted so many times. I blame it on inertia. Nevertheless, simlarities in embryos across species is still a legitimate argument for common descent.

 

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

It's funny. Usually these supposed fragments of ape-men come after funding is given. In other words, paleoanthropologists are expected to produce results. I find it amazing that they can make an entire drawing of an ape-man family from a pig's tooth.

Ah. That'd be Nebraska man. Tooth found in, what was it, 1922? All over in five years once some proper scientific work had been done on it? And creationists are still harping on about an artist's impression as if it were meant to be a scientific treatise?

I'm not going to address every point in your Gish Gallop, because I haven't got all night. I'll pick a few; others will doubtless be along to address the others.

Lucy. Human eyes, hands and feet drawn onto an ape do make it look half ape and half human. But Lucy was just an ape, as ‘her’ name, Australopithecine (‘southern ape’), indicates

.

How bizarre. The scientists who gave her that name didn't think she was "just" an ape, whatever that's meant to mean. Is that all you've got? Argument by nomenclature?

Homo Habilis. A jumble of human and ape fossils, now widely regarded as an invalid taxon.

"widely regarded" is what Wikipedia calls "weasel words". By whom? How widely? On what basis? But since you know this, why not edit the Wiki entry here Homo habilis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia to reflect its questionable status? You do have, erm, sources for this don't you, other than "some LCW told me so"?

Homo erectus. Nothing outside of the range of human variation.

You know people with brow ridges like this do you?

I think I'll avoid the bars where you hang out!

Cro magnon. Not a club wielding brute but fully human.

You are quite right. Would you like to find any evidence that anyone's claimed otherwise? Cro magnon man is indeed an early H. sapiens sapiens; no-one's ever tried to suggest otherwise.

Cultural evolution. Simply a belief-driven interpretation that really doesn’t make sense of the evidence.

Cultures of course don't change...

Mungo man. The remains of an aboriginal. The whole claim is based on the extreme radioactive dating result, which is based on assumptions and hotly disputed. As a result of Mungo man and other evolutionary stories people tend to view the aboriginal people as ‘primitive’. These speculations should not be taught this way as it fosters racist thinking.

This one was a new one on me, so I did some research.

Mungo man is one of the oldest Australian anatomically normal human found, it seems. He differs from the modern Aboriginal population in being gracile. Nevertheless, it's difficult to do much research on the skeleton as there are cultural sensitivity issues with the Aborigines. However, it doesn't look like Mungo Man is actually related to the modern Aboriginal people of Australia, so the rest of your bumph appears to be made up out of whole cloth by someone with very little basis.

Your points about natural selection show evolution can't work by natural selection alone. Indeed it can't. It needs genetic variation to work on. A good job we know that happens by mutation, isn't it?

Think very carefully before you respond with "mutations are all deleterious" or some other such PRATTery.

 

[Trogool]

You know people with brow ridges like this do you?

I think I'll avoid the bars where you hang out!

She's too young to go to bars. She's only 18. Isn't it amazing how high school students know better than college graduates and PhDs the details and validity of theories central to modern biology?

 

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

Ah. I forget. Over here we can go in bars at any age and are allowed to drink in them from 16 - 18 if we're not eating or want to drink spirits. In the Land of the Free I understand the laws are more restrictive

High School does explain it though - there might be some blokes with brow ridges like that amongst the sports teachers.

Can I lodge a protest? This thread's catching more creationist lies than the one set up for the purpose!

 

[AV1611VET]

You know people with brow ridges like this do you?

Not personally, but they were contributing members of society at one time.

 

[AV1611VET]

Can I lodge a protest? This thread's catching more creationist lies than the one set up for the purpose!

Protest away ... you would first have to show it is a lie.

wrong ≠ lie

 

[Promethean]

Five pages and not a single lie yet... will the creationist step up and provide a single example of a lie in the next 5 pages?

 

[Split Rock]

Let's see if Kimberly cares that she is spreading creationists lies here.

It's funny. Usually these supposed fragments of ape-men come after funding is given. In other words, paleoanthropologists are expected to produce results. I find it amazing that they can make an entire drawing of an ape-man family from a pig's tooth.

Many fossils are near complete. Lucy is about 42% complete. This is an example of the "few fossil fragments" lie.

Darwin’s finches. These do not support evolution. They are an example of natural selection but that does not generate any of the new genetic information needed for evolution to work.

1. Natural selection is one of the three basic mechanisms of evolution. Can you name the other two?
2. Define "genetic information." tell us what is required at the molecular or chemical level for genetic information to increase. Which one of these sequences of DNA contains more information?
ATGTAGTGATGA
ATGCACTGACG

The giraffe’s neck. A popular icon of evolution but with no fossil evidence and no plausible mechanism.

This was an icon of Lamarkian evolution. There are now fossils found of an ancestor with an intermediate length neck.

Natural selection. This goes the wrong way for evolution. It only sorts and removes genetic information that’s already there

1. Again, natural selection is a mechanism of evolution.
2. Again, please tell us how "genetic information" increases and why it is necessary for evolution.

Peppered moths. Even if the experiments are valid, they would only demonstrate natural selection, and that is not evolution. Even evolutionists recognize that.

Same again and for the last part, no. Evolutionists recognize what natural selection is, even if your sources do not.

Speciation. Speciation is not evolution—new biological species form without any new genetic information. Speciation won’t turn ‘bacteria to man’

If speciation is not evolution, then what is? bacteria cannot turn into man, because we are eukaryotes and bacteria are prokaryotes.

Convergent evolution. A name invented to explain similarities in characteristics of animals that are unexpected and improbable. Sometimes it’s called homoplastic evolution. Such characteristics are powerful evidence for design.

No they are not. A designer would use the same mechanism or organ for different designs.. not ones that did the same thing but were funadamentally different in derivation or composition.

Miller-Urey experiment. It used the wrong atmosphere, produced the wrong chemicals, and did not produce anything remotely like life. No one knows how life could possibly have arisen by naturalistic processes.

There have been other experiments done since then with weaker reducing atmospheres that produced many precursers to life. It was never supposed to create life, in any case.

Transitional forms. There are no examples of transitional forms for which one could make a watertight case—just a handful of disputable ones

A transitional is simply a species with features of two different taxonomic groups. They may or may not be direct ancestors of any modern species.

Horse series. An icon that has been long discarded by academic evolutionists

That is a lie. It is simply more complex than was once thought. Horse Evolution Over 55 Million Years http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/horses/horse_evol.html

Lungfish. Another old idea that has been long abandoned.

What nonsense. There are lungfish alive TODAY. http://www.sweetwaterfishing.com.au/images/QldLungfish.jpg

And yes, they have both lungs and gills.... puts a monkey wrench in the old "how did it survive with half a lung" argument, doesn't it?

Archaeopteryx. Yet another old example that evolutionists have rejected. Its timing is wrong, even by evolutionists’ own dating, and is now regarded as a fully functional, flying bird. [/COLOR][/SIZE][/FONT]

Who just happened to have the skeleton of a theropod dinosaur??? http://www.geologyrocks.co.uk/system/files/u3/birdcompl.gif

I could go on, but I'd probably be wasting my time. Do you care that your "Creation Ministry" websites are lying to you? Yes or no, please.

 

[Split Rock]

Not personally, but they were contributing members of society at one time.

Must have been "scientists" blessing us doing Satan's work while waiting for the greatest scientist of all time to come (the Anti-Christ).

 

[mathclub]

yeah the whole basis of the thread is off.

science is constantly going to get things wrong, go down dead ends, have failed experiments. You typically produce 99 wrong answers before you find the right one that works. There is funding, fame and glory for those on the cutting edge and you will get fraudsters and liars trying to get in on the act.

None of this in any way invalidates any of the actual science that works, has been proven and is backed by solid evidence, prediction and experimentation.

 

[USincognito]

In my opinion, this biggest single example is what I mentioned here. Haeckel's embryo drawings have been known to be inaccurate for well over a century, but they've still continued to appear in books published in the past 15 years, without any mention of what's wrong with them.

I'm no longer convinced this is the case. The examples you linked to seemed to be discussing the embryos within von Baer's ideas about recapitulation and a historical context.

Here's a few things you might find interesting.
Michael Richardson's photographs
http://home.uchicago.edu/~rjr6/articles/Haeckel--fraud not proven.pdf
Embryology

 

[USincognito]

It's funny. Usually these supposed fragments of ape-men come after funding is given. In other words, paleoanthropologists are expected to produce results. I find it amazing that they can make an entire drawing of an ape-man family from a pig's tooth.

Of course it wasn't paeloanthropologists who made that drawing. You're spreading a Creationist urban legend.

Natural selection. This goes the wrong way for evolution. It only sorts and removes genetic information that’s already there.

Define "information" within the context of genetics and then show us evidence of the supposed genetic front-loading to which you allude.

Peppered moths. Even if the experiments are valid, they would only demonstrate natural selection, and that is not evolution. Even evolutionists recognize that.

If scientists and lay evolution advocates understand this, then why would you even mention it?

Speciation. Speciation is not evolution—new biological species form without any new genetic information. Speciation won’t turn ‘bacteria to man’.

Could you please define "new information" within the context of genetics?

Convergent evolution. A name invented to explain similarities in characteristics of animals that are unexpected and improbable. Sometimes it’s called homoplastic evolution. Such characteristics are powerful evidence for design.

That's actually a bogus definition made up by Creationists. And how are such characteristics evidence for design? Bird, bat and pterosaur wings, and cetacean fins are much more parsimoniously explained by evolution "using" the body parts that are there to make wing or and wing-like structures, while a designer could use any novel body part or design to make wings.

Transitional forms. There are no examples of transitional forms for which one could make a watertight case—just a handful of disputable ones.

This entire sentence is an attempt to weasel out of the long lists of transitionals that can be provided by handwaving them away as "disputed".

Horse series. An icon that has been long discarded by academic evolutionists.

Why don't you check out Todd Woods' baraminological analysis of horses where he eventually determined that all horses from Hyracotherium to Equus is "horse kind".

Comparative anatomy. Sometimes evolutionists claim similar body plans support a common ancestor but at other times they don’t. It’s obviously subjective and there are many features in embryonic development that contradict the claim.

Name one example for each sentence.

Embryonic development. This has long been abandoned as evidence for evolution. Haeckel’s drawings are blatantly fraudulent.

The case about Haeckel's drawings being frauds isn't so solid based on some recent analyses, but embryonic photography and the field of Evolutionary Development has actually made embryology as an area of study more robust than ever.

Distribution of plants and animals.[/B] A circular argument. Evolution is assumed to explain the distribution and then the distribution is taken to prove evolution. To the evolutionist everything is evidence of evolution, but there are other explanations.

This doesn't make much sense, but you appear to be referring to biogeography. So, tell us what the "other explanations" are.

Human evolution. The hominid evidence can be sorted into human and ape fossils. The transitional claims are belief-driven interpretations based on cases where the evidence is scanty and ambiguous

And yet Creationists themselves can't decide which fossils are which.
Comparison of all skulls

Ah, the best Gish Gallops are full of PRATTs because it makes them so easy to blow out of the water.

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

Still waiting for one of those telltale 'evolutionist lies'.

To qualify as an 'evolutionist lie', by the way, it's fair to say it needs to meet at least three criteria:

- The claim must have been made by evolutionary biologists or those in a closely related field
- The claim must be demonstrably false
- The claim must be continually adhered to by those in the academic community, despite its demonstrable falsehood

Nothing presented in this thread so far has come remotely close.

Meanwhile, there is not one creationist claim that isn't either,

- A lie, or otherwise factually incorrect assertion ('macro-evolution has never been observed')
- An assertion that can neither be proven nor confirmed ('goddidit')
- An assertion that exposes their own ignorance of the subject ('monkeys can't turn into people')
- An assertion that is utterly irrelevant to the subject ('evolution does not explain the origin of life')
- Some combination of the above ('Darwin had a deathbed conversion' - a lie, and irrelevant)

That's it. They have nothing else.

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

Oh, I'm sorry. They have one other category of claim.

Creationists don't do any science of their own, but they will occasionally piggy-back on the findings of real scientists, screwing it up beyond recognition to suit their apologetic needs.

For example,

Scientist says: In a particular 1% portion of the total genome content, humans are closer to chickens than we are to chimpanzees.

Creationist says: SCIENTISTS ADMIT GENETICS DOESN'T WORK! EVOLUTIONISTS WRONG ALL ALONG! HUMANS ARE CLOSER TO CHICKENS THAN CHIMPANZEES!!! VICTORY!!!!!!!!!!1

 

[AV1611VET]

Creationists don't do any science of their own, but they will occasionally piggy-back on the findings of real scientists, screwing it up beyond recognition to suit their apologetic needs.

In view of the fact that creationists gave us this:

SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES ESTABLISHED by BIBLE-BELIEVING SCIENTISTS

Antiseptic Surgery = Joseph Lister
Bacteriology = Louis Pasteur
Calculus = Isaac Newton
Chemistry = Robert Boyle
Comparative Anatomy = Georges Cuvier
Computer Science = Charles Babbage
Dimensional Analysis = Lord Rayleigh
Dynamics = Isaac Newton
Electrodynamics = James Clerk Maxwell
Electromagnetics = Michael Faraday
Electronics = Ambrose Fleming
Energetics = Lord Kelvin
Entomology of Living Insects = Henri Fabre
Field Theory = Michael Faraday
Fluid Mechanics = George Stokes
Galactic Astronomy = William Herschel
Gas Dynamics = Robert Boyle
Genetics = Gregor Mendel
Glacial Geology = Louis Agassiz
Gynecology = James Simpson
Hydraulics = Leonardo da Vinci
Hydrography = Matthew Maury
Hydrostatics = Blaise Pascal
Ichthyology = Louis Agassiz
Isotopic Chemistry = William Ramsay
Model Analysis = Lord Rayleigh
Natural History = John Ray
Non-Euclidean Geometry = Bernhard Riemann
Oceanography = Matthew Maury
Optical Meneralogy = David Brewster
Paleontology = John Woodward
Pathology = Rudolph Virchow
Physical Astronomy = Johann Kepler
Reversible Thermodynamics = James Joule
Statistical Thermodynamics = James Clerk Maxwell
Stratigraphy = Nicholas Steno
Systematic Biology = Carolus Linnaeus
Thermodynamics = Lord Kelvin
Thermokinetics = Humprey Davy
Vertebrate Paleontology = Georges Cuvier

NOTABLE INVENTIONS, DISCOVERIES OR DEVELOPMENTS

Absolute Temperature Scale = Lord Kelvin
Actuarial Tables = Charles Babbage
Barometer = Blaise Pascal
Biogenesis Law = Louis Pasteur
Calculating Machine = Charles Babbage
Chloroform = James Simpson
Classification System = Carolus Linnaeus
Double Stars = William Herschel
Electric Generator Michael Faraday
Electric Motor = Joseph Henry
Ephemeris Tables = Johann Kepler
Fermentation Control = Louis Pasteur
Galvanometer = Joseph Henry
Global Star Catalog = John Herschel
Inert Gas = William Ramsay
Kaleidoscope = David Brewster
Law of Gravity = Isaac Newton
Mine Safety Lamp = Humphrey Davy
Pasteurization = Louis Pasteur
Reflecting Telescope = Isaac Newton
Scientific Method = Francis Bacon
Self-Induction = Joseph Henry
Telegraph = Samuel F. B. Morse
Thermionic Valve = Ambrose Fleming
Trans-Atlantic Cable = Lord Kelvin
Vaccination and Immunization = Louis Pasteur

Source: Defender's Study Bible, Appendix7, written by the late Henry M. Morris

... can't you guys do something for awhile? or do you want creationists to do it all?

 

[Aggie]

I'm no longer convinced this is the case. The examples you linked to seemed to be discussing the embryos within von Baer's ideas about recapitulation and a historical context.

Here's a few things you might find interesting.
Michael Richardson's photographs
http://home.uchicago.edu/~rjr6/articles/Haeckel--fraud not proven.pdf
Embryology

If you look at the captions of the images I posted, only one of the three (the image from Douglas Futuyma's book) says the image is being used as an illustration of von Baer's law. The caption from Ernst Mayr's book just says that the image shows embryos of vertebrates at comparable stages of development, without any mention of the fact that this is a historic image that at the very least is outdated by now. The caption of the image from Prothero's book mentions von Baer, but the purpose of the image is to show that "all vertebrates start out with a very fish-like body plan", and to use this as a line of evidence for evolution. I consider this example the worst of the three, because it's presenting an argument against creationism (that's the purpose of the book) using evidence that's exaggerated, without mentioning that it's exaggerated.

I e-mailed Donald Prothero about this in 2009, and he replied to say that he'd used the images was because he hadn't known they were considered inaccurate. He also said he'd try to find a more accurate image to replace it with for the book's second edition. That's consistent with what I've been assuming to be the case, which is that book authors have been using this image simply because they aren't aware there's anything wrong with it.

The pages you linked to seem to be making the point that Haeckel did the best he could with the information available to him, but that wasn't the perspective during his lifetime. In the earlier thread I linked to, I quoted a book from 1915 that discusses the reaction to these images in the early 20th century:

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.

According to this, he actually repeated the same woodcut multiple times, while labeling it as a different animal each time. That seems like more of a deliberate distortion than what's assumed by the pages you linked to. He also admitted he was wrong to have done so, and was repudiated about it by a statement from 25 universities.

Kenneth Miller discusses the enduring influence of these drawings in his 2008 book Only a Theory, on pages 230-231.

It is true that Hackel's drawings inspired several generations of incorrect artwork in biology textbooks all over the world. When British developmental biologist Michael K. Richardson pointed out these errors in 1997, I was stunned to discovered that even one of my own textbooks contained drawings modeled after Haeckels'. I quickly corrected them by substituting more accurate drawings, and then by replacing those with actual photographs of the embryos.

This suggests the problem has been more widespread than just the three books I used as examples in the earlier thread, and also that the image has often been used in more than just a historical context. (Since if that were the only way it were being used, Miller wouldn't have considered this such a problem.)