Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

To: BroJoeK
I finally got around to reading your last post. I was a little hard on you. Mea culpa.

My main reply was to set the record straight on your assertion regarding , "You people claim fraud and deceit." I thought that was very unfair and a clear misrepresentation of the facts. I quoted both Haeckel contemporaries right up to and through Gould who reported much the same in March 2000 Nature. We people just want to have a hearing and a saying of the facts.....all of them, not just assertions regarding the the biogenetic law regarding recapitulation. I thought I made that clear. You did not address the You people misrepresentation. It seemed to just fly by you.

I will leave it alone behond that.

I really do not think I have enlightened you on any issue we have discussed. Your comments I found laden with presupposition to the degree that it seems to blind you to other points of view. I, too, have presuppositions, but I am listening to people of other views. Some of those people I have learned a lot from. We will speak again, I am sure. I, too, hope you have a nice Thanksgiving.

266 posted on 11/25/2014 3:24:04 PM PST by Texas Songwriter (w)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 264 | View Replies ]


To: Texas Songwriter
Texas Songwriter post #260: "We people keep alleging fraud and deceit by Haeckel regarding ontology recapitulating phylogeny....

Haeckel, as you know famously alleged similarity between vertebrate embryos in the early stages of development buy as they approached full fetal development differentiated from that similarity."

And up to a point, that is neither scientific theory nor law, but rather observed & confirmed fact.
The problem was that both Haeckel and his critics misunderstood what they were looking at, and therein lies controversy.

Texas Songwriter post #260: "Biologists and embryologists have known for more than a century that Haeckel faked his drawings.
As he tried to proseletyze people to his worldview, he made drawings which were dictated by his presuppositions."

Yes, so Haeckel was accused at the time, but he denied it, and it turns out he produced several versions of his drawings, some less egregious than others.
Richardson, whom you quote here, studied the matter in great detail, and decided that Haeckel actually did the best he could, with what he knew at the time.
Not, of course, saying Haeckel was correct, only that his mistakes were honest, and then later corrected.

Texas Songwriter post #260: "By the 1920's the 'law of phyologeny was falling out of favor among embryologists who knew, but the educates kept the lie in school books for indoctrination reasons into Darwinism.
Stephen Jay Gould said 'the biogenetic las fell only when it became unfashionable.'
Historian of Science, Nicholas Rasmussen agreed with Gould, putting it this way, 'All the important evidence called upon in the rejection of the biogenetic law was there from the FIRST Days of the laws acceptance.' "

So, I gather this is the root-source of your angst & anger at Haeckel: that his alleged "biogenetic law" was, first, not even a "law", second, was a mistaken interpretation of observed facts which should have been clear from the beginning, and third, even after being rejected by serious scientists, his "law" continued to be propagated in school books for many decades afterwards.
So, "you people" are angry at Haeckel for refusing to acknowledge his mistakes, and at science-in-general for failing to immediately purge those mistakes from children's text-books, right?

Well, if I've stated your problem correctly, then, of course, I agree with you -- obviously some scientists suffer from the same problem as some news reporters: if a story is just "too good not to be true", they don't examine it very closely.

Texas Songwriter post #260: "Wilhelm His accused Haeckel of SCIENTIFIC FALSIFICATION.
In 1995 Michael Richardson noted that 'the embryos drawn were not consistent with other data on the development of those species.'
He further said, the drawings show,'a clear misrepresentation of the truth.' "

But here is where we need to remember both sides, because both His and Richardson are mentioned in the wiki article, which puts them in a different light:

In other words, it seems that Haeckel may not have been the only one stretching the truth.
So what, exactly, are we looking at here?
Well, I see an academic squabble, typical of many academic squabbles, where opposing sides become personally invested in a particular viewpoint and push things too far.
In the end, neither side understands it correctly, and nobody outside the academic squabble-community really cares either way.

Texas Songwriter post #266: "My main reply was to set the record straight on your assertion regarding , "You people claim fraud and deceit.
I thought that was very unfair and a clear misrepresentation of the facts...
We people just want to have a hearing and a saying of the facts.....all of them, not just assertions regarding the the biogenetic law regarding recapitulation."

But don't you understand?
How can I say this more simply: nobody defends a so-called biogenetic law.
Nobody is arguing in favor of it, because everybody "gets" that it was wrong.
But only "you people" continue to want to keep on fighting the battle.
For you, it's still a big issue, you can't just let it go and move-on to something else.
All I'm saying is, give Haeckel a little credit for accomplishment, just as we credit Columbus for finding America, never mind he thought it was India!

Texas Songwriter post #266: "You did not address the You people misrepresentation.
It seemed to just fly by you."

But my "you people" was not a misrepresentation, because only "you people" wish to continue fighting a battle which was long since settled: Haeckel's "Law" is today defunct, tossed into the ash-can of bad ideas, with only a small residual credit allowed for pointing out an interesting fact, namely that fetuses of more closely related species look much the same in early development, only growing species-unique features later on.
Even less closely related species still look remarkably similar early on.

Texas Songwriter post #266: "Your comments I found laden with presupposition to the degree that it seems to blind you to other points of view."

Well, what you blithely call "presumptions" I consider to be highly informed conclusions (if not fact), based on many years of study and careful thought.
And, if you read my posts carefully, you'll see the reasons why.

Have a happy holiday!

269 posted on 11/26/2014 12:47:37 PM PST by BroJoeK (a little historical perspective..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 266 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson