Crazily, people like itchy man deny that they are even inaccurate.
Crazily, people like tallhappy flat-out lie about me, even though it's so easy to prove beyond any doubt that they're lying.
Patrick henry linked to his rambling comment on it.
Yes, let's check what I *actually* wrote in that linked post, shall we? Tallhappy says that I "deny that [Haeckel's drawings] they are even inaccurate". Now compare that to what I actually said about them, IN THE VERY SAME COMMENT TALLHAPPY REFERS TO:
Through laziness, sloppiness, presumption, or any of a number of other possible reasons, his [Haeckel's] plates of embyronic development took this "prettying-up" process too far, and gave the impression of much more similarity at an early stage of development than is actually present. Embryos at that stage *are* more similar to each other than are embryos at a later stage of development, but not nearly as much as Haeckel's drawings indicated. A few even look as if they were just copied from each other instead of drawn from real specimens.One just has to wonder why tallhappy would falsely claim that I "deny that they [Haeckel's drawings] are even inaccurate" when IN THE VERY SAME POST HE POINTS TO AS SUPPORT, I specifically called Haeckel's drawings "inaccurate work", and "inaccurate information", and "weren't really accurate", and "sloppy or oversimplified material", and "had some serious flaws", and took the illustration process "too far", and "were, at best, over-idealized to the point of being wrong".[...]
Some biologists with experience in the field of embryology also noted that Haeckel's embryo drawings were, at best, over-idealized to the point of being wrong, even in Haeckel's own time.
[...]
Haeckel's drawings of embryos are hardly the only inaccurate information to make its way into textbooks for the lower grades, but as the old saying goes, never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidty (or carelessness, ignorance, etc.) There's no evidence that Haeckel's drawings were incorporated into textbooks with a purposeful intent to mislead students.
[...]
...and although some biologists had noticed from time to time that the illustrations weren't really accurate but hadn't made a big stink about it because textbooks generally have a *lot* of sloppy or oversimplified material in them (and doing them perfectly right would cost far more than most school districts could afford -- the classic "close enough for government work"), finally in 1997 a biologist raised the issue of Haeckel's drawings in a paper (again, as historical background) in a way that reminded a wider audience that Haeckel's drawings had some serious flaws.
[...]
The creationists were just the ones who decided they could misrepresent a case of inaccurate work by an early biologist and subsequent laziness by some textbook authors into some kind of Smoking Gun(tm) which allegedly demonstrated that those evil evolutionists have been knowingly lying to everyone all these years.
Is tallhappy really so poor at reading comprehension that he could take these descriptions as my having *denied* that the drawings "are even inaccurate"?
No. If he were that abysmally poor at reading, he wouldn't even have the mental capacity to operate a computer -- the words on the screen would just be gibberish to him.
Instead, he's just lying, in a blatant attempt to slander me through false accusations.
These guys are not committed to the science obviously.
Tallhappy is not committed to the truth, obviously. And this is hardly the first time he has slandered me with false accusations for no cause -- and then not even been honorable enough to ping me to it when he publicly slanders me.
Tallhappy, I want you to explain this behavior. I'm giving you one chance to shape up and atone before I refer your stalking behavior to the moderators. If you fail to respond, or respond in a dishonorable manner (now or in the future) I'm going to leave it to the moderators to handle. I'd rather resolve this matter by having you begin to behave like an adult for a change, but if you are unable to do so, and since my past attempts to raise your level of civility have failed, I'll have no choice but to hand it off to those who have more options at their disposal than I do.
tchuss... now you are open to a charge of paranoia, old man.
So now YOU will raise one's level of civility???
Right after you (rightly or not) called him "monkey boy", amongst other insults, in addition to:
"Furthermore, I just thought I'd mention for no particular reason that there are good medications for the treatment of antisocial disorders which cause bitter emotional outbursts at inappropriate targets."
Does this mean that bitter emotional outbursts directed at appropriate targets, is o-k?.
...perhaps
Seems to me, you dished out as good as you got, while also soundly enough refuting the weakness of his comment.
BUt: also, you threaten to run crying to the mods, at the same time??? and think it "adult"?
That part, looks childish and silly. Ok--maybe 'silly', isn't quite right---girlish is better.