He FAKED this picture:
which is still taught to children in US schools today.
He paraded his picture around Germany, converting most of germany to evolution, but it was all FAKED.
Posted on 02/07/2009 7:02:27 AM PST by Ethan Clive Osgoode
Excerpts from Creation by Evolution: A Consensus of Present-Day Knowledge as Set Forth by Leading Authorities in Non-Technical Language that All May Understand. Edited by Frances Mason, 1928, MacMillan Co.
In early times and among primitive peoples all phenomena were regarded as supernatural. The rising and setting of the sun, the sweet influence of the Pleiades, the coming and going of the winds, storms, lightning, thunder -- all the phenomena of life, birth, and death -- were supposed to be directly controlled by gods or spirits. In the course of centuries many such events were seen to be natural — that is, lawful or orderly -- and were more or less understood, so that gradually the supernatural withdrew to the misty mountain tops of origins. During the last two or three centuries enlightened people everywhere have come to realize that ordinary phenomena occur in accordance with natural laws. But in the matter of beginnings and origins the opinion is still widely held that they do not happen in accordance with nature, but only in response to supernatural action.
Even such a constantly recurring phenomenon as the origin of the individual human being was by many regarded as a supernatural phenomenon until a little more than a hundred years ago; and even today many intelligent people believe that the mind and soul of every person is supernaturally created, though few, if any, would go so far as to maintain that the body is supernaturally created, as some of the "preformationists" did in the eighteenth century... These speculations reached their culmination in the works of Charles Bonnet (1748-1773), the distinguished natural philosopher of Geneva, in which he denied all new formation, all development or generation, and held that in the original creation of the progenitor of each species God created at one stroke all the individuals that would ever come from that progenitor. Thus every individual in the world was supernaturally created.
Ontogeny, or the origin of individuals, and phylogeny, or the origin of races, are two aspects of one and the same thing, namely, organic development. There is a remarkable parallelism between the two, and in particular the factors or causes of development are essentially the same in both. Just as the earth rotates on its axis and revolves in its orbit and the whole solar system moves through space in accordance with the law of gravity, so organisms undergo development as embryos, as species, and as larger groups according to the law of organic evolution.
It was Ernst Haeckel, in his Generelle Morphologie (1866) and in many later books, who announced that "Ontogeny is a short recapitulation of Phylogeny" -- that is, the successive embryonic stages in the development of an animal correspond to the successive adult stages of the phylum to which it belongs. This is Haeckel's Fundamental Law of Biogeny ("Biogenetisches Grundgesetzt"), which is more frequently called the theory of embryonic recapitulation.
All vertebrates, from fishes to mammals, pass through a fish-like stage in their development in which they have (1) gill slits, (2) five or six pairs of aortic arches, (3) a simple tubular heart with one auricle and one ventricle, (4) a notochord (the basis of the backbone in higher vertebrates), (5) a primitive type of kidney (the pronephros), etc. These organs persist throughout life in the lowest fishes, but they undergo many changes in higher forms.
The fundamental resemblances or homologies between embryos, larvae, and adults which have been cited above are just as genuine homologies as those between adult structures, and the only natural explanation that has ever been found for such homologies is inheritance from common ancestors.
The origin of the individual (ontogeny) is not only a key to the conditions and causes of the origin of the race (phylogeny) but is also an actual evolution -- that is, an origin of new forms by transformation from old ones. In the long series of stages which an egg passes through in its transformation into a mature animal one sees not only an actual evolution -- the evolution of an individual — but also, more or less obscurely, a repetition of the stages of the long-past evolution of the ancestors of the species.
Man no less than other mammals develops from a fertilized egg, which passes through cleavage, blastula, and gastrula stages. The human embryo has gill slits and aortic arches, which undergo exactly the same transformations that take place in other mammals. Man's heart is at first like that of a fish, consisting of one auricle and one ventricle. His backbone begins as a notochord, is next a segmented cartilaginous rod, then each segment or vertebra consists of five separate bones, and finally each fuses into a single bone. He has in the course of his development three different pairs of kidneys, first a pronephros (or fore-kidney) , like that of the lower fishes, then a mesonephros (or mid-kidney) , like that of the frogs, and finally a metanephros (or hind-kidney) like that of reptiles, birds, and mammals, which alone survives in the adult. His brain, eye, ear, in fact, all his organs, pass through stages in development that are characteristic of lower vertebrates. Even in those adult features that are distinctively human, such as the peculiar form of the hand and the foot, the number of bones in the ankle and wrist, the number of pairs of ribs, the absence of a tail and the relative hairlessness of the skin -- in all these respects the human foetus resembles anthropoid apes more than adult man.
Why are not these and a hundred other structures made directly? Why this roundabout process of making a man? There is no answer but evolution.
Embryology bears indubitable testimony to the truth of evolution; ancestral history is repeated in individual history, but the record is like an ancient palimpsest that has been erased and written over again and again. Traces of the old record are still there; some are obscure, some are almost entirely obliterated, but wherever they are decipherable they, tell the old, old story of the common origin of animal and man -- their similarities and their kinship.
What bearings do these scientific evidences as to the origin of individuals and species have on religious faith? It might satisfy our pride to believe that every human being sprang into existence fully formed and armed, like Minerva, from the brain of Jove, but however pleasing such a belief might be it could not be held by sane and enlightened people. We know well that every human being, even the greatest that ever trod the earth, was once a baby, an embryo, a germ cell, and this knowledge has not destroyed our belief in the dignity of man nor in the existence of God.
It pleases many persons to believe that the first man sprang into existence fully formed and perfectly endowed, coming directly from the hand of God by an act of supernatural creation. But such a belief cannot be held by enlightened persons who have really studied and appreciated the evidences of man's evolution. Such persons know well that every human being bears in his body the marks of his animal origin, and that the human embryo shows that man's ancestors were once water-breathers and later hairy quadrupeds before they became men; yet this knowledge need not destroy belief in the dignity of man nor in the existence of God.
It is a curious fact that many persons who are seriously disturbed by scientific teachings as to the evolution or gradual development of the human race accept with equanimity the universal observations as to the development of the human individual. The animal ancestry of the race should be no more disturbing to philosophical and religious beliefs than the germinal origin of the individual, yet the latter is a fact of universal observation, which cannot be relegated to the domain of theory and which cannot be successfully denied. If we admit the fact of the development of the entire individual from the egg, surely it matters little to our religious beliefs to admit the development or evolution of the race from some animal ancestor; for who will maintain that a germ cell is more complex, more perfect, or more intelligent than man's nearest relative in the animal world?
If the idea of the evolution of a species is atheistic, as some persons assert, so is the idea of the development of an individual, for individual development involves the same principles as race evolution. If one concedes the fact of individual development according to natural laws and without supernatural suspension of those laws, one might as well concede the fact of evolution without supernatural creation, so far at least as its effect on theology is concerned. It is surprising that the so-called "Fundamentalists" have not denied the development of the individual as they deny the development of the species; if they are consistent they will demand that we return to the teachings of the "preformationists" of the eighteenth century -- to the idea of endless encasement of one generation within an earlier one and hence to the special and supernatural creation of every child of Adam in the creation of Adam himself. When that comes to pass, there will probably be a demand that the teaching of embryology shall be abolished in all schools and colleges.
Among the greatest and most astonishing discoveries in the modern scientific world is the fact that the story told by the gradual development of the embryo gives a summary of the rise and development of its race. A story covering millions of years, if told in a few months or days, must necessarily be very abbreviated, condensed and modified, but the general lines of the two stories agree. Another astonishing fact shown by the development of the embryo is that it follows the same line of ascent that is shown by the story told by the fossil rocks, thus doubly confirming the fact that the course of nature is from the simple to the complex, as from amoeba to man; that things in nature have come about by gradual change and development, instead of finished and perfect in the beginning. --Frances Mason, editor.
And indeed the book is packed with the creme-de-la-creme of eminent evolution authorities. Read more excerpts here: Creation by Evolution excerpts."Answers of various kind have indeed from time to time been offered, but only in the recent past has there emerged such knowledge as in its broad outline satisfies the demands of critical reason and of scientific fact. That answer goes by the name Evolution. It is set forth in this book reliably and simply by eminent authorities who have devoted their lives to a study of the evidence and to the work of making it more complete."
Who was Conklin? He was a professor of biology at Princeton, a director of the American Eugenics Society, president of the AAAS, and co-founder of the Galton Society. He recommends these books at the end of his essay:
Natural History of Creation, Ernst HaeckelRead more about Haeckel here:
The Evolution of Man, Ernst Haeckel
Heredity and Environment in the Development of Men, E. G. Conklin
Science and Christianity, Ernst Haeckel.Darwin, Saint of Science, Victor Robinson.
Haeckel and Natural-Scientific Materialism, V. I. Lenin.
Eminent Scientific Authorities ping!
He faked a lot more than that. Very much of his work was in some way fake, distorted, mendacious or imaginary. Read some of his Evolution of Man.
Here are some Haeckel resources:
Haeckelology
Thanks for the ping!
I don’t want to get into a long posting session herein, but the independent thinker should research homeobox genes. These genes, in part control the body segmentation and are IDENTICAL in insects, spiders, and mammals. There was no descent with modification as Darwin postulated, but apparently descent with certain Hox genes being discarded in various phyla. One startling implication is that there was an organism with bilateral symmetry, and a full set of Hox genes on Earth at least 500-550 million years ago. How it came to be remains a mystery. There still is much to learn.
If it was faked, please tell us how?
it’s quite simple - he just drew them himself, to intentionally look similar. the real embryos look very different from his picture, and from each other
it was just a bald-faced lie, but in those days, people just accepted anything “a scientist” said as true. I suppose the same is still largely true today
BS. Yep, that’ll do it.
Now, I’m an expert, too!
Not so. We have proof of it right here in America today.
Look around you and see what the majority of Americans are turning into.
Global Warming or Climate Change, postulated, nay preached, by the same folks.
I wish wideawake were here to read your articles.
“During the last two or three centuries enlightened people everywhere have come to realize that ordinary phenomena occur in accordance with natural laws.”
It could be that ordinary phenomena are cause by a supernatural force and the visible attributes which we call causes are really just effects, or the medium by which the supreme being accomplishes the phenomena. That’s what I think.
None of the embryologists that have worked since then have pointed out that it is a “fake”?
If evolution isn’t real then explain a dachshund vs a great dane. They both were bred in the last 500 years or so.
Did you know that you can replace a yeast’s cell division cycle (cdc) genes with that from a human. That shows that the function of the gene is so basic (cell division) that it has been conserved over billions of years of evolution.
The same thing with the Hox genes. The pattern of gene expression determines where a leg vs an arm forms. In fruit flies, you can mess up the pattern and get antennapedia, with a leg growing where an antenna should be.
Get some biology education and come back.
“evolution isn’t real then explain a dachshund vs a great dane. They both were bred in the last 500 years or so.”
Exactly. changes within the kind are perfectly real. But you don’t change the kind to some other kind. And look how long it takes to get such diversity. Just 500 years. 6000 months.
“None of the embryologists that have worked since then have pointed out that it is a “fake”?”
Of course they have. It is a fake. Just one example of many fakes where darwinists try to prove their religion. The man was fired from his own university over 100 years ago for it. In some states you still find it in school textbooks, because darwinists generally don’t care that it’s fake. Just like the school textbooks that say the colorado carved the grand canyon. It would take a river flowing uphill to do that, but hey, who cares about a little fact like that. But yes, every embryologist accepts that the Haekel drawing is a petty fake. Perhaps you need to do some research about that.
One of the big battles for Christians is simply ensuring that school textbook materials are factually accurate. It’s always the Christians fighting for laws that school textbooks must be factually accurate.
Darwinists are always against those laws because they like to use faked materials that *seem* plausible to kids, like the Haekel picture.
Or the drawn images depicting fish crawling onto land, then viola! there is a land dwelling creature
A hundred times zero will still be zero.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.