*** *** *** *** ***
I decided to check with a friend who has Futuyma's book as well as the one who penned the accusation. Here are their responses:
*** *** *** *** ***
Haeckel's embryo drawings DO appear in the 3rd edition of Evolutionary Biology on p. 653. Haeckel is treated as a pioneer who has been mostly but not completely disproven. No mention of fraud is made or even hinted at. Here is the summary paragraph (also on p. 653):
There are, to be sure, many cases in which certain features of an ancestor are recapitulated in the ontogeny of a decendant; for example, the metatarsals of a bird, as we saw above, at first develop separately (the ancestral condition) before becoming fused together. Still, the biogenetic law [ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny] is honored more often in the breach than in the observance, and it is certainly not an infallible guide to phylogenetic history.
Regards, Dan
*** *** *** *** ***
The message you sent included the following:
<< the primary issue surrounding Haeckel in textbooks, which has always been to debunk Haeckel's "ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny" oversimplification, is in fact admirably discussed in all three editions. >>
Debunking Haeckel's Biogenetic Law ("ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny") is a commonly used diversion in Darwinian writings. The real problem is not the Biogenetic Law, but the fact that Haeckel's drawings continue to be used as "evidence" for the common ancestry of vertebrates -- though they are often falsely attributed (as in Futuyma's third edition) to von Baer, who was a better embryologist than Haeckel and vehemently anti-Darwin.
By debunking the Biogenetic Law, Darwinists give the appearance of having recognized the error of their ways, when in fact they are still mired in it. At least once a year some article written by a Darwinist explains the presence of some feature by recourse to the Biogenetic Law (though of course without calling it that). Like eugenics, the Biogenetic Law is driven by the inner logic of Darwin's theory; Darwinists can deny both as much as they like, but both will continue to rise from the ashes until Darwin's theory is dead.
Jonathan
So Vade's source is proven to be a "liar for Darwin". The end justifies the means. Anything for the cause.
So it would seem.
From: "Charles T. Smith, Jr."
Subject: Teno forging headers
Date: 1998/03/07
Message-ID: <009C2D58.116BD20C.55@star-nets.com>#1/1
Sender: Free Catholic Mailing List
Comments: ********************************************************
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
FYI -
I found a number of emails in my mailbox this morning, with headers purporting to be from the mailing list,
I take a very dim view of spoofing mail headers. In particular, this message, and presumably several others like it claim to come from catholic@american.edu. There are several mistakes you make in this; first of all, the mailing list does not send me any traffic to this address.
> From: MX%"tdg@vbe.com" "Teno Groppi" 7-MAR-1998 01:29:14.35
> To: MX%"CATHOLIC@AMERICAN.EDU"
> CC:
> Subj: Good Friday?
Secondly, the headers clearly show that the traffic did not pass through American.edu, which is a forgery:
> Return-Path:
> Received: from serv1.vbe.com (206.242.16.3) by star-nets.com (MX V5.0) with
> ESMTP; Sat, 7 Mar 1998 01:29:10 -0500
> Received: from Teno (dial100.vbe.com [206.242.16.100]) by serv1.vbe.com
> (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id XAA28524; Fri, 6 Mar 1998 23:37:10 -0600
> (CST)
> Message-ID: <3.0.32.19980306233246.00687054@mail.vbe.com>
> X-Sender: tdg@mail.vbe.com (Unverified)
> X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0 (32)
> Date: Fri, 06 Mar 1998 23:36:12 -0600
> To: CATHOLIC@AMERICAN.EDU
> From: Teno Groppi
> Subject: Good Friday?
> MIME-Version: 1.0
[text deleted]
Two things:
1) I'm not interested in recieving any more mail from you purporting to be from any of the lists I run. You may, however, send such messages to me or any member of my list for a per message charge of $995.00. Your sending of such a message is acceptance of these terms. You will be invoiced on a per message basis, and collection activity will be agressive.
2) Any further mail header spoofing will result in your provider being notified. If they take no action, your providers provider will be notified, and possibly law enforcement as well.
Should you wish to discuss this, or the reason for your removal from the catholic@american.edu list, you may mail me directly, with a message not containing spoofed headers and reasonable subject line for this express purpose.
Any other communication will be considered as billable use of StarNet's email resources, billable at $995 per occurance. Your acceptance of these terms is the mailing of such an email message.
Charles Smith
President, StarNet Inc.
You have not shown that Futyma's college-level textbook is misrepresenting Haeckel's drawings, only that they "DO" appear there. Many sources on Haeckel do not accuse him of fraud. Creationists can be relied upon to do so, but creationists are lousy sources for history or science. It is very hard to prove intent even when someone consistently distorts. I often wonder how many creationists know better (i.e, are dishonest), versus how many are just nuts.