Keith Miller wrote:
>The historical situation is much more complicated than
>this. Please read the research article by Michael K.
>Richardson and others ("There is no highly conserved
>embryonic stage in the vertebrates: Implications for
>current theories of evolution and development" in Anatomy
>and Embryology (1997), vol. 196, p.91-106). Wells'
>discussion is really just a review of Richardson's
>work.
This is not true. Wells and I published an article
on problems with the standard neo-Darwinian view of
homology and the non-conservation of early development
before Richardson's article appeared (see J. Wells and
P. Nelson, "Homology: A Concept in Crisis," _Origins
& Design_ 18 [Fall 1997]:12-19; Richardson's article
appeared in December 1997). In fact, we presented a
discussion paper on the topic to a conference in June
1993. See this URL:
http://www.arn.org/docs/nelson/pn_darwinianparadigm061593.htm
Chapter 5 of Icons, "Haeckel's Embryos," cites Richardson
et al. 1997, of course, but is much broader in scope.
Keith went on:
>Haeckel's drawing have gbeen questioned almost from
>the beginning but no definitive demonstration of fraud
>(at least widely known) was provided until relatively
>recently.
Again, this is not true. In 1986, the Swiss
embryologist Gunter Rager documented Haeckel's
fraudulent use of the same printing block for different
species (Rager 1986). But this fraud had been first
pointed out over 100 years earlier by Rutimeyer
(_Archiv fur Anthropologie_ vol. VIII [1868], p. 300).
Between the 19th century and the present, various
authors have noted Haeckel's frauds and misrepresentations.
The Polish philosopher of science and physician
Ludwik Fleck, for instance, wrote in 1935:
When Haeckel, the romantic, high-spirited
champion of truth, wanted to demontrate his
ideas about descent, he did not shrink from
occasionally using the same blocks for the
illustration of different objects such as
animal and human embryos which should look
alike according to his theory. His _History
of Natural Creation_ abounds with biased
illustrations appropriate for his theory.
(Fleck 1935 [1979, p. 36])
The late Jane Oppenheimer, doyenne of the history
of embryology, noted in 1987:
It was a failing of Haeckel as a would-be
scientist that his hand as an artist altered
what he saw with what should have been the
eye of a more accurate beholder. He was more
than once, often justifiably, accused of
scientific falsification, by Wilhelm His and
by many others. For only two examples, in
_Anthropogenie_ he drew the developing brain
of a fish as curved, because that of reptiles,
birds, and mammals is bent. But the vesicles
of a fish brain always form in a straight
line. He drew the embryonic membranes of man
as including a small sac-like allantois, an
embryonic organ characteristic of and larger
in reptiles, birds, and some nonhuman mammals.
The human embryo has no sac-like allantois
at all. Only its narrow solid stock remains
to conduct the umbilical blood vessels between
embryo and placenta. Examples could be
multiplied significantly. (Oppenheimer 1987,
p. 134)
Michael Richardson and colleagues set out to investigate
only the issue of so-called phylotypic stage in
vertebrates. But evidence of fraud and the falsification
of data on Haeckel's part has been widely available for
well over a century.
Keith continued:
>Furthermore, Richardson strongly rejects the way his
>work has been represented by Wells.
This is absolutely false. Wells and Richardson have a
very friendly relationship. Keith should provide his
evidence for this claim or retract it.
Paul Nelson
Senior Fellow
The Discovery Institute
www.discovery.org/crsc
References
Fleck, Ludwik. 1935 [1979]. _Genesis and Development
of a Scientific Fact_. Chicago: University of Chicago
Press.
Oppenheimer, Jane. 1987. Haeckel's Variations on
Darwin. In H.M. Hoenigswald and L.F. Wiener, eds.,
_Biological Metaphor and Cladistic Classification_
(Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press).
Rager, Gunter. 1986. Human embryology and the law of
biogenesis. _Rivista di Biologia - Biology Forum_
79:449-465.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed May 16 2001 - 13:57:59 EDT