Michael: you've recently been a topic of conversation on a discussion
group maintained by the American Scientific Affiliation. The main issue
is the extent to which Jonathan Wells has accurately used your research
on Haeckel in the arguments he advances in Icons of Evolution. I've
attached a couple of exchanges between Keith Miller and Paul Nelson. I
wouldn't expect you to wade through the details, but we would appreciate
any comments you might have, especially since I think it is safe to say
that not too many of us are up to speed on developmental embryology.
Thanks,
Jim Hofmann
Philosophy Department and Liberal Studies Program
California State University Fullerton
http://nsmserver2.fullerton.edu/departments/chemistry/evolution_creation/web
POST 1
From:
kbmill@ksu.edu [SMTP:kbmill@ksu.edu]
To:
asa@calvin.edu
Cc:
kbmill@ksu.edu
Subject:
Re: Johnson and "Icons"
Sent:
5/15/2001 6:32 PM
Importance:
Normal
Quote from Nelson:
>The issue is not whether the use of drawings, per se, or the
simplification
>of them is legitimate. The issue is whether they are accurate.
Wells shows
>by use of simplified drawings that Haeckel's simplified drawings are
>inaccurate, and that the biological community has known this for a
long time
>and done nothing in concert to correct the situation. Wells goes
further and
>claims that not only are the drawings inaccurate, but that they are
>deliberate misrepresentations of the facts.
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.
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. the reason is that comparative embryology
fell
out of favor with the biological community and very little original
work
had been done. This is particularly true of animal groups not
commonly
used as laboratory subjects. Richardson, specifically focused on the
vertebrate groups that Haeckel used.
The theory of recapitulation which Haeckel proposed was rejected early
on.
I was introduced to Haeckle in school only as an historical interest
and to
point out that recapitulation had been rejected.
Furthermore, Richardson strongly rejects the way his work has been
represented by Wells. So anyone who wishes to argue this issue needs
to
read Richardson's paper.
In a letter to the editor of the journal Science (1998, vol. 280,
p.983-985), Richardson and his coauthors write: "Our work has been
used in
a nationally televised debate to attack evolutionary theory, and to
suggest
that evolution cannot explain embryology. We strongly disagree with
this
viewpoint. Data from embryology are fully consistent with Darwinian
evolution. ... It also fits with overwhelming recent evidence that
development in different animals is controlled by common genetic
mechanisms."
The letter concludes with: "Haeckel's inaccuracies damage his
credibility,
but they do not invalidate the mass of published evidence for
Darwinian
evolution. Ironically, had Haeckel drawn the embryos accurately, his
first
two valid points in favor of evolution [increasing differences between
species as they develop, and strong similarities between early human
embryos and those of other eutherian mammals] would have been better
demonstrated."
>Moreover, he then goes on to present the best current thinking on the
problem
>of similarity/dissimilarity of embryos by presenting the
developmental
>hour-glass model. He wrote, "Vertebrate embryos start out looking
very
>different, then superficially converge midway through development at
the
>'pharyngula' or 'phylotypic' stage, before diverging into the adult
form."
I find this staement incredible. Haeckel's diagrams have been used
recently for the very purpose of supporting the "hour-glass" model and
the
phylotypic stage. Richardson's paper was written to falsify that
model!
In other words the rejection of Haeckle's drawings is tied to the
rejection
of the phylotypic stage. This is even in the title of Richardson's
paper:
"There is no highly conserved embryonic stage in the vertebrates."
That
conserved embryonic stage is the phylotypic stage!
>The case of the peppered moths is a similar one. To show them
resting on the
>trunks of trees, as they are pictured, is to misrepresent the facts.
It has
>been known since 1980 that peppered moths do not normally rest on
tree
>trunks. No one really knows yet where the moths rest on trees.
Moreover the
>cause of melanism is still in dispute.
Again, Wells' critique of the work on evolutionary change in the
peppered
moth was not his own but substantially drawn from the work of Michael
Majerus (Melanism: Evolution in Action" by Michael E.N. Majerus:
Oxford
University Press,1998). Please read this book!
Wells quotes the following sentence from Majerus' book: "The findings
of
these scientists show that the precised description of the basic
peppered
moth story is wrong, inaccurate, or incomplete, with respect to most
of the
story's component parts."
However, the next sentence reads: "When details of the genetics,
behaviour,
and ecology of this moth are taken into account, the resulting story
is one
of greater complexity, and in many ways greater interest, than the
simple
story that is usually related."
Furthermore, a couple sentences later Majerus states: "First, it is
important to emphasize that, in my view, the huge wealth of additional
data
obtained since Kettlewell's initial predation papers (Kettlewell
1955a,
1956), does not undermine the basic qualitative deductions from that
work.
Differential bird predation of the typica and carbonaria forms, in
habitats affected by industrial pollution to different degrees, is the
primary influence on the evolution of melanism in the peppered moth."
This issue of posed pictures is of no consequence. The pictures are
clearly posed. I recognized this as a high school student - How else
could
you get a picture of two different morphs together on the same
background?
The moths do indeed rest on tree trunks, just not commonly. They seem
to
prefer the undersides of branches and the branch/trunk joints.
However,
the total number of resting moths observed in non-experimental
settings is
very small. Interestingly, observations of the growth of lichens show
that
the undersides of branches and the branch/trunk joints are the favored
locations for initial lichen growth. This would reinforce the
Kettlewell's
conclusion that the light morph gained additional criptic advantage
against
a lichen covered background.
The book by Majerus covers all tyoes of melanism in a wide range of
species
and demonstrates that is a widely occurring phenomona with several
different causes. Melanism, and the peppered moth case study in
particular, is an excellent subject for teaching both how natural
selection
works and how science works. Wells does a great disservice by
implying
otherwise.
Keith
Keith B. Miller
Department of Geology
Kansas State University
Manhattan, KS 66506
kbmill@ksu.edu
http://www-personal.ksu.edu/~kbmill/
Post 2
From:
Paul Nelson [SMTP:pnelson2@ix.netcom.com]
To:
asa@calvin.edu
Cc:
Keith Miller
Subject:
Re: Johnson and "Icons"
Sent:
5/16/2001 10:32 AM
Importance:
Normal
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 - 18:58:53 EDT