Haeckel' Fake Evolution Charts in modern books cited??

Question

There you have the citations the page of the books http://www.discovery.org/a/3935
Admit it, evolutionists still think Haeckel fake drawing is real. Why do they still use it then? Need more book's citation that show that the charts are still being used?

Answer 1

Amazing, another example of science being self correcting and religion tries to take the credit.

Edit: Posting a link with a clearer story of the issues.

Answer 2

Haeckel's work was flawed but that doesn't detract from the fact that embryology demonstrates a great deal of evidence for evolution. For example, you have the genes for a tail and in fact you *had* a tail when you were a 4-week-old embryo. We all do. Why would this be true *unless* we are descended from a species in which the adults had a tail?

Answer 3

Only 1 of those sources actually used Haeckel's drawings.

You know (you probably don't) his basic idea is still correct.

Ontology does recapitulate phylogeny, just not to the extent Haeckel thought. So using his drawings to explain how this idea has been modified is not inappropriate.

Besides this is only one little piece of evidence out of mountains for evolution.

Answer 4

Well, if those books are indeed showing those as actual charts, rather then for historical reasons, then they are wrong. But it isn't like there aren't accurate ones out there they aren't made up. And those still support evolution.

And most of those charts look more like actual fetus development charts, rather then Haeckel's chart.

Answer 5

So your problem isn't with evolution, it's with textbooks, correct? Why don't you write a letter to the publishers?

EDIT: The article you provided says that Haeckel's drawings aren't a part of evolutionary theory. Some high-school textbooks apparently aren't keeping up with the theory. That's not a problem with evolution, but with the textbooks themselves (and the companies that make them).

Answer 6

Waitaminit! The page you point to includes a drawing, described as a 'slightly edited version of Haekel's'.

As far as I can see, it looks pretty accurate.

Also, don't let the fact that the original drawing was occasionally exaggerated hide the fact that all embryos DO go through a series of very similar forms.

Here's a picture of a four-week old human embryo:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Gray41.png

Cuddly isn't it?

CD

Answer 7

lol. Wrong. The newest book on that list is 2002. In Science books, that dosen't even vcome close to qualifying as modern.

Hell, I get a new one every semester.

Oh, and you'll notice they aren't the same chart. Your logic is seeiming to say "Because one chart was falsified, embryos do not undergo any kind of change."

Answer 8

All the more need for more education wouldn't you agree? Since you can see more ignorant notions tossed about here every day such as "If humans come from monkeys..." questions we can hopefully agree that more education into the real evidence for evolution.

Answer 9

Great Scott! You've debunked Evolution! Amazing...


=l

Answer 10

Yeah...except, you know, those text books that use actual photographs of the embryos of different species so kids can compare the drawings to the pictures.

They must fake those as well. Those damned gravitationists.