Luskin, Haeckel, Richardson, Richards

Posted 18 June 2010 by Nick Matzke

Like Napoleon on Saint Helena, good ol' Casey Luskin is re-fighting old lost battles again (one, two)...

Former NCSE staff member Matzke co-writes that complaints about the use of Haeckel's drawings is a "manufactured scandal." 277 Not only are textbooks using inaccurate drawings, but they are using them to illustrate points that are highly disputed by leading embryologists. The earliest stages of vertebrate embryos are quite different and the existence of the cherry-picked conserved stage often portrayed in textbooks as evidence for common ancestry is being called into question. To say the least, students who are taught that the earliest stages of vertebrate embryos are highly similar, without being told of significant embryological evidence that challenges that view and the very existence of the conserved developmental stage portrayed in many textbooks, are not being adequately informed about the evidence regarding evolution.

Hmm. First, Haeckel didn't ignore the differences in embryos in the earliest period just after fertilization (differences which are visually significant but mostly fairly trivial, due to the different amounts of yolk in different vertebrate eggs) -- in fact, Haeckel himself prominently diagrammed them, as I showed here back in 2006. Whoops! And such diagrams are standard in any book which gives a thorough treatment of vertebrate development, although this may not include the most absolutely introductory general biology texts. Second, Luskin makes it out as if it's me and NCSE against developmental biology experts like Michael Richardson (whom he quotes), and as if we ignored the textbooks that did have the classic Haeckel's embryo drawings. But (as I find out when I go back to the 2006 article which Luskin quotes) actually, no, Richardson's on our side, and we counted the textbooks that had the drawings -- taking the numbers directly from Jonathan Wells, no less! Not good enough for Luskin. For those who actually want to be fair-minded about it, it's pretty clear that what happened was that in the mid-1990s, as happens every few decades, a scientist (here, Michael Richardson) discovered the real, but moderate, problems with Haeckel's embryo drawings. This led to some some guns going off half-cocked in the media and in popular works (e.g. by Gould), and this is the stuff which Luskin cites. In the meantime, the originator of the latest wave, Richardson, learned some more about the complex history of the drawings and the even more complex history of claims and counterclaims about "scandal" by creationists -- from Haeckel's day to today -- and published an updated version of his assessment. We quote the updated version, and Luskin quotes the more heated early reactions, pretending (despite knowing better) that the later assessments don't exist. Oh well. For a deep, and actually fair and contextual, assessment of Haeckel's drawings, and the history of claims of scandal and debunkings of those claims, I cannot recommend enough Robert Richards' recent biography of Haeckel, The Tragic Sense of Life. Here's what we wrote back in 2006 -- it was part of an article assessing the junk that the ID guys had (temporarily) gotten into the Kansas Science standards: Matzke, N., and Gross, P. (2006). "Analyzing Critical Analysis: The Fallback Antievolutionist Strategy." Chapter 2 of Not in Our Classrooms: Why Intelligent Design is Wrong for Our Schools. Scott, E., and Branch, G., eds., Beacon Press, pp. 28-56.

Haeckel's embryo drawings The Kansas Science Standards state,
[Common ancestry is called into doubt by] Studies that show animals follow different rather than identical early stages of embryological development.
This is a key claim from Jonathan Wells's book Icons of Evolution. The argument is that evolution is said to be evidenced by embryological similarities as shown in Ernst Haeckel's famous embryo drawings, but that Haeckel "faked" the drawings to make the embryos more similar than they actually are, and that this "fake evidence" for evolution is reproduced in textbooks for school use. The facts: Haeckel did exaggerate similarities in very early embryos of different species, and his figures, or derivatives of them, have appeared in a few textbooks (3 of the 10 textbooks that Wells examined).18 But photographs of embryos show strong and unquestionable similarities. The embryos of reptiles, birds, and mammals all resemble one another other much more strongly than do the adult forms, exactly as Darwin noted in the Origin of Species. The similarities, moreover, are not just superficial. They involve most of the fundamental pathways and structures of embryogenesis. Darwin and Haeckel asked why such different adult forms should all be modifications of what amounts to the same embryological plan--if organisms were specially created, they could just as well each develop directly into the adult forms with no embryological resemblance and no cumbersome remodelings during late embryonic life. Michael Richardson, the specialist who, in an exhaustive critique of Haeckel's work, re-examined all the drawings, observes:
On a fundamental level, Haeckel was correct: All vertebrates develop a similar body plan (consisting of notochord, body segments, pharyngeal pouches, and so forth). This shared developmental program reflects shared evolutionary history. It also fits with overwhelming recent evidence that development in different animals is controlled by common genetic mechanisms. 19
The cry of "fake" from Wells and friends is a completely manufactured scandal. [...] 18 Alan D. Gishlick, "Icons of Evolution?" See especially Figure 8, comparing embryo photos, and Figure 10, comparing textbooks, at: http://www.ncseweb.org/icons/figures.html 19 Michael K. Richardson, James Hanken, Lynne Selwood, Glenda M. Wright, Robert J. Richards, Claude Pieau and Albert Raynaud (1998). "Letter." Science 280(5366): 983. http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/280/5366/983c

78 Comments

MrG · 18 June 2010

MEEEEeeeeEEEEEeeeeeee .....

Somebody needs to invent a Luskito repellant.

Robin · 18 June 2010

Seems more like he's tilting at windmills again.

MrG · 18 June 2010

Robin said: Seems more like he's tilting at windmills again.

Well, isn't that creationism in a -- OH so appropriate! -- nutshell?

Wheels · 18 June 2010

Whenever an anti-evolutions runs out of things to do, they decide to revisit the Haeckel thing again and see if anything's changed. "Hmmm, yep! I still don't like it! Better write a blog post!" It's not like this is an ongoing series of developments (heh) or anything. They must spend a fortune on shovels to keep digging up that horse's corpse like they do.

Maybe it's a seasonal thing? Someone should go through the Disco 'Tute's archives and see if they always flog Haeckel's embryos in the late Spring or something.

Andrew Stallard · 18 June 2010

It is important to note that even if Herr Haeckel's drawings were faked; hand-drawn sketches are not considered acceptable evidence in these days of digital microphotography. (Am I wrong about this? Is it still possible to get papers published in a peer-reviewed journal with sketches in your Materials & Methods section?) One 19th century biologist's exaggerated drawings and his slight over-generalizations he inferred from them are not what evo-devo is about.

I've noticed they often do the same thing with Darwin and his belief in Lamarckian inheritance. They claim because Darwin was ignorant of the actual mechanisms of genetic transmission, this disproves natural selection and his other ideas as well.

DS · 18 June 2010

This must be where the term heckler comes from. You know, to haeckle someone, to nitpick about the tiny details of their drawing ability for hundreds of years, even though the theory that they helped to develop has been totally vindicated by history.

Darwin was right. Haeckle was right. These guys just can't stand it. They must concoct a conspiracy in order to explain why every real scientist has accepted the theory of evolution. Apparently they feel that the best way to do this is to completely ignore all of the evidence that actually convinced people and hope that others will do the same. Get in the lab, do some research, publish some results and quit whining. That is what real scientists do when they want to convince someone.

By the way, the term heckler actually derives from the textile industry, but these guys are once again apparently out to redefine the term. Maybe someone should point out to them the egregious errors that have persisted for decades in their own literature. I am certain that all inaccuracies would be immediately corrected. The probability of this happening is approximately equal to that of a protein spontaneously assembling from nothing. Tornado in a junkyard indeed!

Nick (Matzke) · 18 June 2010

It is important to note that even if Herr Haeckel’s drawings were faked; hand-drawn sketches are not considered acceptable evidence in these days of digital microphotography. (Am I wrong about this? Is it still possible to get papers published in a peer-reviewed journal with sketches in your Materials & Methods section?)

I don't know about developmental biology, probably drawings aren't used much in the research literature, but they are common in e.g. paleontology where the fossils are often in matrix, smushed, indistinct from the rock, or otherwise very difficult to photograph. But diagrams are common throughout scientific textbooks of all sorts and rightly so. They are simplifications, and thus "inaccurate", but the whole point of a textbook is to give the basics so someone can later on get the details. Such simplifications are always judgment calls, sometimes they can be criticized, sometimes they can be badly wrong, sometimes they can be fraud. Haeckel's fall into the "they can be criticized" camp IMHO. It's not like they are wild fantasies.

John Vanko · 18 June 2010

If AIG or CMI is one's authority you might think that "Ontogeny recapitulates Phylogeny" (and the similarities of developmental forms in general) is a false concept long abandoned and dis-proven, and therefore cannot be included in any biology textbook or classroom today.

But such is not the case. Stephen Jay Gould wrote a 500 page tome, "Ontogeny and Phylogeny"* where he says in his opening sentence on page 1, "I am aware that I treat a subject currently unpopular."

He continues, "I tell a colleague that I am writing a book about parallels between ontogeny and phylogeny. He takes me aside, makes sure that no one is looking, checks for bugging devices, and admits in markedly lowered voice: 'You know, just between you, me, and that wall, I think there really is something to it after all.' "

Because there is indeed something to it. It's not a false concept. It just needs modification in light of what we know today about biology. And that's what Gould did.

On page 213 he writes, "The embryonic features that we share with all vertebrates represent no previous adult state, only the unaltered identity of early development. Thought they do not allow us to trace the actual course of our descent in any way, they are full of evolutionary significance nonetheless; for, as Darwin argued, community of embryonic structure reveals community of descent."

All you have to do is look at those photographs and you know he's right.

*-Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 1977

(PS-No one at AIG or CMI has the record of field work of Gould. No one at AIG or CMI has the scholarship to write an "Ontogeny and Phylogeny" like Gould. Yet they expect us to bow to their pronouncements.)

Ichthyic · 18 June 2010

Luskin epitomizes the old saying:

"A lie repeated often enough..."

Ichthyic · 18 June 2010

On page 213 he writes, “The embryonic features that we share with all vertebrates represent no previous adult state

...and this is the difference between our current understanding of how common descent exhibits itself in development vs. what Haeckel thought.

It's quite a significant difference, and one the likes of Luskin constantly, though informed otherwise just as often, gloss over in their screeds.

Lenoxus · 18 June 2010

In 1796, Dr. Samuel Hahnemann formulated a Law of Similars. This UTTERLY BOGUS "law" states that the cure for any disease will be found by consuming a substance that produces similar symptoms. "Like cures like."

Hmmm, does that remind you of anything in modern science? Say, a certain program of "preventing" viral infection with an "attenuated" (might as well be "diluted") virus?

Obviously, immunization is thoroughly phony, a science built on sand, the collective wishful thinking of people who don't want to acknowledge the true, intellgent source of disease. Yet again and again, medical "scientists" insist on dredging up Hahnemann's ghost. It's not the eighteenth century, people!

Michael J · 18 June 2010

I reckon the DI would make a great Sitcom. You'd call it "Gotta Love Luskin". It would be a cross between "The Office" and "Hogan's Heroes"

MrG · 18 June 2010

Lenoxus said: Obviously, immunization is thoroughly phony, a science built on sand, the collective wishful thinking of people who don't want to acknowledge the true, intellgent source of disease. Yet again and again, medical "scientists" insist on dredging up Hahnemann's ghost. It's not the eighteenth century, people!

Uh ... this is a Loki troll, right? It shouldn't seem strange that there would be doubt. PT gets crazier than this on a daily basis.

MrG · 18 June 2010

Wheels said: Whenever an anti-evolutions runs out of things to do, they decide to revisit the Haeckel thing again and see if anything's changed. "Hmmm, yep! I still don't like it! Better write a blog post!"

It's either that, or the Peppered Moth: "SCIENTIFIC CRISIS! PEPPERED MOTHS DID NOT LAND ON TREE TRUNKS!"

C Matherly · 18 June 2010

MrG said: Uh ... this is a Loki troll, right?

Poe's Law: It's not just for Religious Fundamentalism anymore!

carlsonjok · 18 June 2010

Like Napoleon on Saint Helena, good ol’ Casey Luskin is re-fighting old lost battles again

That he is revisiting an issue from 2006 is a positive sign, people. Maybe it means we have seen the last of his blog posts about how Judge Jones was wrong in Dover in 2005. But, don't worry Casey forgives you!

John_S · 18 June 2010

Excuse a dumb but obvious question, but are Haeckel's drawings actually still used in any currently assigned textbook?

Ichthyic · 18 June 2010

but are Haeckel’s drawings actually still used in any currently assigned textbook?

probably, but if so, it will be because of one of two reasons:

-that school is using a horridly outdated text
-the text is using it to illustrate an idea that has been discarded by science.

I believe this was also discussed at length on the various threads covering the subject here and on Pharyngula back in 2006-7, and specific texts containing the diagrams were listed there. A search would likely turn those threads up.

OgreMkV · 18 June 2010

Was it here on PT or somewhere else that someone posted an article about the actual uses of the Haeckel drawings? I'm going from memory so please forgive if i"m not too accurate...

but out of 17 intro to biology books, only 4 or 5 actually discussed Haeckel, only 1 or 2 had his drawings and 1 of those mentioned that the drawings are now considered incomplete.

Gary Hurd · 18 June 2010

This will be rather mean, but I thought Michael Richardson was an ass the first time he "discovered" Haeckel.

And I would happily reiterate the recommendation of "The Tragic Sense of Life."

James F · 19 June 2010

Luskin is shriller and more persistent than a crowd full of vuvuzelas at a World Cup match.

tsig · 19 June 2010

True eventually the World Cup will be over.

Michael Roberts · 19 June 2010

All this gets tedious.

After 39 years of following creationism I have yet to find one creationist/ID argument which does not turn out to be false and often dishonest.

This ontogony/phylogony accusation dates back to creationists in the 60s

My working principle is that any creationist argument is wrong and I have yet to be proved wrong.

I cannot grasp the psychology of this, yet more and more Christians fall for this nonsense

Ichthyic · 19 June 2010

I cannot grasp the psychology of this

I would suggest starting by studying the psychology of mental defense mechanisms, for one, and then how childhood learning patterns are reinforced.

It will immediately start to become clear what is going on.

or, you can jump forward to reading summary reviews like that which came out in Science a few years back:

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/316/5827/996

that's a gudun, and will contain any back-references you might need to review.

Steve Taylor · 19 June 2010

James F said: Luskin is shriller and more persistent than a crowd full of vuvuzelas at a World Cup match.

And score more own-goals.

Rolf Aalberg · 19 June 2010

John Vanko said: If AIG or CMI is one's authority you might think that "Ontogeny recapitulates Phylogeny" (and the similarities of developmental forms in general) is a false concept long abandoned and dis-proven, and therefore cannot be included in any biology textbook or classroom today. But such is not the case. Stephen Jay Gould wrote a 500 page tome, "Ontogeny and Phylogeny"* where he says in his opening sentence on page 1, "I am aware that I treat a subject currently unpopular." He continues, "I tell a colleague that I am writing a book about parallels between ontogeny and phylogeny. He takes me aside, makes sure that no one is looking, checks for bugging devices, and admits in markedly lowered voice: 'You know, just between you, me, and that wall, I think there really is something to it after all.' " Because there is indeed something to it. It's not a false concept. It just needs modification in light of what we know today about biology. And that's what Gould did. On page 213 he writes, "The embryonic features that we share with all vertebrates represent no previous adult state, only the unaltered identity of early development. Thought they do not allow us to trace the actual course of our descent in any way, they are full of evolutionary significance nonetheless; for, as Darwin argued, community of embryonic structure reveals community of descent." All you have to do is look at those photographs and you know he's right. *-Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 1977 (PS-No one at AIG or CMI has the record of field work of Gould. No one at AIG or CMI has the scholarship to write an "Ontogeny and Phylogeny" like Gould. Yet they expect us to bow to their pronouncements.)

Isn't that also the loud and clear message from Shubin's Your Inner Fish?

Mary H · 19 June 2010

What I have always "loved" about the embryo argument is that it makes the "Cambrian Explosion" argument ludicrous. The creos agree that most of the modern phyla arose at the Cambrian, knowing full well most people don't understand the concept of phyla and think in terms of lions tigers & bears Oh My. people don't understand that these early form bear little resemblance to the modern form and the only way scientists can make a statement like that is to use those pesky early embryonic characters that the creos claim are not indicative of common ancestry. Johnny Wells can't have it both ways. either the embryological characters mean something and therefore we can state that the phyla arose at the Cambrian or they mean nothing and we have no idea if Pikaia is an early chordate or not.

John Kwok · 19 June 2010

Perish the thought:

Michael J said: I reckon the DI would make a great Sitcom. You'd call it "Gotta Love Luskin". It would be a cross between "The Office" and "Hogan's Heroes"

On the other hand, wasn't the DI featured recently on a "Doctor Who" episode describing the latest malfeasance of the Daleks?

John Kwok · 19 June 2010

Not exactly in the strict sense, since Shubin's book could be subtitled "The Vestiges of Evolution", since it does shout loud and clear as to how we, Homo sapiens, are the sum products of our phylogenetic (evolutionary) history, as reflected within our anatomy:

Rolf Aalberg said:
John Vanko said: If AIG or CMI is one's authority you might think that "Ontogeny recapitulates Phylogeny" (and the similarities of developmental forms in general) is a false concept long abandoned and dis-proven, and therefore cannot be included in any biology textbook or classroom today. But such is not the case. Stephen Jay Gould wrote a 500 page tome, "Ontogeny and Phylogeny"* where he says in his opening sentence on page 1, "I am aware that I treat a subject currently unpopular." He continues, "I tell a colleague that I am writing a book about parallels between ontogeny and phylogeny. He takes me aside, makes sure that no one is looking, checks for bugging devices, and admits in markedly lowered voice: 'You know, just between you, me, and that wall, I think there really is something to it after all.' " Because there is indeed something to it. It's not a false concept. It just needs modification in light of what we know today about biology. And that's what Gould did. On page 213 he writes, "The embryonic features that we share with all vertebrates represent no previous adult state, only the unaltered identity of early development. Thought they do not allow us to trace the actual course of our descent in any way, they are full of evolutionary significance nonetheless; for, as Darwin argued, community of embryonic structure reveals community of descent." All you have to do is look at those photographs and you know he's right. *-Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 1977 (PS-No one at AIG or CMI has the record of field work of Gould. No one at AIG or CMI has the scholarship to write an "Ontogeny and Phylogeny" like Gould. Yet they expect us to bow to their pronouncements.)
Isn't that also the loud and clear message from Shubin's Your Inner Fish?

John Kwok · 19 June 2010

Can't wait for him to get himself a real job. Think he'd be perfect as a backup guitarist for the Katy Perry band, especially when they perform her new hit "California Gurls":

James F said: Luskin is shriller and more persistent than a crowd full of vuvuzelas at a World Cup match.

stevaroni · 19 June 2010

James F said: Luskin is shriller and more persistent than a crowd full of vuvuzelas at a World Cup match.

A fitting metaphor. Creationism is, in fact, on the sidelines, doing little more than making a distracting noise, while science has been getting on with actually playing the game for 150 years. Of course, that doesn't stop creationists from publicly claiming that they play the game much better, and that organized soccer is a "sport in crisis", and telling the press at every occasion that the world cup is actually over and they've already won, but it doesn't change the fact that they don't even have a ball. All they have is that vuvuzela, they can't actually take the field because they get beat down even by the grade-school leagues.

MrG · 19 June 2010

John Kwok said: ... wasn't the DI featured recently on a "Doctor Who" episode describing the latest malfeasance of the Daleks?

"OBFUSCATE! OBFUSCATE! OB-FU-SCAAAAATE!"

Frank J · 19 June 2010

Michael Roberts said: All this gets tedious. After 39 years of following creationism I have yet to find one creationist/ID argument which does not turn out to be false and often dishonest. This ontogony/phylogony accusation dates back to creationists in the 60s My working principle is that any creationist argument is wrong and I have yet to be proved wrong. I cannot grasp the psychology of this, yet more and more Christians fall for this nonsense

So you must notice a trend in which it's increasingly "not even wrong," i.e. one in which there's an increasing "don't ask, don't tell what the designer did, when or how." Of course even the most noncommital ID, which makes no positive claims that can be refuted, is still demonstrably wrong in how it portrays evolution. Unfortunately most people, even those who truly believe it's a sin to bear false witness, fall for all sorts of pseudoscience. Especially if it promises them the security (blanket) of a loving God. It doesn't even have to deliver, the promise is enough. What makes it especially sad is that I think most of those people are capable of understanding how anti-evolution activists misrepresent science, contradict each other (& sometimes themselves) and use every pseudoscience trick in the book. But they just lack the time, interest or both, to see how they are being exploited.

raven · 19 June 2010

This ontogony/phylogony accusation dates back to creationists in the 60s

In creationist terms, this was a few seconds ago. They are still quoting the bible as a science book and it was known to be wrong centuries and millennia ago.

raven · 19 June 2010

On page 213 he writes, “The embryonic features that we share with all vertebrates represent no previous adult state, only the unaltered identity of early development. Thought they do not allow us to trace the actual course of our descent in any way, they are full of evolutionary significance nonetheless; for, as Darwin argued, community of embryonic structure reveals community of descent.”

True. Ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny overstates the case and isn't right. It is more like ontogeny recapitulates previous ontogeny. There are a lot of evolutionary history traces in embryology. Humans have tails at one point, and make a yolk sac, left over from our egg laying ancestors. We don't make yolk proteins, so it is rather useless. IIRC, if one looks in the human genome one does find yolk protein genes. They are broken, nonfunctional. What is even more convincing is the existence of atavisms. Humans are occasionally born with tails or covered with fur and frequently born with extra nipples. Whales are found with legs like their distant forebearers.

Andrew Stallard · 19 June 2010

Yes, I've noticed they have not even bothered to address the real evidence for evolution in embryonic development that exists quite independently of the hand-drawn sketches. Do they believe the photographs showing the exact same similarities have been photoshopped? I distinctly remember a troll whose "argument" was that all the evidence for evolution was fakes and forgeries. I wonder if that guy could be an alias of Mr. Luskin.

Andrew Stallard · 19 June 2010

DS said: This must be where the term heckler comes from. You know, to haeckle someone, to nitpick about the tiny details of their drawing ability for hundreds of years, even though the theory that they helped to develop has been totally vindicated by history. Darwin was right. Haeckle was right. These guys just can't stand it. They must concoct a conspiracy in order to explain why every real scientist has accepted the theory of evolution. Apparently they feel that the best way to do this is to completely ignore all of the evidence that actually convinced people and hope that others will do the same. Get in the lab, do some research, publish some results and quit whining. That is what real scientists do when they want to convince someone. By the way, the term heckler actually derives from the textile industry, but these guys are once again apparently out to redefine the term. Maybe someone should point out to them the egregious errors that have persisted for decades in their own literature. I am certain that all inaccuracies would be immediately corrected. The probability of this happening is approximately equal to that of a protein spontaneously assembling from nothing. Tornado in a junkyard indeed!

Oops, my last comment was supposed to be a response to this. Sorry.

raven · 19 June 2010

sciencedaily.com Eggs contain a protein called vitellogenin as a major nutrient source. The authors looked for the genes associated with the production of vitellogenin, of which there are three in the chicken. They found that while monotremes still have one functional vitellogenin gene, in placental and marsupial mammals, all three have become pseudogenes (regions of the DNA that still closely resemble the functional gene, but which contain a few differences that have effectively turned the gene off). The gene-to-pseudogene transitions happened sequentially for the three genes, with the last one losing functionality 30-70 million years ago.

IIRC is correct. Humans have broken vitellogenin genes left over from our days as egg layers. Evolution explains this nicely as atrophy of unnecessary traits. ID doesn't explain it at all. They are reduced to their all purpose answer, the unknown Designer(s) did something for unknown reasons by sticking nonfunctional egg yolk genes into the DNA of placental mammals.

raven · 19 June 2010

Lenny Flank: The creationists are quite open in their belief that evolutionary theory, even theistic evolution, is, quite literally, the work of the Devil: "Behind both groups of evolutionists one can discern the malignant influence of 'that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world'." (Morris, 1963, p. 93) Indeed, one of the founders of the modern creationist movement, Dr. Henry Morris, has declared that evolutionary theory was given to Nimrod by Satan himself, at the Tower of Babel: "Its top was a great temple shrine, emblazoned with zodiacal signs representing the hosts of heaven, Satan and his 'principalities and powers, rulers of the darkness of the world' (Ephesians 6:12). These evil spirits there perhaps met with Nimrod and his priests, to plan their long-range strategy against God and his redemptive purposes for the post-diluvian world. This included especially the development of a non-theistic cosmology, one which could explain the origin and meaning of the universe and man without acknowledging the true God of creation. Denial of God's power and sovereignty in creation is of course foundational in the rejection of His authority in every other sphere. . . . If something like this really happened, early in post-diluvian history, then Satan himself is the originator of the concept of evolution. "One question remains. Assuming Satan to be the real source of the evolutionary concept, how did it originate in his mind? . . . A possible answer to this mystery could be that Satan, the father of lies, has not only deceived the whole world and the angelic hosts who followed him--he has even deceived himself! The only way he could really know about creation (just as the only way we can know about creation) was for God to tell him! . . . . He refused to believe and accept the Word of God concerning his own creation and place in God's economy . . . He therefore deceived himself into supposing that all things, including himself and including God, had been evolved by natural processes out of the primordial stuff of the universe. . . ." (Morris, Troubled Waters of Evolution, 1974, pp 74-75). Thus, concludes Morris, "The entire monstrous complex was revealed to Nimrod at Babel by demonic influences, perhaps by Satan himself . . . Satan himself is the originator of the concept of evolution." (Morris, Troubled Waters of Evolution, 1974, pp 74-75)

One of my favorite examples of creationist moral bankruptcy is Henry Morris's claim that evolutionary theory was handed to Nimrod at the Tower of Babel by satan. Of course he got the history wrong. What is even stranger, he got the bible wrong. None of what he claims is in the bible is actually in the bible. I suppose if they are going to lie about the science and the history, they might as well keep lying and toss in their magic book as well.

Albatrossity · 19 June 2010

I looked at a few dozen textbooks in my possession a while back, and prepared a database to address the Luskin claim. It is posted here; I need to update it since I now have a few more new textbooks to look at. At any rate, per usual, the claims of the DI are completely bogus. In fact, the only current textbooks that use the original Haeckel diagram are creationist textbooks...

Gary Hurd · 19 June 2010

Albatrossity said: I looked at a few dozen textbooks in my possession a while back, and prepared a database to address the Luskin claim. It is posted here; I need to update it since I now have a few more new textbooks to look at. At any rate, per usual, the claims of the DI are completely bogus. In fact, the only current textbooks that use the original Haeckel diagram are creationist textbooks...

Thank you for making the effort to review all those textbooks and posting your results.

J-Dog · 19 June 2010

Michael J said: I reckon the DI would make a great Sitcom. You'd call it "Gotta Love Luskin". It would be a cross between "The Office" and "Hogan's Heroes"

I'm thinking it would be more like " Casey, Paul and Dembski* - The 3 Stooges". Every episode would pretty much be a copy of the original episode - this would be in keeping with the DI's usual M.O. - and every episodew wuld involve them trying to get IDC taught in American schools, and every episode would end with our intrepid IDC clowns getting hit with a fish. A wet fish. A wet and cold fish.** * The marketing efforts would revolve around "Casey Unibrows Stick-ons", Paul Nelson Calenders - always @ 3 years behind, and of course the big seller, Dembski Sweaters! ** Note to PETA - no actual fish will be harmed in filming.

Wheels · 19 June 2010

Albatrossity said: I looked at a few dozen textbooks in my possession a while back, and prepared a database to address the Luskin claim. It is posted here; I need to update it since I now have a few more new textbooks to look at. At any rate, per usual, the claims of the DI are completely bogus. In fact, the only current textbooks that use the original Haeckel diagram are creationist textbooks...

I've got the 8th edition of Concepts in Biology by Enger & Ross. The index and glossaries have no mention of Haeckel, ontology, or embryo. The section on phylogeny doesn't mention embryos or Haeckel at all.

kereng · 19 June 2010

Haeckel made many drawings, and only few of them were fraudulent. Question 1: Is the famous Haeckel/Romanes diagram one of them? PZ Myers says no

He was guilty of fudging on one illustration…what the creationists don't tell you is that it wasn't the illustration that the textbooks have continued to use!

Joshua Rosenau says yes

He fudged the details to make the whole thing look more convincing

Question 2: Is the Haeckel/Romanes diagram found in textbooks? PZ Myers says yes

That is clearly a reworked version of the Haeckel/Romanes diagram

Joshua Rosenau says no:

You'll note that, despite West's claim that this is "a version of Haeckel's drawings," they are actually quite different in their details. These are clearly redrawn photographs of actual embryos, and as such do not bear the taint of any errors Haeckel made, intentionally or otherwise.

Question 3: Which details are better in the textbooks than in Haeckel's originals? Maybe the tail of the human embryo is shorter.

Eric Finn · 19 June 2010

raven said:
sciencedaily.com Eggs contain a protein called vitellogenin as a major nutrient source. The authors looked for the genes associated with the production of vitellogenin, of which there are three in the chicken. They found that while monotremes still have one functional vitellogenin gene, in placental and marsupial mammals, all three have become pseudogenes (regions of the DNA that still closely resemble the functional gene, but which contain a few differences that have effectively turned the gene off). The gene-to-pseudogene transitions happened sequentially for the three genes, with the last one losing functionality 30-70 million years ago.
IIRC is correct. Humans have broken vitellogenin genes left over from our days as egg layers.

Could you give a more direct reference that is readily available in the Internet? I have not heard about this before (or even thought about it) Thanks.

Eric Finn · 19 June 2010

I found this:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/03/080318094610.htm Therefore, mammals already had milk before they stopped laying eggs. Lactation reduced dependency on the egg as a source of nutrition for developing offspring, and the egg was abandoned completely in the marsupial and placental mammals in favor of the placenta. This meant that the genes associated with egg production gradually mutated, becoming pseudogenes, without affecting the fitness of the mammalian lineages.

With a reference to http://www.plosbiology.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pbio.0060063 Has this something to do with the concept of common descent and with the features Haeckel was studying?

Ichthyic · 19 June 2010

I looked at a few dozen textbooks in my possession a while back, and prepared a database to address the Luskin claim.

nicely done.

document saved.

raven · 19 June 2010

Has this something to do with the concept of common descent and with the features Haeckel was studying?

Yes, vaguely and not so vaguely. Reread the whole thread, it isn't complicated. Briefly, while ontology doesn't recapitulate phylogeny exactly, it does recapitulate some features. There are a lot of evolutionary remnants and traces in embryos left over from our distant ancestors. One such is the yolk sac, left over from when we were egg layers. It doesn't do anything or is particularly necessary because we now feed our embryos from a placenta. It is a relict. The yolk proteins genes, vitellogenins, have atrophied. A prediction of evolutionary biology is that these genes might still be present in our genome, also in a relictual form, pseuodogenes. Surprise, they are. While this is yet again another triumph for Darwin, it is also a cute story.

John Kwok · 19 June 2010

That's a grave insult to Larry, Moe and Curly:

J-Dog said:
Michael J said: I reckon the DI would make a great Sitcom. You'd call it "Gotta Love Luskin". It would be a cross between "The Office" and "Hogan's Heroes"
I'm thinking it would be more like " Casey, Paul and Dembski* - The 3 Stooges". Every episode would pretty much be a copy of the original episode - this would be in keeping with the DI's usual M.O. - and every episodew wuld involve them trying to get IDC taught in American schools, and every episode would end with our intrepid IDC clowns getting hit with a fish. A wet fish. A wet and cold fish.** * The marketing efforts would revolve around "Casey Unibrows Stick-ons", Paul Nelson Calenders - always @ 3 years behind, and of course the big seller, Dembski Sweaters! ** Note to PETA - no actual fish will be harmed in filming.

More likely a crude American version of the "Benny Hill Show", with Michael Ruse stopping by to cheer up his dear good friend - whom he loves as his brother - everyone's favorite Dishonesty Institute mendacious intellectual pornographer, my dear "pal" Bill Dembski.

Eric Finn · 20 June 2010

raven said: There are a lot of evolutionary remnants and traces in embryos left over from our distant ancestors. One such is the yolk sac, left over from when we were egg layers. [...] While this is yet again another triumph for Darwin, it is also a cute story.

Agreed, it is a cute story. A story supported by evidence. Haeckel’s drawings may be inaccurate in details, but sometimes drawings are made with the intent of drawing attention to certain features.

But photographs of embryos show strong and unquestionable similarities. The embryos of reptiles, birds, and mammals all resemble one another other much more strongly than do the adult forms, exactly as Darwin noted in the Origin of Species. The similarities, moreover, are not just superficial. They involve most of the fundamental pathways and structures of embryogenesis. Darwin and Haeckel asked why such different adult forms should all be modifications of what amounts to the same embryological plan–if organisms were specially created, they could just as well each develop directly into the adult forms with no embryological resemblance and no cumbersome remodelings during late embryonic life.

Now they are planning to use even photographs. Isn't it even more objectionable to use photographs than drawings in biology books?

kereng · 20 June 2010

Albatrossity said: ... original Haeckel diagram ...

Wheels said: ... no mention of Haeckel ...

Luskin does not say that the original Haeckel diagram is used in textbooks or that they mention the name Haeckel. Please don't attack a straw man. He says that there are diagrams in textbooks that look like a coloured version of Haeckel's which is still misleading: http://www.evolutionnews.org/Mader_2010.jpg http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=download&id=1242 http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=download&id=1224 Is there any biologist out there who can answer my question: are the diagrams in Mader (2010), Raven&Johnson (2002), Starr&Taggert (2001) ok? What is better than in Haeckel's original? Was the Haeckel/Romanes diagram wrong at all?

MrG · 20 June 2010

kereng said: Please don't attack a straw man.

OK, my irony meter just pegged.

Luskin does not say that the original Haeckel diagram is used in textbooks or that they mention the name Haeckel ... He says that there are diagrams in textbooks that look like a coloured version of Haeckel's which is still misleading ...

Yes indeed, we need to be cautious not to accuse the Luskito of being LESS pettifogging than he actually is.

DS · 20 June 2010

kereng said:
Albatrossity said: ... original Haeckel diagram ...

Wheels said: ... no mention of Haeckel ...
Luskin does not say that the original Haeckel diagram is used in textbooks or that they mention the name Haeckel. Please don't attack a straw man. He says that there are diagrams in textbooks that look like a coloured version of Haeckel's which is still misleading: http://www.evolutionnews.org/Mader_2010.jpg http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=download&id=1242 http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=download&id=1224 Is there any biologist out there who can answer my question: are the diagrams in Mader (2010), Raven&Johnson (2002), Starr&Taggert (2001) ok? What is better than in Haeckel's original? Was the Haeckel/Romanes diagram wrong at all?

Mader uses actual photographs of chick and pig embryos. Campbell uses actual photographs of chick and human embryos. To the best of my knowledge, Raven and Starr also use photographs ( I do not have access to the books at this moment but will check tomorrow). Almost all textbooks also use line drawings of vertebrate forelimbs in order to demonstrate the concept of homology. I'm sure that they are not perfect representations in every detail. So what? The evidence for homology is overwhelming whether drawings, photographs or sculptures are used. Line drawings are very useful in order to demonstrate some points, of course they should be accurate. However, if the point that is being demonstrated is a well established scientific principle, then minor inaccuracies are irrelevant. Haeckle was right, that is the main point. It would indeed be a travesty to remove all of the evidence for common descent and all of the evidence from comparative embryology just because some over jealous science want -to-be found a few minor errors in some one hundred and fifty year old drawings. Even if the drawings were complete fabrications of imaginary animals, evolution would still be true. Now, how about creationists "literature"? How many drawings of angels, demons and gods are found in supposedly scientific material? What is the motivation for such deception? As the pretty good book says: "let him that is without sin among you cast the first stone." People who do nothing but make up fairy tales should not be criticizing imaginary inaccuracies in textbooks.

kereng · 20 June 2010

DS said: Mader uses actual photographs of chick and pig embryos. ... To the best of my knowledge, Raven and Starr also use photographs ( I do not have access to the books at this moment but will check tomorrow).

Can you approve that the pictures in the links are from the following textbooks? Mader 2010 Raven & Johnson, 2002 Starr & Taggart, 2001 I can see no difference between the first stages of fish, reptile and bird - and no difference regarding these images between Haeckel and the textbooks. So Haeckel's drawings are fine or the textbooks are bad or there are important details that I cannot recognize. I just want to know what to answer when the next creationist says Haeckel's fraudulent drawings are still in textbooks: "Yes, but it's ok because those drawings were not too bad" or "Yes, but it's ok because they are different in their details"?

DS · 20 June 2010

kereng,

The picture from Starr and Taggert looks familiar. The picture from Mader is not the one that is in the book that I have, but I believe that Mader has published several different versions of introductory textbooks.

As far as responses to creationist go, I would say that I am unaware of any textbook that still uses the original Haeckel drawings. To the extent that they are inaccurate they should not be used. However, their use would not imply either error or even intent to deceive. As the photographs make abundantly clear, there are indeed strong similarities between the early stages of all vertebrate embryos, regardless of adult morphology. This is consistent with the theory of descent with modification and with everything that has been discovered about modern evolutionary development and molecular genetics.

For a more detailed discussion of exactly what Haeckel got right and what he got wrong, see the next thread. It seems that this type of thing was probably much more common before the modern age of high resolution imaging and detailed image analysis. Even today there are minor errors in line drawings in many books and keys, some perhaps even revealing the biases of the artists. The important thing is that the self correcting nature of the scientific process will eventually converge on the truth.

harold · 20 June 2010

Kereng -

I just want to know what to answer when the next creationist says Haeckel’s fraudulent drawings are still in textbooks:

Haeckel's drawings were biased, not outright fraudulent. According to this thread, they are NOT used by contemporary, and contemporary textbooks use up-to-date illustrations. Diagrams are an important part of scientific illustration. Even if the drawings were still being used, this would be an argument against the use of an individual textbook illustration, NOT an argument against the theory of evolution. Haekel correctly noted that early embryos are similar across much of multicellular animal life, especially vertebrates and their close ancestors. He over-interpreted the similarities and thought that they always directly recapitulated the adult morphology of ancestor species. That is incorrect. However, the embryos are still similar, which means that incredibly diverse animal species share common features of early embryonic development. This is obviously compatible with common descent. See the next article.

“Yes, but it’s ok because those drawings were not too bad”

It would not be "okay" to use century old illustrations when better ones are easily available. Haekel's drawings were, in fact, "not too bad"; they were simply biased and over-emphatic of some details. However, better illustrations are now available.

or “Yes, but it’s ok because they are different in their details”?

Haekel was a gifted scientist and artist who contributed much. Almost all scientists of his era had some hypotheses that have since been shown to be incorrect. They would not be scientists if they did not hypothesize, and they would not be human if they were not sometimes wrong. Indeed, if every hypothesis was always correct, there would be no need of the scientific method - we could just hypothesize and declare ourselves to be correct, as contemporary philosophers tend to do. However, Haekel was active during the Victorian era. Up to date illustrations that are better than his are available and it is not, therefore, "okay" to use any of his for basic science instruction. Haekel's work remains enormously valuable to such fields as the history of science, and some important areas of fine arts - the study and appreciation of book illustrations and scientific illustrations.

harold · 20 June 2010

That should be "vertebrates and their close relatives" not "vertebrates and their close ancestors".

Ichthyic · 20 June 2010

As far as responses to creationist go, I would say that I am unaware of any textbook that still uses the original Haeckel drawings.

don't forget CONTEXT. creationists LOVE to quotemine, and figures like these can be quotemined just as any text can.

I have seen Haeckel's theory in figure form in evolution textbooks to illustrate what has CHANGED since Haeckel's time.

creationist are ALL, to a last one, dishonest gits.

Ichthyic · 20 June 2010

ya know, PZ has written some fine articles on this issue...

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/02/wells_and_haeckels_embryos.php

that one basically details every argument made in this thread and then some.

Ichthyic · 20 June 2010

...and just in case someone was interested in getting an idea of just how many times the Dishonesty Institute has played out this canard before...

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/06/return_of_the_son_of_the_bride.php

D. P. Robin · 20 June 2010

Shaka, when the walls fell.

John Vanko · 20 June 2010

The beast at Tanagra.

Rog · 20 June 2010

No matter where you go,

John Vanko · 20 June 2010

Sky at night, stars uncountable. Sleep.

Pete Dunkelberg · 21 June 2010

raven said:

Whales are found with legs like their distant forebearers.

Legs? That's overstating it isn't it? Limbs in whales and limblessness in other vertebrates: mechanisms of evolutionary and developmental transformation and loss (pdf) clarifies the question.

Albatrossity · 21 June 2010

kereng said: Luskin does not say that the original Haeckel diagram is used in textbooks or that they mention the name Haeckel. Please don't attack a straw man.

On the contrary, Luskin is still claiming that the Haeckel drawings appear in modern textbooks. If you don't think so, please give me an acceptable alternative interpretation of this sentence, from his June 17, 2010 EN&V post.
"I’ve come in for some fairly harsh attacks for making the simple observation that textbooks in use today, in arguing for evolution, still use Haeckel’s fraudulent embryo drawings to inaccurately portray the embryological evidence."

raven · 21 June 2010

Legs? That’s overstating it isn’t it?

I don't see why it is overstating anything. "Most of these examples are of whales with femurs, tibia, and fibulae; however, some even include feet with complete digits." Whales are occasionally found with legs. Not very good legs but so what? It's been 30 million years. The wonder is not that they don't get out of the water and wander around but that they have legs at all. This isn't explainable by creationism but easily explainable by evolution from a land dwelling ancestor. I forgot to mention the chickens found with teeth as another atavism.

talkorigins Douglas Theobald: Probably the most well known case of atavism is found in the whales. According to the standard phylogenetic tree, whales are known to be the descendants of terrestrial mammals that had hindlimbs. Thus, we expect the possibility that rare mutant whales might occasionally develop atavistic hindlimbs. In fact, there are many cases where whales have been found with rudimentary atavistic hindlimbs in the wild (see Figure 2.2.1; for reviews see Berzin 1972, pp. 65-67 and Hall 1984, pp. 90-93). Hindlimbs have been found in baleen whales (Sleptsov 1939), humpback whales (Andrews 1921) and in many specimens of sperm whales (Abel 1908; Berzin 1972, p. 66; Nemoto 1963; Ogawa and Kamiya 1957; Zembskii and Berzin 1961). Most of these examples are of whales with femurs, tibia, and fibulae; however, some even include feet with complete digits.

DS · 21 June 2010

I have looked at eight different introductory Biology textbooks. Of the eight, two do not have any representations of comparative embryology, three use drawings and four use photographs (one uses both drawings and photos). Of the texts that use drawings, only one looks as if they might be the Haeckel drawings and that is the one that also includes the photographs. Almost all of these texts also have extensive discussions of comparative developmental genetics. In addition, most of them also use line drawings to depict comparisons of vertebrate limbs as well as whale and horse evolution. I cannot find anything objectionable in any of this material. Overall a very accurate picture of the basics of evolutionary biology is provided.

Perves (6th) none

Lewis (4th) photos and drawings

Starr (9th) drawings

Solomon (4th) drawings

Raven (7th) photos

Sadava (9th) none

Mader (6th) photos

Campbell (7th) photos

If any creationist has any problem with any of this material, I suggest that they do some research, publish their results in a peer reviewed journal, then complain to the editor of the textbook about any inaccuracies. If you are unwilling or unable to do this then kindly piss off.

kereng · 21 June 2010

Albatrossity said:
kereng said: Luskin does not say that the original Haeckel diagram is used in textbooks or that they mention the name Haeckel. Please don't attack a straw man.
On the contrary, Luskin is still claiming that the Haeckel drawings appear in modern textbooks. If you don't think so, please give me an acceptable alternative interpretation of this sentence, from his June 17, 2010 EN&V post.
"I’ve come in for some fairly harsh attacks for making the simple observation that textbooks in use today, in arguing for evolution, still use Haeckel’s fraudulent embryo drawings to inaccurately portray the embryological evidence."

My interpretation of Luskin's sentence: He does not claim that Haeckel’s original diagrams are reproduced in modern textbooks but that coloured versions of some of his images are used. He gives an example in the other link: Mader, 2010. PZ Myers acknowledged regarding the figure in Starr & Taggart, 2001: "That is clearly a reworked version of the Haeckel/Romanes diagram." Luskin's mistake is to think that all those drawings are fraudulent. I started posting in this thread to find out if there are any significant differences between Haeckel's diagram and the reworked versions in some textbooks. My conclusion: there are no differences necessary.

Albatrossity · 21 June 2010

kereng

You can interpret that however you want, and, indeed, Luskin does give a more nuanced version in some venues.

But when he says "Haeckel’s fraudulent embryo drawings", I think I only have one interpretation of those four words. And I think that is the interpretation that he would like to foster, that textbooks are using the original figure (as well as the original interpretation).

MrG · 21 June 2010

Albatrossity said: But when he says "Haeckel’s fraudulent embryo drawings", I think I only have one interpretation of those four words.

I think the basic message is: "HAECKEL WAS A BIGTIME FRAUD AND THEM EVILUTIONISTS STILL LETTING HIM GET AWAY WITH IT!" This being a simplistic read of things, to put it mildly, the Luskito has applied some layers of weasel words in an attempt to conceal the crudity of the message. I will confess I haven't read the relevant blog postings by the Luskito. I've read plenty of his stuff before, I know what he's going to say. Do I want to read his postings any more? Do I want a poke in the eye? Does that answer the question?

MrG · 21 June 2010

What's particularly annoying about this is that if you run across Haeckel's scientific artwork online ... it's extremely impressive. My favorite is his drawing of a eurypterid / sea scorpion. Here's a page with some of it:

http://www.criterionforum.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=9261

PZM take note: cephalopods!

Pete Dunkelberg · 22 June 2010

Raven, a leg is an *external* appendage of a certain type. Note that the well developed front flippers of cetaceans are not called arms. The case for homologous structures is solid, but I don't want anyone to have an exaggerated view of it. Except in very rare cases the bones or cartilage of whales and dolphins homologous to pelvic and hindlimb elements are internal or largely so.

You (Raven) know this, but the term leg could easily mislead some readers.

stevaroni · 22 June 2010

Pete Dunkelberg said: Raven, a leg is an *external* appendage of a certain type. .... but the term leg could easily mislead some readers.

That raises a question, just what is the generic term for the appendages that sprout from the pelvic and shoulder girdles of vertebrates and manifest themselves variably as legs, arms, wings and flippers? Surely, there must be a name that describes these structures without referencing function, but I can't think of one other than "appendage". Maybe "forelimb" or "hindlimb". That kind of encompass arms, legs, and arms-that-are-sometimes-legs and legs-that-are-sometimes-arms and such, but it still doesn't feel right for wings and flippers. Sometimes, it's weird the concepts we don't have names for.

Jim Harrison · 22 June 2010

Ideological preoccupation fouls up historical understanding. You can't really judge the accuracy/inaccuracy of Haeckel's drawing without putting them in the context of the practice of scientific illustration in the 19th Century. To this day, the drawings in bird guides are more useful in practice than photos, but their usefulness is a consequence of what could be argued to be their lack of "objectivity," whatever that is. I recommend Gaston and Galison's book on this subject, whose title, it happens, is Objectivity. It's not that I think that G&G provide the last word on the subject, but their book does make you recognize that issues of what counts as true representation are far from simple.

raven · 22 June 2010

Except in very rare cases the bones or cartilage of whales and dolphins homologous to pelvic and hindlimb elements are internal or largely so. You (Raven) know this, but the term leg could easily mislead some readers.

One of us is confused here. I'm not talking about vestigal structures. The topic was atavistic structures. These words refer to very different phenomena. By definition these atavistic individuals are abnormal, perhaps even mutants and rare. What we see though are ancient genetic programs being reactivated. Humans with fur, tails, extra nipples. Chickens with teeth. Whales with legs. The whales with legs aren't all that much more common than humans with tails. The legs vary in completeness but at least some are external. That is how they are identified.

Pete Dunkelberg · 26 June 2010

Raven, I agree that the term "atavistic" could be applied to legs on whales, if there were any. A leg is an external appendage with certain characteristics. I will be pleased and interested to see examples.

Rolf Aalberg · 1 July 2010

Pete Dunkelberg said: Raven, I agree that the term "atavistic" could be applied to legs on whales, if there were any. A leg is an external appendage with certain characteristics. I will be pleased and interested to see examples.

How about referring not to the whale, but to the whale skeleton? The skeleton is equipped with leg bones, no?