The DI Complaints department replies to my post calling them on their lies about Haeckel.
Alas, they couldn't be bothered to link to my post, where their readers could have looked at actual evidence presented, not just their words. The image they presented is not Haeckel's, nor is it, as its caption asserts, a "version of Haeckel's drawings."
Thus, it does not disprove the claim that "'You don't find' Haeckel’s embryo drawings in modern textbooks," as the DI insists "Olson confidently asserts. 'There's no trace of [them] other than a mention that Haeckel once upon a time came up with this... idea that ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny.'"
All the animations in the world won't change the fact that their only evidence against Olson's claim that drawings by Haeckel don't occur in modern biology texts is … a drawing that wasn't done by Haeckel.
Hopefully, Rob Crowther will at least be honest enough to link to my original post, and maybe spend some time on Dr. Myers' post also.
- Log in to post comments
Wow, Josh, you used "Crowther" and "honest" in the same sentence!
Josh, If you are at all interested in following the Haekel story further, there was a very informative piece "Isis" (History of Science Society) surrounding the Haekal illustrations and the contemporaneous charges of fraud. Isis, Volume 97, Number 2, June 2006. "Pictures of Evolution and Charges of Fraud: Ernst Haekel's Embryological Illustrations" by Nick Hopwood, pages 260-301.