Embryology quiz.

I know this thread is old but I just wanted to leave this here because there seems to be a lot of misconceptions with the drawings.

Below is a link to a 2008 paper that defends Haeckel written by Robert J. Richards. There isn't really a big difference between the original drawings and modern digital pictures (unless you use the fraudulent site "evolutionnews as a source LOL) Obviously they aren't exact but keep in mind these were drawn in the 1870s before a large portion of technology and knowledge about the cell and embryo development were prevalent. The Recapitulation hypothesis may not be valid, but the drawings are pretty darn close.

home.uchicago.edu...

Apparently the fraud has not been proven. Obviously there will be a margin of error since the originals were hand written drawings from a time before most advancements in technology and medicine. It's funny how 90% of claims against evolution are attacks on stuff that happened in the 1800s, rather than looking at the theory as it stands today. Either way it seems that there isn't a big difference between modern pictures and old drawings. Obviously they are hand drawn and won't be perfect, but they are close.

originally posted by: IndependentAgent
a reply to: boymonkey74

Yup, he was convicted of fraud!!

This is false. He was NOT convicted of fraud. There is no evidence that this has ever happened.

While it has been widely claimed that Haeckel was charged with fraud by five professors and convicted by a university court at Jena, there does not appear to be an independently verifiable source for this claim.[29] Recent analyses (Richardson 1998, Richardson and Keuck 2002) have found that some of the criticisms of Haeckel's embryo drawings were legitimate, but others were unfounded.[30][31] There were multiple versions of the embryo drawings, and Haeckel rejected the claims of fraud. It was later said that "there is evidence of sleight of hand" on both sides of the feud between Haeckel and Wilhelm His.[32] Robert J. Richards, in a paper published in 2008, defends the case for Haeckel, shedding doubt against the fraud accusations based on the material used for comparison with what Haeckel could access at the time.[33] The controversy involves several different issues (see more details at: recapitulation theory).

originally posted by: boymonkey74
a reply to: IndependentAgent

Doesn't matter the pics are true representations.

No mention of fraud here.

en.wikipedia.org...

They are fakes,and it's been known for a very long time.

a reply to: kcgads

It's like you didn't even bother to read the post directly above yours.