The Biblical Case for Pro-Choice & Stem Cell Research

[gadgetlady 4]

In re: but, in what I consider the most amusing line in this entire chapter, Wells expresses indignation that "Some textbooks, instead of reproducing or redrawing Haeckel's embryos, use actual photos." How dare those nefarious textbook authors use photographic data to support their ideas!

I read this totally differently. I read the quote to mean that the textbooks, instead of using photos of Haeckel's original drawings, should be redrawing them to be accurate. In other words, they're using photos of drawings that are inaccurate when they could just as easily correct the errors that Haeckel made -- but to do so wouldn't fit with their agenda.

I could be wrong, but this is how I read it.

[anonemouse 1]

No, he's referring to photos of actual embryos, not photos of embryo drawings.

To improve their grade to a D, a book uses "misleading photographs" of real embryos instead of the Haeckelian drawings. Again, however, what is the objection here? These aren't fudged or inaccurate drawings. They are photographs of vertebrate embryos that accurately illustrate what they look like, that anyone with a microscope and access to embryos can see (Figure 3).

The paragraph that you originally quoted was referring to one author's (Balinski) textbook. I think most authors do explain the errors in the drawings, such as the author he used as an example did (Cambell's Biology).

[gadgetlady 4]

I haven't seen the "misleading photos" so I can't comment.

[anonemouse 1]

I haven't seen the "misleading photos" so I can't comment.

What I am getting from it is that any photo of an embryo would be misleading. I think the photo in the Figure 3 link is one that Well's apparently thought would be misleading. I personally don't see how it is.

[gadgetlady 4]

What I am getting from it is that any photo of an embryo would be misleading. I think the photo in the Figure 3 link is one that Well's apparently thought would be misleading. I personally don't see how it is.

Oops, sorry. I missed the link. Do you have any idea why he called it "misleading"? I don't either.

But, again, what one person says about embryonic photos or how he grades a textbook was not my point. My point was that so-called "facts" take on a life of their own and it is difficult to get an entrenched group of any philosophy to reject their sacredly held tenants. And I do mean ANY group, including those who espouse philosophies which I believe.

[anonemouse 1]

But, again, what one person says about embryonic photos or how he grades a textbook was not my point. My point was that so-called "facts" take on a life of their own and it is difficult to get an entrenched group of any philosophy to reject their sacredly held tenants. And I do mean ANY group, including those who espouse philosophies which I believe.

And that's true, but I think in this case it has been rejected by the majority of the group. I think it has basically been a case of authors that were too lazy to have other drawings made.

[gadgetlady 4]

This is a fascinating subject for me and I'll spend a little more time researching because, as I've just discovered, Wells is a vertebrate embryologist. So now I really am curious as to what he felt was misleading. I'll let you know if I come up with anything of import.

[anonemouse 1]

From what I can find, I think he thought that the photos were misleading because they showed similarities in the development of different species.

Figure 2.4.1. Cat and human embryos in the tailbud stage. A cat embryo is shown on top, a human embryo below. Note the post-anal tail in both, positioned at the lower left below the head of each. The human embryo is about 32 days old.

From http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section2.html#ontogeny

[gadgetlady 4]

Here's what I found, from a downloaded .pdf:

Haeckel's drawings misrepresent

the embryos they purport to

show and Haeckel entirely omitted the

earliest stages of development in which

the various classes of vertebrates are

morphologically very different.

Haeckel, however, deceived most

people by omitting the first stages and

starting at the middle stages of development

when the embryos appear to be

more similar.

What I glean from a very cursory review (I'm running out of time tonight) is that the embryos appear very dissimilar at early and late stages of development, but more similar at middle stages. So a photograph of the middle stages with the omission of the early and late stages could be misleading.

[gadgetlady 4]

From the same .pdf, posted without comment because I'm out of time:

EVOLUTION SCIENCE

The Evidence Must be

Made to Fit the Theory

THE REST OF SCIENCE

The Theory Must Be

Supported by the Evidence

From the point of view of evolutionism

science: The evidence: The

first stages of vertebrate embryos don’t

resemble each other as much as do the

middle stages. The embryos of all

classes of vertebrates are easily distinguishable

at an embryological stage.

The inference: Therefore, early stages

of developing embryos evolve much

easier than we thought while middle

stages must be prevented from evolving.

[see Wray. 1995. Punctuated Equilibrium

of Embryos. Science 267 and

Raff. 1996The Shape of Life]

[gadgetlady 4]

Sorry; I didn't post a link: www.csfpittsburgh.org/2002OI/Mar02.PDF

[gadgetlady 4]

OK, after this I am STEPPING AWAY FROM THE COMPUTER.

From the "horse's mouth" (Wells) at http://www.arn.org/docs/wells/jw_tbookreport900.htm (emphasis added):

Haeckel's Embryos

Darwin believed that all animals with backbones (including humans) evolved from fish-like ancestors, and he thought the best evidence for this was that the early embryos of amphibians, reptiles, birds and mammals are similar to fish embryos. Many biology textbooks carry drawings (originally by Ernst Haeckel) to illustrate this, and claim that human embryos possess "gill slits." But embryologists have known for over a century that such drawings are false, and that early embryos of amphibians, reptiles, birds and mammals do NOT resemble fish. Human embryos pass through a stage when they have wrinkles in their necks, but they never have "gill slits."

A = does not use misleading drawings or photos, and does not call pharyngeal pouches "gill slits"; points out that vertebrate embryos are most similar midway through development, after being dissimilar in their earliest stages; acknowledges this as an unresolved problem for Darwinian evolution, and considers the possibility that Darwin's theory of vertebrate origins could be wrong.

[anonemouse 1]

So a photograph of the middle stages with the omission of the early and late stages could be misleading.

To be honest, I don't understand how they could be misleading to someone who does more than just glance at the pictures. I think any information given out can be misleading to certain people. For example, with the photos I posted above, the embryos are similar at that stage, but everyone realizes that a cat and a human are entirely different organisms. And, as was stated in the article I posted,

What about the early differences in development?

Wells makes much of the fact that the biogenetic law presumes that embryos ought to be most similar at the earliest possible stage of development, yet the period of greatest similarity, the phylotypic stage, occurs well into development, and that the earliest stages exhibit seemingly significant differences. This is true, but irrelevant.

• The biogenetic law is not Darwinism. Poking holes in the biogenetic law is easy to do, it's been done repeatedly in the scientific literature, and it does not damage modern evolutionary biology at all.
  
• This observation isn't news. Von Baer pointed out in the 1820's that the earliest tissues to differentiate in the mammalian embryo are the extraembryonic membranes, which also happen to be among the more recent features in the mammalian lineage to evolve. The figure Wells uses to make this point (Figure 5-3) is a redrawn version of a similar figure published by Elinson in 1987.
  
• Wells downplays the similarities that exist to emphasize the differences. This is the same biased game that Haeckel played: the only difference is that he emphasized the similarities rather than the differences.

About the gill slits:

Vertebrate embryos universally have prominent structures in their neck region that are called by various names in the scientific literature: branchial, pharyngeal, or visceral pouches or grooves or furrows or arches. Because they may appear as a repeating series of slits in the neck of the embryo, resembling the pattern of repeated elements in the neck of adult fish, they have also been colloquially called "gill slits" or "gill pouches." They are not, however, gills - and scientists have not been claiming that they are (Wells even quotes several authors, Wolpert and Rager, who explicitly state this simple, obvious fact).

ETA: I need to go to bed. Darn you, Gadgetlady, for having the gall to have an interesting debate!:speechles:notagree

[396power 2]

Picture this if we were in the year 3007. We're in History class and we get to our red letter days. and what does the History book say. " They Killed The Young To Save The Old.

Well I want no part of it.

[Hazelbunny 0]

What bothers me is that women can have abortions after 24 weeks. My baby was born at 24 weeks and she is 9 now.

It is one thing to abort an 8 week old embryo (which I am still not totally on board with). That baby has no chance of survival outside the womb.

When our daughter was born we were told that she had a 64% chance of survival. I just don't understand how it can be legal to abort a child that has passed the age of viability just because you don't want it.

YOu could carry to term and go the adoption route - at that point you only have s hort time of pregnancy left.