英語フォーラム

Haeckel's fake drawings.

In the September 5, 1997, edition of the well-known scientific journal Science, an article was published revealing that Haeckel's embryo drawings were the product of a deception. The article, called "Haeckel's Embryos: Fraud Rediscovered," had this to say:

The impression they [Haeckel's drawings] give, that the embryos are exactly alike, is wrong, says Michael Richardson, an embryologist at St. George's Hospital Medical School in London… So he and his colleagues did their own comparative study, reexamining and photographing embryos roughly matched by species and age with those Haeckel drew. Lo and behold, the embryos "often looked surprisingly different," Richardson reports in the August issue of Anatomy and Embryology.323

YOU ARE HERE, THE BEST IN THE RESEARCH AND IN THE DISCOVER OF THE THRUTH TO THE ALL .

AND I SUPPORT YOU WITH ONE SMALL Q TO THE ALL :

WHY NEVER , FROM THE TWO LAST CENTURIES UP TO TODAY , THE MONKEY OR SOME OF THEM HAVE DEVELOPED TO BECOME HUMAN LIKE AS DARWIN HAD ( EACH BODY KNOWS HIS ORIGINAL ), WHY ?

THIS IS THE PERIOD OF RENAISSANCE AND EVOLUTION, THIS CHANCE IS BETTER THAN THE OLD CHANCE STIL BE GIVEN TO THE MONKEY TO DO THE DEVELOPE .

THAT MONKEYS ARE LAZY ? ... MAYBE BUSY WITH LOVE !! .

  Observations in recent years have revealed that embryos of different species do not resemble each other, as Haeckel had attempted to show. The great differences between the mammal, reptile and bat embryos above are a clear instance of this.

**

Science explained that, in order to be able to show the embryos as similar, Haeckel deliberately removed some organs from his drawings or else added imaginary ones. Later in this same article, the following information was revealed:

Not only did Haeckel add or omit features, Richardson and his colleagues report, but he also fudged the scale to exaggerate similarities among species, even when there were 10-fold differences in size. Haeckel further blurred differences by neglecting to name the species in most cases, as if one representative was accurate for an entire group of animals. In reality, Richardson and his colleagues note, even closely related embryos such as those of fish vary quite a bit in their appearance and developmental pathway. "It (Haeckel's drawings) looks like it's turning out to be one of the most famous fakes in biology," Richardson concludes.324

The Science article goes on to discuss how Haeckel's confessions on this subject were covered up from the beginning of the last century, and how the fake drawings began to be presented in textbooks as scientific fact:

Haeckel's confession got lost after his drawings were subsequently used in a 1901 book called Darwin and After Darwin and reproduced widely in English language biology texts.325

In short, the fact that Haeckel's drawings were falsified had already emerged in 1901, but the whole world of science continued to be deceived by them for a century

Hekmer,you are right,they are  busy!why dont they become an human anymore?They are tired ,definetly.

(edited to correct some spelling or usage errors)

Birguil, without debating the point, I just want to point out that Darwin never addressed the origin of LIFE, only the origin of new species. 

Hekmer, Darwin also never claimed that monkeys would develop to become human-like. Likewise, you are badly misinformed if you think that science claims that a species like a monkey could evolve into a new species in a mere 200 years. 

Looking at the drawings of embryos, I am amusingly reminded of the photo of the chewed gum with teeth marks "conveniently" looking like a spinal cord that is used to PROVE that the Koran predicted human embryonic development 1400 years ago. I've seen my share of discarded wads of gum and that looked very little like any of them. 

I AM SORRY , GISSEBERTH … YOU LOOKS AS KNOWN OF THAT LONG  TIME WHICH HAVE BEEN TO THAT DEVELOPING … HOW MANY IF YOU CAN ACOUNT IT, OR …  HOW MUCH IF YOU CAN NOT … AND WHATEVER WOULD BE  YOUR ANSWER , O ..OUR TEACHER … SO OUR HOLY QURAN WILL BE EVER WATCHFUL OVER ALL OF  THE MISKNOWLEDGE, MAY ALLAH WANT THAT .

The fact that results of molecular comparisons are not in favor of, but rather opposed to, the theory of evolution is also admitted in an article called "Is it Time to Uproot the Tree of Life?" published in Science in 1999. This article by Elizabeth Pennisi states that the genetic analyses and comparisons carried out by Darwinist biologists in order to shed light on the "tree of life" actually yielded directly opposite results, and goes on to say that "new data are muddying the evolutionary picture":

A year ago, biologists looking over newly sequenced genomes from more than a dozen microorganisms thought these data might support the accepted plot lines of life's early history. But what they saw confounded them. Comparisons of the genomes then available not only didn't clarify the picture of how life's major groupings evolved, they confused it. And now, with an additional eight microbial sequences in hand, the situation has gotten even more confusing…. Many evolutionary biologists had thought they could roughly see the beginnings of life's three kingdoms… When full DNA sequences opened the way to comparing other kinds of genes, researchers expected that they would simply add detail to this tree. But "nothing could be further from the truth," says Claire Fraser, head of The Institute for Genomic Research (TIGR) in Rockville, Maryland. Instead, the comparisons have yielded many versions of the tree of life that differ from the rRNA tree and conflict with each other as well…304

Hekmer, I really don't know what you are asking, or what you are apologizing for. 

If you can try to explain, I will try to answer.  

OK, AS FIRST , THIS IS MY WAY TO DO PLAY AS I WANT … SO YOU NEED TO STRONG FEEL TO KNOW WHAT I MEAN ….

THEN , YOU SAID :

 you are badly misinformed if you think that science claims that a species like a monkey could evolve into a new species in a mere 200 years.

AND I DO NOT THINK THAT ONLY BUT I NEVER BELIEVE IN ALSO,

SO, YOU CAN DROP " IF " FROM YOUR POST … YOU NEVER ABLE TO SHAKE ME AS HAIR AS AMOUNT …

AND FINALLY, YOU LOOKS FROM YOUR WORDS WHICH YOU WROTE AS YOU MAY AWARE ABOUT HOW MANY THAT YEARS WHICH CONVERT BACK YOU AS NEW FROM AS MISSING LINK OF DARWIN'S THEORY, THEN FROM AS MONKEY, THEN …..  AND AS FINALLY FROM AS AN AMOEBA CELL WHICH THE MEDICAL SCIENCES SEE IT AS A DANGEROUS ORGANISM, FROM THE LAST TIME UPTO TODAY AND SO ON … UNTIL ALLAHA WANTS ANY THING ELSE; THEN WHY THE MANKIND HAS THE DISEASE FROM HIS ORGINAL .

BUT THE MANKIND DOES NOT HAVE THE DISEASE FROM THE PURE WATER AND THE PURE SOIL WHICH IS REALY HIS ORGINAL FROM THE BEGINING .

DO NOT FORGET THAT DARWIN IS FROM THE JEWS WHOSE HAS A GROUP HAD BEEN CONVERTED TO MONKEYS AND PIGS AS A CURSE FROM ALLAH THE LORD .

Okay, I will edit.

You are badly misinformed BECAUSE you think that science teaches that a species like a monkey could evolve into a new species in 200 years.

The part about the disease etc.   I am still lost.

As ar as I know, Darwin was not Jewish, although it really doesn't matter. Early in his life, he was a member of the Church of England, his parents were Unitarian, and later in life he could be classified as agnostic. By birth, I suppose he could have ancestors who were Jewish, but it really wasn't part of his life if that were the case. 

For someone who claims to be educated and intelligent, that you subscribe to the view that Jews are descended from monkeys and pigs is quite amusing.  

Thank the gods indeed that Darwin was not a Muslim and therefore not brainwashed by such drivel.