Jump to content
Main menu
Main menu
move to sidebar
hide
Navigation
Main page
Recent changes
Random page
Help about MediaWiki
Special pages
Niidae Wiki
Search
Search
Appearance
Create account
Log in
Personal tools
Create account
Log in
Pages for logged out editors
learn more
Contributions
Talk
Editing
Embryo drawing
(section)
Page
Discussion
English
Read
Edit
View history
Tools
Tools
move to sidebar
hide
Actions
Read
Edit
View history
General
What links here
Related changes
Page information
Appearance
move to sidebar
hide
Warning:
You are not logged in. Your IP address will be publicly visible if you make any edits. If you
log in
or
create an account
, your edits will be attributed to your username, along with other benefits.
Anti-spam check. Do
not
fill this in!
===Contemporary criticism of Haeckel: Michael Richardson and Stephen Jay Gould=== Michael Richardson and his colleagues in a July 1997 issue of ''Anatomy and Embryology'',<ref>Richardson, M.K., Hanken, J., Gooneratne, M.L., Pieau, C., Raynaud. A., [[Lynne Selwood|Selwood, L.]] and Wright, G.M. (1997): There is no highly conserved embryonic stage in the vertebrates: implications for current theories of evolution and development. Anatomy and Embryology 196(2): 91β106.</ref> demonstrated that Haeckel falsified his drawings in order to exaggerate the similarity of the phylotypic stage. In a March 2000 issue of ''[[Natural History (magazine)|Natural History]]'', Stephen Jay Gould argued that Haeckel "exaggerated the similarities by idealizations and omissions." As well, Gould argued that Haeckel's drawings are simply inaccurate and falsified.<ref> {{cite journal |title=Abscheulich! β Atrocious! β the precursor to the theory of natural selection |author=Stephen Jay Gould |date=March 2000 |journal=[[Natural History (magazine)|Natural History]] }}</ref> On the other hand, one of those who criticized Haeckel's drawings, Michael Richardson, has argued that "Haeckel's much-criticized drawings are important as phylogenetic hypotheses, teaching aids, and evidence for evolution".<ref>{{cite journal | author = Richardson Michael K., Keuck Gerhard | year = 2002 | title = Haeckel's ABC of evolution and development | journal = Biol. Rev. | volume = 77 | issue = 4| pages = 495β528 | doi = 10.1017/s1464793102005948 | pmid = 12475051 | s2cid = 23494485 }}</ref> But even Richardson admitted in ''[[Science (journal)|Science]]'' Magazine in 1997 that his team's investigation of Haeckel's drawings were showing them to be "one of the most famous fakes in biology."<ref>{{cite journal|author=Pennisi, Elizabeth|author-link=Elizabeth Pennisi|title=Haeckel's Embryos: Fraud Rediscovered|year=1997|journal=Science|doi=10.1126/science.277.5331.1435a|volume=277|issue=5331|page=1435|pmid=9304211|s2cid=36959449 }}</ref> Some version of Haeckel's drawings can be found in many modern biology textbooks in discussions of the history of embryology, with clarification that these are no longer considered valid.<ref>Futuyma, Douglas, "Evolutionary Biology," pp. 652β653</ref>
Summary:
Please note that all contributions to Niidae Wiki may be edited, altered, or removed by other contributors. If you do not want your writing to be edited mercilessly, then do not submit it here.
You are also promising us that you wrote this yourself, or copied it from a public domain or similar free resource (see
Encyclopedia:Copyrights
for details).
Do not submit copyrighted work without permission!
Cancel
Editing help
(opens in new window)
Search
Search
Editing
Embryo drawing
(section)
Add topic