"The REASON Haekel's drawings are used in in "evo-devo" text books is precicely to describe what he thought was the truth, which is now known NOT to be the truth..."
Yet they are still presented uncritically in numerous text books AS THE TRUTH, as are peppered moths and finch beaks.
Hello?
"Ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny" is one of the main pillars that the leaning tower of the evolutionary theory of everything is based on. As such: it is perfectly reasonable to question the soundness of an edifice erected on such questionable foundations. That is not Ad Hominem, that's just prudent.
"As to "Ad Hominem" it's hard to bother with that since your "arguement" or "factual claim" (That Haekel's drawings were inaccurate, exaggerated, or fraudulent) doesn't refute my original claim that Haekel's ideas and work was and is very important to the study of evolution and are rightly included in it's study."
What does that have to do with the price of eggs?
Your continual use of Ad Hominem, such as referring to those who disagree with you as being mentally ill, make you, look very immature and your arguments, weak.
"OTOH, there DOES seem to be an attack (on evolution... in particular "EVO-DEVO" and Haekel's role in it) going on here that ISNT using facts other than those that break basic logistical fallacies (ie. since Haekel drew pictures that misreapresented the truth, he has therefore nothing to add and all those ideas are discredited) from first semester university."
WOW! Where to begin....
Even a first year university student should know the difference between a logical fallacy and a logistical one. I assume you meant the former and not the later, but you have not shown either to be true. For instance... When a witness in a trial deliberately perjures himself, he has lost all credibility and anything he says SHOULD RIGHTFULLY be doubted. Have you actually taken a first year logic class?
Further; Haekel's fraud is still being perpetuated and endorsed by current text books that are being used to lie to young impressionable minds in a purposeful attempt to bolster an otherwise unsustainable theory. That Sir, is intellectual dishonesty of the worst kind.
BTW.. Most first year university students also know how to use spell check. |
