Albatrossity2
Posts: 2780
Joined: Mar. 2007
|
| Quote (Paul Nelson @ Mar. 10 2008,11:15) | I'll be responding to JAM's objection about the genetics of body size next.
Jim Wynne and Alb asked about why the Debate page at the Explore Evolution website was inactive. Short version: I wanted a discussion board there, like this one, with no (or only light -- e.g., no vulgarity) moderation. Others disagreed, and there the issue has stalled. Given however that the work of responding to critics would probably fall largely (or entirely) to me, as it has in this thread, I decided to continue participating here until my own webpage, www.bioadagio.com, is active.
Once www.bioadagio is up, there will be a separate page there for open, unmoderated discussion of Explore Evolution. |
Well, in my mind you haven't yet satisfactorily answered the question about why EE says that "many" high-school and college-level biology textbooks include Haeckel's figure and imply that these textbooks are misleading about the interpretation and history of that figure. As previously mentioned, I checked all 21 of the intro biology textbooks in my possession last summer, and found that three of them mentioned Haeckel. Furthermore, all of them had the correct interpretation and history for his infamous figure.
I am now in the process of reviewing textbooks for next fall, since the edition that we are using is out of print. I have checked those as well. Here's more ammunition for my side, a list of textbooks and how they treat Haeckel and his embryos.
1) Starr, Evers & Starr, Biology: Concepts and Applications, 7/e - Haeckel is not mentioned in the text; the infamous figure is not reproduced. The version of this textbook "without physiology" also has no mention of Haeckel..
2) Enger, Ross and Bailey - Concepts in Biology, 13/e - Haeckel is not mentioned in the text; the infamous figure is not reproduced.
3) Mader, Concepts of Biology, 1/e - This is an interesting case. Haeckel is mentioned in the index, where it indicates that you need to go to p. 710 to read more. Unfortunately, page 710 is in the ecology section; there is no mention of Haeckel on that page. He is not mentioned in either the embryology section or the evolutionary biology section. Another mark against your statement about how this misinformation is spread in "many" biology textbooks.
4) Hoefnagels, Biology: Concepts and Investigations, 1/e - Haeckel is mentioned on p. 318; the infamous figure is not shown. The text indicates that Haeckel fudged the figure in a couple of ways; in other words, it represents it accurately, contrary to the assertion in EE.
5) Campbell, Reece, Taylor, Simon and Dickey, Biology: Concepts and Connections, 6/e - Haeckel is not mentioned in the text; the infamous figure is not reproduced.
6) Krogh, Biology: A guide to the natural World, 4/e - Haeckel is not mentioned in the text; the infamous figure is not reproduced.
7) Presson & Jenner, Biology: Dimensions of Life, 1/e - Haeckel is not mentioned in the text; the infamous figure is not reproduced.
In all cases I looked in the index, and also in the embryology and evolutionary biology chapters.
So I can add 7 more textbooks to the 21 previously examined. In only one of these is Haeckel discussed in the "evidence for evolution" section, and in that case the author accurately reflects the state of understanding in the 21st (and 20th, and most of the 19th) century. Thus in the 4 (out of 28 total) books where Haeckel appears in the text, all of them accurately describe his work and the relevance of his work to modern evolutionary biology.
What more will it take to convince you that the use of "many" in EE is inaccurate? Can you stop beating that dead horse long enough to step out of the fine pink mist you are creating and see reality?
Please pass this along to your coauthors as well.
--------------
Flesh of the sky, child of the sky, the mind
Has been obligated from the beginning
To create an ordered universe
As the only possible proof of its own inheritance.
- Pattiann Rogers
|
