Back to the Thought Deposit
Dinoglyphs
HUMAN EMBRYOME
vs.
MOUSE EMBRYOME
Stem Cell lobby in the shadow of the embryo frauds
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov:80/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=9278154&dopt=Abstract
http://link.springer.de/link/service/journals/00429/bibs/7196002/71960091.htm
Figure 1. Alberts,
Alberts… Bulk text of the cell biology bestseller 1 in the world
claims: “…embryos… as they develop, seem sometimes to replay the
steps of evolution... It takes an expert eye to distinguish, for
example, a young chick embryo from a young human embryo.”
Figure 2. The real appearance of the comparative vertebrate embryome
behind the Haeckels drawings. The figures have been scaled to same size, but
the actual variation in size is over ten-fold.
From Jonathan
Wells maligned critical treatise Icons of Evolution. Illustrations copyright Jody F. Sjogren
2000.
Figure 3. The earliest stages of the vertebrate embryome. The original, schematized figures drawn by Ernst Haeckel were claimed to describe the earliest stage of the developmental biology, as the greatest similarity in appearance can be seen in so called pharyngula stage. faryngulavaiheessa. From Jonathan Wells' Icons of Evolution. Illustrations copyright Jody F. Sjogren 2000. In the book reviews the science journals have crucified Wells as a misleading bigot with an unscientific ad hominem -argument. In his popular book, Wells criticized 10 of the most recycled pieces of evidences for macroevolution used in US schoolbooks of biology. To say it modestly, The Icons of Evolution has been overdriven in the reviews of scientific books. Titles of the book review -articles are self-explaining: "The creationist abuse of evo-devo" (Rudolf Raff in Evolution & Development 3, 373-4, 2001; the journal was inaugurated at the new millennium), "Fatally flawed iconoclasm" (Eugenie C. Scott, Science 292, 2257-8, 2001), "Creationism by stealth" (Jeery Coyne, Nature, 410, 745-6, 2001), and the most vicious "The talented Mr. Wells" (Padian & Gishlick, The Quarterly Review of Biology 77, 33-7). Eugenie Scott is the director of the National Center for Science Education (NCSE) in the United States, which works "to improve public understanding of both the nature of science and the science of evolution". In practice she runs "counter-creationism" full time, and her words could be taken as an apt summary of the apologies of reviewers: Scott compares biological macroevolution to the atomic theory in physics, without embarrasment. (The other examples of Wells are the Miller-Urey experiment, Darwin's Tree of Life, homology in vertebrate limbs, Archaeopteryx as a missing link, peppered moths, Darwin's finches, four-winged fruit flies, fossil horses and directed evolution, and palaentology of prehistorical man.)
Figure 4. Schemes of the actual appearance of the infamous "gill-slits"
of the human embryome, which were once argued to be functioning gills in the
womb. Richardson
MK, Hanken J, Gooneratne ML, Pieau C, Raynaud A, Selwood L, Wright GM. Anat Embryol (Berl) 1997
Aug;196(2):91-106. There is no highly conserved embryonic stage in the
vertebrates: implications for current theories of evolution and development.
Copyrights Springer-Verlag.
Figure 5.
Photographs of various vertebrate embryos. Adapted and edited from Richardson MK, Hanken J,
Gooneratne ML, Pieau C, Raynaud A, Selwood L, Wright GM. Anat Embryol (Berl.) 1997 Aug;196(2):91-106.
There is no highly conserved embryonic stage in the vertebrates: implications
for current theories of evolution and development. Copyrights Springer-Verlag.
http://link.springer.de/link/service/journals/00429/bibs/7196002/71960091.htm
A more detailed article on the scandalous abuse of the public trust:
Haeckelian legacy of popularization in Ojala PJ (2004) "Challenges for Bioethics from Asia". Fifth Asian Bioethics Conference, ABC (5):391-412.
http://www.helsinki.fi/~pjojala/Haeckelianlegacy_ABC5.pdf
Embryomi