Remember how wiki has histories of their articles? So long as they continue this practice, it is possible to investigate how silly the atheismmongers actually are.
Their cumulative take on Ernst Häckel is amusing. They love what he said, but they dare not embrace him too closely. They try to give the impression that they understand him to have been in error, yet they want you to believe his "biogenetic law" or "recapitulation theory" true. They even try to attribute his mistake to following (straw) Lamarck rather than (straw) Darwin.
Häckel's take on recapitulation was not opposed by Darwin; neither was Lamarck's contention that acquired traits are passed along to offspring. Häckel's recap ideas were opposed by T.H. Huxley, who did a competent job of debunking recap fairly early on, but Darwin didn't listen or didn't care. I won't go into the politics, for we don't have time.
We're looking at wiki. According the the present propaganda,
While it has been widely claimed that Haeckel was charged with fraud by five professors and convicted by a university court at Jena, there does not appear to be an independently verifiable source for this claim.[22] Recent analyses (Richardson 1998, Richardson and Keuck 2002) have found that some of the criticisms of Haeckel's embryo drawings were legitimate, but others were unfounded.[23] [24] There were multiple versions of the embryo drawings, and Haeckel rejected the claims of fraud. It was later said that "there is evidence of sleight of hand" on both sides of the feud between Haeckel and Wilhelm His.[25] The controversy involves several different issues (see more details at: recapitulation theory).
Now over at EFT, and moreso at his own website, Ikester has explained how evidence of Häckel's conviction has been removed from the University of Jena's website.
http://www.evolutionfairytale.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=3206&st=40Of course the evomongers at wiki would be sure to plead ignorance, but they cannot plead ignorance in the removal of evidence from the wiki article itself!
It used to be there!
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ernst_Haeckel&diff=next&oldid=6857965At one time, wiki's article included a link to an interview with
Christiane Nüsslein-Volhard in which he said ''Ernst Haeckel did forge. Many of his pictures of organisms simply are inventions to prove his theory...'' or in the original German "Ich glaube nicht, dass heute mehr gefälscht wird als vor hundert Jahren. Es gibt in allen Berufen Menschen, die sich in den Vordergrund drängen wollen, in allen Bereichen Betrug und Fälschung. Die Wissenschaft ist davon nicht ausgeschlossen.
Ernst Haeckel hat gefälscht. Viele seiner Bilder von Organismen sind schlicht erfunden, um seine Theorie zu bestätigen ? "
http://www.zeit.de/wissen/biotechnologie/winnuessNote the part I bolded. Here 'hat' means 'has' and 'gefälscht' breaks down to the very term we get our word 'false' from. The ge- prefix indicates past tense; the root word is falsch if you want to look it up in a German-to-English dictionary.
So who is Christiane Nüsslein-Volhard? Is wiki correct in dismissing him as an unreliable source? Click on the first mention of his name here - it's a link. Their very own article on this man says
Christiane Nüsslein-Volhard (born October 20, 1942 in Magdeburg) is a German biologist who won the Albert Lasker Award for Basic Medical Research in 1991 and the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine in 1995, together with Eric Wieschaus and Edward B. Lewis, for their research on the genetic control of embryonic development.
Not only does he study the very field of science relevant to recap, he has won a Nobel Prize for his work in this field!!! He also speaks German, the very same language as Ernst Häckel! Who could be better qualified to know? Who who who!!!
Yes, "anyone can edit wiki", but they have a system in place to supervise the edits and as we see here, remove evidence they don't like. These people consider talkdeceptions to be "a reliable source" and reject Christiane Nüsslein-Volhard. I suggest that's all one needs to know about them. Not only did Ernst Häckel lie, wiki lies to protect his lies, and there can be no mistake about either.
The portion informing readers in no uncertain terms that Ernst Häckel did indeed lie
was removed 16 June, 2005. , along with the reference.
Subsequently, on 29 June 2005, images were supplied so readers could compare the fraudulent drawings to photographs of real embryos.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ernst_Haeckel&diff=next&oldid=17824585How much do they hate the truth? If you take the link, you won't even see the image, but rather a box that says "File:FraudtopRealitybelow.jpg
Haeckels drawings top, Reality below" and contains a broken link.
The image survived until 1 October, 2005, when it was removed under the false pretext of "copy-vio".
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ernst_Haeckel&diff=next&oldid=24493028Seen enough? I think I've presented enough. For now, at least.
