Talk:Embryo drawing

message: *Embryo drawings - Written as if Ernst Haeckel was the only one who drew embryos. Creationist POV, complete with quote mining. In stasis for 3 years. Phlebas 19:43, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Tried to fix it up. Could do with some clean-up by someone better at Wiki than me. Also still needs some fleshing out. --Mintie 01:48, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: From PNA/Biology

message: Terribly POV. Any undergraduate biology student draws embryos, like they appear in the microscope slides. Phlebas 17:18, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Made an attempt to fix it up. Could still do with some work. For those with the time, I suggest the following site is a great place to start: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/wells/haeckel.html --Mintie 01:50, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments here

message: is the image on this page really drawn by Ernst Haeckel or instead cited by Von Baers (1928?)? The "schematized" (is this really such a non-scientific technique?) drawings in Haeckels's "Schöpfungsgeschichte" (Berlin 1879, between pages 272 and 273) look quite different.
: Yes, the picture shown is from the 1828 von-Baer book "Über Entwickelungsgeschichte der Thiere". See http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bild:Baer_embryos.png . Haeckel used this drawing several times in his books, sometimes slightly modified or reordered. The "schematized" pictures in the "Schöpfungsgeschichte" look very different. 145.254.69.235 16:03, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  correct picture? 

message: This DOES need to be clarified and deserves some space. Your assumption that Haeckel's drawings are no longer used in text books is very wrong - I am teaching Year 11 and 12 Biology this year, and was astonished to see that the BoS approved HSC text book (NSW Australia) has a labelled reproduction of Haeckel's original drawings in sepia!! (Mudie, K. and Brotherton, J. (2004) Heinemann Biology 2nd ed., Harcourt, Figure 6.10 p 270). These are presented as completely credible in the text!!
218.214.49.106 07:29, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Confusing for Students 

message: I propose a move to Haeckel's embryo drawings because 80% of the article is about Haeckel, his drawings, errors he may have made, and how this affects evolution education. --Uncle Ed 01:19, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with this move. —Pengo 02:02, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Title change

message: The article needs a summary (or introduction) which simply lists briefly the grounds people opposed Haeckel's drawings, who they were, and what their backgrounds were (e.g. embryologist, creationist). And ditto for the proponents. There's far too much to read before you can start to get a picture. —Pengo 02:09, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Summary needed 

message: The final section is all based on Hopwood's opinion of what others thought or did, get the original sources or delete the section- "littering their text books" Does that sound NPOV? E4mmacro 01:08, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  And the final section 

message: The caption on :Image:Haeckel_drawings.jpg is "Romanes' 1892 copy of Ernst Haeckel's allegedly fraudulent embryo drawings...".
There is no further mention of Romanes in the article. Is it George Romanes? However that article does not mention the drawing. CS Miller (talk) 13:10, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Which Romanes "embryo drawings"? 

message: I can't find this journal anywhere. Is Archiv für Anthropologie meant instead? Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 20:53, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archiv für Anthropogenie 

message: Well it would. Him being dead really put a dampener on his activities. 
The last section seems kinda pointless. No citations and vaguely worded with no clear message. Delete?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 156.22.8.20 (talk) 00:29, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Even though Haeckel's program in comparative embryology virtually collapsed after the First World War"