==> Nick Hopwood: "Pictures of Evolution and Charges of Fraud: Ernst Haeckel's Embryological Illustrations" Isis, 2006, 97:260-301]
Comparative illustrations of vertebrate embryos by the leading nineteenth-century Darwinist Ernst Haeckel have been both highly contested and canonical. Though the target of repeated fraud charges since 1868, the pictures were widely reproduced in textbooks through the twentieth century. Concentrating on their first ten years, this essay uses the accusations to shed light on the novelty of Haeckel's visual argumentation and to explore how images come to count as proper representations or illegitimate schematics as they cross between the esoteric and exoteric circles of science. It exploits previously unused manuscripts to reconstruct the drawing, printing, and publishing of the illustrations that attracted the first and most influential attack, compares these procedures to standard practice, and highlights their originality. It then explains why, though Haeckel was soon accused, controversy ignited only seven years later, after he aligned a disciplinary struggle over embryology with a major confrontation between liberal nationalism and Catholicism--and why the contested pictures nevertheless survived.
とても全文を読みきれないので、とりあえず同じネタの"An Index to Creationist Claims"から...
まずは「CB701. Haeckel falsified his embryo pictures (ヘッケルは胚の絵を偽造した）」から：
Claim CB701:
Haeckel faked his pictures of embryos to make them look more alike than they are.
ヘッケルは実際よりも似ているように、胚の彼の絵を模造した。
Source:
Wells, Jonathan, 2000. Icons of Evolution, Washington DC: Regnery Publishing Inc., pp. 81-109.
Behe, Michael, "Firing Line with William Buckley", PBS, 13 Dec. 1997.
Response:
Haeckel's pictures are irrelevant to the question of whether the embryos are similar. What matters are the embryos themselves. Within a group, early embryos do show many similarities. For example, all vertebrates develop a notochord, body segments, pharyngeal gill pouches, and a post-anal tail. These fundamental similarities indicate a common evolutionary history. Other embryological similarities are found in other lineages, such as mollusks, arthropods, and annelids. These similarities have been long known. Professor Agassiz in 1849, for example, said, "We find, too, that the young bat, or bird, or the young serpent, in certain periods of their growth, resemble one another so much that he would defy any one to tell one from the other--or distinguish between a bat and a snake." (Scientific American 1849)
ヘッケルの絵は、胚が似ているかどうかの問題とは無関係だ。重要なことは胚自体である。ひとつの分類群内では、初期の胚は多くの類似点を示している。たとえば、すべての脊椎動物は、脊索、体の部分、咽頭嚢と肛門後方尾を発生させる。これらの基本的な類似点は、共通の進化の歴史を示す。他の発生学的な類似点は、例えば軟体動物、節足動物と環形動物のような他の系統でも発見される。これらの類似点は、長く公表されてきた。「また、若いコウモリ（または鳥）または若いヘビが、彼らの成長の特定の段階に、見分けるのは困難なほど互いによく似ている。コウモリとヘビを区別するのも」と、1849年にAgassiz 教授は述べた (Scientific American 1849) 。
The embryos also show some differences, which Haeckel glossed over. However, differences should also be expected, since the animals are not all equally related. It is the pattern of both similarities and differences that displays patterns of descent. Organisms that are less closely related are expected to look less similar.
胚はもちろん違いも示している。そしてヘッケルはこれに注釈をつけた。しかし、動物たちは等しい関係にはないので、差異があるのは予想されることだ。類似性と差異のパターンは系統のパターンを示している。関係が遠い生物では類似性は小さいと期待される。
When Haeckel's inaccuracies were exposed, authors started using corrected versions. Science tends to be self-correcting.
ヘッケルの絵は正確でないことが明らかになったとき、著者たちは正しい絵を使い始めた。科学は自己修正する。
Links:
Myers, P. Z., 2003. Wells and Haeckel's embryos: A review of chapter 5 of Icons of Evolution. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/wells/haeckel.html
References:
Scientific American, 1849. Young Mamalia. Scientific American 4(51) (8 Sep.): 403. Reprinted in Scientific American 281(3) (Sep. 1999): 10.
Further Reading:
Pickett, Kurt M., John W. Wenzel and Steven W. Rising. 2005. Iconoclasts of evolution: Haeckel, Behe, Wells and the ontogeny of a fraud. The American Biology Teacher 67(5): 275-282. http://darwin.bc.asu.edu/pub/pickett.pdf
Richardson, M. K., J. Hanken, L. Selwood, G. M. Wright, R. J. Richards and C. Pieae, 1998. Haeckel, embryos, and evolution. Science 280: 983-986.
Richardson, M. K. and G. Keuck, 2002. Haeckel's ABC of evolution and development. Biol. Rev. 77: 495-528. (technical)
続いて、「CB701.1. Recapitulation theory is not supported.(系統発生理論は支持されない)」から。こっちは創造論者Henry Morrisの主張：
Claim CB701.1:
The biogenetic law that ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny (that is, that the embryological stages of a developing organism follow the organism's evolutionary history) is false, yet embryological stages are still claimed as evidence for evolution.
個体発生が系統発生（つまり、成長中の生物の発生学的なステージは、生物の進化の歴史をくりかえす）を要約するという生物発生原理は間違っている。にもかからわず、発生学的なステージは進化の証拠として主張される。
Source:
Morris, Henry M., 1974. Scientific Creationism, Green Forest, AR: Master Books, 76-77.
Response:
Haeckel's biogenetic law was never part of Darwin's theory and was challenged even in his own lifetime. Haeckel himself did not necessarily advocate the strict form of recapitulation commonly attributed to him (Richardson and Keuck 2002).
ヘッケルの生物発生原理はダーウィンの理論の一部ではまったくない。そして、彼自身の存命中にも疑問を呈された。ヘッケル自身が、一般に彼のものだとされている、厳密な形の生物発生原理を主張してたというわけではない(Richardson and Keuck 2002)。
Irrespective of biogenetic law, embryological characters are still useful as evidence for evolution (in constructing phylogenies, for example), just as adult characters are. Furthermore, there is some degree of parallelism between ontogeny and phylogeny, especially when applied only to individual characters (Richardson and Keuck 2002). Various causes for this have been proposed. For example, there is selective pressure to retain embryonic structures that are needed for the development of other organs.
生物発生原理にかかわりなく、成体の特徴と同じく、発生学的な特徴もまた、系統発生を再構築するために有効である。特に個々の特徴に適用されるとき、ある程度の個体発生と系統発生の間には類似性がある(Richardson and Keuck 2002)。これの原因についてさまざまな提案がなされた。たとえば、淘汰圧が他の器官の形成に必要とされる初期の構造を保持しているなど。
Links:
Chase, Scott, 1999. Is Haeckel's law of recapitulation a problem? http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/postmonth/feb99.html
Wilkins, John, 1996. Darwin's precursors and influences: 1. transmutationism. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/precursors/precurstrans.html
References:
Richardson, M. K. and G. Keuck, 2002. (see below)
Further Reading:
Gould, Stephen J., 1977. Ontogeny and Phylogeny. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press.
Richardson, M. K. and G. Keuck, 2002. Haeckel's ABC of evolution and deveolopment. Biol. Rev. 77: 495-528.
