Soul Harvest Ministries of Minnesota
Online Bible KJV
Community Discussion Board
Contact Us
|
Haeckel's theory
Ernst Haeckel's embryo drawings. Ontogeny is the development of the embryos of a given species; phylogeny is the evolutionary history of a species. The theory claims that the development of the embryo of every species repeats the evolutionary development of that species fully. Or otherwise put: each successive stage in the development of an individual represents one of the adult forms that appeared in its evolutionary history. Haeckel formulated his theory as such: "Ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny". This notion later became simply known as recapitulation.
Haeckel falsified several embryo drawings which overemphasized similarities between embryos of related species and found their way into many biology textbooks. Besides outright falsifying drawings, he also stated these where the first stages of development, another lie. Later he was tried by his colleagues and found guilty of falsifying these drawings.
For example, the human embryo with a series of folds in the neck was believed by Haeckel to not only signify a fishlike (gill slits) ancestor, but it represented a total fishlike stage in development. Gill slits are not the same as gills and are not functional. Gill slits are the invaginations between the gill pouches or pharyngeal pouches, and they open the pharynx to the outside. Gill pouches appear in all tetrapod animal embryos. In mammals, the first gill bar (in the first gill pouch) develops into the lower jaw (Meckel's cartilage), the malleus, the stapes, and the ear opening.
Modern biology rejects the literal form of Haeckel's theory. No cleanly defined "fish", "reptile" and "mammal" stages of human embryonal development can be discerned. There is no linearity in the development. For instance in kidney development, at one given time, the anterior region of the kidney is less developed (nephridium) than the posterior region (nephron).
Although Haeckel's recapitulation theory is now discredited among biologists, it did have a strong impact in social and educational theories of the late 19th century and to this day. Unfortunately, many science teachers and textbooks in the United States still erroneously cite recapitulation theory as evidence in support of evolution. Below are a list of problems for Haeckels thoery.
1. The early stages of embryos can easily be distinguished one from another.
Adam Segwick pointed out as early as 1894 that von Baer's law of early similarity (a predecessor of Haeckel) is "not in accordance with the facts of development." Comparing a dog-fish with a fowl (i.e., a chicken), Sedgwick wrote: "There is no stage of development in which the unaided eye would fail to distinguish between them with ease."
"If von Baer's law has any meaning at all, surely it must imply that animals so closely allied as the fowl and duck would be indistinguishable in the early stages of development;... yet I can distinguish a fowl and a duck embryo on the second day."
Jonathan Wells, Icons of Evolution, Regnery Publishing 2000 p. 97
2. The stages shown in text books that are the most similar are not the early stages whatsoever. The stage Haeckel labeled the "first" is actually midway through development; the similarities he exaggerated are preceded by striking differences in earlier stages of development.
"Surprisingly, after developing quite differently in their early stages, vertebrate embryos become somewhat similar midway through development. It is this midway point that Haeckel chose as the "first" stage for his drawings.
Jonathan Wells, Icons of Evolution, Regnery Publishing 2000 p. 98
This is one of the greatest problems for the dino-bird. If we find modern birds in layers of rock underneath (and therefore older then) the dinosaurs... how did the dinosaurs "evolve" into the modern birds? Just one modern bird underneath a dinosaur should scrap the old idea and force scientists to put forth a new theory. The fact is there are literally dozens of these fossils that have emerged yet none of them have made it into your texts books. Why not? The worst part, that is hardly mentioned, is that Haeckel made up the drawings. They were fakes! In 1875, only six years after he made up the drawings, his own university, the University of Jena convicted him of fraud. Haeckel confessed:
“A small percent of my embryonic drawings are forgeries; those namely, for which the observed material is so incomplete or insufficient as to FILL IN AND RECONSTRUCT THE MISSING LINKS by hypothesis and comparative synthesis.”
“I should feel utterly condemned…were it not that HUNDREDS of the best observers, and biologists LIE UNDER THE SAME CHARGE.”
Records from the University of Jena trial in 1875. Dr. Edward Blick, Blick Engineering, Norman, OK
Here is what some other evolutionists have to say about Earnst Haeckel and his biogenetic law:
“Moreover, the biogenetic law has become so deeply rooted in biological thought that it cannot be
weeded out in spite of its having been demonstrated to be wrong by numerous subsequent scholars"
Walter J. Bock (Dept. of Biological Sciences, Columbia Univ., “Evolution by Orderly Law,” Science , Vol. 164, 9 May 1969, pp. 684-685
“Surely the biogenetic law is as dead as a doornail”
Keith Stewart Thomson, “Ontogeny and Phylogeny Recapitulated,” American Scientist , Vol. 76, May-June 1988, p. 273
A set of 19th century drawings that still appear in reference books…are badly misdrawn, says an embryologist in Britain. Although Haeckel confessed to drawing from memory and was convicted of fraud at the University of Jena, the drawings persist. “That's the real mystery,” says Richardson. (of St. George's Hospital Medical School in London)
New Scientist Sept. 6, 1997 p. 23
“To cut to the quick of this drama, Haeckel had exaggerated the similarities by idealizations and omissions. He also, in some cases – in a procedure that can only be called fraudulent – simply copied the same figure over and over again.”
Stephen J. Gould of Harvard University, New York Times August 13, 1999 .
Here are a few more problems with this so called "evidence" for evolution:
Haeckel began with a biased sample
• Haeckel only chose embryos that came closest to fitting his theory.
• Only five of the seven classes of vertebrates where shown, omitting jawless and cartilaginous fish.
• To represent amphibians he used a salamander rather than a frog which looks very different.
• Half of his embryos are mammals and all of theses are from one order, placentals, other mammalian orders (egg-laying monotremes and pouch-brooding marsupials) are omitted.
Many text books will say that at one point a human embryo will have gill slits. This is a lie closely related to Earnst Haekels embryology. A child in utero will never have "gill slits". The structures they are talking about have nothing to do with breathing in the early or latest stages of development. The structures form into the bones of the inner ear and several glands including the thyroid and parathyroid gland.
Midway through development, all vertebrate embryos possess a series of folds in the neck region, or pharynx. The convex parts of the folds are called pharyngeal
“arches” or “ridges” and the concave parts are called pharyngeal “clefts” or “pouches”. But pharyngeal folds are not gills. They are not even gills in the pharyngeal-stage of a fish embryo.
Jonathan Wells, Icons of Evolution, Regnery Publishing 2000 p. 105
Darwin considered this "by far the strongest single class of facts in favor of"' his theory.
Letter to Asa Gray, September 10, 1860, in Francis Darwin (editor), The Life and Letters of Charles Darwin (New York: D. Appleton & Company, 1896), Vol. II, p.131
It is sad to think that Haeckels embryos were what Darwin considered "the strongest single class of facts in favor of" his theory. We now know that Haeckels evidence was made up. The question we should all be asking ourselves is... Why is this information still in the textbooks 100 years after it has been proven wrong?
|
|
