Recapitulation theory is not supported

From EvoWiki

Contents 1 Claim 2 Source 3 Response 4 Fallacies contained in this claim 5 Links 6 References 7 Further Reading 8 See Also 9 Acknowledgments

Claim

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.

Source

• Morris, Henry M., 1974. Scientific Creationism, Master Books, Arkansas, p. 76-77.
• Gitt, Werner, 1993. Did God Use Evolution?, p. 50

Response

1. While recapitulation of the sort propounded by Ernst Haeckel is not supported, the layered, cladistic homology of embryonic developmental stages can and does provide powerful support for the theory of evolution.
2. Embryonic development was studied and used as evidence for common descent before and after Haeckel's work, and his particular drawings and theory are not relevant to the soundness of these arguments. In fact, if anything, the actual developmental stages support the evolutionary hypothesis far better and in greater detail than Haeckel's inaccurate drawings and his belief that development could only be added onto the end of embryonic development, which is inconsistent with how we know mutation to work.
3. add more responses

Fallacies contained in this claim

• Equivocation (Recapitulation is not the modern embryological evidence for evolution)

Links

1. Chase, Scott, 1999. Is Haeckel's law of recapitulation a problem? [1]
2. Wilkins, John, 1996. Darwin's Precursors and Influences: 1. Transmutationism. [2]

References

1. Richardson, M.K. and G. Keuck, 2002. (see below)

Further Reading

1. Richardson, M. K. and G. Keuck, 2002. Haeckel's ABC of evolution and development. Biol. Rev. 77: 495-528.
2. Gould, Stephen J., 1977. Ontogeny and Phylogeny. Belknap Press, Cambridge, MA.
3. Miller, Kenneth R., Haeckel and his Embryos

See Also

• Why is Creationism not a Scientific Theory?

Acknowledgments