Science Disproves Evolution
Pahu
Evolutionists have taught for over a century that as an embryo
develops, it passes through stages that mimic an evolutionary
sequence. In other words, in a few weeks an unborn human repeats
stages that supposedly took millions of years for mankind. A well-
known example of this ridiculous teaching is that embryos of mammals
have “gill slits,” because mammals supposedly evolved from fish. (Yes,
that’s faulty logic.) Embryonic tissues that resemble “gill slits”
have nothing to do with breathing; they are neither gills nor slits.
Instead, those embryonic tissues develop into parts of the face, bones
of the middle ear, and endocrine glands.
Embryologists no longer consider the superficial similarities between
a few embryos and the adult forms of simpler animals as evidence for
evolution (a).
a. “This generalization was originally called the biogenetic law by
Haeckel and is often stated as ‘ontogeny [the development of an
embryo] recapitulates [repeats] phylogeny [evolution].’ This crude
interpretation of embryological sequences will not stand close
examination, however. Its shortcomings have been almost universally
pointed out by modern authors, but the idea still has a prominent
place in biological mythology.” Paul R. Ehrlich and Richard W. Holm,
The Process of Evolution (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1963), p. 66.
“It is now firmly established that ontogeny does not repeat
phylogeny.” George Gaylord Simpson and William S. Beck, Life: An
Introduction to Biology (New York: Harcourt, Brace & World, Inc.,
1965), p. 241.
Hitching, pp. 202–205.
“The enthusiasm of the German zoologist, Ernst Haeckel, however, led
to an erroneous and unfortunate exaggeration of the information which
embryology could provide. This was known as the ‘biogenetic law’ and
claimed that embryology was a recapitulation of evolution, or that
during its embryonic development an animal recapitulated the
evolutionary history of its species.” Gavin R. deBeer, An Atlas of
Evolution (New York: Nelson, 1964), p. 38.
“...the theory of recapitulation has had a great and, while it lasted,
regrettable influence on the progress of embryology.” Gavin R. deBeer,
Embryos and Ancestors, revised edition (London: Oxford University
Press, 1951), p. 10.
“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, “Evolution by Orderly Law,” Science, Vol. 164, 9 May 1969,
pp. 684–685.
“...we no longer believe we can simply read in the embryonic
development of a species its exact evolutionary history.” Hubert
Frings and Marie Frings, Concepts of Zoology (Toronto: Macmillan
Publishing Co., 1970), p. 267.
“The type of analogical thinking which leads to theories that
development is based on the recapitulation of ancestral stages or the
like no longer seems at all convincing or even interesting to
biologists.” Conrad Hal Waddington, Principles of Embryology (London:
George Allen and Unwin Ltd., 1956), p. 10.
“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.
“The biogenetic law—embryologic recapitulation—I think, was debunked
back in the 1920s by embryologists.” David Raup, as taken from page 16
of an approved and verified transcript of a taped interview conducted
by Luther D. Sunderland on 27 July 1979. [See also Luther D.
Sunderland, Darwin’s Enigma (San Diego: Master Book Publishers, 1984),
p. 119.]
“The theory of recapitulation was destroyed in 1921 by Professor
Walter Garstang in a famous paper. Since then no respectable biologist
has ever used the theory of recapitulation, because it was utterly
unsound, created by a Nazi-like preacher named Haeckel.” Ashley
Montagu, as quoted by Sunderland, p. 119.
http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/LifeSciences24.html#wp1009086