This (Part 3) section furthers our discussion on the “proofs” of macroevolution that were presented in the Texas A&M University geology classes during the mid-1970’s. They were formidable arguments for most of us without a biology background. The list of “proofs” was presented in Part 2 and is shown below as “Pros”:
Macroevolutionary “Pros”
- Microevolution (Adaptation, Natural Selection)
- Homologies
- Embryonic Similarities
- Origins / (Stanley Miller Experiments)
- Fossil Record
Each “Pro” seemed to be an iron-clad argument during the 1970’s when coupled with Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution. But now, half a century later, questions swirl around these “proofs.” Fifty years of research have had an impact, and the literature suggests that two have been negated.
I addressed the “pro” and “con” status of the first two items (microevolution and homologies) in Part 2. Part 3 proceeds down the list. The “proof” of macroevolution from Embryonic Similarities follows below.
Embryonic Similarities
A biological “law” was formulated during the 1820’s by Etienne Serres from the work of Johann F. Meckel. Known as the Meckel-Serres Law, it was an historical hypothesis that the development of an embryo from any animal (birds, lizards, fish, mammals—from fertilization to gestation/hatching) passes through stages representative of the adult stages of other animals.1
Charles Darwin’s theory of macroevolution—the descent with modification of all organisms from a common ancestor—was published in 1859 and became a dynamic topic of research and publications during the late 1800’s. Ernst Haeckel, a German professor in zoology, was a staunch supporter of macroevolution and of Darwin’s Origin of the Species. Haeckel attempted to combine Darwin’s theory of evolution with the Meckel-Serres Law. He published his research paper in 1874 and claimed it validated Darwin’s theory.1
A dominant theme in Haeckel’s paper was “Ontogeny Recapitulates Phylogeny.” That’s a horrific phrase. It easier to grasp when divided into the following chunks: Ontogeny (the development of an embryo from fertilization to delivery from the womb, or egg), Recapitulates (copies or duplicates), Phylogeny (the presumed evolutionary ancestry of an organism).
I’ll use my native Texan terminology to simplify the phrase even further, “The developing embryo of a critter passes through stages of development that supposedly reflect the critters it evolved from.”
The theme in Haeckel’s paper that linked ontogeny to macroevolution was confirmation for many evolutionary biologists, but perhaps the most dominant landmark included a figure that Haeckel constructed to emphasize the link between ontogeny and phylogeny (Figure 1). Many of us have seen this popular figure in our biology books. It shows the embryos of several different organisms arranged in columns; three rows show the common stages of development among the embryos.
Why provide such detail regarding this “proof?”
Because you need the detail to understand the irony.
Even though my graduate school classmates and I attended a prominent university in Texas, we did not receive the definition of “Ontogeny Recapitulates Phylogeny” in Texan terminology. Rather, we received a technical discussion of Haeckel’s 1874 paper and its infamous figure, and how they provide an historical “anchor” for evolution. (For me, the entire concept seemed mystical, full of conjecture, and yet impossible for us non-biologists to refute.)
Just as we failed to receive Haeckel’s terminology in Texas lingo, our professors also failed to share another aspect of Haeckel’s infamous drawing—the embryos in Figure 1 were fraud. Haskell made alterations to several embryos in his drawings to emphasize “similarity” where none existed. A few of his contemporaries identified the falsifications and even published against him in the same year. One critic in particular, Wilhelm His, stated:
“The procedure of Professor Haeckel remains an ‘irresponsible playing with the facts’ even more dangerous than the ‘playing with words’ criticized earlier.”2
But it didn’t stop there—and here’s the irony. Even today, Haeckel’s views are still regarded by many biologists as insightful and important contributions to macroevolution; Haeckel is referenced as a respected scientist. Here’s an example from a recent publication:
Ernst Haeckel addressed the issue with his Biogenetic Law, and his embryo drawings functioned as supporting data…The Biogenetic Law is supported by several recent studies – if applied to single characters only… Haeckel recognized the evolutionary diversity in early embryonic stages, in line with modern thinking… Haeckel’s much-criticized embryo drawings are important as phylogenetic hypotheses, teaching aids, and evidence for evolution. While some criticisms of the drawings are legitimate, others are more tendentious (tendentious—intending to promote a particular cause or point of view, especially a controversial one; definition added by JRC).3
So, his “much-criticized embryo drawings (frauds – my insertion, JRC) are important as … evidence for evolution.” That speaks loudly about the subjective integrity of evolutionary science. His “much-criticized” embryo drawings were presented to us students in the mid-1970’s as “proof” of evolution, and ironically, they remain today in many modern biology textbooks.
But not all evolutionary biologists agree. Even Stephen Gould (now deceased), a widely read evolutionary biologist and authoritative advocate for macroevolution, abhorred the use of Haeckel’s concepts and drawings:
“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… Haeckel’s drawings, despite their noted inaccuracies, entered into the most impenetrable and permanent of all quasi-scientific literatures: standard student textbooks of biology… We should therefore not be surprised that Haeckel’s drawings entered nineteenth-century textbooks. But we do, I think, have the right to be both astonished and ashamed by the century of mindless recycling that has led to the persistence of these drawings in a large number, if not a majority, of modern textbooks!”4
It’s very rare that I find myself in complete agreement with an evolutionary biologist, but I fully concur with Gould’s statement. Any evolutionary biologist of integrity should be both “astonished and ashamed” that such fraudulent materials are allowed in current textbooks. And any professor of integrity who teaches these concepts with such fraudulent material should be exposed and chastised… even if they teach it with a Texas lingo!
1Wikipedia: Recapitulation Theory, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recapitulation_theory
2Richardson and Keuck, “Haeckel’s ABC of Evolution and Development.” Quoted within: Answers in Depth, by E. Mitchell (July 13, 2013) “Recapitulation Theory: Repackaged & Re-Applied,” from Answers in Genesis organization. https://answersingenesis.org/human-evolution/piltdown-man/recapitulation-repackaged-and-re-applied
3Richardson, M. and G. Keuck. Haeckle’s ABC of Evolution and Development, in Biological Reviews, Cambridge Philosophical Society; (March 15, 2007).
4Stephen Jay Gould, “Abscheulich!(Atrocious!),” Natural History 109 no. 2 (2000): 44–45. Quoted in Casey Luskin, “Revisiting Those Pesky Embryo Drawings,” www.evolutionnews.org/2010/06/revisiting_those_pesky_embryo035741.html, June 17, 2010.
Figure 1. Ernst Haeckel’s infamous drawing of successive embryo stages among multiple organisms.
