miller@uiucdcsb.UUCP (02/23/85)
After talking with several people at other sites, it appears that this did not make it out too far when first submitted. I posted it about the time I noticed a drop in usenet traffic; I assume a major site went down. Hence, I'm sending it out again - apologies to those few sites who are getting a duplicate. /* Written 2:19 pm Feb 2, 1985 by miller@uiucdcsb in uiucdcsb:net.origins */ /* ---------- "Evolutionary Recapitulation?" ---------- */ I've followed with much amusement the evolutionists' notes on the recapitula- tion theory, aka the biogenetic law, first defined by Haeckel. Even before I became a creationist, this notion (and that of throwbacks) seemed silly to me. A mutation comes along and says: "Gee. Let's change trait X. Additionally, I'll be sure to run over here and also modify the genetic instructions which program my embryological development phase, so that it will be sure to trace my adult evolutionary history (ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny)." Why should it make such dual changes? How could it do so? What is the mechanism? How does it select which traits are lucky enough to get recapitulated and which ones aren't? By what means are the traits "remembered"? Frankly, I don't know why Keith Doyle brought this up, as virtually all evolu- tionists flee from this theory like rats jumping off a sinking ship. Actually, I guess I shouldn't blame Keith, as he no doubt had one of the textbooks which, incredibly, *still* list this theory as one of the "proofs" for evolution. (Yes, stuff like this is still out there folks. It's amazing how much dis- credited material is still taught as support for evolution.) But I digress. All that stuff about gill slits, etc. is all nonsense. Allow me to bring the net up to date on this topic, by quoting a couple of sources. William Stansfield, in his book "The Science of Evolution" (New York, Mac- Millian, 1977) pp. 106-107 writes: "The recapitulation theory was shown to be unsound even in Haeckel's day, but it all seemed so tidy that the FUNDAMENTAL INCONSISTENCIES WERE LARGELY IGNORED ... Haeckel's `biogenetic law' is now thoroughly discredited." [emphasis mine] Now no one can accuse Stansfield of trying to support our side, as a large portion of his book is devoted to trying to refute creationism. Dr. Blechschmidt, M.D. (prof. of anatomy & director of anatomy at the Univ of Gottingen, West Germany) in "Human Being from the Very First", New Perspectives on Human Abortion, T. W. Hilgers, et al, eds. (Aletheia Books, 1981), pp. 7+ writes: "Based on these findings [which he cites] it was possible to refute Haeckel's presumed biogenetic law. Anyone testing Haeckel's ideas of a phylo- genetic recapitulation during human ontogenesis will be surprised not to find any confirmation. We know today that the asserted biogenetic law was one of the greatest errors in the first endeavors to give biology a scientific founda- tion [he then goes on in great length to explain the purpose of such things as the so-called "gill slits", etc. & then continues:] A historian could draw, for instance, a developmental series of vehicles, ranging from the handcart through the horse-drawn wagon to the contemporary racing car. That, however, would explain neither the construction of today's autos nor the methods of their fabrication. No one would build a modern car by first making a handcart and then fabricating, through gradual, piece-by-piece modification of this cart, the type of a modern automobile. Any recapitulation of outdated methods producing antiquated models would risk nonsensical overburdening and bankruptcy for the factory ... What we encounter in ontogenesis are neither ruins nor monuments, but rather the consequences of steps that are indispensable ... In summing up, it may be said that the human being is never again so originally, so typically human as the minute infant in the first stages of its prenatal development." Keith also writes of the creationists: > `because GOD said so' is hardly an effective response Like all evolutionists on the net, he has yet to document any creationists on this net using that excuse as an explanation of anything. In reality, it is the evolutionists who blindly use that response, where God is defined as some old dusty textbook that they read as an undergraduate. Keith concludes his note with a quote he attributes to Louis Pasteur: > "The greatest derangement of the mind is to believe in something > because one wishes it to be so." > -Louis Pasteur A worthy quote, on its own merits, but made sweeter by the fact that Pasteur was a creationist. A. Ray Miller Univ Illinois /* End of text from uiucdcsb:net.origins */
friesen@psivax.UUCP (Stanley Friesen) (02/26/85)
In article <32500025@uiucdcsb.UUCP> miller@uiucdcsb.UUCP writes: > >/* ---------- "Evolutionary Recapitulation?" ---------- */ >Frankly, I don't know why Keith Doyle brought this up, as virtually all evolu- >tionists flee from this theory like rats jumping off a sinking ship. Actually, >I guess I shouldn't blame Keith, as he no doubt had one of the textbooks which, >incredibly, *still* list this theory as one of the "proofs" for evolution. >(Yes, stuff like this is still out there folks. > >William Stansfield, in his book "The Science of Evolution" (New York, Mac- >Millian, 1977) pp. 106-107 writes: "The recapitulation theory was shown to be >unsound even in Haeckel's day, but it all seemed so tidy that the FUNDAMENTAL >INCONSISTENCIES WERE LARGELY IGNORED ... Haeckel's `biogenetic law' is now >thoroughly discredited." [emphasis mine] Now no one can accuse Stansfield of >trying to support our side, as a large portion of his book is devoted to >trying to refute creationism. > Actually this misrepresents current opinion on this matter. It is true that recapitulation *in its original form* is discredited. However a modified version is *still* considered by a majority iofWof biologists. It is usually now stated: "The ontogony of an organism tends to recapitulate the onotogony of its ancestors". That is the embryonic stages of any animal correspond to those of its predecessors, except where specialization has required changes. >Dr. Blechschmidt, M.D. (prof. of anatomy & director of anatomy at the Univ of >Gottingen, West Germany) in "Human Being from the Very First", New Perspectives >on Human Abortion, T. W. Hilgers, et al, eds. (Aletheia Books, 1981), pp. 7+ >writes: > A historian could draw, for >instance, a developmental series of vehicles, ranging from the handcart through >the horse-drawn wagon to the contemporary racing car. That, however, would >explain neither the construction of today's autos nor the methods of their >fabrication. No one would build a modern car by first making a handcart and >then fabricating, through gradual, piece-by-piece modification of this cart, >the type of a modern automobile. Any recapitulation of outdated methods >producing antiquated models would risk nonsensical overburdening and bankruptcy >for the factory This argument is totally inaprpropriate. The basic tenet of evolution, that organisms of different types share common ancestory is quite different from the practices of design engineers. Under evolution it is *inevitable* that changes are made by accretion, that is by adding modifications to existing structures. This is in fact exactly analogous to building a car by rebuilding a cart. Design engineers use a totally different approach, they create a *complete*, coherent design on paper, then have it built. Thus each new type of device is built on its own. In fact the existance of ad hoc, opportunistic "designs" in living things is one of the principle predictions of evolutionary theory. If God had created from scratch I would think he would use good engineering principles and design each organism for its specialty independantly instead of using kludged up, ad hoc solutions like we actually see in many cases. -- Sarima (Stanley Friesen) {trwrb|allegra|cbosgd|hplabs|ihnp4|aero!uscvax!akgua}!sdcrdcf!psivax!friesen or {ttdica|quad1|bellcore|scgvaxd}!psivax!friesen