gjphw@ihuxm.UUCP (05/07/84)
This is just a quick note about the "ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny"
phrase mentioned in an article by D. Breslau (gargoyle!dan). I claim that
this relationship does not have many supporters among contemporary biologists.
In a book called "Darwinism Defended", the author (a Canadian historian of
science specializing in biology and evolution) asserts that Darwin had
rejected the direct relationship between ontogeny and phylogeny in one of his
latter books. I do not recall if a alternative relationship was mentioned in
the text.
Several years ago, Carl Sagan wrote a book about human evolution and his
views called "The Dragons of Eden". I read both that book and a review of it
in SCIENCE magazine. The reviewer said that Sagan has a very engaging book
but that his treatment of fetal development and the evolution of the brain was
out of date (by more than 20 years) and not generally supported by most
contemporary biologists. Not being a biologist, I cannot say what the present
attitudes are toward ontogeny, phylogeny, and human brain evolution.
This note is intended to forestall a long and hopeless discussion about the
relationship between ontogeny and phylogeny. Ontogeny does not necessarily
recapitulate phylogeny.
--
Patrick Wyant
AT&T Bell Laboratories (Naperville, IL)
*!ihuxm!gjphwdan@gargoyle.UChicago.UUCP (Dan Breslau) (05/08/84)
Patrick Wyant (ihuxm!gjphw) writes, This is just a quick note about the "ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny" phrase mentioned in an article by D. Breslau (gargoyle!dan). I claim that this relationship does not have many supporters among contemporary biologists. . . I'm sorry I was misunderstood. I was merely quoting that statement, not asserting it. I agree that it is not a supportable hypothesis. I also hope there won't be a long discussion about it. Dan Breslau ihnp4!gargoyle!dan