Most people have heard of the idea that the human embryo, during it’s early development in the womb, goes through various evolutionary stages, such as having gill slits like a fish, a tail like a monkey, etc. Abortion clinics have used the idea to soothe the consciences of clients, saying, for example, ‘We’re only taking a fish from your body.’
This concept was pretentiously called the ‘biogenetic law’, which the German evolutionist Ernst Haeckel popularised in the late 1860’s. It is also known as ‘embryonic recapitulation’ or ‘ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny’, meaning that during an organism’s early development it supposedly re-traces it’s evolutionary history. So, a human embryo is supposed to pass through a fish stage, an amphibian stage, a reptile stage, and so on.
Above, top row: Haeckel's drawings of several different embryos, showing incredible similarity, in their early 'tailbud' stage.
Bottom row: Richardson's photographs of how the embryos really look at the same stage of development.
Exposed
Within months of the popular publication of Haeckel’s work in 1868, L. Rutimeyer, professor of zoology and comparative anatomy at the University of Basel, showed it to be fraudulent. William His Sr, professor of anatomy at the University of Leipzig, and a famous comparative embryologist, corroborated Rutimeyer’s criticisms.1 These scientists showed that Haeckel fraudulently modified his drawings of embryos to make them look more alike. Haeckel even printed the same woodcut several times, to make the embryos look absolutely identical, and then claimed they were embryos of different species! Despite this exposure, Haeckel’s woodcuts appeared in textbooks for many years.2
While the popularisers of evolution, when pressed, will admit that human embryos do not have gill slits and that Haeckel’s drawings were to some extent fraudulent, they still believe that similarities between embryos are evidence for evolution (common ancestry). But this confidence rest, consciously or unconsciously, on the woodcuts published by Haeckel and reproduced, in whole or in part, in many textbooks since.3 These drawings are widely believed to bear some resemblance to reality. But apparently no one had bothered to check.
Now it comes to light that Haeckel's fraud was far worse that anyone realised. An embryologist, Dr Michael Richardson, with the co-operation of biologists around the world, collected and photographed the types of embryos Haeckel supposedly drew.4 Dr Richardson found that Haeckel's drawings bore little resemblance to the embryos.5 Haeckel's drawings could only have come from his imagination, which was harnessed to produce 'evidence' to promote the acceptance of evolution.
Haeckel's drawings should no longer be used to support the evolutionists' claim that embryos are similar and that this supports evolution.
Batten D., Ham K., Sarfati J., Wieland C., The Answers Book
1. Rusch, W.H. Sr, 1969. Ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny.
2. Grigg, R., 1996, Ernst Haeckel: evangelist for evolution and apostle of deceit
3. For example, Gilbert, S., 1997. Developmental Biology (5th edition), Sinauer Associates, Ma pp. 254, 900. Gilbert wrongly credits the drawings to ‘Romanes, 1901’.
4. Richardson, M., et al., 1997. There is no highly conserved stage in the vertebrates: implications for current theories of evolution and development. Anatomy and Embryology 196(2):91-106.
5. Grigg, R., 1998. Fraud rediscovered. Creation 20(2):49-51.