Embryonic Recapitulation Law

On a post yesterday by Fur about a baby being a clump of cells, Tim made a comment about the belief in the transmogrification of matter. This made me think about something I studied in college, the idea that human embryos, during the early months of pregnancy, went through evolutionary stages. The theory was developed by Ernst Haeckel, who studied medicine and science and was professor of zoology from the 1860s – 1900s. He ‘proved’ that human embryos evolved from having fish gills and monkey tails, etc., during the first few months of development.

Simply, what he did was to take drawings of embryos of a number of different animal and reptile species that were drawn by other scientists and altered them enough to make them look like the drawings of human embryos. This was accepted as fact for decades until Haeckel confessed his fraud in 1909. What is scary is that the confession did little to change the acceptance of his theory. Today, I believe this is part of the thinking behind “it’s just a clump of cells” argument for abortion.

Here are some websites you may want to read about this theory: Creation.com, Ask John MacKay, and OrthodoxNet.com

Watch this short video (4 minutes) that summarizes this issue nicely. But, talk about scary, there is one person in this video who believes that the ‘little bit’ of fraud used as proof is inconsequential because the theory is sound and today’s science proves it (without giving any details). Watch it and tell us what you think.

19 Comments on Embryonic Recapitulation Law

  1. “…there is one person in this video who believes that the ‘little bit’ of fraud used as proof is inconsequential…”

    …if you have a bucket of garbage and put in a drop of fine wine, you have garbage.

    If you take a bucket of fine wine and put a drop of garbage in it, you STILL have garbage.

    …tainted research is worthless. If your model requires fraud, then your model IS a fraud.

  2. And God breathed into mans nostrils and man became a living soul…thats all i need to know….

  3. Eugenie Scott is a notorious evolution supporter. The takeaway from the video is that she will use any lie to support evolution. If evolution is true, she would not need any lies to explain it.

    The Darwinists are in the same leaky boat as other leftists. They generally believe and support the most evil social and political thought. Scratch a Darwinist and you get a pro-abortionist, a liberal democrat/socialist, a supporter of sexual deviance, etc. etc.

  4. Yes!

    Dr Hovind lays out Haeckel’s fraud, and subsequent conviction by his peers, all the time in his debates.

    The problem is – this fraud is still in many textbooks.

    Needs to get out! There is nothing true about it and leads people down a false belief path.

    It remains because the lie of macro evolution is needed to deny God – “But, What would we replace it with?”

    Nothing or something scientifically true is the answer to that. Honest science should be the only metric.

    Don’t have to teach creation, just stop lying and leading people astray.

  5. Interesting, but to me, meaningless, other than illustrating its deceptive use.
    Is a vehicle being built in an automobile factory first a go-cart, then it becomes a car? It very well might look like one.
    During the entirety of human gestation, the DNA is, and remains, human. Same with every other created living thing.
    If false pictures are being used, there should be accompanying, explanatory references.

  6. I don’t know if the goal of this theory is to suggest that at some point(s) in the gestation of a human, that the fetus is other than human. Are they trying to say, without actually saying, that the fetus in the womb might not yet be ‘human?’ I get that suspicion- that they are trying to plant that suggestion. Interestingly, they would want that idea to gestate on its own, while being fed, supportingly, by academia and generated public opinion.

    In a conversation the other day, it was asked- name one evolutionary instance, other than bacterial avoidance of antibiotics, that has improved a species. To my mind, almost, if not all, evolutionary deviations have been negative.

  7. toby miles, yes, this theory has been used just as you suggest.

    Arguments for abortion included that abortion, in the “fish stage”, is not killing a human because at that stage it is NOT human.

    I believe it is still being used to form the basis of “a clump of cells” argument.

    One of the websites I linked to actually talks about this (the Creation.com link). Here is a quote: “Even worse, the argument that ‘the foetus is still in its fish stage so you are just cutting up a fish’ is used to this day by some abortionists to convince girls and young women that killing their offspring is OK.”

  8. There are two states of being, animate and inanimate. Alive or not alive. Dead things do not grow!! Babies are humans from conception and even the ghouls know this. They simply don’t care. They want to rival God himself by deciding who lives and who dies. It’s an age-old sickness…..thumbs up? It’s a baby. Thumbs down? It’s a blob of cells. They need to heat Hell up another 10,000 degrees.

  9. @claudia: ““fish stage”

    I went back and looked at the ‘pictures.’ The drawings, actually. In the age of ultrasound and CRT. Yeah, whatever. Lets use the sketches from the 1800’s to teach state of the art physiology.
    Anyway, I’m not an expert, but one of those drawings looks a whole heck of a lot like a snail darter. Aren’t they protected?

    Next week they will be saying that an abortionist doesn’t need to be a medical doctor, only that why have a fishing license. betcha

  10. “I believe it is still being used to form the basis of “a clump of cells” argument.” – Claudia

    …it’s ALWAYS easier to kill people that are inconvenient to you if you FIRST dehumanize them, which is the REAL goal here…

    …It seems the Left has viewed past genocidal atrocities as more of a learning experience than an abhorrent practice, at least when they disagree with their politics…

    …for some reason, the Left ALWAYS ends up wading in blood and sitting on a huge pile of skulls…

  11. The whole conversation is sickening and nauseates me. Having been married to a naral supporter (our sole rift) for nearly 30 years and discovering that nearly every woman I ever dated, had had an abortion at some time before my appearance in their lives, I determined that the only way that they could live with themselves was by dehumanizing the fetus within them…..
    I need to puke now.

  12. Since all of Progressivism is built on lies they have promulgated a new paradigm – fake but accurate. The hockey stick graph, the Dan Rather National Guard docs, hate crime hoaxes; the list is endless.

    Nobody ever asks, “If this is fake and is discarded, what else have you got to prove its accuracy?”

    Because, they got nothing.

  13. If you can convince a woman to kill her baby (an act against nature), you can convince her to do anything.

  14. I’ve noticed a tendency for the scientific community to grab false theories quickly but very reluctant to let them go.

  15. @Claudia – excellent vid, I learned a great deal as amateur sketcher and historian and LOVER of life.

    I am a conception Cat-lick guy but (tell the killers) the heart starts to beat at what 5 weeks?

    I will stand corrected by only on the heartbeat time!

    Jonathan Wells, PhD…will look into this guy…




Comments are closed.

Do NOT follow this link or you will be banned from the site!