“There is a similarity in the embryonic development of several species especially in the beginning stages. Du- ring their development, the embryos will become more and more differentiated from one another. In the picture 42 we can see an illustration of embryonic de- velopment of five verteb- rates. Seeing the similarity of the first stages of the embryonic development, it is plausible that these spinal animals had a common ancestor.”

Further the following assignments are given:

1. Which of the three stages (A, B or C) is the earliest?
2. Can you make a clear difference between the earliest stages of embryonic development of these vertebrates?
3. Which of these three stages is the latest?
4. Can you make a clear difference between the latest stages of embryonic development of different vertebrates?
5. Write down (from 1-6) to which species each embryo belongs, either: trout (a type of fish) – chicken (bird) – cow (mammal) – human – salamander (amphibian) – tortoise (reptile).
6. Which of the species shows the most similar embryonic development with the fish?
7. Which group of the vertebrates shows the closest relationship to the fish?
8. Describe that the similarity of embryonic development of several organisms forms an argument for the evolution theory.

All this is based on the drawings and the idea outlined by the German biologists Haeckel (1834-1919). His idea was that the embryonic development was a kind of reflection of the Evolutionary development.

However, already in 1915, the Examiner Press from Bombay published a book ‘Heackel’s Frauds and Falsifications’ in which 19 authorities pointed out how Hackle was cheating. According to anatomist F. Keibel from the Freiburg University, “In many cases Hackle was freely inventing the forms of embryos or reproducing the illustrations of others with additional substantial changes.” L. Rutmeiyer from the Basle University called such misrepresentation of images to be a “sin against scientific truthfulness.”

In 1997, the embryologist Dr. Michael Richardson published an article in (Anatomy and Embryology, 1997; 1997;196:91-106) that was also discussed in the Science magazine (15 May 1998; 280(5366):983, 985-6). There he gave the pictures of the actual forms of the first stages of embryonic development and comparing them to Heackel’s drawings he showed clearly how Heackle gave false presentation of reality.

In the first line are the drawings of Heackle and in the second line the pictures of the different species how they actually look in reality.
(M.K. Richardson, © Springer-Verlag GmbH & Co.)

In Dutch evening magazine NRC Handelsblad (in 30^th of August, 1997) there was an article about this discovery with a title ‘A BIOLOGIST SERIOUSLY ACCUSES HEACKEL FOR FRAUD' where Heackel’s presentation was called an embryological lie. Here is the translated quote:

“Researching the first stages of embryonic development in many species, Richardson and his colleagues didn’t see any similarities at all. On the contrary, they found a big variety of forms that is a result of completely different body plans and a different number of somites (the vertebral segments of the embryo). Thus, the investigated embryos varied more than tenfold in size (according to Haeckel, embryos from different animal species were approximately the same size in the first developmental stages)."

Even evolutionistic websites like Talkorigin say that Heackel’s drawing were faked.

“Haeckel was wrong. His theory was invalid, some of his drawings were faked, and he wilfully over-interpreted the data to prop up a false thesis. Furthermore, he was influential, both in the sciences and the popular press; his theory still gets echoed in the latter today…It is also correct to criticize textbook authors for perpetuating Haeckel's infamous diagram without commenting on its inaccuracies or the way it was misused to support a falsified theory”.

Briefly, it is a sad story that even now in the year 2006, children in the schools have to learn the outdated and fraudulent concept of Haeckel’s embryological evolution theory just because of the ignorance or negligence of the new discoveries.  

If you have some comments or questions please contact
bhaktivedanta_108@yahoo.com