The Arsenal Files 4/The Arsenal Files 4 (Arsenal Computer).ISO/spirit/met9312a.txt

Text File | 1995-01-27 | 10KB | 177 lines

                           ESSAYS ON ORIGINS:

           Is the Human Embryo Essentially a Fish with Gills?
                     by Dr. David N. Menton, Ph.D.

                  This version copyright (c) 1994 by:
                   Missouri Association for Creation
 _____________________________________________________________________

  [No. 6 in a series]                   December 1993, Vol. 3, No. 12
 _____________________________________________________________________

   Almost from the beginning, evolutionists have attempted to equate the
process of evolution with the progressive development of the embryo.
During the famous Scopes "Monkey Trial" in 1925, for example, lawyers
and expert witnesses defending teaching Darwinism in public schools,
repeatedly confused evolution with embryology.  The lawyers even
insisted that evolution must be taught if physicians are to understand
the development of babies in the womb!  The very word "evolution" (which
means "unfolding"), was taken from the name of an early theory of
embryonic development which proposed that humans are completely
preformed in miniature in the fertilized egg, simply "unfolding" during
the development of the baby.  Obviously, the blind-chance process of
Darwinian "evolution" has nothing whatever to do with the
exquisitely-controlled process of embryological development.  Still,
evolutionists have long attempted to relate embryology to evolution,
presumably in an effort to extrapolate the readily-observable process of
embryonic development into the unobservable process of macroevolution.
Embryology continues to play a role in current evolutionary dogma.
Generations of students have been told, for example, that the human
embryo developing in the womb passes through stages of its evolutionary
ancestry -- even at one point having gills like a fish!

   Like most students of biology, I was required to memorize the
"biogenetic law" which states that "ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny."
This means that the developing embryo (ontogeny) of each vertebrate
species retraces (recapitulates) its evolutionary history (phylogeny).
Specifically, each embryo in the course of its development, is said to
pass through a progression of abbreviated stages that resemble the main
evolutionary stages of its presumed ancestors.  Thus, in the case of the
human embryo, recapitulation scenario goes something like this:  1) The
fertilized egg starts as a single cell (just like our first living
evolutionary "ancestor").  2) As the fertilized egg repeatedly divides
it develops into an embryo with a segmented arrangement (the "worm"
stage).  3) These segments develop into vertebrae, muscles and something
that sort of looks like gills (the "fish" stage).  4) Limb buds develop
with paddle-like hands and feet, and there appears to be a "tail" (the
"amphibian" stage).  5) By about the eighth week of development, most
organs are nearly complete, the limbs develop fingers and toes, and the
"tail" disappears (the human stage).  Now the mother can finally claim
the baby as her own, or at least one of her own species.  This ludicrous
scenario has actually been used as a justification for abortion -- after
all you are only killing lower animals!

   The "biogenetic law" was first promulgated in the late 1800's by the
German biologist Ernst Haeckel, a committed disciple of Darwin.
Impressed by the general similarity among vertebrate embryos, Haeckel
chose to ignore their differences.  (Haeckel was a scientific charlatan
who even stooped to publishing two copies of the same woodcut side by
side to demonstrate the "remarkable similarity" between human and dog
embryos!)  Haeckel's "law" was shown to be unsound by many of the most
distinguished embryologists of his own day, but its appeal to evolutionists
was so great that it remained impervious to scientific criticism.  In her
book _Essays in the History of Embryology and Biology_ (MIT Press, 1967 p.
150), Jane Oppenheimer said that the work of Haeckel "was the
culmination of the extremes of exaggeration which followed Darwin."  She
lamented that "Haeckel's doctrines were blindly and uncritically
accepted," and "delayed the course of embryological progress."
Embryologist Erich Blechschmidt, considered Haeckel's biogenetic "law"
to be one of the most serious errors in the history of biology.  In his
book _The Beginnings of Human Life_ (Springer-Verlag Inc., 1977, p. 32),
Blechschmidt minced no words in repudiating Haeckel's "law":

  "The so-called basic law of biogenetics is wrong. No buts or ifs
  can mitigate this fact. It is not even a tiny bit correct or
  correct in a different form. It is totally wrong."

We could ignore this whole sorry chapter in the history of
evolutionism, were it not for the fact that the biogenetic "law" is
still being taught as a fact in our public schools!  Of 15 high school
biology textbooks being considered for adoption by the Indiana State
Board of Education in 1980, nine offered embryological recapitulation as
evidence for evolution.

   Evolutionists themselves have conceded that the biogenetic "law" has
become so deeply rooted in evolutionary dogma that it cannot be weeded
out.  For example, Paul Ehrlich said "it's shortcomings have been almost
universally pointed out by modern authors, but the idea still has a
prominent place in biological mythology" (_The Process of Evolution_,
1963, p. 66).  Even Dr. Benjamin Spock saw fit to perpetuate Haeckel's
recapitulation myth in his well-known book, _Baby and Child Care_
(Cardinal Giant Edit 57 p. 223).  Spock confidently assured expectant
mothers that:

   "each child as he develops is retracing the whole history of
   mankind, physically and spiritually [sic], step by step.  A baby
   starts off in the womb as a single tiny cell, just the way the
   first living thing appeared in the ocean.  Weeks later, as he
   lies in the amniotic fluid of the womb, he has gills like a
   fish."

   It is a well-established fact that the human embryo (like all
mammalian embryos) never has gills in any sense of the word.  The
fanciful notion of gills is based upon the presence of four alternating
ridges and grooves in the neck region of the human embryo (called
pharyngeal arches and pouches) that bear a superficial resemblance to
gills.  While similar arches do give rise to gills in certain aquatic
vertebrates such as fish, their developmental fate in mammals has
nothing to do with gills or even breathing.  In man and other mammals,
these arches and pouches develop into part of the face, muscles of
mastication and facial expression, bones of the middle ear, and
endocrine glands.

   The embryological development of the heart has been another popular
textbook example of embryonic recapitulation, and thus "proof" of
evolution.  Evolutionists argue that as the human heart develops, it
goes from a two-chambered "fish heart," to a three-chambered "amphibian
heart" and, finally, forms the four-chambered mammalian heart.  In his
book _Comparative Anatomy and Embryology_ (Ronald Press, 1964, p. 509),
William Ballard said "no false biological statement has had a longer or
more popular life than the one about the ontogeny of the four-chambered
heart."  Ballard pointed out that "in real life, all vertebrate hearts
are composed of the same four chambers at the pharyngula stage."  As the
heart develops, these four chambers become specialized in different ways
which are uniquely suited to the demands of aquatic, amphibious or
terrestrial life.

   Embryologists are now aware that the embryos of each species of
animal are unique and dynamically functional systems.  The human embryo
does not become human at some point during its development, rather it is
uniquely human at every stage of its development.  While scientists
continue to learn much about the marvelous process of development in the
embryo, the inspired words of King Solomon (Ecclesiastes 11:5) remain
true:

   "As you do not know the path of the wind, or how the body is
   formed in a mother's womb, so you cannot understand the work of
   God, the Maker of all things."
_______________________________________________________________________

Dr. Menton received his Ph.D. in Biology from Brown University.  He has
been involved in biomedical research and education for over 30 years.

Dr. Menton is President of the Missouri Association for Creation, Inc.

                        Originally published in:
                          St. Louis MetroVoice
                             PO Box 220010
                          St. Louis, MO  63122
_______________________________________________________________________

            Corrections and revisions have been made by the
              author from the original published essay.

                This text file prepared and distributed
                   by the Genesis Network (GenNet).

          Origins Talk -- [phone], Walt Stumper, Sysop.
                          FidoNet, 1:100/435; FamilyNet, 8:3006/28;
                          GenNet, 33:6250/1
                          [e-mail]
                          [e-mail]
                          Voice: [phone]

          Genesis Network I -- [phone], Jim Johnston, Sysop.
                          FidoNet, 1:3609/11; FamilyNet, 8:3111/0;
                          GenNet, 33:6150/0
                          CompuServe: 73642,2576
                          Voice: [phone]

                Contact either of the above systems for
              information about file distribution and echos.

                              --- *** ---