Ontogeny Recapitulates Phylogeny
ONTOGENY RECAPITULATES PHYLOGENY A clever deception. This is one of the evolutionist's favorites, especially in attack of the high school student. Here is its meaning and the disproval for each claim. Ontogeny means the "development history of the individual",
...recapitulates means "retraces"..., and phylogeny means "ancestral history of the species." Evolutionists have developed a theory to explain the structural changes that take place in the embryo. (The early stages of development.) The above states that "every creature passes through stages in its embryonic development similar to those which its remote ancestors passed through evolving upwards."
Remember, this is only a theory presented as a fact. Here is the Recapitulation Theory disproved:
"Human Life Begins as a Protozoan." This is untrue. We all know that human life begins with the union of TWO cells that are NOT "protozoa" but are specialized reproductive cells of man.
"The Human Embryo Develops Gills like a Fish." A claim of the evolutionists is that the human embryo at one stage of development has gills like a fish. The so-called "gill slits" in the human embryo are NOT gill slits at all, but pharyngeal arches. They have grooves, but NO perforations, as in gills. Douglas Dewar, English naturalist, says, "In the embryo of a reptile, bird, or mammal, including man, no clefts form between the arches, which never assume the characteristics of gills. It is clearly incorrect to call them gill arches. The embryo of a higher animal never passes through the "fish" state... embryology lends no countenance to the view that the higher vertebrates evolved from a fish-like ancestor. It is only by putting far-fetched and artificial interpretations on embryological phenomena that they can be made to fit in with the evolutionary hypothesis." (page 49, Difficulties Of The Evolutionary Theory) "Human Embryos Resemble Those of Animals."
Evolutionists claim the human embryo bears a confusing and close resemblance to the embryos of other animals. The "resemblance" is purely superficial. Close examination at any stage of development always shows "striking differences." NO TWO EMBRYOS OF ANY TYPES OF LIFE ARE EVER EXACTLY ALIKE: all bear characteristics of their own family or genus.
"The Human Embryo in One Stage of Its Development Has a Tail Like a Puppy." This so-called "tail" is simply the coccyx, or the end of man's spine. As the embryo grows, the coccyx is covered with tissues and muscles, and the "tail" no longer shows, though it is still there as the end of the spine. The coccyx serves as an anchor for useful muscles. So this argument fades into nothingness.
Acquired Characteristics The French scientist, Lamarck, the predecessor of Charles Darwin, concluded that something a parent acquired during their life would be inherited by their offspring. This was known as an acquired characteristic; therefore, in Lamarck's opinion, this would gradually develop a new species. For example, if you cut off a dog's tail, the pups would be born without tails. Should a species lose its eyes or a foot or tail, its offspring would be born without an eye or foot or tail. Many biologists as late as 1900 believed this preposterous hypothesis.
Then Darwin proposed his theory in an attempt to explain the impossible, and called it the "operation of natural selection" or "the survival of the fittest." He observed that not all seeds of trees that fall on the ground grow into trees. Not all baby birds survive, nor do all fish eggs become fish and, not all fox or cheetah pups survive, etc. Therefore, he theorized that the fittest survive through ages after ages by accumulation of minute modifications, then new organs gradually developed and a new species came into being. The above theory is actually proof of the impossibility of evolution. For example, look at the spider. In the posterior region are highly specialized organs for the spinning of a web. The web enables the spider to catch its food, eat and survive. Now, why didn't that spider die of starvation during the millions of years it took for these modifications to develop into those highly specialized organs with which to spin a web and catch its food?
How could birds survive without wings, if it took millions of years for them to develop? They couldn't build their nests in trees, as they would not be able to get off the ground to escape their predators. Therefore, there would be no birds today.
Consider the mammary glands (breasts of mammals), the means by which they feed their young. In the millions and millions of years while those mammary glands were developing…tell me, Mr. Evolutionist…how were the young of mammals fed so as not to starve to death? No evolutionists or atheists were ever created or born. They were taught this lie and are now teaching the same. God describes them in Romans 1:21-22,
"Because that when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools."
Many students are deceived by the "schematized" drawings of overly zealous evolutionists. Some advocates of the Recapitulation Theory have not hesitated to forge "embryonic connecting links". Professor Haeckel, one of the earliest advocates of this theory, actually FORGED SOME FEATURES OF HIS DRAWINGS, AS "PROOF" OF EVOLUTION. When tried by the Jena University Court and convicted, he confessed, "A small percent of my embryonic drawings are forgeries; those, namely, for which the observed material is so incomplete or insufficient as to compel us to fill in and reconstruct the missing links by hypothesis and comparative synthesis". Then follows this startling indictment of other embryologists: "I should feel utterly condemned ... were it not that hundreds of the best observers, and biologists lie under the same charge..." And is this Science? We are under the impression that Science should be honest. It should deal with facts--not falsifications intended to support a theory that can NOT be supported by facts.
Many drawings of evolutionists are "schematized" or "doctored" and changed, and many plaster of paris casts of so- called "missing links" are "reconstructed" to make them APPEAR AS THE EVOLUTIONIST THINKS THEY OUGHT TO APPEAR, with no thought as to what they actually are, or were, in nature!. They twist the facts to support their hypothesis. At the British Association Meeting at Edinburgh, August 10, 1951, Professor T.S. Westoll called the Recapitulation Theory "SHEER NONSENSE."
Any scientist should realize that appearance in resemblance does not prove RELATIONSHIP! My pen might resemble that of a CIA agent, but his may have a radio transmitter and receiver! Our pens might resemble each other, but are entirely different.
God says that He, "Created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them." (Genesis 1:27.) God's answer to the unbeliever is,
"The fool hath said in his heart, there is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good." Psalms 14:1. As for myself, don't ask me to become a fool to believe in the impossible, because my faith is in the Lord Jesus Christ who made it possible.