<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Darwin, Then and Now &#187; ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.darwinthenandnow.com/tag/ontogeny-recapitulates-phylogeny/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.darwinthenandnow.com</link>
	<description>The Most Amazing Story in the History of Science</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 30 Jan 2012 01:12:24 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
		<item>
		<title>Vestiges: Evidence for Evolution? Part VII</title>
		<link>http://www.darwinthenandnow.com/2010/03/vestiges-evidence-for-evolution-part-vii/</link>
		<comments>http://www.darwinthenandnow.com/2010/03/vestiges-evidence-for-evolution-part-vii/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sun, 14 Mar 2010 17:20:27 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Richard William Nelson</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[History of Evolution]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[What Scientists Say]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[appendix]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Darwin]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[embryology]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[evidence]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[evolution]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Jerry Coyne]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[vestiges]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.darwinthenandnow.com/?p=1222</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The evidence on the development of the appendix now clearly stands to demonstrate the utter fallacy of the long-standing “ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny” theory of evolution.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a rel="attachment wp-att-1232" href="http://www.darwinthenandnow.com/2010/03/vestiges-evidence-for-evolution-part-vii/fisher-rebecca-appendix-2/"></a> </p>
<p style="text-align: left;">Of all the facts in <em><a href="http://darwin-online.org.uk/contents.html#origin" target="_blank">The Origin of Species</a></em>, embryology was the most important in support of the theory. In a letter to <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asa_Gray" target="_blank">Asa Gray </a>in September 1860, <a href="http://darwin-online.org.uk/" target="_blank">Darwin </a>wrote &#8211; “<a href="http://www.darwinproject.ac.uk/home" target="_blank">embryology is to me by far the strongest single class of facts in favor</a>” of the theory.</p>
<p style="text-align: left;">Then, just two months before the release of the first edition of <em>The Origin of Species </em>in September 1859, Darwin wrote to <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Lyell" target="_blank">Charles Lyell</a>, “Embryology in Chapter VIII is one of my strongest points I think.”</p>
<p style="text-align: left;">Darwin was fascinated by embryology. Writing in his <a href="http://darwin-online.org.uk/content/frameset?itemID=F1497&amp;viewtype=text&amp;pageseq=1" target="_blank">autobiography</a><em>, </em>Darwin recalls: “Hardly any point gave me so much satisfaction when I was at work on the <em>Origin</em>, as the explanation of the wide difference in many classes between the embryo and the adult animal.”</p>
<p style="text-align: left;">To the point, Darwin writes &#8211; “We have seen in the first chapter that the homological [similar] structure of man, his embryological development and the rudiments which he still retains, all declare in the plainest manner that he is descended from some lower form.”</p>
<p style="text-align: left;">Darwin along with <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fritz_M%C3%BCller" target="_blank">Fritz Müller </a>(1821–1897) and <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ernest_Haeckel" target="_blank">Ernest Haeckel</a> (1834–1919) were following in the footstep of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Ernst_von_Baer" target="_blank">Karl Ernst von Baer </a>(1792–1876). Baer promoted the concept that a species’ embryological development (ontogeny) retraces the species’ entire evolutionary development (phylogeny).</p>
<p style="text-align: left;">In the case of man, then, the human embryo begins as a single cell and is progressively transformed into a tadpole, then to a fish, to an amphibian, to a monkey, and finally to man. In other words, at the different stages of development, the embryo is actually a series of ancestor species. The sequences of the embryo retrace the steps of evolution. Haeckel coined this process with the now-famous phrase “ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny.”</p>
<p style="text-align: left;">In the case of the appendix, then, the rise and fall of the appendix should be seen in the human embryo to demonstrate our presumed evolutionary human ancestry—from a functional to a non-functional organ. The question is does the evidence match the theory? The answer is – NO.</p>
<p style="text-align: left;">The reasons why the answer is NO, include  </p>
<ul style="text-align: left;">
<li>The appendix is not consistently found throughout the animal kingdom, occurring in only a few diverse mammals</li>
<li>Not until the fifth fetal week does<strong> </strong>the appendix begin to develop</li>
<li>Only after the fifth fetal month does the proximal end start differentiate into the true caecum</li>
<li>Maximum growth of the appendix does not occur until after birth when the neonate takes on essential bacteria to reside in its colon</li>
<li>Lymphoid follicles do not appear in the appendix until two weeks after birth<sup> </sup>at the same time that colonization of the large bowel with bacteria.</li>
</ul>
<p style="text-align: left;"><a rel="attachment wp-att-1233" href="http://www.darwinthenandnow.com/2010/03/vestiges-evidence-for-evolution-part-vii/fisher-rebecca-appendix-3/"><img class="alignleft size-medium wp-image-1233" title="Fisher, Rebecca - appendix" src="http://www.darwinthenandnow.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/Fisher-Rebecca-appendix2-211x300.jpg" alt="" width="105" height="145" /></a>Contrary to the theory, at no point in the development of the appendix in the human embryo does arise and decline into a vestige organ. <a href="http://sols.asu.edu/people/faculty/rfisher.php" target="_blank">Rebecca E. Fisher,</a> Ph.D., Postdoctoral Fellow from the Center for Functional Anatomy &amp; Evolution Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, in a review article entitled “The primate appendix: A reassessment” concludes that “the evolutionary history of the appendix has also proven difficult to trace.”  </p>
<p style="text-align: left;">The evidence on the development of the appendix now clearly stands to demonstrate the utter fallacy of the long-standing “ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny” theory of evolution.</p>
<p style="text-align: left;"><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerry_Coyne" target="_blank">Jerry Coyne’s </a>(2009) contention in <a href="http://www.amazon.co.uk/Why-Evolution-True-Jerry-Coyne/dp/0199230846?ie=UTF8" target="_blank"><em>Why Evolution is True</em> </a>that, “our appendix is simply the remnant of an organ that was critically important to our leaf-eating ancestors, but is of no real value to use” is another clear example of deception used in the promotion evolution. The evidence is clear: the appendix is not an evolutionary leftover.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.darwinthenandnow.com/2010/03/vestiges-evidence-for-evolution-part-vii/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

