Josiah Batten11-06-07A Modest Response to Haeckel’s EmbryosFairness seems to be one of society’s great ironies. We want our news to be fair, we wantwhat is taught in classrooms to be fair and unbiased; and yet we consistently tell ourselves lifeisn’t fair! Often the most severe manifestation of unfairness is how we treat other people. Theway we treat people in the public spectrum most definitely isn’t fair. For some reason it’s okayfor the common man to make mistakes, but if a celebrity or politician makes a mistake wecrucify him or her. I couldn’t make half the catches I see football players on TV make, but I suredo criticize them harshly when they miss a catch. So it seems we aren’t always fair in our treatment of others. Indeed, Ernst Haeckel has been maligned for the simplification of hisembryonic images in support of his Biogenetic Law, but he can be more fairly seen as someonewho was overly enthusiastic about his work.If the name Haeckel, and the term Biogenetic Law cause fear, they shouldn’t; they arereally quite simple to explain. Ernst Haeckel was a German physician, scientist, and professor atthe University of Jena (Pappas and Barren). He was very prominent in the late 1800’s and early1900’s, during which time he authored several books. He was a good friend of a much more popular scientist, Charles Darwin (Hatch).Some of Haeckel’s most noted (and criticized) work was a set of embryonic images thatshowed eight different species that were similar in early stages of fetal development, but grew to be different in later stages. This idea that our fetal development retraces possible evolutionaryancestry is called the Biogenetic Law; the term

law

referring more to a hypothesis then an actuallaw (Myers).

Haeckel’s embryos have a prominent place in most public school curriculums, and have become a very popular source of discussion in recent years due to new findings by modernscientists. These findings are creating some significant problems for the embryonic diagrams.Medical doctor Michael Richardson has taken photographs of the same embryos Haeckelclaimed to include in his diagram; and the results are astounding (Crowl):Fig. 1. Haeckel’s embryos (top row) compared to Richardson’s embryos (bottom row).This reveals simplification of Haeckel’s embryos, particularly with the salamander.Taken from David Catchpoole, “Encyclopedic ‘Truth’... or Worldly Wisdom?”: 2007. (6 Nov. 2007 <www.answersingenesis.org/.../i4/worldbook.asp>).As can be seen from the image above, Haeckel’s embryos are very simplified versions of our trueembryonic development.Another big problem with Haeckel’s embryos is the species he chose to use. JonathanWells, a doctor of molecular and cell biology, explains, “The minor problem is that Haeckelcherry-picked his examples” (Wells qtd. in Strobel 49). Wells goes on to explain that Haeckelshows four different mammals “but they’re all placental mammals” (Wells qtd. in Strobel 49).The point Dr. Wells is making here is that Haeckel very carefully chose his species so they would

look similar, and support his Biogenetic Law (Myers). It was not very scientific of Haeckel touse only data that supported his hypothesis, and ignore the data with which he disagreed.As one might imagine, Haeckel has received very harsh criticism for the flaws with hisembryos. However, Haeckel knew his embryos were simplified; he admitted to this at leasttwice. The first time was in the third edition of his book The Evolution of Man. Unfortunatelythis edition of Haeckel’s book is not as popular or as accessible as his other works; however, inan editor’s footnote in a debate transcript we do find a reference to it. Haeckel says:If it is said that my diagrammatic figures are 'inaccurate,' and a charge of 'falsifying science' is brought against me, this is equally true of all the verynumerous diagrams which are daily used in teaching. All diagrammatic figures are'inaccurate’. (Haeckel qtd. in Porvaznik)What we can conclude from what Haeckel states is all diagrams are simplified.Haeckel’s idea seems to be that diagrams are simplifications of more complex data. This issupported in his second admission. Haeckel explained in a letter to the German journalMunchener Allegemeine Zeitung that he had attempted to bridge spaces between embryos whendata was insufficient (Grigg). This makes it quite clear that Haeckel did a lot of editing with hisdata, and a lot of addition when data wasn’t readily available.As one might imagine, simplification in the scientific community is never taken lightly.The general response to Haeckel’s simplified embryos has been very negative. Even inHaeckel’s day he drew a great deal of criticism. Wilhelm His, one of Haeckel’s peers, never didtrust Haeckel’s embryos; he claimed they were inaccurate the first time he saw them (Pappas andBarren). His was not alone, he was one of quite a few of Haeckel’s peers that leveled chargesagainst him (Wells qtd. in Strobel 48).