Fraud Rediscovered

by Russe= ll=20 Grigg=20

First published in:
Creat= ion Ex=20 Nihilo 20(2):49=9651,
March=96May 1998=20

It has long been known that one of the most = effective=20 popularizers of evolution fudged some drawings, but only now has the=20 breathtaking extent of his deceit been revealed.

Most people have heard of or been taught the idea that = the human=20 embryo goes through (or recapitulates) various evolutionary stages, such = as=20 having gills like a fish, a tail like a monkey, etc., during the first = few=20 months that it develops in the womb.

The idea has not only been presented to generations of=20 biology/medical students as fact, but has also been used for many years = to=20 persuasively justify abortion. Abortionists claimed that the unborn = child being=20 killed was still in the fish stage or the monkey stage, and had not yet = become a=20 human being.

This idea (called embryonic recapitulation) was = vigorously=20 expounded by Ernst Haeckel from the late 1860s to promote Darwin's = theory of=20 evolution in Germany, even though Haeckel did not have evidence to = support his=20 views.¹

Data manufactured

Lacking the evidence, Haeckel set out to manufacture the = data. He=20 fraudulently changed drawings made by other scientists of human and dog = embryos,=20 to increase the resemblance between them and to hide the = dissimilarities. We=20 reported on this particular fraud in a recent issue of Creation=20 magazine²=20 (see also online=20 version).

Haeckel's German peers (notably, in 1874, Wilhelm His = Sr,=20 professor of anatomy at the University of Leipzig) were aware of this = fraud and=20 extracted a modest confession from him, in which he blamed the = draughtsman for=20 blundering=97without acknowledging that he himself was the = draughtsman!²

Most informed evolutionists in the past 70 years have = realised=20 that the recapitulation theory is false.³

Nevertheless, the recapitulation idea is still advanced = as=20 evidence for the theory of evolution in many books and particularly=20 encyclopedias and by evolutionary popularizers like the late Carl = Sagan.⁴

But wait=97there's more

When evolutionists say that the recapitulation theory is = false,=20 they usually do not mean to admit that comparing embryos gives no = evidence of=20 common ancestry. In fact, they still frequently highlight the assumed=20 similarities between embryos in their early stages (called embryonic = homology)=20 as evidence for evolution. This assumption is based on the idea that = such=20 similarities are =91common knowledge=92.⁵

This alleged similarity of embryos has for years been = resting,=20 consciously or unconsciously, on a set of 24 of Haeckel's drawings which = he=20 first published in 1866 in his Generalle Morphologie der Organismen, = and=20 then repeated in 1874 in his more popular Anthropogenie (See bel= ow).=20 These purport to show embryos of fish, salamander, turtle, chicken, pig, = cow,=20 rabbit, and human in three stages of development.

The various stages, particularly the earlier ones, show=20 substantial similarity. Ever since these drawings appeared, it has been = assumed=20 that they have given us something close to the truth about embryos of = vertebrate=20 species. So much so that they still appear in textbooks and popular = works on=20 evolution.⁶,⁷

In fact, no one has bothered to check=97until = now. It turns=20 out that Haeckel's fraud was much worse than anyone realised. It did not = just=20 affect the idea of recapitulation, it turns out that the similarities = are much,=20 much less than anyone thought.

Fraud examined and exposed

Michael Richardson, a lecturer and embryologist at St = George=92s=20 Hospital Medical School, London, has exposed this further fraud, in an = article=20 in the journal Anatomy and Embryology, ⁸=20 recently reviewed in Science⁹=20 and New Scientist.¹⁰<= /A>

Richardson says he always felt there was something wrong = with=20 Haeckel=92s drawings, =91because they didn=92t square with his = [Richardson=92s]=20 understanding of the rates at which fish, reptiles, birds, and mammals = develop=20 their distinctive features=92.⁸ He=20 could find no record of anyone having actually compared embryos of one = species=20 with those of another, so that =91no one has cited any comparative data = in support=20 of the idea=92.=20 ⁸

He therefore assembled an international team to do just=20 that=97examine and photograph =91the external form of embryos from a = wide range of=20 vertebrate species, at a stage comparable to that depicted by = Haeckel=92.⁸

The team collected embryos of 39 different creatures, = including=20 marsupials from Australia, tree-frogs from Puerto Rico, snakes from = France, and=20 an alligator embryo from England. They found that the embryos of = different=20 species are very different. In fact, they are so different that the = drawings=20 made by Haeckel (of similar-looking human, rabbit, salamander, fish, = chicken,=20 etc. embryos) could not possibly have been done from real specimens.

Nigel Hawkes interviewed Richardson for The Times = (London).¹¹<= /A> In an=20 article describing Haeckel as 'An embryonic liar', he quotes = Richardson:

=91This is one of the worst cases of scientific fraud. = It=92s=20 shocking to find that somebody one thought was a great scientist was=20 deliberately misleading. It makes me angry =85 What he [Haeckel] did = was to take=20 a human embryo and copy it, pretending that the salamander and the pig = and all=20 the others looked the same at the same stage of development. They = don=92t =85=20 These are fakes.=92 ¹¹<= /A>

Haeckel not only changed the drawings by adding, = omitting, and=20 changing features but, according to Richardson and his team,

=91he also fudged the scale to exaggerate similarities = among=20 species, even when there were 10-fold differences in size. Haeckel = further=20 blurred differences by neglecting to name the species in most cases, = as if one=20 representative was accurate for an entire group of animals=92.⁹

Ernst Haeckel=92s drawings were declared fraudulent by = Professor His=20 in 1874 and were included in Haeckel's quasi confession, but according = to=20 Richardson,

=91Haeckel=92s confession got lost after his drawings = were=20 subsequently used in a 1901 book called Darwin and After Darwin = and=20 reproduced widely in English language biology texts.=92 ⁹^,¹²<= /A>

Will there now be a rush by libraries, publishers and = sellers of=20 evolutionist books to rewrite them or withdraw them from circulation, = and=20 otherwise acknowledge the fact that the idea of embryonic similarities'=20 suggesting evolution is largely based on academic fraud?

Top row: Haeckel=92s=20 drawings of several different embryos, showing incredible = similarity in=20 their early =91tailbud=92 stage.
Bottom Row: = Richardson's=20 photographs of how the embryos really look at the same = stage of=20 development.
From left: Salmo salar, = Cryptobranchus=20 allegheniensis, Emys orbicularis, Gallus gallus, = Oryctolagus cuniculus, Homo sapiens.

Many modern evolutionists no longer claim that the = human=20 embryo repeats the adult stages of its alleged evolutionary = ancestors, but point to Haeckel=92s drawings (top row) to claim = that it=20 repeats the embryonic stages. However, even this alleged support = for=20 evolution is now revealed as being based on faked drawings.

Click = here=20 for larger image.

More of = Richardson=92s=20 photographs of embryos at the same =91tailbud=92 stage of = development and to=20 the same scale, showing the huge differences between various=20 species.
From left: Petromyzon marinus, Acipenser = ruthenus,=20 Bufo bufo, Erinaceus europaeus, Felis catus, Manis javanica, Canis = familiaris.

Click=20 here for larger image.

Haeckel's = famous (infamous) set=20 of 24 drawings purporting to show eight different embryos in three = stages=20
of development, as published by him in Anthropo-genie, = in=20 Germany, 1874.

Click=20 here for larger image.

The embryo photos used in this article were = kindly=20 supplied by Dr Michael K. Richardson. They originally appeared in = M.K.=20 Richardson et al., =91There is no highly conserved = embryonic stage in=20 the vertebrates: implications for current theories of evolution = and=20 development=92, Anatomy and Embryology, = 196(2):91=96106, 1997, =A9=20 Springer-Verlag GmbH & Co., Tiergartenstrasse, 69121 = Heidelberg,=20 Germany. Reproduced here with = permission.

References and notes

The superficial resemblance of various embryos to = one=20 another had attracted the attention of zoologists before Haeckel, = including=20 J.F. Meckel (1781=961883), M.H. Rathke (1793=961860), and Etienne R.A. = Serres=20 (1786=961868) who theorised that embryos of higher animals pass = through stages=20 comparable to adults of lower animals, and K. von Baer (1792=961876) = who was a=20 creationist and opposed this view as well as vigorously opposing = Darwinism=20 (Encyclopaedia Britannica, 1:789, 1992). It was Haeckel = who=20 popularised the idea with his catchy phrase =91ontogeny recapitulates = phylogeny=92=20 (meaning that the development of the human embryo in the womb is a = rerun of=20 the steps in man's alleged evolutionary rise from a primitive = creature). Return to = Text.
R. Grigg, =91Ernst Haeckel: Evangelist for = evolution and=20 apostle of deceit=92, Creation 18(2):33=9636, 1996 (see = also online = version). Return to = Text.
E.g. evolutionist Stephen J. Gould has said, = =91Both the=20 theory [of recapitulation] and 'ladder approach' to classification = that it=20 encouraged are, or should be, defunct today.=92 =91Dr Down's = Syndrome=92, Natural=20 History, 89:144, April 1980, cited from Henry Morris, = The Long=20 War Against God, Baker Book House, Michigan, p. 139, 1989. Return to = Text.
E.g, World Book Encylopedia, = 6:409=96410, 1994;=20 Collier's Encyclopedia, 1994, 2:138, 1994; Carl Sagan, = The=20 Dragons of Eden, Book Club Associates, London, pp. 57=9658, 1977. = Return to = Text.
Creationists have for many years pointed out that = similarity does not prove common ancestry, but can equally well arise = from=20 common design, common pathways for engineering efficiency, etc. See DNA=20 Similarity of Humans and Chimps=97does it prove common ancestry? = Return to = Text.
E.g. Scott Gilbert, Developmental Biology, = Sinauer=20 Associates, Massachusetts, fifth ed. pp. 254 and 900, 1997, where = Gilbert=20 wrongly attributes the drawings to =91Romanes, 1901=92. And George B. = Johnson,=20 Biology, Mosby-Year Book, St Louis, p. 396, 1992. Return to = Text.
E.g. Mahlon Hoagland and Bert Dodson, The Way = Life=20 Works, Ebury Press, London, p. 174, 1995, presents Haeckel's = drawings in=20 full colour, no less! And Richard Leakey, Illustrated Origin of=20 Species, Faber and Faber, London, p. 213, 1986, where Leakey calls = Haeckel's recapitulation dogma =91misleading=92, but still reproduces = the=20 drawings. Return to=20 Text.
Michael Richardson et al, Anatomy and = Embryology,=20 196(2):91=96106, 1997. Return to = Text.
Elizabeth Pennisi, 'Haeckel's Embryos: Fraud = Rediscovered',=20 Science 277(5331):1435, September 5, 1997. Return to = Text.
'Embryonic fraud lives on', New Scientist=20 155(2098):23, September 6, 1997. Return to = Text.
Nigel Hawkes, The Times (London), p. 14, = August 11,=20 1997. Return to=20 Text.
Creationists have always been aware of Haeckel's = fraud,=20 though not necessarily its extent. See Ian Taylor, In the Minds of = Men,=20 TFE Publishing, Toronto, pp. 185ff., 275ff., 1986; Wilbert H. Rusch = SR,=20 'Ontogeny Recapitulates Phylogeny', Creation Research Society,=20 6(1):27=9634, June 1969; Douglas Dewar, Difficulties of = the=20 Evolution Theory, Edward Arnold & Co., London, Chapter VI, = 1931. Also=20 Assmusth and Hull, Haeckel's Frauds and Forgeries, Bombay = Press, India,=20 1911. Return to=20 Text.

Available online=20 at:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/1339.asp
COPYRIGHT =A9 = 2004=20 Answers in Genesis