Haeckels Fraud
Home Up How Close the End CreationEvolBias Darwinists Squirm PJohnsonInterview The New Dogma KJV Issue OASAS Jesus is Jehovah Battle for the Mind Mutations Haeckels Fraud The Magnetic Field Ice Core Ages Origin of Coal ETI's and UFO's World Judgment Day Yoga and the Occult Born Again vs RC Peace with God True Saving Faith To the Celestial City

 

Ernst Haeckel's Gigantic Fraud on Embryos

You know, a human embryo goes through it’s evolutionary stages as it develops. Are your children being taught this? How many children have been murdered in the womb because the "fetus" was only at the "fish" stage? Don’t think that the Lord is not keeping an account. Pardon for all sins is available but the Lord is keeping an account. Do you not think that he who made the eye cannot see, that he who made the ear cannot hear?

Please read this article from Answers in Genesis by Russell Grigg. Thank you Russell for your work. First published in "Creation" magazine Volume 20 Issue 2, pages 49-51 March 1998.

Fraud Rediscovered

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

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

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

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

Data Manufactured

Lacking the evidence, Haeckel set out to manufacture the data. He fraudulently changed drawings made by other scientists of human and dog embryos, to increase the resemblance between them and to hide the dissimilarities. We reported this particular fraud in a recent issue of "Creation" magazine. (note 2)

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

Most informed evolutionists in the past 70 years have realized that the recapitulation theory is false. (note 3)

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

But wait ---- there’s more

When evolutionists say that the recapitulation theory is false, they usually do not mean to admit that comparing embryos gives no evidence of common ancestry. In fact, they still frequently highlight the assumed similarities between embryos in their early stages (called embryonic homology) as evidence for evolution. This assumption is based on the idea that such similarities are ‘common knowledge’. (note 5)

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

Haeckel’s famous (infamous) set of 24 drawings purporting to shoe eight different embryos in three stages of development, as published by him in ‘Anthropogenie’, in Germany, 1874.

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

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

Fraud examined and exposed

Michael Richardson, a lecturer and embryologist at St George’s Hospital Medical School, London has exposed this further fraud, in an article in the journal ‘Anatomy and Embryology(8), recently reviewed by ‘Science’(9) and ‘New Scientist’(10).

Richardson says he always felt there was something wrong with Haeckel’s drawings, ‘because they didn’t square with his [Richardson’s] understanding of the rates at which fish, reptiles, birds, and mammals develop their distinctive features’(8). He could find no record of anyone having actually compared embryos of one species with those of another, so that ‘no one has cited any comparative data in support of the idea’(8) [Haeckel’s theory].

He therefore assembled an international team to do just that—examine and photograph ‘the external form of embryos from a wide range of vertebrate species, at a stage comparable to that depicted by Haeckel(8).

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

Nigel Hawkes interviewed Richardson for ‘The Times’ (London) (note 11). In an article describing Haeckel as ‘An embryonic liar’, he quotes Richardson:

"This is one of the worst cases of scientific fraud. It’s shocking to find that somebody one thought was a great scientist was deliberately misleading. It makes me angry…What he [Haeckel] did was to take a human embryo and copy it, pretending that the salamander, and the pig and all the others looked the same at the same stage of development. They don’t…These are fakes.’ (note 11)

Top Row: Haeckel’s drawings of several different embryos, showing incredible similarity in their early ‘tailbud’ stage

Bottom Row: Richardson’s photographs of how the embryos really look at the same stage. (From left: Salmo salar, Cryptobranchus allegheniensis, Emys orbicularis, Gallus gallus, Oryctolagus cuniculus, Homo sapiens.) Many modern evolutionists no longer claim that the human embryo repeats the adult stages of its aleeged evolutionary ancestors, but point to Haeckel’s drawings (top row) to claim that it repeats the embryonic stages. However, even this alleged support for evolution is now revealed as being based upon fake drawings.

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

‘He also fudged the scale to exaggerate similarities among species, even when there were 10 fold differences in size. Haeckel further blurred differences by neglecting to name the species in most cases, as if one representative was accurate for an entire group of animals.’ (note 9)

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

‘Haeckel’s confession got lost after his drawings were subsequently used in a 1901 book called ‘Darwin and After Darwin’ and reproduced widely in English language biology texts.’ (notes 9,12)

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

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

The embryo photos used in this article were kindly supplied by Dr Michael K. Richardson. They originally appeared in M.K. Richardson et al., "There is no highly conserved embryonic stage in the vertebrates: implications for current theories of evolution and development’, Anatomy and Embryology, 196(2): 91-106, 1997, copyright Springer-Verlag GmbH & Co., Tiergartenstrasse, 69121 Heidelberg, Germany. Reproduced here with permission.

References and Notes

1. The superficial resemblance of various embryos to one another had attracted the attention of zoologists before Haeckel, including J.F. Meckel (1781-1883), M.H. Rathke (1793-1860), and Etienne R.A. Serres (1786-1868) who theorized that embryos of higher animals pass through stages comparable to adults of lower animals, and K. von Baer (1792-1876) who was a creationist and opposed this view as well as vigorously opposing Darwinism (Encyclopedia Britannica, 1:789, 1992). It was Haeckel who popularized the idea with his catchy phrase “ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny” (meaning that the development of the human embryo in the womb is a rerun of the steps in man’s alleged evolutionary rise from a primitive creature).

2. R. Grigg, ‘Ernst Haeckel: Evangelist for evolution and apostle of deceit’, “Creation” magazine 18 (2): 33-36, 1996.

3. E.g. Stephen J. Gould has said, ‘Both the theory [of recapitulation] and “ladder approach” to classification that it encouraged are, or should be, defunct today.’ Dr Down’s Syndrome, Natural History, 89:144, April 1980, cited by Henry Morris, The Long War Against God, Baker Book House, Michigan, p.139, 1989.

4. E.g., World Book Encyclopedia, 6:409-410, 1994; Colliers Encyclopedia, 2:138, 1994; Carl Sagan, The Dragons of Eden, Book Club Associates, London, pp. 57-58, 1977.

5. Creationists have for many years pointed out that similarity does not prove common ancestry, but can equally well arise from common design, common pathways for engineering efficiency, etc. See “DNA Similarity of Humans and Chimps—does it prove common ancestry? AIG Article

6. E.g. Scott Gilbert, ‘Developmental Biology’, Sinauer Associates, Massachusetts, fifth edition pp. 254 and 900, 1997, where Gilbert wrongly attributes the drawings to ‘Romanes, 1901’. And George B. Johnson, ‘Biology’, Mosby-Year Book, St. Louis, p. 396, 1992.

7.E.g. Mahlon Hoagland and Bert Dodson, ‘The Way Life Works’, Ebury Press, London, p. 174, 1995, presents Haeckel’s drawings in full color, no less! And Richard Leakey, ‘Illustrated Origin of Species’, Faber and Faber, London, p. 213, 1986, where Leakey calls Haeckel’s recapitulation dogma ‘misleading’ but still reproduces the drawings.

8. Michael Richardson et al, Anatomy and Embryology, 196(2): 91-106, 1997.

9. Elizabeth Pennisi, Haeckel’s Embryos: Fraud Rediscovered, Science 277(5331):1435, 5 September 1997.

10. Embryonic fraud lives on, New Scientist 155(2098):23, September 1997.

11. Nigel Hawkes, The Times (London), p. 14, 11 August 1997.

12. Creationists have always been aware of Haeckel’s frauds, though not necessarily its extent. See Ian Taylor, ‘In the Minds of Men’, TFE Publishing, Toronto, pp.185ff., 275ff., 1986; Wilbert H. Rusch Sr, Ontogeny Recapitulates Phylogeny, Creation Research Society, 6(1): 27-34, June 1969; Douglas Dewar, Difficulties of the Evolution Theory, Edward Arnold & Co., London, Chapter VI, 1931. Also Assmusth and Hull, Haeckel’s Frauds and Forgeries, Bombay Press, India, 1911.