Survey for all can answer?

Question

Yes or no? Does ontogeny really recapitulate phylogeny? What do you think?

Answer 1

No. Haeckel's theory of recapitulation is long disproven with counterexamples. The stages of ontogeny (development of an organism from a fetus to adulthood) are not a step-by-step replay of the stages of evolution (or more correctly, the phylogenetic history of the organism).

However, it still has a grain of truth. There are many stages of ontogeny that are only explainable in terms of evolution. E.g. early stages in the development of a human fetus where it shows gill folds, webbed fingers and toes, and a distinct tail. And in general, structures that developed earlier in evolutionary history also appear in that order in embryological development (e.g. the spinal cord develops before the brain). They are just not *functionally* equivalent ... i.e. you don't see a complete "fish" stage, followed by an "amphibian" stage, followed by a "reptilian" stage, etc.

Or to quote wikipedia: "The fact that contemporary biologists reject the literal or universal form of recapitulation theory has sometimes been used as an argument against evolution by some creationists. The argument is: "Haeckel's hypothesis was presented as supporting evidence for evolution, Haeckel's theory is wrong, therefore evolution has less support". This argument is not only an oversimplification but misleading because modern biology does recognize numerous connections between ontogeny and phylogeny, explains them using evolutionary theory without recourse to Haeckel's specific views, and considers them as supporting evidence for that theory."

Answer 2

No, this has been discredited by scientists (although Creationists bring it up alot)

Answer 3

no. I don't believe in evolution.