Do you believe in "ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny" as an argument for evolution?

Answer 1

That is an ancient view from the science of developmental biology. Modern developmental biology looks at how the evolutionary process has worked at the level of molecular gene switches which influence how HOX genes organize cell proliferation and organization during embryogenesis.

I suggest for your further edification, Sean Carroll's book "Endless Forms Most Beautiful: The New Science of Evo Devo and the Making of the Animal Kingdom."

Answer 2

The idea that ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny, that is, that the development of an organism exactly mirrors the evolutionary development of the species, is discredited today. However the phenomenon of recapitulation, in which a developing organism will for a time show a similar trait or attribute to that of an ancestral species, only to have it disappear at a later stage is well documented. For example, embryos of the baleen whale still develop teeth at certain embryonic stages, only to later disappear. A more general example is the emergence of what could develop into pharyngeal gill pouches if it were in a lower vertebrate in almost all mammalian embryos at early stages of development.

Answer 3

Originally, it was thought to coincide or even support evolution. But it has since been discredited (in its absolute form). It was really a wild idea that doesn't have any real science to back it up. As of now, it really doesn't support or hurt evolution since it is discredited.

But a more soft interpretation of the theory, which basically would be that a fetus might show some traits of early ancestors, but not all, might support evolution. But there are also traits in adults which also show traits from early ancestors. And the adult traits are much better evidence. For example, gills on a fetus might point to early ancestor traits, but could also be just part of the development process. But a tailbone on an adult is nothing but a trait from early ancestors.

Answer 4

Spend a semester or two in comparative anatomy. Yes, not only believe, except as a fact. Evoultion is indeed fact.

Ontogeny and Phylogeny, Stephen Jay Gould
A book review by Danny Yee © 1992
http://dannyreviews.com/h/Ontogeny_and_Phylogeny.html

Of course the best thing would be to read Gould's book

Answer 5

No, because it doesn't. I mean, ontogeny does not recapitulate phylogeny.

Answer 6

"Ontogeny recpaitulates phylogeny" is not an "argument for" evolution, it is an observable demonstration of facts in support of the theory. There is an important distinction to be drawn there.

Answer 7

Can I use that in my alphabet soup? You've outgunned me, there.