Page 141 - The Errors the American National Academy of Sciences
P. 141

The NAS's Misconceptions About Embryology


            five vertebrate classes given as examples by Haeckel (bony fish, am-
            phibians, reptiles, birds, and mammals) shows that this is not the
            case.
                 The differences between the five classes are clear, even in the fer-
            tilized egg. Zebrafish and frog eggs are about 1 mm in diameter; the

            turtle and chick begin as discs 3 or 4 mm in diameter above the yolk;
            while the human egg is only one-tenth of a millimeter in diameter.
            The earliest cell divisions in zebrafish, turtle, and chick embryos re-
            semble each other somewhat. However, in many frogs the embryos
            penetrate the yolk. Mammals are very different. Cell movements at
            the end of division and during gastrulation are very different in the
            five different classes. In the zebrafish, cells move slowly outside the
            yolk, which brings about the development of the embryo. In frogs,
            cells move as interconnected thin layers, through a pore into the inner

            cavity. In turtles, chicks, and humans they flow along a channel into
            the internal cavity of the embryonic disc. If the theory regarding the
            early development of vertebrates were correct, we would expect
            these five classes to resemble each other most closely as fertilized
            eggs, to show more differences during division, and still more during
            gastrulation. Yet, that is not what we observe. The eggs of the five
            classes begin life in very different ways.


                                       C Co  n  c  l l u s i i o n
                                         o
                                         onclusion
                                          n
                                                  o
                                                    n
                                                s
                                            c
                                              u
                                       C Conclusion
                 The really interesting thing is that a theory which the world of
            science has regarded as invalid for decades should be put forward by
            the NAS as evidence of evolution. The NAS probably refrains from
            mentioning Haeckel's name in the chapter in question, since that
            name is redolent of fraud; and yet it goes along with that same fraud
            by describing Haeckel's false theory as if it were scientific fact.






                                            139
   136   137   138   139   140   141   142   143   144   145   146