Replies

". . . As an aside -- despite the fact that modern studies in molecular genetics have further demonstrated the utter absurdity of the recapitulation theory (ie: the DNA for a fetus is not the DNA for a frog and the DNA for a frog is not the DNA for a fish), that didn't stop the pop-culture evolutionist/science fiction TV-star, Carl Sagan from affirming recapitulation, himself. [Dragons of Eden - pg 57-58] . . ."

You know, I really hate to use the kind of language I must now resort to in response to this claim. But I'm afraid I must.

The quote italicized above is an outright lie."

I will quote Tommy Huxley's refutation of Hank Hanegraaff's charge that Sagan supported recapitulation:

". . . And Hanegraaff cited only a portion of what Sagan said about recapitulation. Immediately following his quote about our "gill stage in becoming human," Sagan said:

The brain of a human fetus also develops from the inside out, and, roughly speaking, runs through the sequence: neural chassis, R-complex, limbic system and neocortex (see the figure on the embryology of the human brain on page 198).

The reason for recapitulation may be understood as follows: Natural selection operates only on individuals, not on species and not very much on eggs or fetuses. Thus the latest evolutionary change appears postpartum. The fetus may have characteristics, like the gill slits in mammals, that are entirely maladaptive after birth, but as long as they cause no serious problems for the fetus and are lost before birth, they can be retained. Our gill slits are vestiges not of ancient fish but of ancient fish embryos.

Many new organ systems develop not by the addition and preservation but by the modification of older systems, as, for example, the modification of fins to legs, and legs to flippers or wings; or feet to hands; or sebaceous glands to mammary glands, or gill arches to ear bones; or shark scales to shark teeth. Thus evolution by addition and the functional preservation of the preexisting structure must occur for one of two reasons -- either the old function is required as well as the new one, or there is no way of bypassing the old system that is consistent with survival.

Sagan is discussing comparative embryology during structural development. All chordate animals, including people, follow a similar path when developing their notochord, gill slits, and aortic arches.

Early in their development, all these animals pass through what's described as a "gill slit" stage, but that does not mean these embryos develop respiratory gills! Sagan acknowledged that human embryos get oxygen from their umbilical cords, and in the above quote, he explained what our "gill arches" were for -- unfolding middle ear structures!

But if our embryos don't develop gills, why do scientists call that step a "gill slit" stage? Because that's exactly what those folds LOOK LIKE! Again, it's a figurative term. Frankly, I wish biologists would choose another term since it appears to confuse and disorient so many people, particularly creationists who think they smell a rat. Perhaps "ear pouches" would suffice.

In the above quote, Sagan also speculated that these arches served another purpose in our evolutionary history while retaining their vestigial appearance. But on that point, he's probably wrong. Their "appearance" is merely incidental.

But suggesting that these arches are vestigial does NOT promote recapitulation either. Sagan said nothing about human embryos repeating the adult stages of their evolutionary ancestors during gestation. . . ."

Is this the creationist tact? This charge was set aside almost two years ago.

Patrick, you may want to bookmark the above-quoted page to keep for later. One will also find at that page that Sagan believed that the legal definition of a "vital fetus" as established by the Supreme Court in Roe v. Wade was also flawed and that Sagan believed, as Huxley quotes him, that the real weight of scientific opinion would place the transition from "non-vitality" to "vitality" at somewhere near the end of the first trimester, rather than in the third.

M-PI: "". . . As an aside -- despite the fact that modern studies in molecular genetics have further demonstrated the utter absurdity of the recapitulation theory (ie: the DNA for a fetus is not the DNA for a frog and the DNA for a frog is not the DNA for a fish), that didn't stop the pop-culture evolutionist/science fiction TV-star, Carl Sagan from affirming recapitulation, himself. [Dragons of Eden - pg 57-58] . . ."

StJacques: "You know, I really hate to use the kind of language I must now resort to in response to this claim. But I'm afraid I must. The quote italicized above is an outright lie." I will quote Tommy Huxley's refutation of Hank Hanegraaff's charge that Sagan supported recapitulation: .... [snip]"

Heeeeeeeeeers little Tommy Huxley LIVE on the air:

Excerpt:

Hank: Well let me give you Carl Sagan. Not long before ago before he died, he was on CNBC with another prodigious intellect, uh… Phil Donahue. And the two of them were talking about ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny. Right on the program!

Tommy: Yes.

Hank: As though it was some kind of proven fact! Even though it has been demonstrated to be a fatal hoax for years, yet they were on television extolling its virtues! And there you have the entire human evolutionary history being … ha, ha, ha … recapitulated over and over again with every single person as it starts in the, uh, womb, as a, uh, fish, and becomes a frog, and eventually becomes a, uh… a fetus!

Tommy: And Carl Sagan said this?

Hank: Yeah! Right on CNBC!

Tommy: Because I have his last book, Billions and Billions, which has a reprint of an article…

Hank: Well, the fact that he has cognitive disconnect shouldn't bother you in the least.

Tommy: Well, he had a rather long… he had a rather long thing to discuss about recapitulation. And he didn't seem to embrace it at all. In fact…

Hank: Well, you ought to get my book and look at the footnotes.

Tommy: Okay. For instance, in the article he said, "Our article offered not a word about recapitulation, as the reader may judge…" He's talking about embryology. "The comparisons of the human fetus with other adult animals are based on the appearance of the fetus (see accompanying illustrations). Its non-human form [or appearance], [says] nothing about its evolutionary history, is the…

Hank: Have you read his Dragons of Eden?

Tommy: No, I have not read that one…

Hank: You might want to take an opportunity to read Carl Sagan, in… in context!

Tommy: Okay.

Hank: And look at the footnotes of my book. That will help you out a lot as well.

Tommy: Okay, I'll…

Hank: I'm simply repeating what THEY say publicly and in writing. And, and… by the way, there should be no exoneration for anyone in an age of scientific enlightenment taking tired old theories that have been utterly demolished and communicating them as though they were truth to gullible children in school, as well as, unfortunately, to adults in universities.

Tommy: Well, I was kind of surprised that Carl Sagan would say that because if you've read any of his books, he places an enormous emphasis on the history of scientific…

Hank: Get the Dragons of Eden, and read it! If you know anything about Carl Sagan, you ought to read Dragons of Eden. He was very proud of it.

Tommy: Okay.

Hank: And go read it!

Tommy: I know that Stephen Jay Gould wrote a whole book in 1977 attacking recapitulation called…

Hank: That's right, I quote that, I quote him, and I quote that book substantially.

Tommy: Well, do you feel…

Hank: And that's why I, uh, not only exonerate him, but quote him as decrying the inherent evils of recapitulation.

Tommy: Are you a… that that's a common belief in the evolutionary scientific literature that recapitulation still takes place? Because every book I've looked at, again, when I go to the local bookstore, if they mention it at all, it's just to critique it and say that it was debunked in the 1920s.

Hank: Well, that's right, it has been debunked in the 1920s, but it's still taught in textbooks in the State of California, my friend. And not only that, but, uh, like I say, there are prodigious intellects like Sagan and Donahue, who are touting it on, uh, television, or the, um, scientifically illiterate. ..."

Tommy Debates the Bible Answer man By Tommy Huxley Posted on: 4/20/2002