Octogeny recapitulating Phylogeny has been discredited for probably over thirty years, now.
Octogeny recapitulating Phylogeny has been discredited for probably over thirty years, now.
Try "ontogeny". You'll have a better chance of seeming like you know what you're talking about if you don't get the basic terminology wrong.
Furthermore, his point does not rest on recapitulation, so you either misunderstood his point, or are engaging in a red herring non sequitur.
Now would you care to engage his actual point, or not?
"Octogeny" recapitulating Phylogeny has been discredited for probably over thirty years, now.
Hmm---are you referring to the offspring of octopuses?
Ernst Haeckel in about 1860 coined the phrase "ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny", he also coined many words commonly used by biologists today, such as phylum, phylogeny, and ecology.
The 140 year old views of Haekel have been greatly modified, but it remains undeniable that at various stages, human fetuses have eyes on stalks, notochords (instead of spines), fish-like gills, tails, downy fur, distorted torsos, spindly legs. In fact, an early human fetus is practically indistinguishable in appearance from a dog or pig or ape fetus. This is only to show that mammalian embryonic development is remarkably the same for a great many species, including humans.
Below from
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontogeny_recapitulates_phylogeny
Modern biology rejects the literal form of Haeckel's theory. While for instance the phylogeny of humans as having evolved from fish through reptiles to mammals is accepted, no cleanly defined "fish", "reptile" and "mammal" stages of human embryonal development can be discerned. There is no linearity in the development. ....
The fact that the literal form of recapitulation theory is rejected by modern biologists has sometimes been used as an argument against evolution by creationists. The argument is: "Haeckel's theory 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.