"The theories of evolution, with which our studious youth have been deceived, constitute actually a dogma that all the world continues to teach: but each, in his specialty, the zoologist or the botanist, ascertains that none of the explanations furnished is adequate . . It results from this summary, that the theory of evolution, is impossible." —*P. Lemoine, "Introduction: De L' Evolution?," Encyclopedia Francaise Vol. S (1937), p. 6

" `What is it [evolution] based upon? Upon nothing whatever but faith, upon belief in the reality of the unseen—belief in the fossils that cannot be produced, belief in the embryological experiments that refuse to come off. It is faith unjustified by works." —*Arthur N. Field.

"Darwinism is a creed not only with scientists committed to document the all-purpose role of natural selection. It is a creed with masses of people who have at best a vague notion of the mechanism of evolution as proposed by Darwin, let alone as further complicated by his successors. Clearly, the appeal cannot be that of a scientific truth but of a philosophical belief which is not difficult to identify. Darwinism is a belief in the meaninglessness of existence." —*R. Kirk, "The Rediscovery of Creation," in National Review, (May 27, 1983), p. 641.

1 - VESTIGES

ORGANS FROM THE PAST —Evolutionists tell us that there are "vestiges" in people that prove the theory of evolution. These vestiges are supposed to be human body parts that are no longer needed, and are just castoffs from some earlier creature that we descended from. Because earlier creatures needed them—and we do not—is supposed to prove that we descended from those earlier life forms. That is how the theory goes.

A vestigial organ, by evolutionary definition, is an organ that was once useful during a previous stage of your evolution, but in the course of time, that organ was no longer needed, but continued to remain in the body. To say it differently, changes in physical structure rendered certain organs redundant, but they still remain in the body.

But since there is no evidence in either the present or the past of transition of one type of animal or plant to another, the "theory of vestiges" has gained prominence as a major "proof" of evolution. Frankly, the situation for evolutionists is a matter of desperation. When there is nothing else to turn to, Darwinists are willing to grasp at any possibility that might help their cause.

Two questions quickly come to mind: (1) Do we have any vestigial organs? (2) If we do, would they prove evolution? In the first half of this chapter, you will obtain a clear understanding of this matter.

"To those who believe in special creation, the presence of vestigial organs has proved a stumbling block—an insuperable obstacle." —*Pachnd, quoted in Evan Shuts, Flaws in the 7heory of Evolution, p. 49.

 SOME OF YOUR USELESS ORGANS—What are all these useless organs that we are supposed to have within us? Charles Darwin said they included wisdom teeth. *Robert Wiedersheim, a German disciple of *Darwin's, wrote a book in 1895 in which he listed 86 vestigial organs: including valves in the veins, the pineal gland, the thymus, bones in third, fourth, and fifth toes; lachrymal (tear) glands, and certain female organs. School textbooks as recent as the 1960s listed over 200 vestigial (useless) structures in the human body, including the thyroid and pituitary glands!

To date, not one dedicated evolutionist has been willing to have all his "vestigial organs" removed. To do so, would require taking out most of his hormonal glands! Yet, if he would do this, it would be the ultimate proof that those organs are, indeed, useless as Darwinists contend!

In reality, the list of "useless organs" has steadily decreased as scientific knowledge has increased. As our knowledge and understanding of physical structures has multiplied, we have arrived at the point where there are no more vestigial ones!

 Today ALL organs formerly classed as vestigial are known to have a function during the life of that organism!

The truth is that the theory of useless organs as a proof of evolution, was based on rank ignorance of those organs. No capable biologist today claims that any vestigial organs exist in human beings. But, unfortunately, that fact is not mentioned in the school textbooks. You will still find them talking about "vestigial organs" in your body, which prove evolution.

EIGHT USELESS ORGANS—Here are some of these supposedly useless organs in your body:

1 - The Tonsils. Here is one of those "worthless organs," which we now know to be needed. These two small glands in the back of your throat help protect you against infections.

2 - The Appendix. This is the classic "useless" organ of evolutionary theory. Science recently discovered that man needs this organ; it is not useless after all. It helps protect you from gastrointestinal problems in the lower ascending colon.

The appendix is now known to be an important part of what is called the reticulo-enabthelial system of the body. Like the tonsils, the appendix fights infection.

"There is no longer any justification for regarding the vermiform appendix as a vestigial structure." —* William Straus, Quarterly Review of Biology (194), p. 149.

Because the appendix becomes swollen at times, it was said to be vestigial and useless. But people have far more problems with their lungs and stomachs, than they have with their appendixes. We hope the evolutionists do not decide to call any more organs "vestigial," and begin cutting them out also!

 The fact that tonsils can be cut out without apparent harm is a major reason for calling them "vestigial." But you will survive if your eyes and arms are cut out, and they are not "vestigial," or useless organs.

It would be well to clarify the special role of the tonsils and appendix: The human alimentary canal is a long tube leading from mouth to anus. Near each opening, the Designer placed an organ to protect your entire gastrointestinal tract from pathogenic invasion white you were an infant. The appendix was crucial during your first months, and your tonsils during your first several years. In later years, you do not have as urgent a need for either your tonsils or your appendix as you did while you were a small child.

Both tonsils and appendix are, according to *Science News, March 20,1971, now believed to guard us against Hodgkin's disease.

3 - The Coccyx. Another organ declared useless by evolutionists is the coccyges) vertebrae (the coccyx). This is the bottom of your spine. Scientists have found that important muscles (the levator and coccyges) attach to those bones. Without those muscles, your pelvic organs would collapse, that is, fall down. Without them you could not have a bowel movement, nor could you walk or sit upright.

4 - The Thymus. Try cutting this one out, and you will be in big trouble! It was once considered a worthless vestigal structure, but more recently science discovered it to be the primary central gland of the lymphatic system. Without it, T cells that protect your body from infection could not function properly, for they develop within it. We hear much these days about the body's "immune system," but without the thymus you would have none.

"For at least 2,000 years, doctors have puzzled over the function of . . the thymus gland . . Modem physicians came to regard it, like the appendix, as a useless, vestigial organ which had lost its original purpose, if indeed it ever had one. In the last few years, however, . . men have proved that, far from being useless, the thymus is really the master gland that regulates the intricate immunity system which protects us against infectious diseases . . Recent experiments have led researchers to believe that the appendix, tonsils and adenoids may also figure in the antibody responses." —*"The Useless Gland that Guards Our Health, " in Reader's Digest, November 1966, pp. 229, 235.

5 - The Pineal Gland. This is a cone-shaped structure in the brain, which secretes critically needed hormones, including, for example, melatonin which inhibits secretion of luteinizing hormone.

6 - The Thyroid Gland. Many years ago, surgeons found that people could live after having their thyroid cut out, so it was decided that this was another useless organ. Ignorance breeds contempt. Yes, you may survive without your thyroid, but you will not do very well. The thyroid gland secretes the hormone, thyroxin, which goes directly into the blood. This hormone is essential to normal body growth in infancy and childhood. Without it, an adult becomes sluggish. Either an oversupply or an undersupply of thyroxin will result in over-activity or under-activity of many body organs. Deficiency of this organ at birth causes a hideous deformity known as cretinism.

7 - The Pituitary. Once claimed to be vestigial, this organ is now known to ensure proper growth of the skeleton and proper functioning of the thyroid, adrenal, and reproductive glands. Improper functioning can lead to Cushing's syndrome (gigantism).

8 - The Semilunar Fold of the Eye. Charles Darwin, and others after him, claimed that the little fold in the inner corner of your eye is a vestige of your bird ancestors! But contemporary anatomy books describe it, not as a vestige, but as a very necessary part of your eye. h is that portion of your conjunctiva which cleanses and lubricates your eyeball.

9 - Other Organs. There are many more such organs in your body which, at one time or another, evolutionists declared to be worthless. Well, such organs are not as useless as was thought. Gradually the list of "vestigial organs" lessened as their function was discovered. For example, it was said by one scientist (*Wiedersheim) that ear muscles were totally unnecessary. Later research disclosed that without those tiny muscles within the inner ear, you would not be able to hear properly. 

"Many of the so-called vestigial organs are now known to fulfill important functions." —*Encyclopedia Britannica Vol B (1946 ed.), p. 926.

The more we study into these "useless" vestiges, the more we find ourselves in awe before a majestic Creator who carefully made us all.

A better name for some of these supposedly vestigial organs, of which evolutionists make so much, would be "organs of unknown function." Fortunately, in our time knowledge is taking the place of ignorance In regard to the reasons for the various- structures of the human body.

 A SPECIAL PURPOSE—All this talk about useless organs is calling our attention to the fact that everything within us has a special and important purpose. It also emphasizes that Someone very intelligent designed our bodied We did not just "happen" into existence.

Evolution teaches that all organs developed by chance, and that some eventually happened to have a reason for existence. Later on, quantities of these organs tagged along when one species evolved into a new one. Thus, if evolutionary theory be true, there ought to be large numbers of useless organs in your body! But scientific research discloses that there is not ones

Instead, careful investigation reveals that every part of you is very special, very important, and carefully planned. All the other creatures and plants in the world were carefully planned also. There is a special purpose for each of their organs also.

It took an extremely intelligent Master Designer to accomplish all of these biological wonders we call "plants" and "animals." Chance formation of molecules into various shapes and sizes could never produce what was needed.

 FOUNDED ON IGNORANCE—HOW did such a foolish idea become accepted in the first place? It happened in a time of great ignorance. The whole idea of "vestigial organs" was originally conceived back in the early 1800s, at a time when physicians were still blood-letting in order to cure people of infection. But since that time there has been an immense quantity of research in every imaginable field. There is now no doubt by competent biologists that every large and small part of the human body has a special function during the life of the individual.

It strongly appears that the true "vestigial organ" in earlier times, was an ignorant mind; a mind that did not know why organs were in the body, and was too impatient and lazy to do the laborious work needed to identify functions. But we should not want to call ignorance a proof of evolution.

 HINDERS SCIENCE— Reputable scientists now recognize that the evolutionary teaching of "vestigial organs" actually retarded scientific knowledge for decades. Instead of finding out what the appendix was for, it was called "vestigial" and was cut out. Researchers were told it was a waste of time to study any possible use for it. For the same reason, lots of children have had their tonsils removed, when they really needed them!

"The existence of functionless 'vestigial organs' was presented by Darwin, and is often aced by current biology textbooks, as part of the evidence for evolution . . An analysis of the difficulties in unambiguously identifying functionless structures . . leads to the conclusion that 'vestigial organs' pride no evidence for evolutionary theory." —*S.R. Scudding, "Do 'Vestigial Organs' Provide Evidence for Evolution?" Evolutionary Theory, Vol. (May 1961), p. 394.

 APPENDIX ANCESTRY—The appendix is the special body structure pointed to by evolutionists as a prime example of a vestigial organ—an organ used by our ancestors, which we do not now use. Well, if that is true, then we should be able to trace our ancestors through it in a direct line! Which other animals have an appendix? Here they are: apes, rabbits, wombats, and opossums! Take your pick: all four are totally different from each other. Which one descended from which?

PROOF OF DEGENERATION—Would vestigial organs prove evolution? Actually, if we had useless organs in our bodies, they would prove degeneration, not evolution! The Darwinists have their theory backward. They claim we are evolving upward, and then point to supposedly degenerate organs in our bodies to prove it. Here is an example of this backwards thinking:

"If there were no imperfections, there would be no evidence to favor evolution by natural selection over creation." —Jeremy Cherfas, "The Difficulties of Darwinism," New Scientist, Vol. 102 (May 17, 1984), p. 29. [Cherfas was reporting on a lecture series by Steven Jay Gould at Cambridge University.]

"No evidence." *Cherfas, an expert in his field, is essentially saying this: There is no evidence anywhere in the plant and animal kingdom pointing to evolution of one species to another, and there are no such findings among fossil discoveries indicating plant or animal evolution in the past. So all we can rely on for evidence that evolution can or has occurred—is such things as vestigial organs) There is no other evidence)

We might mention here an interesting idea of some evolutionists. They think that ail our "vestigial organs" once worked, but later became dysfunctional. They say that we then invented other organs to take their place. But if this is true, then we are devolving downward, for we used to have more complex bodies with many organs, and now we keep having less complex organs—and many of them are no longer functioning!

Darwinists claim that some of our organs are falling into disuse. Yet, in contrast, they provide W us with not one NEW, developing organ to take Q their place) Not one evidence of evolution is to a be found by anyone, while, in contrast, the "vestigial organs" idea, if it could be true, x would only prove the opposite: devolution!

 For additional information see the appendix topic, "1 a - Scientists Speak about Vestiges. "  

RECAPITULATION

EMBRYONIC SIMILARITIES—The concept of "recapitulation " is based on the fact that there are similarities among embryos of people, animals, reptiles, birds, and fish. R is true that similarities do indeed exist. Babies, before they are born, look quite a bit alike during the first few weeks. This includes people babies, raccoon babies, robin babies, lizard babies, and goldfish babies. They all begin as little round balls. Then, gradually arms, legs, eyes, and all the other parts begin appearing. At one stage, there is just a big eye with skin over it and little flippers.

(An embryo is, an organism in any of the various stages of its development after fertilization and before hatching or birth. The human embryo is called a fetus after the first five or six weeks of development. Animal embryos in their later stages of development are also called fetuses.)

PURPOSE AND PLANNING—Each part of every embryo was designed and made according to a definite purpose. But when animals are just beginning to form—and while they are very, very small—there is only one ideal way for them to develop.

The problem here is one of size and packaging. Literally thousands of parts are developing inside something that is extremely small. There are simply too many extremely tiny organs clustered in one near-microscopic object. When creatures are that tiny, there are only a very few ideal ways for them to be shaped, in order to develop efficiently.

The fact is that commonality of shaping logically points us to a common Designer, more than commonality of ancestors! Ongoing "change" is a basic dictum of evolution. If that is so, then by now—after millions of years of evolving—all those embryos ought to look very different from each other.

But instead we see fixity of species throughout nature today, as well as in the fossil record. Advance planning was required on the part of Someone who carefully thought it through. And that Person designed ALL of those babies—whether they are pigs, frogs, or bats; people, pigeons, or cows. The fact that they are all alike in their earlier weeks reveals they were all designed and made by the same Creator.

But keep in mind that we are talking about appearance, not structure and function. Even though a finch embryo and a tiger embryo look alike, everything else about them is different.

 CHICKENS, LIZARDS, AND FISH—But in place of such a glorious ancestry, the evolutionist says "No, it cannot be so! Humans surely must have evolved from peculiar creatures, for why would their embryos have a yolk sac like a chicken, a tail like a lizard, and gill slits like a fish?"

The evolutionary theory is that human embryos have organs which are left-ovens from ancestors. For example, gill slits like a fish! What good are fish gills in your body? Such organs are useless, totally useless to people, so they must be "vestiges" from our ancestors. Since those organs were needed by earlier creatures, but not by us, that proves that we are descended from those lower forms of life. So human embryos are said to repeat or "recapitulate" various stages of their ancestors (such as the fish stage), and this recapitulation is declared to be an outstanding evidence of evolution.

The two key points in the above argument of the Darwinists are these: (1) Human embryos have organs which scientific research has proven to be useless. We know they are useless because they have no relation to any human function. (2) These useless organs in human embryos are actually special organs used by lower animals. The conclusion is that these useless, recapitulative organs prove that we evolved from fish, lizards, and similar creatures.

That is how the theory goes. We have here a variation on the "vestiges" (useless organs) theme, plus the strange notion that human embryos repeat (recapitulate) their evolutionary past as they develop in eggs or inside their mother.

RECAPITULATION—Reading in scientific books, you will come across the word, "recapitulation." This is the name that evolutionists give to their theory that human embryos are really little better than the left-over parts of fish, chickens, lizards, and other animals.

Did you ever notice that big words are sometimes used as proof in themselves? Because it is a big word, therefore it must be true. The phrase the evolutionists use to describe their "recapitulation theory" is this: "Ontogeny [on-TAH-gen-ee] recapitulates (ree-cah-PIH-chu-lates) phylogeny [fil-LAW-gen-ee]." A very learned phrase indeed! "Ontogeny" is the history of the development of an organism from fertilization to hatching or birth, and "phylogeny" is the imagined evolutionary development of life forms.

But these big words only cover over a very foolish theory.

 CHICKEN SAC—This is the so-called "yolk sac" in your body. In a baby chick, the yolk sac is the source of nourishment that it will live on until it hatches. This is because the chick embryo is in an eggshell and has no connection with its mother. But in a baby human being, this little piece of bulging flesh has no relation to a chick yolk sac, except for the shape. It is a small nodule attached to the bottom of the human embryo, even before it develops feet.

A very tiny human being is connected to its mother and receives nourishment from her, therefore it does not need a yolk sac. But it does need a means of making its own blood until its bones are developed. For although nourishment passes from the mother to the embryo, blood does not. That tiny human being must make its own. You and I make our blood in the marrow of our bones, embryos are only beginning to form their bones and the marrow within them—so they cannot make blood in their bones and, for a time, need another organ elsewhere to fulfill that function.

The first blood in your body came from that very tiny sack-like organ, long before you were born. When it is removed from an embryo, death immediately follows.

Your blood is now made within your bones, but when you were an embryo it was different. The problem is that it takes blood to make the bones that will make the blood! So a wonderful Designer arranged that, for a short time in your life, a little nodule, for many years called a "useless organ" because scientists were ignorant of its purpose, would make the red blood your body needed until your bones were made!

 LIZARD TAIL—Well, that eliminates the "yolk sac." What about the "lizard tall?" Even though it looks like a "tail" in a human embryo—it later becomes the lower part of the spinal column in the child and adult. But why then is it so much longer in the embryo?

The spinal column is full of very complicated bones, and the total length of the spine starts out longer in proportion to the body than it later will be. This is just a matter of good design. There are such complicated bones in your spine that it needs to start out larger and longer in relation to the body. Later, the trunk grows bigger as internal organs develop.

But there is a second reason—the complex nerves in your spine: Scientists have recently discovered that another reason the spine is at first longer than the body, is because the muscles and limbs do not develop until they are stimulated by the spinal nerved So the spine must grow and mature enough that it can send out the proper signals for muscles, limbs, and internal organs to begin their growth. For this reason, the spine at first is bigger than the limbs, but later the arms and legs become largest.

Would you rather have your well-functioning backbone, knowing that when you were tiny, it was slightly longer than the rest of your trunk? Or would you rather it had been the same size back then? If so, it would be degenerate now, and you would have to lie in bed all day. And the rest of your organs would never have developed properly.

Come now, what is all this talk about "useless organs?" What organ could be more necessary than your spine!

FISH GILLS—The third item in the embryo that the evolutionists claim to be useless vestiges are, what they call, "gill slits" in the throat of each tiny human being. They say that these "slits" prove that we are descended from fish. But the theory that, as embryos, people have gill slits, is something that knowledgeable scientists no longer claim. Only the ignorant ones do. Let me explain.

In the embryo there are, for a time, three small folds to be seen in the front of its throat. These three bubble outward slightly from the neck. Carefully examining these folds, we find no gills to extract oxygen out of water, and no gill slits (no openings) of any kind. These are not gill slits! There are no slits and no gills. More recent careful research has disclosed that the upper fold contains the apparatus that will later develop into the middle ear canals, the middle fold will later become the parathyroid, the bottom fold will soon grow into the thymus gland.

"The pharyngeal arches and clefts [creases] are frequently referred to as branchial arches and branchial dens in analogy with the lower vertebrates, [but] since the human embryo never has gills called ‘branchia’ ; the term pharyngeal arches and cleft has been adopted for this book." —*Jan Langman, Mescal Embryology, 3rd ed. (1975).

Once again the evolutionists are shown to be incorrect. For years they claimed that those three small throat folds were "gill slits," proving that we descended from fish; the bulb at the bottom of the embryo was a "yolk sac," proving that we descended from chickens instead; and the lower part of the spine is a "tail," proving that we are descended from lizards, or something else with a tail!

Remember again, it is a matter of packaging a lot into a very small space. Embryos do not need to look handsome, but they need to function and grow in an extremely small space. There simply is not enough room for such a tiny one to look different or beautiful—and still develop properly. The Designer solved this problem very nicely.

Frankly, as we consider all that we have teamed in this chapter on Similarities and Vestiges and Recapitulation, it is remarkable that (1) men can be so ignorant, (2) that they can criticize so freely such marvelous workmanship as is found in the embryo, and (3) that such ignorant men are considered by so many others to be wise men of science.

 A ROUND BEGINNING —Yes, it is true that we begin our lives as "small round things," but this does not prove that we are descended from bats because they start their lives as "small round things" also! If we only look on the outside appearance of the small round things, then perhaps we are related to marbles, bee-bees, and ball bearings! Indeed, that is what this idea of "gill slits," "yolk sacs," and "tails" is all about: it is just looking at outside appearances, instead of trying to learn the real reason those structures are there.

 TOTALLY UNIQUE—Each of us began as something as small as a dot on a word on this page. Yet if we examine that almost microscopic egg, we find that that human dot has totally different genes, chromosomes, and protein than the egg of any other type of animal or plant. Only the outside appearance may be somewhat similar to that of other embryos. As it grows, its structures will continue to become more and more diverse from those of any other kind of plant or animal. Every species of animal and plant in the world has blood cells different than all others, and a totally unique DNA code. 

"The fertilized egg cell contains in its tiny nucleus not only all the genetic instructions for building a human body, but also a complete manual on how to construct the complex protective armamentarium-amnion, umbilical cord, placenta and all—that makes possible the embryo's existence in the womb." —*Life, April 30, 1965, pp. 70, 72A.

In the beginning, each Genesis kind was different than every other. Each was made "after its kind" (Genesis 1:21, 24, 25). From that day to this, the Genesis kinds have never changed over to other species. Many sub-types have developed, but they all came from those original Genesis kinds.

 EVERYTHING IMPORTANT—Embryologists now know that every part of that tiny microscopic you—when you first began your existence—was very, very important! There were no useless parts! For this reason, no embryologists today believe in the "recapitulation" theory. It is only the confirmed evolutionists who still write about it as though it were true. This is unfortunate, for by so doing, they only show their ignorance.

 ERNST HAECKEL—*Ernst Haeckel was the one who, in 1866, first championed this strange idea that during the first few months in the womb each of us, as an embryo, passes through various stages in which we have gills like fish and a tail like a lizard. He called it the Law of Recapitulation, or the Biogenetic Law. Haeckel candidly explained his reasons for urging this theory:

"This hypothesis is indispensable for the consistent completion of the non-miraculous history of creation." —*Ernst Haeckel, The History of Creation 0878), Vol. 1, p. 348

Haeckel hated God and sought by every means to find ways to discredit His workmanship, and man's responsibility to Him.

"If we do not accept the hypothesis of spontaneous generation [of life from non-living matter], then at this one point of the history of development we must have recourse to the miracle of a supernatural creation." —*Ernst Haeckel, The History of Creation (1878), Vol. 1, p. 348.

Decades ago in the 20th century, Haeckel's theory was discredited by reputable scientists, but we are still wafting for the textbooks and popular magazines to learn the news.

"Seldom has an assertion like that of Haeckel's 'theory of recapitulation,' facile, tidy, and plausible, widely accepted without critical examination, done so much harm to science." —*Gavin de Beep, A Century of Darwin (1958).

A carefully contrived fraud was involved in the promulgation of this theory. *Darwin hinted at recapitulation in his 1859, Origin of the Species, so his devoted disciple, *Thomas H. Huxley, included a pair of drawings of canine and human embryos in an 1863 book he wrote. Darwin placed those same drawings in his 1871 book, Descent of Man. *Ernst Haeckel, in Germany, seized upon Darwin's suggestion and announced his Biogenetic Law. In a two-volume 1868 set, and its 1876 English translation, History of Creation, and in another in 1874, he published fraudulent charts to prove his "law." These charts have been faithfully reprinted by evolutionists since then (the latest was *Richard Leakey's Illustrated Origin in 1971).

Haeckel had drafting ability, and he carefully redesigned actual embryo pictures so that they would look alike. For this purpose, he changed shapes and sizes of heads, eyes, trunks, etc. For his ape and man skeleton pictures, he changed heights and gave the ape skeletons upright postures.

*Wilhelm His, Sr. (1831-1904) a German embryologist, exposed the hoax in detail in an 1874 publication (Unsere Korperform), and concluded that Haeckel was dishonest and was thereby discredited from the ranks of trustworthy research scientists. It is to be noted that Wilhelm His prepared the scholarly books on embryological development which are the foundation of all modern human embryology. Yet neither Haeckel's fraud, nor His' expose, has ever been widely discussed in English scientific publications, and never in any publication for the public eye.

"The biogenetic law has become so deeply rooted in biological thought that it cannot be weeded out in spite of its having been demonstrated to be wrong by numerous subsequent scholars." —*Walter J. Bock, Science, May 1969. [Department of Biological Sciences at Columbia University.]

*Thomas Huxley in England and *Ernst Haeckel in Germany were *Darwin's leading late 19th century defenders. Always a man of intense energy, Haekel at the age of 62 while his elderly wife lived at home with him, was in the midst of an almost-daily love affair which he had continued for years with an unmarried woman 34 years younger. At the same time he was conducting his enthusiastic public lectures on recapitulation, using fraudulent charts which he prepared for his lectures and books. When Haeckel rented a hall a for a lecture, he would drape the front with charts a of ape and human skeletons and comparative embryos. Nearly all of the pictures had been doctored up in some way, to show similarities.

For additional information see the appendix topic, " 3 - Haeckel's Fraudulent Charts."

 HAECKEL'S LAW—Even though Haeckel called it a "law," the "Law of Recapitulation," recent scientists have less complementary words for it:

"[It is] a theory that, in spite of its exposure, its effects continue to linger in the nooks and crannies of zoology." —*G.R. DeBeerand *W.E. Swinton, in *T .S. Westall (eo'.), Studies in Fossil Vertebiates.

In recent years, an instrument, called the fetoscope, has been developed which, when inserted into the uterus, permits observation and photography of every stage of the human embryo during its development. As a result of research such as this, it is now known that at every stage fetal development is perfect, uniquely human, and entirely purposive. There are no unnecessary processes or structures.

"As a law, this principle has been questioned, it has been subjected to careful scrutiny and has been found wanting. There are too many exceptions to it." —*A.F. Huettner, Fundamentals of Comparative Embryology of the Vertebrates, p. 48.

Skilled embryologists, such as *Huettner, tell us that the whole idea underlying recapitulation is utter foolishness. Huettner, for example, explains that there never is a true blastula or gastrula in the mammals. Also, organs do not develop in the same order as they do in the smaller creatures. In the earliest fishes, there are teeth but no tongue. But in the mammalian embryos, the tongue develops before the teeth. Huettner says there are numerous other such examples.

 DEVELOPMENTAL DIFFERENCES— Haeckell's so-called "law" teaches that all embryos not only look alike, but that they must all develop in the same way, thus proving their ancestry. But, when comparing embryological growth, there are so many differences in development, that Haeckel's "Recapitulation" is today in shambles. What would Haeckel do with the crabs? One type hatches out of a larval form (the zoeas), which is totally different than the adult form. Yet other crabs hatch out directly as miniature crabs! Many other such oddities could be cited.

According to recapitulation theory, the appearance of an embryo reveals its ancestry. All frog embryos look identical, so how can it be that nearly all frogs lay eggs—while one of them, the Nectophrymoldes occidentalis of New Guinea, brings forth its young live! This requires a womb, a placenta, a yolk sac and other modifications not found in the other frogs. Did that one frog descend from humans, or vice-versa,—and what did it descend from? Its embryo is just like all the other frog embryos.

Similarly, out of all the earwigs in the world, there is just one live-bearing earwig! Out of all the sharks in the world, there is just one that has a placental Examination of their embryos provides no solution to these puzzles. The earwig embryos all look alike, and so do the shark embryos.

Recapitulation theory is just too shallow to really explain anything. Only Creation can explain what we see about us in nature.

A large number of these similarities in outward appearance among various embryos, are just the result of their small size and the fact that all animals are built out of the same kind of materials (carbohydrates, fats, proteins, etc.).

The similarities found in embryos point to a single Creator, not to a common ancestor.

 IMPOSSIBLE THEORY—Recapitulation is a theory which is absurdly irrelevant. For instance, the respiratory surface in the lungs develops late in an embryo, yet how could the earlier forms (which it is supposedly copying) have survived without having the respiratory surface?

 DIFFERENT TYPES OF ORGANS—According to the theory of recapitulation, the embryo-like parts of the adult repeat each stage of what its ancestors were shaped like. Which is a strange idea, is it not? But another quality found in embryos which is not to be found in their supposed "ancestors," is that embryos will have two types of organs, while their supposed "ancestors" only had one!

First, there are the organs which will not function until after the infant is born. Such an organ would be the lungs. For this reason people only develop one set of lungs in their lifetime.

Second, there are the organs which have a special function in pre-birth as well as afterward. Such organs frequently change form two or three times. Two examples are the heart and kidneys.

If recapitulation was correct, such mufti-changing hearts and kidneys should also be found in adult mice and minnows. But this never occurs in the adult form of animal life.

"The theory of recapitulation . . should be defunct today." —*Stephen J. Gould, "Dr. Down's Syndrome," Natural History, April 1980, p. 144.

 DIFFERENT DEVELOPMENTAL SEQUENCE—It the human embryo really did recapitulate its assumed evolutionary ancestry, the human embryonic heart should first have one chamber, then change it into two, then three, and finally four chambers. For that is the arrangement of hearts in our supposed ancestors.

But instead of this, your heart first began as a two-chambered organ, which later in fetal development fused into a single chamber. This single chamber later, before birth, changed into the four-chambered heart you now have.

So the actual sequence of heart chambers in a human fetus is 2-1-4, instead of the one required by recapitulation: 1-2-3-4.

Another example would be the human brain which, in the fetus, develops before the nerve cords. But in man's assumed ancestry, nerve cords developed before the brain.

Still another example is the fact that the fetal heart develops before the blood vessels, while in man's presumed forbears it was the other way around.

"The theory of recapitulation was destroyed in 1821 by professor Walter Garstang in a famous paper, since then no respectable biologist has ever used the theory of recapitulation, because it was utterly unsound, created by a Nazi-

like preacher named Haeckel." —*Ashley Montagu, debate held April 12, 1980, at Princeton University, quoted in LD. Sunderland, Darwin's Enigma, p. 119.

 When, during that debate, a comment was made just afterward that recapitulation was still being defended and taught in various colleges and universities, *Montagu said this:

"Well, ladies and gentlemen, that only goes to show that many so-called educational institutions, so-called 'universities,' are not educational institutions at all or universities; they are institutes for miseducation." —*Op. cit., p. 120.

 BASIC THEORY FAULTED—There is yet another inherent flaw in the recapitulation theory. According to the theory, the fish passes its gild on to its descendant, the bird, as a vestige ever after to be in bird embryos. The bird passes the gills and yolk sac on to the monkey, who thereafter has gills, yolk sac, and its own monkey tail. The monkey passes all three on to mankind as a legacy of embryonic useless organs. That is the theory.

Why then does the fish embryo have—not only its own fish gills—but also the bird yolk sac, and the monkey tail? All, or nearly all, fish, animal, bird, and reptile embryos uniformly have the so-called "fish gill slits, the "bird yolk sac," and the "monkey tail!" The theory does not even agree with itself.

 MOTION STUDY—But now Consider motion. There are only certain basic types of motion in the animal kingdom. Most water creatures swim by movement of fins, a few jet water. Bottom dwellers crawl or walk, as do most land mammals, reptiles, birds;, and even most insects. Birds and bats fly, and snakes serpentine their way along. We have here five primary methods of locomotion. How could hundreds of thousands of animal, bird, and insect species—each with totally different DNA combinations-ell use only one of these flue methods of moving from place to place? How could that happen unless a "central planning office" pre-planned it?

NONE of them—including the human beings—were intelligent enough to design and construct their own legs, etc.! The creature is not able to do such things. Someone far more capable had to accomplish the task.

As we view the sheer minuteness of the embryo, we are overwhelmed with the marvelous complexity, completeness, and variety of the adults they grow into.

For additional Information see the appendix topic " 2 - Scientists Speak about Recapitulation."

 SUMMARY—Considering all that we have learned about embryos, we stand amazed:

Why should these embryos, each of which develop into a totally different creature, all look so much alike when they first enter upon life? Such a fact points to a single Intelligence which planned them all.

How can their DNA codes, each of which are totally different, provide each of them with look-alike embryos? Mathematically, their separate codes should not be able to do this—yet the DNA regularly does it.

Why do look-alike embryos grow into different species; each species with different blood, etc., than all the others?

How can so much be packed into such small packages, and then grow into such totally different adult forms?

How can all there is in you begin with a dot smaller than the dot at the end of this sentence?

How can any man, having viewed such marvelous perfection in design and function, afterward deny that a Master Craftsman planned and made it, insolently slander His workmanship, and declare it to be riddled with a bunch of useless organs?

 You have just completed

Chapter 22 - VESTIGES AND RECAPITULATION

APPENDIX 22