Abstract
The embryology of plants and echinoderm oppose the “Biogenetic Law (Recapitulation theory)”. The
present of gill slits in vertebrate’s embryos are the evidence of “Biogenetic law”. But except in fishes,
other vertebrate’s embryos have never gills. Both the early stage and the tail bud stages (later stages) of
embryos are differing morphologically, instead of similarity. So, Haeckel manufactured the pictures
about the similarities of various vertebrate embryos. Thus, Haeckel's “Biogenetic Law” is faked during
Haeckel’s as well as Darwin's lifetime. Again, the vertebrate’s embryos are observable but this Law is
based on three assumptions. So, many researches declared that invalid the “Biogenetic Law”.
Consequently, the publishers of biology started to remove the Haeckel’s drawing from their biology
books. Haeckel’s evolutionary tree is based on the “Biogenetic law”. So, Haeckel’s evolutionary tree
(Phylogenetic tree /Darwinian tree) is not valid. Darwin exploited the “Recapitulation theory” for the
strong evidence of his theory. Hence, embryological evidences are opposite to Darwin’s theory
Kumar bentley: computational embryology_ past, present and futureArchiLab 7
This document summarizes the history of embryology and computational embryology. It discusses key contributions from Aristotle to modern developmental biology. It also describes different types of computational embryogenies, including explicit and implicit embryogenies. The document then presents experiments that evolved predefined shapes using explicit and implicit embryogenies. The results showed that both embryogenies could define morphologies, but the implicit embryogeny did not increase in size as the problem was scaled.
The document provides an introduction to genetics and a historical overview of developments in cytology, genetics, and cytogenetics. It discusses how genetics deals with heredity and variation, and defines related terms like cytology and cytogenetics. It also lists major scientific contributions from 1485 to 1993, including Mendel's principles of heredity, the discovery of DNA as the genetic material, and the development of techniques like PCR and genetic engineering.
1) Aristotle made many contributions to biology, directly studying hundreds of species and making discoveries like dolphins being mammals, different types of reproduction in animals, and embryonic chicken development.
2) He established guidelines for biological research including beginning with observation, explaining structures in terms of purpose, and recognizing natural classifications.
3) Aristotle developed one of the earliest systems for classifying animal life, grouping animals based on attributes like live birth, egg-laying, blood, and shells.
The document provides an introduction and historical overview of principles of experimental embryology. It discusses early embryological observations by Aristotle and others. Key experiments by Roux, Driesch, Hertwig, and Boveri helped establish that the fertilized egg contains all the genetic information to develop into a complete organism. Later, Morgan, Warburg, Just, Hamburger, Harrison, Spemann, and others further advanced the field through studies of cell differentiation, gene expression, oxygen consumption, and tissue transplantation in various model organisms. Pioneering work by Brachet, Briggs and King also helped establish the roles of DNA, RNA, and nuclear transfer in development.
El tequila es un destilado originario del municipio de Tequila en el estado de Jalisco, México. Se elabora a partir de la fermentación y destilado al igual que el mezcal, jugo extraído del agave, en particular el llamado agave azul (Agave tequilana), con denominación de origen en cinco estados de la República Mexicana (Guanajuato, Michoacán, Nayarit, Tamaulipas y por supuesto en todo el estado de Jalisco ya que en los tres primeros solo se puede producir en algunos municipios, los fronterizos a Jalisco). Es quizás la bebida más conocida y representativa de México en el mundo.
Running head WHY IS EVOLUTION TRUE1Why is Evolution True 3.docxjeffsrosalyn
Running head: WHY IS EVOLUTION TRUE 1
Why is Evolution True 3
Why is Evolution True
Saleh Harris
August 2, 2019
SCI-115SC
Professor Wilder
Why is Evolution True
Religion is the first concept of how thing have come into existing. When you're an adult, the story of Adam and Eve make less sense compared to when you were five years old. I'll be using Jerry Coyne, Why Evolution is True to provide insight on evolution through scientific evidence.
What is Evolution?
Author Jerry A.Coyne opens with William Paley's watchmaker analogy as proof of God as the designer of all things. Darwin believed that evolution and natural selection started creation. Coyne defines modern evolution as life on primitive species earth evolved gradually beginning one primitive species or DNA that exist eons ago, that branched out over tie, throwing off many new and diverse species, and the mechanism for most of the evolutionary change is natural selection. (Coyne3) Six components that the theory of evolution can be broken down into are evolution, gradualism, speciation, common ancestry, natural selection, and nonselective mechanisms of evolutionary change.
Evolution is the change in characteristics of a species over time that relies on the process of natural selection. Over many eons, a species can evolve into something entirely different, and those differences on changes in the DNA, which originate as mutations. (Coyne3)
Gradualism which takes many generations to produce a substantial evolutionary change, such as the evolution of birds from reptiles. (Coyne4) Speciation is the evolution of different groups that can't interbreed that is, groups that can't exchange genes. Species split because of populations to evolve enough differences that they are no longer able to interbreed. The vast majority of species go extinct without leaving any descendants. (Coyne7)
Common ancestry is DNA sequences or fossils evidence that finds descendants joining at their ancestors. (Coyne8)
Natural selection is the design in nature by a purely materialistic process that doesn't require creation or guidance by supernatural forces. Over time, the population will gradually adjust to its environment during mutations and expand within individuals having a quality or characteristic in common, while deleterious ones are weeded out. It requires only that individuals of a species vary genetically in their ability to survive and reproduce in their environment. (Coyne10-11)
Nonselective mechanisms of evolutionary change So natural selection does not yield perfection — only improvements over what came before. Its s done in small increments over time. ( Coyne13) A scientific theory is a statement that's looked at as laws, principles, or because of something known or observed. So before a theory can be thought of as being scientific, it must be testable and make valid predictions. (Conye15)
Written in the Rocks
Written in the Rocks shows how fossils provide evidence of evolution. The fossil f.
The document discusses the cell theory, which states that all living things are made up of cells, cells carry out functions needed to support life, and cells only come from pre-existing cells. It describes how the cell theory was developed over 200 years through the work of scientists like Hooke, Pasteur, and Virchow. The cell theory gives us a foundation for understanding living things and cells. It has endured and remained largely unchanged for over 150 years despite new details being discovered. The cell theory helped develop a better understanding of how cells work.
Kumar bentley: computational embryology_ past, present and futureArchiLab 7
This document summarizes the history of embryology and computational embryology. It discusses key contributions from Aristotle to modern developmental biology. It also describes different types of computational embryogenies, including explicit and implicit embryogenies. The document then presents experiments that evolved predefined shapes using explicit and implicit embryogenies. The results showed that both embryogenies could define morphologies, but the implicit embryogeny did not increase in size as the problem was scaled.
The document provides an introduction to genetics and a historical overview of developments in cytology, genetics, and cytogenetics. It discusses how genetics deals with heredity and variation, and defines related terms like cytology and cytogenetics. It also lists major scientific contributions from 1485 to 1993, including Mendel's principles of heredity, the discovery of DNA as the genetic material, and the development of techniques like PCR and genetic engineering.
1) Aristotle made many contributions to biology, directly studying hundreds of species and making discoveries like dolphins being mammals, different types of reproduction in animals, and embryonic chicken development.
2) He established guidelines for biological research including beginning with observation, explaining structures in terms of purpose, and recognizing natural classifications.
3) Aristotle developed one of the earliest systems for classifying animal life, grouping animals based on attributes like live birth, egg-laying, blood, and shells.
The document provides an introduction and historical overview of principles of experimental embryology. It discusses early embryological observations by Aristotle and others. Key experiments by Roux, Driesch, Hertwig, and Boveri helped establish that the fertilized egg contains all the genetic information to develop into a complete organism. Later, Morgan, Warburg, Just, Hamburger, Harrison, Spemann, and others further advanced the field through studies of cell differentiation, gene expression, oxygen consumption, and tissue transplantation in various model organisms. Pioneering work by Brachet, Briggs and King also helped establish the roles of DNA, RNA, and nuclear transfer in development.
El tequila es un destilado originario del municipio de Tequila en el estado de Jalisco, México. Se elabora a partir de la fermentación y destilado al igual que el mezcal, jugo extraído del agave, en particular el llamado agave azul (Agave tequilana), con denominación de origen en cinco estados de la República Mexicana (Guanajuato, Michoacán, Nayarit, Tamaulipas y por supuesto en todo el estado de Jalisco ya que en los tres primeros solo se puede producir en algunos municipios, los fronterizos a Jalisco). Es quizás la bebida más conocida y representativa de México en el mundo.
Running head WHY IS EVOLUTION TRUE1Why is Evolution True 3.docxjeffsrosalyn
Running head: WHY IS EVOLUTION TRUE 1
Why is Evolution True 3
Why is Evolution True
Saleh Harris
August 2, 2019
SCI-115SC
Professor Wilder
Why is Evolution True
Religion is the first concept of how thing have come into existing. When you're an adult, the story of Adam and Eve make less sense compared to when you were five years old. I'll be using Jerry Coyne, Why Evolution is True to provide insight on evolution through scientific evidence.
What is Evolution?
Author Jerry A.Coyne opens with William Paley's watchmaker analogy as proof of God as the designer of all things. Darwin believed that evolution and natural selection started creation. Coyne defines modern evolution as life on primitive species earth evolved gradually beginning one primitive species or DNA that exist eons ago, that branched out over tie, throwing off many new and diverse species, and the mechanism for most of the evolutionary change is natural selection. (Coyne3) Six components that the theory of evolution can be broken down into are evolution, gradualism, speciation, common ancestry, natural selection, and nonselective mechanisms of evolutionary change.
Evolution is the change in characteristics of a species over time that relies on the process of natural selection. Over many eons, a species can evolve into something entirely different, and those differences on changes in the DNA, which originate as mutations. (Coyne3)
Gradualism which takes many generations to produce a substantial evolutionary change, such as the evolution of birds from reptiles. (Coyne4) Speciation is the evolution of different groups that can't interbreed that is, groups that can't exchange genes. Species split because of populations to evolve enough differences that they are no longer able to interbreed. The vast majority of species go extinct without leaving any descendants. (Coyne7)
Common ancestry is DNA sequences or fossils evidence that finds descendants joining at their ancestors. (Coyne8)
Natural selection is the design in nature by a purely materialistic process that doesn't require creation or guidance by supernatural forces. Over time, the population will gradually adjust to its environment during mutations and expand within individuals having a quality or characteristic in common, while deleterious ones are weeded out. It requires only that individuals of a species vary genetically in their ability to survive and reproduce in their environment. (Coyne10-11)
Nonselective mechanisms of evolutionary change So natural selection does not yield perfection — only improvements over what came before. Its s done in small increments over time. ( Coyne13) A scientific theory is a statement that's looked at as laws, principles, or because of something known or observed. So before a theory can be thought of as being scientific, it must be testable and make valid predictions. (Conye15)
Written in the Rocks
Written in the Rocks shows how fossils provide evidence of evolution. The fossil f.
The document discusses the cell theory, which states that all living things are made up of cells, cells carry out functions needed to support life, and cells only come from pre-existing cells. It describes how the cell theory was developed over 200 years through the work of scientists like Hooke, Pasteur, and Virchow. The cell theory gives us a foundation for understanding living things and cells. It has endured and remained largely unchanged for over 150 years despite new details being discovered. The cell theory helped develop a better understanding of how cells work.
Modern biology is a broad field composed of many interconnected subdisciplines that study life at different scales. While diverse, biology is unified by some key concepts like evolution, cells as the basic unit of life, and genes as the basic unit of heredity. Subdisciplines include biochemistry, molecular biology, botany, cellular biology, physiology, ecology, and evolutionary biology. Biology has developed significantly since ancient times, with major advances in microscopy revealing cells and advances in genetics revealing DNA as the carrier of heredity. The modern synthesis of Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection with genetics and population genetics formed the foundation of modern biology.
Select all of the types of evidence that biologists have discovered t.pdfalokkesh
Select all of the types of evidence that biologists have discovered that support evolution.
Solution
Select all of the types of evidence that biologist have discovered that support evolution
Answer
Fossil record
Embryonic development
Molecular data
Anatomy of an organism
Physiology of an organism
=======================
Since an awesome measure of information backings the possibility of organic development
through common choice, and in light of the fact that no logical confirmation has yet been found
to demonstrate this thought false, this thought is viewed as a logical hypothesis.
confirm that backings the hypothesis of development by normal choice:
Biochemistry:
is the investigation of the fundamental science and procedures that happen in cells. The natural
chemistry of every single living thing on Earth is staggeringly comparative, demonstrating that
the majority of Earth\'s living beings share a typical heritage.
Comparative anatomy : it is the examination of the structures of various living things. This figure
analyzes the skeletons of people, felines, whales, and bats, representing how comparative they
are despite the fact that these creatures live interesting ways of life in altogether different
situations. The best clarification for likenesses like the ones among these skeletons is that the
different species on Earth advanced from normal predecessors.
Biogeography, the investigation of living things around the world, cements Darwin\'s hypothesis
of organic development. Fundamentally, if development is genuine, you\'d expect gatherings of
living beings that are identified with each other to be bunched close to each other in light of the
fact that related living beings originate from a similar basic progenitor.
Then again, if development isn\'t genuine, there\'s not a single explanation behind related
gatherings of creatures in sight close to each other. At the point when biogeographers look at the
dissemination of life forms living today or those that lived before (from fossils), they find that
species are conveyed around Earth in an example that mirrors their hereditary connections to
each other.
Comparative embryology thinks about the incipient organisms of various life forms. The
developing lives of numerous creatures, from fish to people, demonstrate likenesses that propose
a typical predecessor.
Molecular biology concentrates on the structure and capacity of the particles that make up cells.
Sub-atomic scientists have looked at quality arrangements among species, uncovering
similitudes among even altogether different creatures.
Paleontology :it is the investigation of ancient life through fossil proof. The fossil record (every
one of the fossils ever found and the data picked up from them) indicates point by point proof of
the adjustments in living things through time.
Advanced cases of natural development can be measured by concentrate the aftereffects of
logical analyses that measure transformative changes in the populaces of li.
The Theory of Evolution Essay
Evidence Of Evolution
The Future Of Human Evolution Essay
Why Does Evolution Happen
Evolution Essay
Essay on human evolution
The Theory of Evolution Essay
Essay on Evolution
Essay about Evidence for Evolution
The Theory of Evolution Essay
Creationism vs. Evolution Essay
Why Do You Believe In The Theory Of Evolution
Evolution is the process of change over time through natural selection. The document summarizes key evidence and theories of evolution, including:
1. Evidence from the fossil record shows gradual changes in life forms over billions of years. Comparative anatomy and embryology also provide evidence of common descent.
2. Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection proposed that heritable variations arise by mutation and are selected if they confer a survival or reproductive advantage. This results in adaptation and potentially speciation.
3. Modern theories incorporate genetics and show how variation arises from sexual reproduction, mutation, and recombination of genes, and how selection can change allele frequencies to drive evolution or maintain genetic equilibrium.
Ernst Haeckel proposed the theory of recapitulation in the late 1800s, which stated that ontogeny (individual development) recapitulates phylogeny (evolutionary history). For example, he claimed that human embryos have structures resembling fish gills, representing a fish-like ancestor. While early embryos of related species do share similarities, modern biology rejects Haeckel's literal interpretation. His drawings of embryos were inaccurate, and developing organisms do not perfectly mirror their evolutionary history or adult ancestors as Haeckel claimed.
The document discusses the history of life on Earth from its origins to early multicellular life. It describes early scientific theories on the beginning of life and experiments providing evidence against spontaneous generation. Modern scientists believe life began through natural chemical reactions forming organic molecules, as supported by the Miller-Urey experiment. Early life was prokaryotic and anaerobic, with eukaryotes and complex cells developing later through endosymbiosis. Fossils provide evidence of the progression and environments of early life. Radiometric dating allows determining the absolute ages of fossils.
Why Evolution Is True Summary
Evidence Of Evolution
Evolution And Evolution Of Evolution
The Theory of Evolution Essay
Essay about Evidence for Evolution
The Process Of Evolution And Evolution
Essay about Evolution
Evolution And Evolution Of Evolution
Evolutionary Biology Essay
The Theory of Evolution Essay
Evidence For Evolution Essay
Essay on Evolution
The Future Of Human Evolution Essay
Essay on human evolution
Creationism vs. Evolution Essay
Thoeries Of Evolution Essay example
Evolution Essay
Why Do You Believe In The Theory Of Evolution
The Theory of Evolution Essay
Evolution Argumentative Essay
The document discusses the origins and evolution of life on Earth from its earliest beginnings to present day. It describes early scientific theories on how life began, including spontaneous generation and biogenesis. Miller and Urey's experiment provided evidence that simple organic molecules could form from chemical reactions, and these molecules became the building blocks of cells. Fossil and geological evidence show that early life was prokaryotic and anaerobic, and evolved over billions of years from simple to more complex multicellular forms through natural selection and genetic changes within populations. The fossil record and comparative anatomy provide multiple lines of evidence that all life on Earth shares a common ancestor.
This document provides biographical information about Jonathan Wells, a prominent advocate of intelligent design. It summarizes Wells' educational and professional background, including receiving advanced degrees from Unification Theological Seminary and Yale University. It notes that Wells embarked on a PhD in molecular and cellular biology at UC Berkeley with the stated goal of "preparing myself for battle" against Darwinism. The document questions details of Wells' subsequent career and publications, and analyzes some of the claims made in Wells' book Icons of Evolution, finding that Wells misrepresents the evidence and takes facts out of context to criticize evolutionary biology. Overall, the document casts doubt on Wells' objectivity and characterization of the evidence regarding evolution.
This document provides an overview of biology, including its history, key concepts, scientific method, and importance. It discusses how biology is the study of life and living organisms, outlining the key characteristics of living things. The history of biology is explored from ancient Greek philosophers through modern pioneers like Darwin and Mendel. The major divisions and fields of biology are defined. The scientific method is described as the process used by biologists to study the natural world through observation, questioning, experimentation and reporting of results. Finally, the importance of biology is highlighted as explaining human development, providing environmental solutions, teaching basic living concepts, enabling scientific investigation, and shaping careers.
Biology is the study of life, including the anatomy, physiology, growth, origin, evolution, distribution, and taxonomy of organisms. It examines life at the molecular, cellular, organism, and population levels. Key principles that unify modern biology are the cell theory, evolution, genetics, homeostasis, and the role of energy in living things.
Module 7 OverviewOrigin and Classification of LifeThe origin o.docxmoirarandell
Module 7 Overview
Origin and Classification of Life
The origin of life has been of great debate for centuries. This module will outline the various ideas of how life and Earth itself developed. You will learn the evidence for multiple theories on the origin of life and the evolution of these theories based on new scientific findings.
This module will also focus upon one of the most important achievements of the science of biology: the classification of organisms and the creation of an internationally agreed upon system of nomenclature. Understanding how organisms are classified provides an important basis for any future studies in ecology.
Learning Objectives
Upon completion of this module, you should be able to:
10A
Describe the evidence used to suggest an extraterrestrial source for life on earth.
10B
State the most probable physical conditions on early Earth and the changes thought to have happened before life could exist.
10C
Differentiate between the concepts of spontaneous generation and biogenesis.
10D
Examine the chemical and physical events that must have occurred to have life originate on Earth.
10E
Describe the different hypotheses for what the first living thing might have been like.
10F
Identify the way in which organisms have caused the atmosphere of the earth to change.
10G
State the order and approximate times for major evolutionary events.
10H
Examine the endosymbiotic theory.
10I
Explain the experimental evidence for the origin of life from organic and inorganic material.
10J
Distinguish between taxonomy and phylogeny.
10K
Describe the kinds of tools used to establish phylogenetic relationships.
10L
Distinguish among viruses, viroids, and prions.
10M
Describe the scientific method for naming organisms.
11A
List and give distinguishing characteristics of the kingdoms within the Domain Eukarya.
11B
Distinguish between Bacteria and Archaea.
11C
Explain the features that differentiate organisms as microbes.
11D
List the basic characteristics of members of the Protista, Archaea, Bacteria, and Fungi.
11E
Identify the type of environments in which microorganisms live.
Module 7 Reading Assignment
Enger, E. D., Ross, F. C., & Bailey, D. B. (2012). Concepts in biology (14th ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill. Chapters 19, 20, and 21.
Optional Reading Assignment:
Chapter 22, The Plant Kingdom, and Chapter 23, The Animal Kingdom.
Origin and Classification of Life
Scientists have broken down life into domains of organisms. Scientists believe that at first life, there was first the bacteria domain. The bacteria domain was followed by the archaea domain and finally, the eucarya domain. Domain bacteria and domain archaea remain the same and have not been further broken down. Domain eucarya was further broken down into the plant kingdom, the fungi kingdom, and the animal kingdom.
Organisms live on, in, and within all types of environments. Organisms can be found from pole to pole and everywhere in between. This includ ...
The document discusses evidence that supports evolution being real, including fossil records, embryology, comparative anatomy, molecular biology, and direct observation. Fossil records show remains of ancestral species and how creatures have changed over time. Embryology and comparative anatomy demonstrate homologous and analogous structures between species. Molecular biology reveals DNA comparisons between past and present species. Direct observation allows seeing how species adapt in their environments. Taken together, this evidence substantiates evolution as occurring through genetic changes in populations over generations in response to their environments.
The document discusses evolution and mechanisms that lead to evolutionary change, including natural selection and genetic drift. Natural selection occurs when some traits are favored over others in an environment, allowing those traits to be presented in future generations. Genetic drift is random changes in small gene pools due to errors in allele propagation. Evidence for evolution includes antibiotic resistance in bacteria due to natural selection, and comparisons of gene similarities between species using DNA, which provides direct evidence of common ancestry.
A slide presentation which explains the facts about the theory of evolution and scientifically rebuts several of the most common criticisms and myths used by creationists and opponents of evolutionary theory.
This document provides an introduction to key concepts in zoology. It discusses 7 characteristics of living things, including chemical uniqueness, complexity and hierarchical organization, reproduction, possession of a genetic code, metabolism, development, and environmental interaction. It also covers the scientific method, the difference between experimental and evolutionary science, Charles Darwin and the theory of evolution including natural selection and common descent. Finally, it discusses contributions to cellular biology including the microscope and animal rights issues in scientific testing.
The document summarizes key concepts in the evolution of life. It discusses early theories of spontaneous generation and the Miller-Urey experiment demonstrating organic molecules can form from inorganic precursors. Modern evolutionary theory developed from Darwin's principles of variation within populations, a struggle for existence, and survival of the fittest. Evidence for evolution includes homologous and vestigial structures, transitional fossils, embryological similarities, and molecular comparisons. Present-day evolution theories have expanded on Darwin's work through ideas like punctuated equilibrium, selfish genes, and the endosymbiotic origin of eukaryotic cells. New species arise through genetic isolation of populations and their gradual differentiation over time. The appearance of human beings is traced from early homin
INTRODUCTION TO CELLS
INTRODUCTION TO CELL THEORY
HISTORY
FORMULATION OF CELL THEORY
CLASSICAL CELL THEORY
DRAWBACKS OF CLASSICAL THEORY
MORDEN CELL THEORY
EXCEPTION OF CELL THEORY
SIGNIFICANCE OF CELL THEORY
HOW HAS THE CELL THEORY BEEN USED
CONCLUSION
The document provides an introduction to zoology, discussing several key topics:
- Theories of evolution from scientists like Lamarck and Cuvier are summarized, with Darwin's theory of natural selection identified as the most accurate.
- The complex life cycle of the monarch butterfly is used as an example to illustrate different life cycle stages like egg, larva, pupa, and adult.
- Adaptation strategies animals use to survive harsh environments like the desert and polar regions are outlined.
- The process of mitosis and key differences in replication between prokaryotes and eukaryotes are summarized.
- Homeostatic mechanisms that allow animals to maintain stable body conditions are briefly
The survival of the fittest is not Valid: Darwin’s theory of natural selectio...MdAbdulAhad26
This document discusses Darwin's theory of evolution through natural selection and the concept of "survival of the fittest." It argues that survival of the fittest is not valid based on several observations. First, many organisms that are unfit still survive while truly fit organisms die out due to hazards, so there is no chance for survival of the fittest. Second, cooperation and altruism are widespread in nature, from microorganisms to vertebrates, which contradicts the idea that organisms only struggle selfishly for survival. Third, some organisms evolved millions of years ago are still existing unchanged, despite evolution supposedly producing constant change. Therefore, the document concludes that survival of the fittest is invalid and Darwin's theory of evolution
Evolution without Wilson’s Sociobiology: Is Sociobiology a special branch of ...MdAbdulAhad26
Edward O. Wilson (Professor at Harvard University) studied the behaviour of ants and assumed that the behavior of ants were
linked to gene/genetics (biological determinism/genetics determinism) and thus it was adaptive. This idea he applied to other
animals including humans (i.e. the behaviour of other animals including humans are linked to gene/genetics) and formulated
his Sociobiology theory of evolution of behavior. Thus, the basic idea of Sociobiology is that social behaviour is inherited
through a gene and transmitted from parents to their offspring. But an ant is a social insect and the behaviour of an ant and
other social insects is very peculiar and interesting that could never be comparable to other animals and humans. The behavior
of a social insect is learned and experienced. The behavior of humans and other animals (birds, primates, horses, etc.) is also
learned and experienced. Social behavior is not related to genetics, not transferable from parents to their offspring, and not
adaptive (behaviour does not come through an evolutionary process). However, to compare the behaviors of humans and
animals are not acceptable, as the cerebral cortex is entirely absent in most animals. Again. Sociobiology supports the
undesirable patterns of racism and sexism and it approves of the status quo, which is resistant to social progress. Sociobiology
has no academic exercise, as it opposes education through school, college, university etc. Sociobiology is a dangerous politics
and is related to the Marxist idea. Moreover, Sociologists, anthropologists, anthropological theory, the tabula rasa theory of
psychology, 35 scientists of the “American Institute of Biological Sciences” totally rejected the Sociobiology. Sociobiology is
firmly based on both Darwin’s theory and Neo-Darwinism, which indicates that Sociobiology has no base. However,
literatures indicate that those theories are also opposite to evolution. Sociobiology unwisely popularize by being designated as
10 unrelated subjects, making it very complex to understand its view. Furthermore, Sociobiology is mainly based on social
insects but fossils of social insects are identical to the existing one. Thus, Sociobiology (both the bahavioural ecology and pop
Sociobiology) is opposite to evolution. However, literature claims that Sociobiology is a special branch of Entomology that
deals with social insects.
More Related Content
Similar to Embryological evidences opposite to Darwin’s theory: Biogenetic law (Recapitulation theory) and Haeckel’s evolutionary tree are valid or not
Modern biology is a broad field composed of many interconnected subdisciplines that study life at different scales. While diverse, biology is unified by some key concepts like evolution, cells as the basic unit of life, and genes as the basic unit of heredity. Subdisciplines include biochemistry, molecular biology, botany, cellular biology, physiology, ecology, and evolutionary biology. Biology has developed significantly since ancient times, with major advances in microscopy revealing cells and advances in genetics revealing DNA as the carrier of heredity. The modern synthesis of Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection with genetics and population genetics formed the foundation of modern biology.
Select all of the types of evidence that biologists have discovered t.pdfalokkesh
Select all of the types of evidence that biologists have discovered that support evolution.
Solution
Select all of the types of evidence that biologist have discovered that support evolution
Answer
Fossil record
Embryonic development
Molecular data
Anatomy of an organism
Physiology of an organism
=======================
Since an awesome measure of information backings the possibility of organic development
through common choice, and in light of the fact that no logical confirmation has yet been found
to demonstrate this thought false, this thought is viewed as a logical hypothesis.
confirm that backings the hypothesis of development by normal choice:
Biochemistry:
is the investigation of the fundamental science and procedures that happen in cells. The natural
chemistry of every single living thing on Earth is staggeringly comparative, demonstrating that
the majority of Earth\'s living beings share a typical heritage.
Comparative anatomy : it is the examination of the structures of various living things. This figure
analyzes the skeletons of people, felines, whales, and bats, representing how comparative they
are despite the fact that these creatures live interesting ways of life in altogether different
situations. The best clarification for likenesses like the ones among these skeletons is that the
different species on Earth advanced from normal predecessors.
Biogeography, the investigation of living things around the world, cements Darwin\'s hypothesis
of organic development. Fundamentally, if development is genuine, you\'d expect gatherings of
living beings that are identified with each other to be bunched close to each other in light of the
fact that related living beings originate from a similar basic progenitor.
Then again, if development isn\'t genuine, there\'s not a single explanation behind related
gatherings of creatures in sight close to each other. At the point when biogeographers look at the
dissemination of life forms living today or those that lived before (from fossils), they find that
species are conveyed around Earth in an example that mirrors their hereditary connections to
each other.
Comparative embryology thinks about the incipient organisms of various life forms. The
developing lives of numerous creatures, from fish to people, demonstrate likenesses that propose
a typical predecessor.
Molecular biology concentrates on the structure and capacity of the particles that make up cells.
Sub-atomic scientists have looked at quality arrangements among species, uncovering
similitudes among even altogether different creatures.
Paleontology :it is the investigation of ancient life through fossil proof. The fossil record (every
one of the fossils ever found and the data picked up from them) indicates point by point proof of
the adjustments in living things through time.
Advanced cases of natural development can be measured by concentrate the aftereffects of
logical analyses that measure transformative changes in the populaces of li.
The Theory of Evolution Essay
Evidence Of Evolution
The Future Of Human Evolution Essay
Why Does Evolution Happen
Evolution Essay
Essay on human evolution
The Theory of Evolution Essay
Essay on Evolution
Essay about Evidence for Evolution
The Theory of Evolution Essay
Creationism vs. Evolution Essay
Why Do You Believe In The Theory Of Evolution
Evolution is the process of change over time through natural selection. The document summarizes key evidence and theories of evolution, including:
1. Evidence from the fossil record shows gradual changes in life forms over billions of years. Comparative anatomy and embryology also provide evidence of common descent.
2. Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection proposed that heritable variations arise by mutation and are selected if they confer a survival or reproductive advantage. This results in adaptation and potentially speciation.
3. Modern theories incorporate genetics and show how variation arises from sexual reproduction, mutation, and recombination of genes, and how selection can change allele frequencies to drive evolution or maintain genetic equilibrium.
Ernst Haeckel proposed the theory of recapitulation in the late 1800s, which stated that ontogeny (individual development) recapitulates phylogeny (evolutionary history). For example, he claimed that human embryos have structures resembling fish gills, representing a fish-like ancestor. While early embryos of related species do share similarities, modern biology rejects Haeckel's literal interpretation. His drawings of embryos were inaccurate, and developing organisms do not perfectly mirror their evolutionary history or adult ancestors as Haeckel claimed.
The document discusses the history of life on Earth from its origins to early multicellular life. It describes early scientific theories on the beginning of life and experiments providing evidence against spontaneous generation. Modern scientists believe life began through natural chemical reactions forming organic molecules, as supported by the Miller-Urey experiment. Early life was prokaryotic and anaerobic, with eukaryotes and complex cells developing later through endosymbiosis. Fossils provide evidence of the progression and environments of early life. Radiometric dating allows determining the absolute ages of fossils.
Why Evolution Is True Summary
Evidence Of Evolution
Evolution And Evolution Of Evolution
The Theory of Evolution Essay
Essay about Evidence for Evolution
The Process Of Evolution And Evolution
Essay about Evolution
Evolution And Evolution Of Evolution
Evolutionary Biology Essay
The Theory of Evolution Essay
Evidence For Evolution Essay
Essay on Evolution
The Future Of Human Evolution Essay
Essay on human evolution
Creationism vs. Evolution Essay
Thoeries Of Evolution Essay example
Evolution Essay
Why Do You Believe In The Theory Of Evolution
The Theory of Evolution Essay
Evolution Argumentative Essay
The document discusses the origins and evolution of life on Earth from its earliest beginnings to present day. It describes early scientific theories on how life began, including spontaneous generation and biogenesis. Miller and Urey's experiment provided evidence that simple organic molecules could form from chemical reactions, and these molecules became the building blocks of cells. Fossil and geological evidence show that early life was prokaryotic and anaerobic, and evolved over billions of years from simple to more complex multicellular forms through natural selection and genetic changes within populations. The fossil record and comparative anatomy provide multiple lines of evidence that all life on Earth shares a common ancestor.
This document provides biographical information about Jonathan Wells, a prominent advocate of intelligent design. It summarizes Wells' educational and professional background, including receiving advanced degrees from Unification Theological Seminary and Yale University. It notes that Wells embarked on a PhD in molecular and cellular biology at UC Berkeley with the stated goal of "preparing myself for battle" against Darwinism. The document questions details of Wells' subsequent career and publications, and analyzes some of the claims made in Wells' book Icons of Evolution, finding that Wells misrepresents the evidence and takes facts out of context to criticize evolutionary biology. Overall, the document casts doubt on Wells' objectivity and characterization of the evidence regarding evolution.
This document provides an overview of biology, including its history, key concepts, scientific method, and importance. It discusses how biology is the study of life and living organisms, outlining the key characteristics of living things. The history of biology is explored from ancient Greek philosophers through modern pioneers like Darwin and Mendel. The major divisions and fields of biology are defined. The scientific method is described as the process used by biologists to study the natural world through observation, questioning, experimentation and reporting of results. Finally, the importance of biology is highlighted as explaining human development, providing environmental solutions, teaching basic living concepts, enabling scientific investigation, and shaping careers.
Biology is the study of life, including the anatomy, physiology, growth, origin, evolution, distribution, and taxonomy of organisms. It examines life at the molecular, cellular, organism, and population levels. Key principles that unify modern biology are the cell theory, evolution, genetics, homeostasis, and the role of energy in living things.
Module 7 OverviewOrigin and Classification of LifeThe origin o.docxmoirarandell
Module 7 Overview
Origin and Classification of Life
The origin of life has been of great debate for centuries. This module will outline the various ideas of how life and Earth itself developed. You will learn the evidence for multiple theories on the origin of life and the evolution of these theories based on new scientific findings.
This module will also focus upon one of the most important achievements of the science of biology: the classification of organisms and the creation of an internationally agreed upon system of nomenclature. Understanding how organisms are classified provides an important basis for any future studies in ecology.
Learning Objectives
Upon completion of this module, you should be able to:
10A
Describe the evidence used to suggest an extraterrestrial source for life on earth.
10B
State the most probable physical conditions on early Earth and the changes thought to have happened before life could exist.
10C
Differentiate between the concepts of spontaneous generation and biogenesis.
10D
Examine the chemical and physical events that must have occurred to have life originate on Earth.
10E
Describe the different hypotheses for what the first living thing might have been like.
10F
Identify the way in which organisms have caused the atmosphere of the earth to change.
10G
State the order and approximate times for major evolutionary events.
10H
Examine the endosymbiotic theory.
10I
Explain the experimental evidence for the origin of life from organic and inorganic material.
10J
Distinguish between taxonomy and phylogeny.
10K
Describe the kinds of tools used to establish phylogenetic relationships.
10L
Distinguish among viruses, viroids, and prions.
10M
Describe the scientific method for naming organisms.
11A
List and give distinguishing characteristics of the kingdoms within the Domain Eukarya.
11B
Distinguish between Bacteria and Archaea.
11C
Explain the features that differentiate organisms as microbes.
11D
List the basic characteristics of members of the Protista, Archaea, Bacteria, and Fungi.
11E
Identify the type of environments in which microorganisms live.
Module 7 Reading Assignment
Enger, E. D., Ross, F. C., & Bailey, D. B. (2012). Concepts in biology (14th ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill. Chapters 19, 20, and 21.
Optional Reading Assignment:
Chapter 22, The Plant Kingdom, and Chapter 23, The Animal Kingdom.
Origin and Classification of Life
Scientists have broken down life into domains of organisms. Scientists believe that at first life, there was first the bacteria domain. The bacteria domain was followed by the archaea domain and finally, the eucarya domain. Domain bacteria and domain archaea remain the same and have not been further broken down. Domain eucarya was further broken down into the plant kingdom, the fungi kingdom, and the animal kingdom.
Organisms live on, in, and within all types of environments. Organisms can be found from pole to pole and everywhere in between. This includ ...
The document discusses evidence that supports evolution being real, including fossil records, embryology, comparative anatomy, molecular biology, and direct observation. Fossil records show remains of ancestral species and how creatures have changed over time. Embryology and comparative anatomy demonstrate homologous and analogous structures between species. Molecular biology reveals DNA comparisons between past and present species. Direct observation allows seeing how species adapt in their environments. Taken together, this evidence substantiates evolution as occurring through genetic changes in populations over generations in response to their environments.
The document discusses evolution and mechanisms that lead to evolutionary change, including natural selection and genetic drift. Natural selection occurs when some traits are favored over others in an environment, allowing those traits to be presented in future generations. Genetic drift is random changes in small gene pools due to errors in allele propagation. Evidence for evolution includes antibiotic resistance in bacteria due to natural selection, and comparisons of gene similarities between species using DNA, which provides direct evidence of common ancestry.
A slide presentation which explains the facts about the theory of evolution and scientifically rebuts several of the most common criticisms and myths used by creationists and opponents of evolutionary theory.
This document provides an introduction to key concepts in zoology. It discusses 7 characteristics of living things, including chemical uniqueness, complexity and hierarchical organization, reproduction, possession of a genetic code, metabolism, development, and environmental interaction. It also covers the scientific method, the difference between experimental and evolutionary science, Charles Darwin and the theory of evolution including natural selection and common descent. Finally, it discusses contributions to cellular biology including the microscope and animal rights issues in scientific testing.
The document summarizes key concepts in the evolution of life. It discusses early theories of spontaneous generation and the Miller-Urey experiment demonstrating organic molecules can form from inorganic precursors. Modern evolutionary theory developed from Darwin's principles of variation within populations, a struggle for existence, and survival of the fittest. Evidence for evolution includes homologous and vestigial structures, transitional fossils, embryological similarities, and molecular comparisons. Present-day evolution theories have expanded on Darwin's work through ideas like punctuated equilibrium, selfish genes, and the endosymbiotic origin of eukaryotic cells. New species arise through genetic isolation of populations and their gradual differentiation over time. The appearance of human beings is traced from early homin
INTRODUCTION TO CELLS
INTRODUCTION TO CELL THEORY
HISTORY
FORMULATION OF CELL THEORY
CLASSICAL CELL THEORY
DRAWBACKS OF CLASSICAL THEORY
MORDEN CELL THEORY
EXCEPTION OF CELL THEORY
SIGNIFICANCE OF CELL THEORY
HOW HAS THE CELL THEORY BEEN USED
CONCLUSION
The document provides an introduction to zoology, discussing several key topics:
- Theories of evolution from scientists like Lamarck and Cuvier are summarized, with Darwin's theory of natural selection identified as the most accurate.
- The complex life cycle of the monarch butterfly is used as an example to illustrate different life cycle stages like egg, larva, pupa, and adult.
- Adaptation strategies animals use to survive harsh environments like the desert and polar regions are outlined.
- The process of mitosis and key differences in replication between prokaryotes and eukaryotes are summarized.
- Homeostatic mechanisms that allow animals to maintain stable body conditions are briefly
Similar to Embryological evidences opposite to Darwin’s theory: Biogenetic law (Recapitulation theory) and Haeckel’s evolutionary tree are valid or not (20)
The survival of the fittest is not Valid: Darwin’s theory of natural selectio...MdAbdulAhad26
This document discusses Darwin's theory of evolution through natural selection and the concept of "survival of the fittest." It argues that survival of the fittest is not valid based on several observations. First, many organisms that are unfit still survive while truly fit organisms die out due to hazards, so there is no chance for survival of the fittest. Second, cooperation and altruism are widespread in nature, from microorganisms to vertebrates, which contradicts the idea that organisms only struggle selfishly for survival. Third, some organisms evolved millions of years ago are still existing unchanged, despite evolution supposedly producing constant change. Therefore, the document concludes that survival of the fittest is invalid and Darwin's theory of evolution
Evolution without Wilson’s Sociobiology: Is Sociobiology a special branch of ...MdAbdulAhad26
Edward O. Wilson (Professor at Harvard University) studied the behaviour of ants and assumed that the behavior of ants were
linked to gene/genetics (biological determinism/genetics determinism) and thus it was adaptive. This idea he applied to other
animals including humans (i.e. the behaviour of other animals including humans are linked to gene/genetics) and formulated
his Sociobiology theory of evolution of behavior. Thus, the basic idea of Sociobiology is that social behaviour is inherited
through a gene and transmitted from parents to their offspring. But an ant is a social insect and the behaviour of an ant and
other social insects is very peculiar and interesting that could never be comparable to other animals and humans. The behavior
of a social insect is learned and experienced. The behavior of humans and other animals (birds, primates, horses, etc.) is also
learned and experienced. Social behavior is not related to genetics, not transferable from parents to their offspring, and not
adaptive (behaviour does not come through an evolutionary process). However, to compare the behaviors of humans and
animals are not acceptable, as the cerebral cortex is entirely absent in most animals. Again. Sociobiology supports the
undesirable patterns of racism and sexism and it approves of the status quo, which is resistant to social progress. Sociobiology
has no academic exercise, as it opposes education through school, college, university etc. Sociobiology is a dangerous politics
and is related to the Marxist idea. Moreover, Sociologists, anthropologists, anthropological theory, the tabula rasa theory of
psychology, 35 scientists of the “American Institute of Biological Sciences” totally rejected the Sociobiology. Sociobiology is
firmly based on both Darwin’s theory and Neo-Darwinism, which indicates that Sociobiology has no base. However,
literatures indicate that those theories are also opposite to evolution. Sociobiology unwisely popularize by being designated as
10 unrelated subjects, making it very complex to understand its view. Furthermore, Sociobiology is mainly based on social
insects but fossils of social insects are identical to the existing one. Thus, Sociobiology (both the bahavioural ecology and pop
Sociobiology) is opposite to evolution. However, literature claims that Sociobiology is a special branch of Entomology that
deals with social insects.
Evaluation of toxicity of five medicinal plant extracts on maize weevil, Sito...MdAbdulAhad26
The experiments were conducted in the laboratory of the Department of Entomology and
Department of Agricultural Chemistry, Hajee Mohammad Danesh Science and Technology
University (HSTU), Dinajpur during May-December 2017 to evaluate the toxicity of five
medicinal plant extracts (water hyacinth Eichhornia crassipes, swamp smartweed Polygonum
coccineum, ariach Cassia tora, wild capsicum Croton bonplandianum and hill glory bower
Clerodendrum viscosum) against maize weevil, Sitophilus zeamais (Mots.) on stored maize.
The wild capsicum extract provided the highest average mortality (93.33 ± 3.33), following
the hill glory bower (86.67 ± 3.33) and swamp smartweed (86.67 ± 3.33) at 3% concentration.
But it was zero in control. The average numbers of lowest numbers of adult emergence
among the five weed extracts were found in wild capsicum (3.00 ± 0.39) following Swamp
smartweed (5.11 ± 0.95) at 3% concentration; whereas, in control it was (54.00 ± 1.15).
The lowest percent of seed damage were found in wild capsicum (3.00 ± 0.38%) following
Swamp smartweed (4.22 ± 0.58). But in control, it was 44.00 ± 1.15. Repellency class of
different plant extracts at different concentration level varied between I to IV. But the hill
glory bower at 3.0% showed statistically best as it showed the highest repellency rate was
66.0 ± 5.31% and the group were IV. However, the toxicity order was wild capsicum >
swamp smartweed > hill glory bower > water hyacinth >, ariach.
Genetic drift represents the punctuated equilibrium theory, the shifting balance theory, the allopatric speciation theory, the
species selection theory and work in small isolated populations. Those theories advocated that all plants and animals man arose
through macroevolution. However, genetic drift and small isolated populations are the key factors of those theories. But
genetic drift loses/changes the gene frequency randomly, which are very harmful to any organism and thus could not produce
any new species. Again, drift unfits to create any variation (raw material of evolution). Again, small isolated populations and
produce homozygous organisms. Those organisms have low fecundity, suffer from various disease, least fitted to survive and
may extinct suddenly, e.g. American heath hen. Thus, any kind of evolution is quite impossible through those theories.
Therefore, biologists rejected the genetic drift, shifting balance theory (a condition to declare invalid of those theories) and
also the punctuated equilibrium theory as the theory of evolution. Again, the fossil is the only evidence of those theories but
fossil opposes macroevolution (another condition to declare invalid of those theories) but support the gradual evolution.
Moreover, evolution is reasonably absurd by the extinction of living organism. Consequently, those theories are invalid and no
one plant and animal including human arose through those theories. Hence, Darwinists, Neo-Darwinists and Sociobiology’s
oppose those theories.
Punctuated equilibrium theory represents shifting balance theory (of macro an...MdAbdulAhad26
The objectives of this article are that to prove punctuated equilibrium theory represents shifting balance
theory and these two theories declared invalid Darwin’s theory and Neo-Darwinian theory and those are
true fact: Because all features of both theories are same- i) Genetic drift play the key role of both
theories. ii) Both theories advocated evolution progresses rapidly in a small and isolated population with
rapid evolution after long period of stasis without the help of Darwin’s theory. iii) Both theories
advocated allopatric speciation, macroevolution, quantum evolution and species selection. iv) Fossil is
the only evidence of both theories. Additionally, those theories declared invalid Darwin’s theory and
Neo-Darwinian theory. As a result, if anyone proves that genetic drift unable to produce new species or
rejected shifting balance theory and fossil does not support macroevolution but support gradual
evolution; then punctuated equilibrium theory even allopatric speciation theory would be invalid
automatically.
Keywords: Mac
Seven non-darwinian theories opposite to evolutionMdAbdulAhad26
The objective of this article is to prove that “Seven non-Darwinian theories opposite to evolution”.
However, the genetic drift represents the punctuated equilibrium, the shifting balance theory, the
allopatric speciation theory and the species selection theory for the macroevolution. The genetic drift
rapidly works in a small and isolated population and not works in a large population. Hence, genetic drift
means small and isolated population and vice-versa. But the genetic drift creates zero variation. But there
is no variation (raw materials of any kind of evolution); there is no evolution. Hence, evolutionary
biologists rejected genetic drift for any kind of evolution. Again, genetic drift means small and isolated
but those populations have to mate with their close relative and produced homozygous organisms.
Homozygous organisms have low fecundity, suffer from various diseases, least fitted to survive and may
extinct suddenly, e.g. American Heath hen. Thus, small populations and isolated populations (i.e. genetic
drift) are opposite to any kind of evolution, even risk for extinction. However, genetic drift is also the key
force of Neutral theory, which works in smalls and isolated populations. Consequently, Neutral theory is
opposite to any kind of evolution. So, many evolutionary biologists rejected Neutral theory. Once more,
evolutionary biologists rejected the shifting balance theory, the punctuated equilibrium theory and of
Goldschmidt’s theory. Gould and Wright advocated chromosomal speciation (chromosome
rearrangements) theory for macroevolution but which are not valid. Moreover, extinction is the main
process of the macroevolution, which is quite absurd. The fossil is the excellent and only evidence of
those theories of macroevolution. But fossil completely opposes macroevolution. So, those seven nonDarwinian theories are opposite to any kind of evolution. Consequently, the Darwinists, the neoDarwinists and the Sociobiology’s oppose those non-Darwinian. Subsequently, plants and animals
including human are not evolved via those theories.
Living organisms (even human) evolve to match with the climate or not and geo...MdAbdulAhad26
Living organisms (even human) evolve to match with the climate or not and geographical distribution (biogeography) opposite to Darwin’s theory or not
This document discusses whether living organisms evolve to match their climate and environment, as Darwin theorized, or if their geographical distributions oppose Darwin's theory of evolution. It provides several arguments against Darwin's view: 1) Plants and animals are beautifully adapted to changing environments but do not evolve in response. 2) When climate changes, organisms migrate to safer areas and later return, rather than evolving new adaptations. 3) If migration is impossible, species will go extinct rather than evolve new traits. 4) The presence of cosmopolitan species in different climates opposes climate influencing evolution.
Darwin’s theory (current version), human evolution (Physical anthropology) an...MdAbdulAhad26
The objectives of this article are to prove that any kind of evolution is not possible by Darwin’s theory
(current version) i.e. this theory unfits to disturb the Hardy-Weinberg’s Law and modify Mendel’s Laws.
In other words, Hardy-Weinberg’s Law and Mendel’s Laws never support any kind of evolution.
However, Darwin’s theory (current version) is popularly known as Neo-Darwinism/ the new synthesis/
the synthetic theory/the evolutionary synthesis/the modern synthesis/ population genetics/evolutionary
genetics and gene mutation is the main agent of it, which plays the key role of Neo-Darwinism. But all
mutations arise by the errors of DNA replication and damage of DNA. Consequently, it is harmful for all
living organisms; hence about 3,500 diseases (including cancer) are found in humans by a single gene
mutation. Therefore, mutated organisms are least fitted for survival and reproduction, and thus gene
mutation unfits for any kind of evolution. As gene mutation is responsible for the origin of humans
(physical anthropology) from the chimpanzee; so, humans were not evolve from the chimpanzees. If
chimpanzees were evolved into a human, then no chimpanzees could be found in the world. Similarly,
since, evolution is a continuous process, at present, it is occurring rapidly; mutations are constantly
occurring in plants and animals. Consequently, all other organisms have to transfer into another organism
successively and present organisms have to be absent from the earth but not so happen. However, other
agents of Neo-Darwinism are interrelated to mutation and depend on mutations for their actions on the
evolution. Thus, those agents of Neo-Darwinism are also unfit for the evolution of new species. Again, it
is proved separately and repeatedly that other agents of Neo-Darwinism are also unfit for any kind of
evolution. So, albino and double-headed animals are very common in nature, which arise by mutations,
yet an albino or double-headed animal variety/race is developed either naturally or artificially. However,
if a new type arises accidentally by the agent of Neo-Darwinism; but by random mating, it returns to the
original type, and by non-random mating, it produced homozygous organisms and may extinct over time.
Hence, there is no evidence that a species evolved either artificially or naturally. Hence, no evolution
occurs by Neo-Darwinism. So, fossil evidence opposes Neo-Darwinism, and many evolutionary
biologists also reject this theory, which supports the results of the present study. Thus, NeoDarwinism/population genetics (evolutionary genetics) is opposite to any kind of evolution and those
never disturb the Hardy-Weinberg’s Law and could not modify Mendel’s Laws. So, Darwinists oppose
the Neo-Darwinism
Candidate young stellar objects in the S-cluster: Kinematic analysis of a sub...Sérgio Sacani
Context. The observation of several L-band emission sources in the S cluster has led to a rich discussion of their nature. However, a definitive answer to the classification of the dusty objects requires an explanation for the detection of compact Doppler-shifted Brγ emission. The ionized hydrogen in combination with the observation of mid-infrared L-band continuum emission suggests that most of these sources are embedded in a dusty envelope. These embedded sources are part of the S-cluster, and their relationship to the S-stars is still under debate. To date, the question of the origin of these two populations has been vague, although all explanations favor migration processes for the individual cluster members. Aims. This work revisits the S-cluster and its dusty members orbiting the supermassive black hole SgrA* on bound Keplerian orbits from a kinematic perspective. The aim is to explore the Keplerian parameters for patterns that might imply a nonrandom distribution of the sample. Additionally, various analytical aspects are considered to address the nature of the dusty sources. Methods. Based on the photometric analysis, we estimated the individual H−K and K−L colors for the source sample and compared the results to known cluster members. The classification revealed a noticeable contrast between the S-stars and the dusty sources. To fit the flux-density distribution, we utilized the radiative transfer code HYPERION and implemented a young stellar object Class I model. We obtained the position angle from the Keplerian fit results; additionally, we analyzed the distribution of the inclinations and the longitudes of the ascending node. Results. The colors of the dusty sources suggest a stellar nature consistent with the spectral energy distribution in the near and midinfrared domains. Furthermore, the evaporation timescales of dusty and gaseous clumps in the vicinity of SgrA* are much shorter ( 2yr) than the epochs covered by the observations (≈15yr). In addition to the strong evidence for the stellar classification of the D-sources, we also find a clear disk-like pattern following the arrangements of S-stars proposed in the literature. Furthermore, we find a global intrinsic inclination for all dusty sources of 60 ± 20◦, implying a common formation process. Conclusions. The pattern of the dusty sources manifested in the distribution of the position angles, inclinations, and longitudes of the ascending node strongly suggests two different scenarios: the main-sequence stars and the dusty stellar S-cluster sources share a common formation history or migrated with a similar formation channel in the vicinity of SgrA*. Alternatively, the gravitational influence of SgrA* in combination with a massive perturber, such as a putative intermediate mass black hole in the IRS 13 cluster, forces the dusty objects and S-stars to follow a particular orbital arrangement. Key words. stars: black holes– stars: formation– Galaxy: center– galaxies: star formation
Signatures of wave erosion in Titan’s coastsSérgio Sacani
The shorelines of Titan’s hydrocarbon seas trace flooded erosional landforms such as river valleys; however, it isunclear whether coastal erosion has subsequently altered these shorelines. Spacecraft observations and theo-retical models suggest that wind may cause waves to form on Titan’s seas, potentially driving coastal erosion,but the observational evidence of waves is indirect, and the processes affecting shoreline evolution on Titanremain unknown. No widely accepted framework exists for using shoreline morphology to quantitatively dis-cern coastal erosion mechanisms, even on Earth, where the dominant mechanisms are known. We combinelandscape evolution models with measurements of shoreline shape on Earth to characterize how differentcoastal erosion mechanisms affect shoreline morphology. Applying this framework to Titan, we find that theshorelines of Titan’s seas are most consistent with flooded landscapes that subsequently have been eroded bywaves, rather than a uniform erosional process or no coastal erosion, particularly if wave growth saturates atfetch lengths of tens of kilometers.
Sexuality - Issues, Attitude and Behaviour - Applied Social Psychology - Psyc...PsychoTech Services
A proprietary approach developed by bringing together the best of learning theories from Psychology, design principles from the world of visualization, and pedagogical methods from over a decade of training experience, that enables you to: Learn better, faster!
SDSS1335+0728: The awakening of a ∼ 106M⊙ black hole⋆Sérgio Sacani
Context. The early-type galaxy SDSS J133519.91+072807.4 (hereafter SDSS1335+0728), which had exhibited no prior optical variations during the preceding two decades, began showing significant nuclear variability in the Zwicky Transient Facility (ZTF) alert stream from December 2019 (as ZTF19acnskyy). This variability behaviour, coupled with the host-galaxy properties, suggests that SDSS1335+0728 hosts a ∼ 106M⊙ black hole (BH) that is currently in the process of ‘turning on’. Aims. We present a multi-wavelength photometric analysis and spectroscopic follow-up performed with the aim of better understanding the origin of the nuclear variations detected in SDSS1335+0728. Methods. We used archival photometry (from WISE, 2MASS, SDSS, GALEX, eROSITA) and spectroscopic data (from SDSS and LAMOST) to study the state of SDSS1335+0728 prior to December 2019, and new observations from Swift, SOAR/Goodman, VLT/X-shooter, and Keck/LRIS taken after its turn-on to characterise its current state. We analysed the variability of SDSS1335+0728 in the X-ray/UV/optical/mid-infrared range, modelled its spectral energy distribution prior to and after December 2019, and studied the evolution of its UV/optical spectra. Results. From our multi-wavelength photometric analysis, we find that: (a) since 2021, the UV flux (from Swift/UVOT observations) is four times brighter than the flux reported by GALEX in 2004; (b) since June 2022, the mid-infrared flux has risen more than two times, and the W1−W2 WISE colour has become redder; and (c) since February 2024, the source has begun showing X-ray emission. From our spectroscopic follow-up, we see that (i) the narrow emission line ratios are now consistent with a more energetic ionising continuum; (ii) broad emission lines are not detected; and (iii) the [OIII] line increased its flux ∼ 3.6 years after the first ZTF alert, which implies a relatively compact narrow-line-emitting region. Conclusions. We conclude that the variations observed in SDSS1335+0728 could be either explained by a ∼ 106M⊙ AGN that is just turning on or by an exotic tidal disruption event (TDE). If the former is true, SDSS1335+0728 is one of the strongest cases of an AGNobserved in the process of activating. If the latter were found to be the case, it would correspond to the longest and faintest TDE ever observed (or another class of still unknown nuclear transient). Future observations of SDSS1335+0728 are crucial to further understand its behaviour. Key words. galaxies: active– accretion, accretion discs– galaxies: individual: SDSS J133519.91+072807.4
Evidence of Jet Activity from the Secondary Black Hole in the OJ 287 Binary S...Sérgio Sacani
Wereport the study of a huge optical intraday flare on 2021 November 12 at 2 a.m. UT in the blazar OJ287. In the binary black hole model, it is associated with an impact of the secondary black hole on the accretion disk of the primary. Our multifrequency observing campaign was set up to search for such a signature of the impact based on a prediction made 8 yr earlier. The first I-band results of the flare have already been reported by Kishore et al. (2024). Here we combine these data with our monitoring in the R-band. There is a big change in the R–I spectral index by 1.0 ±0.1 between the normal background and the flare, suggesting a new component of radiation. The polarization variation during the rise of the flare suggests the same. The limits on the source size place it most reasonably in the jet of the secondary BH. We then ask why we have not seen this phenomenon before. We show that OJ287 was never before observed with sufficient sensitivity on the night when the flare should have happened according to the binary model. We also study the probability that this flare is just an oversized example of intraday variability using the Krakow data set of intense monitoring between 2015 and 2023. We find that the occurrence of a flare of this size and rapidity is unlikely. In machine-readable Tables 1 and 2, we give the full orbit-linked historical light curve of OJ287 as well as the dense monitoring sample of Krakow.
BIRDS DIVERSITY OF SOOTEA BISWANATH ASSAM.ppt.pptxgoluk9330
Ahota Beel, nestled in Sootea Biswanath Assam , is celebrated for its extraordinary diversity of bird species. This wetland sanctuary supports a myriad of avian residents and migrants alike. Visitors can admire the elegant flights of migratory species such as the Northern Pintail and Eurasian Wigeon, alongside resident birds including the Asian Openbill and Pheasant-tailed Jacana. With its tranquil scenery and varied habitats, Ahota Beel offers a perfect haven for birdwatchers to appreciate and study the vibrant birdlife that thrives in this natural refuge.
Microbial interaction
Microorganisms interacts with each other and can be physically associated with another organisms in a variety of ways.
One organism can be located on the surface of another organism as an ectobiont or located within another organism as endobiont.
Microbial interaction may be positive such as mutualism, proto-cooperation, commensalism or may be negative such as parasitism, predation or competition
Types of microbial interaction
Positive interaction: mutualism, proto-cooperation, commensalism
Negative interaction: Ammensalism (antagonism), parasitism, predation, competition
I. Mutualism:
It is defined as the relationship in which each organism in interaction gets benefits from association. It is an obligatory relationship in which mutualist and host are metabolically dependent on each other.
Mutualistic relationship is very specific where one member of association cannot be replaced by another species.
Mutualism require close physical contact between interacting organisms.
Relationship of mutualism allows organisms to exist in habitat that could not occupied by either species alone.
Mutualistic relationship between organisms allows them to act as a single organism.
Examples of mutualism:
i. Lichens:
Lichens are excellent example of mutualism.
They are the association of specific fungi and certain genus of algae. In lichen, fungal partner is called mycobiont and algal partner is called
II. Syntrophism:
It is an association in which the growth of one organism either depends on or improved by the substrate provided by another organism.
In syntrophism both organism in association gets benefits.
Compound A
Utilized by population 1
Compound B
Utilized by population 2
Compound C
utilized by both Population 1+2
Products
In this theoretical example of syntrophism, population 1 is able to utilize and metabolize compound A, forming compound B but cannot metabolize beyond compound B without co-operation of population 2. Population 2is unable to utilize compound A but it can metabolize compound B forming compound C. Then both population 1 and 2 are able to carry out metabolic reaction which leads to formation of end product that neither population could produce alone.
Examples of syntrophism:
i. Methanogenic ecosystem in sludge digester
Methane produced by methanogenic bacteria depends upon interspecies hydrogen transfer by other fermentative bacteria.
Anaerobic fermentative bacteria generate CO2 and H2 utilizing carbohydrates which is then utilized by methanogenic bacteria (Methanobacter) to produce methane.
ii. Lactobacillus arobinosus and Enterococcus faecalis:
In the minimal media, Lactobacillus arobinosus and Enterococcus faecalis are able to grow together but not alone.
The synergistic relationship between E. faecalis and L. arobinosus occurs in which E. faecalis require folic acid
The cost of acquiring information by natural selectionCarl Bergstrom
This is a short talk that I gave at the Banff International Research Station workshop on Modeling and Theory in Population Biology. The idea is to try to understand how the burden of natural selection relates to the amount of information that selection puts into the genome.
It's based on the first part of this research paper:
The cost of information acquisition by natural selection
Ryan Seamus McGee, Olivia Kosterlitz, Artem Kaznatcheev, Benjamin Kerr, Carl T. Bergstrom
bioRxiv 2022.07.02.498577; doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2022.07.02.498577
TOPIC OF DISCUSSION: CENTRIFUGATION SLIDESHARE.pptxshubhijain836
Centrifugation is a powerful technique used in laboratories to separate components of a heterogeneous mixture based on their density. This process utilizes centrifugal force to rapidly spin samples, causing denser particles to migrate outward more quickly than lighter ones. As a result, distinct layers form within the sample tube, allowing for easy isolation and purification of target substances.
2. Journal of Entomology and Zoology Studies
~ 2493 ~
However, Darwin exploited the Haeckel’ idea. Its evidence is
that Darwin acknowledged that “Professor Haeckel in his
‘Generelle Morphologie’ and in another works has recently
brought his great knowledge and abilities to bear on what he
calls phylogeny, or the lines of descent of all organic beings.
In drawing up the several series, Haeckel trusts chiefly to
embryological characters, but receives aid from homologous
and rudimentary organs, as well as from the successive
periods at which the various forms of life are believed to have
first appeared in our geological formations. He has thus
boldly made a great beginning, and shows us how
classification will in the future be treated [7]
”.
However, there are numerous criticisms about the "Biogenetic
Law”, such as:
1. The enthusiasm of Haeckel, however, led to an erroneous
and unfortunate exaggeration of the information, which
embryology could provide [8]
.
2. The development of vertebrate embryo is based on the
recapitulation of ancestral stages; but it is no longer seems
convincing or even interesting to biologists at all [9]
.
3. Haeckel misstated the evolutionary principle. It is now
firmly established that ontogeny does not recapitulate the
phylogeny [10]
.
4. There is no evidence that entire stages of vertebrates
embryos are recapitulated [11]
.
5. An organism cannot move from adulthood back through
adolescence into childhood, or that a butterfly cannot
move from its adult flying stage back through the pupa
into its larval stage. Such ideas are quite absurd. But how
Haeckel claimed that an organism has to pass through the
stages of its evolutionary history during its development
[12]
.
6. Haeckel was totally dishonest and dangerously naughty
basis for the theory of embryonic recapitulation, and the
fact that it has long since been discredited scientifically, it
is a false idea that human beings retrace their evolutionary
past in the womb [1]
.
7. A natural law can only be established as an induction from
facts. Haeckel was of course unable to do this. Haeckel
altered the illustrations of them to fit his theory. The
`Biogenetic law' as a proof of evolution is valueless [2]
.
Therefore, there is an uncertainty and contradiction about the
“Biogenetic Law”. So, it is necessary to remove this
contradiction for the benefit of biological science. But
reviews of literatures reveal that such type of work is scanty
in the biological world. In addition, literature indicated that
there are many works against the cevidences of Darwin’s
theory such as: the direct evidences (paleontology/ fossils) of
evolution opposite to Darwin’s theory (Ahad) [13]
, the artificial
selection/hybridization is opposite to Darwin’s theory [14]
and
Darwinian classification of plant and animal (taxonomical
evidences) opposite to Darwin’s theory (Ahad) [15]
and also
against many theories of evolution such as invalid
chromosomal speciation theory(Ahad) [16]
and invalid Oparin-
Haldane’s theory (the soup theory) and other theories about
the origin of life(Ahad) [17]
.
But the reviews and literatures indicated that there is no such
type of work. Therefore, the objectives of this article are try to
prove “Embryological evidences opposite to Darwin’s theory:
Invalid Biogenetic law (recapitulation theory) is true or not”.
Science searches which is the truth. Therefore, it is necessary
to work on the above objectives for the benefit of modern
biological sciences.
2. Embryology of plants and echinoderm oppose the
“Biogenetic Law”
Embryology of plant opposes the “Biogenetic Law”.
Therefore, the “Biogenetic Law” has been heavily attacked by
the plant embryologists, such as:
a) The embryology of plants is generally simpler than that of
animals. Hence, the recapitulation principle is not so
exemplified in plants [18]
. In addition, the rather simple
embryonic development of most plants fails to reveal in
many cases of the “Biogenetic Law” with exceptionally,
the seedling of cacti have leave but adult plants have no
leave; the leaves of seedling of Acacia and Eucalptus are
differ from the leaves of adult plants [19]
. But exception is
exception; it could not be an example or evidence of a
theory of evolution, which is the heart of biology.
Therefore, it is documented that embryology of plants
oppose the “Biogenetic Law”.
b) The simple embryology of echinoderms played an
important and beautiful role for the establishment of the
“Biogenetic Law”. But recent study of echinoderm
embryology reveals extensive differences among the
various groups of embryos of echinoderms and these
differences are noticeable to the embryonic adaptations.
So, it is doubt on the echinoderm-chordate relationship, as
the hemichordate larva does not fit into the scheme of
larval relationships [18]
. Therefore, it is claimed that the
clear evidence shows that Haeckel purposefully removed
the limb buds of the echidna embryo from his source and
it also is exploited in his book “Anthropogenie” (5th
ed.)
and in the later editions (such as the 12th
) of “Natürliche
Schöpfungsgeschichte” [20]
. Therefore, it is documented
that the embryology of echinoderm opposes the
“Biogenetic Law.”
3. Haeckel entirely omitted in his drawing the earliest
stages of vertebrate’s embryo, as those stages of embryo
are morphologically very dissimilar
Haeckel entirely omitted in his drawing the earliest stages of
vertebrate’s embryo; as those embryo are morphologically
very dissimilar and the documents are placed here:
1. In 1894, the British zoologist Adam Sedgwick pointed out
that a species is distinct and distinguishable from its allies
from the very earliest stages of embryo and it true for all
through their development; but Haeckel entirely omitted in
his drawing this earliest stages [21]
.
2. In 1987, the Canadian embryologist Richard Ellison
declared that Haeckel entirely omitted in his drawing the
earliest stages of vertebrate’s embryos in which the
various classes of vertebrates embryo are morphologically
very different [22]
.
3. Denton drew attention that it is obvious that neither the
blastula itself, nor the sequence of events which lead to
it’s earliest stages of development. But those are
morphologically very different. The differences become
more striking in the next major phase in embryo’s
gastrulation [23]
.
So, it is proved that Haeckel entirely omitted the earliest
stages of vertebrate’s embryo in his drawing, as those stages
of embryo are morphologically very dissimiliar.
4. Except in fish other vertebrates have never gills slits
The term "Gill slits” (Fig. 2) is used to refer to the folds of
skin in the pharyngeal region in embryos [24]
. The gill slits or
3. Journal of Entomology and Zoology Studies
~ 2494 ~
gill pouches of mammalian embryos, seemed to provide
strongly support the Haeckel’s idea [4]
. The present of gill slits
in vertebrate’s embryos indicated that vertebrate’s embryos
pass through similar stages and also indicated their common
ancestry as each embryo of vertebrate has gill slits and it the
first assumption of “Biogenetic Law” [25]
.
Fig 2: Gill slits (Adapted form Google)
In opposition, except in fish; other vertebrates such as
reptiles, bird and mammals never have gills. Gill slit of
human is actually the formation of the middle ear canal, jaw
and parts of the head and neck. So, there is no way to support
that gill slits can serve as the evidence for the “Biogenetic
Law” as well as common ancestry. The literatures in this
connection are placed here:
1. It is technically correct that humans and other terrestrial
vertebrates do not posses the gills slit [26]
.
2. The human embryos do not have gill slits; those have
pharyngeal pouches. However, in fish, those develop to
gills, but in reptiles, mammals, and birds those develop
into other structures and never develop to gills, even
rudimentary gills [27, 28]
.
3. Haeckel opined that human, salamander and pig embryos
looks same due to the gill slits at the same stage of
development. But those don't so. These are fakes [29]
.
4. Reptiles, bird, and mammals have never gills; in humans,
for example, the clefts disappear and transform into other
parts of the body, including the jaw, the middle ear, and
the larynx. “Gill slits” in amniotes basically of mammals,
birds, and reptiles goes as follows:
a) Pharyngeal structures of amniote embryos never
function as gills and therefore should not be referred to
as “Gill slits”.
b) Whatever resemblance to the gills of aquatic
vertebrates the pharyngeal structures of amniotes has,
it is superficial.
c) Observing the pharyngeal structures of amniote
embryos as being gill-like and calling them gill slits,
despite those not functioning as gills is reading
evolution into development [30]
.
So, it evident that except in fish, the embryos of reptiles,
birds, and human have never possess gill slits or gills; does
not resemble those of fish and frogs. Therefore, there is no
evolutionary relationship among those. Therefore, “Though it
is claimed that gill slits are the evidence of the “Biogenetic
Law” and also the Darwinian Theory [31]
”; but it is never
valid. Thus, the most famous evidence of the “Biogenetic
Law” and the Darwinian Theory is not valid.
5. Haeckel manufactured the pictures about the
similarities of various vertebrate embryos
In 1868, Haeckel advanced the “Biogenetic law”. In 1891, He
provided the drawings about the similarity of vertebrate
embryos (Fig. 1), which is the evidence of “Biogenetic Law”
and convince easily of all kind of scientists and general
people also. But it is astonished that Haeckel manufactured
those pictures and its documents are placed here:
1. Haeckel manufactured the photo about the similarity of
vertebrate embryo [1]
.
2. Rutimeyer declared that Haeckel’s work are considerable
manufacturing of scientific evidence commited [32]
.
3. In 1897, Franz Keibel (professor of anatomy, University
of Strasbourg, France) tried to restore Haeckel's drawings
from his own specimens and concluded that Haeckel had
overstated about the similarity among the various kind of
vertebrate’s embryos in his drawings. Consequently,
Keibel rejected the Haeckel's drawings. However, Keibel
published his conclusion in the first volume of
“Normentafeln zur Entwicklungsgeschichte der
Wirbelthiere” [33]
.
4. Haeckel was unable to give his sources about the photo of
embryological similarities of vertebrate embryos, which
support that Haeckel manufactured the photo about the
similarity of vertebrate’s embryo [11]
. Its document is that
“Haeckel charged with fraud and convicted by the
university court at Jena” [34]
.
5. Richardson and his team compared to the embryos of 50
vertebrates with Haeckel's drawings. The team found that
there are no similar appearances of vertebrate’s embryos
but dissimilar [35]
.
So, it is proved that Haeckel manufactured the pictures about
the similarities of various vertebrate embryos.
6. Haeckel’s Biogenetic Law is faked during Haeckel’s
times, even in Darwin's lifetime
Haeckel's “Biogenetic Law” is faked during Haeckel’s times,
even in Darwin's lifetime and a few documents are place here:
1. Haeckel's theory was faked during Haeckel’s times [36]
.
2. The scientific community during Darwin’s time was
4. Journal of Entomology and Zoology Studies
~ 2495 ~
critical of Haeckel's theory such as Emil Du Bois-
Reymond, Rudolf Virchow, and Louis Agassiz, for
instance—accused him of dishonesty Haekel’s drawing of
embryological similarities of vertebrate embryos [37, 38]
.
3. Haeckel's ‘Biogenetic Law’ was discredited by the
embryologists in Darwin's lifetime [39]
.
4. In 1868, the fraud of Haeckel drawing was exposed only
months following the publication of these engravings by
L. Rütimeyer (Rutimeyer was a well-known German
scientist living at that time), corroborated by other
contemporaries such as the anatomist Wilhelm His Sr.
(1831–1904), who published their own comparisons
showing significant differences. For example, the dog
embryo and the human embryo, shown on page 240 of
Haeckel's book, are completely identical. But not true at
all. So, Haeckel did not faithfully copy the dog embryo
from Bischoff’s (4th week) work. Rutimeyer then
reprinted the original drawing made by Bischoff of the
dog embryo at 4 weeks, and the original of human embryo
at 4 weeks made by Haeckel. Rutimeyer regularly had
articles in each yearly volume of “Archiv fur
Anthropologie”, yet his book review was never translated
into English or published in Britain or in America [40]
.
Above various literatures indicated that Haeckel’s
“Biogenetic Law” is faked during Haeckel’s lifetime, even in
Darwin's lifetime.
7. Tail bud or Later stages of embryo are also differing
morphologically
Observation by the recent research indicated that Haeckel’s
“Biogenetic Law” is fraud and its evidences are placed here:
Richardson and his team collected embryos of 39 various
vertebrates from various part of the world (such as marsupials
from Australia, tree-frogs from Puerto Rico, snakes from
France, and an alligator embryo from England etc.) and the
team observed that vertebrate’s embryos are not similar at all.
Richardson and his team observed that there are many
important differences among the various vertebrate’s
embryos, such as:
1. Differences in body size;
2. Differences in body plan (for example, the presence or
absence of paired limb buds);
3. Changes in the number of units in repeating series such as
the somites and pharyngeal arches;
4. Changes in the pattern of growth of different fields
(allometry);
5. Changes in the timing of development of different fields
(heterochrony). These modifications of embryonic
development are difficult to reconcile with the idea that
most or all vertebrate clades pass through an embryonic
stage that is highly resistant to evolutionary change [35]
.
Moreover, Curtis confimred that “Haeckel was wrong;
embryos do not resemble any mature organism-they
resemble, as we have seen so far, other embryos. To prove
it, Curtis showed that the entire stages of a chick embryos
and a human embryo are greatly differ morphologically
from Haeckel’s drawing’s” [4]
. Therefore, the “Biogenetic
Law” has demonstrated to be wrong by numerous
subsequent scholars [41]
by the experiments of Harrison [42]
and Wilkins [43]
. Besides, Stephen J. Gould’s in his many
articles rejected the Haeckel’s “Biogenetic law” [44-47]
.
Fig 3: Top row: Haeckel’s drawings of several different embryos, showing incredible similarity in their early ‘Tailbud’ stage. Bottom
Row: Richardson’s photographs of how the embryos really look dissimilar at the same stage (From left: Salmon, Hellbender, European pond
terrapin Tortoise, Chicken, Rabbit, Human [35]
.
As a result, the similarity among the embryos of different
vertebrate species is-one of the worst cases of scientific fraud.
It's shocking to find that somebody one thought was a great
scientist was deliberately misleading [29]
.
Thus, it is proved that recent research commented Haeckel’s
“Biogenetic Law” fraud.
8. The conceptual foundation on which the
“Recapitulation Law” is base, which never valid
The second assumption of the “Biogenetic Law” is that
phylogenesis must occur by the addition of new characters to
the end of the normal developmental process [33]
. But new
types are not known to evolve by addition of extra stages to
ancestral adults according to Haeckel. Instead, new evolution
occurs for the most part through developmental divergence; a
new path embryonic or larval development branches away
from some point along a preexisting ancestral path of
development. The best example is evolution by larval
neoteny; the common process by which numerous new groups
are believed to have arisen from the larvae of ancestral
groups. An ancestral larva here does not metamorphose into
the customary adult, but instead develops sex organs
precociously and becomes established in this larval form as a
new type of adult animal. Tunicates (a subphylum of
5. Journal of Entomology and Zoology Studies
~ 2496 ~
chordate) tadpole larvae that develop into sessile adults. It is
now considered most probable that vertebrates represent
neotenous tunicate tadpoles. Numerous other instances of
evolution by neoteny are known. In all these cases the new
developmental path branches away sooner or later along the
course of the old path. The sooner two such paths do diverge,
the more dissimilar will be the two types of resulting adult.
So, most of Haeckel’s views are now largely discredited. It
could be attributed to the lingering influence of Haeckel, not
to Darwin, this erroneous idea of an evolutionary “ladder” or
“scale,” proceeding from “simple amoeba” to “complex
human being,” with more and more rungs added on top of the
ladder as time proceeds. All such notions are invalid; because
Haeckel’s basic thesis is invalid. Indeed, Haeckel's arguments
were shown unsound even in his own day. For example, it
was already well known in Haeckel’s time that, apart from
exceptional forms, the radiate animals do not really have two-
layered bodies but distinctly three-layered ones, with a
mesoderm often highly developed (as in sea anemones, for
example). Two-layered animals in effect do not exist, and a
distinction between diploblastic and triploblastic types cannot
be justified. Thus, the conceptual foundation on which the
“Recapitulation Law” was based was never valid [48]
. In
addition, Lovtrup noted that the Haeckelian form of
recapitulation theory is considered invalid/defunct [49]
. It was
once thought that an organism was assumed to pass through
the stages of its evolutionary history during its development
as an embryo (i.e. phylogeny repeats ontogeny). But this
concept has been thoroughly rejected by the scientists today.
The “Biogenetic law” is broken by the turn of the century;
scientists had discovered many cases that defied Haeckel's so-
called law. His followers tried to cast them as exceptions that
proved the rule [50]
.
9. Numerous biologists rejected the “Biogenetics law” by
using various languages
Numerous biologists rejected the “Biogenetics law” by
various languages and few literatures placed here:
1. Pennisi [3]
published an article in “Science” journal
entitled “Haeckel’s Embryos: Fraud Rediscovered”.
2. Hawkes [29]
designated as Haeckel “An Embryonic Liar”.
3. The “Biogenetic Law” had become scientifically
untenable [51]
.
4. To support recapitulation theory, Haeckel began to fake
evidence [34]
.
5. the “Biogenetic Law” is a mental strait-jacket, which has
had lamentable effects on biological progress[52]
.
6. It is now firmly established that ontogeny does not repeat
the phylogeny [10]
.
7. The so-called “Biogenetics law” is totally wrong [53]
.
8. The basis of the “Biogenetic Law” is demonstrably
unsound [54]
.
9. Haeckel's ideas about the recapitulation theory have been
discredited by any biologists [25]
.
10. Haeckel’s theory is the most infamous examples of
scientific fraud [28]
.
So, it is documented that numerous biologists rejected the
“Biogenetics law” by using various languages.
10. Vertebrate’s embryos are observable but “Biogenetic
Law” is based on three assumptions/believes
Haeckel’s “Biogenetic Law” depends on three assumptions
[25]
.
But it is proved in the entire article that Haeckel’s three
assumptions about the “Biogenetic Law” are not valid.
Therefore, in 1909, Sedgwick mentioned that the “Biogenetic
law” of Haeckel was not based on empirical observation and
that did not fit the evidence [55]
; the crude interpretation of
embryological sequences will not stand close examination [56]
.
Again, “assumption is one kind believe but “Believe is not
science as believe in God is not science [15, 17]
. Thus,
Haeckel’s biogenetic law is not a science i.e. it is invalid.
11. Biology textbooks publisher begun to remove
Haeckel’s drawing and re-write the text
Biology textbooks publisher begun to remove Haeckel’s
drawing and re-write the text and its related literature are
paced here:
Biology textbooks would to reproduced Haeckel’s drawings
about the embryos of vertebrates are highly morphological
similar, reflecting their common ancestry [57]
.
However, biology textbooks publishers begun to remove the
photos those were drawing by Haeckel and start to use the
real photo those are found by various researches and also re-
write the text. For example, Levine and Miller have revised
the drawings and use the real picture of vertebrate embryos in
their biology books, instead of Haeckel’s drawings. They also
have rewritten the text again [58]
. In addition, modern biology
rejects the literal and universal form of Haeckel's drawings
[59]
. So, Haeckel’s drawing finally exorcized from biology text
books in the fifties and was extinct in the twenties century [2]
.
Thus, it is verified that biology textbooks publishers begun to
remove the photos those were drawing by Haeckel and start to
use the real photo those are found by various researches and
also re-write the text.
12. Invalid Haeckel’s evolutionary tree (Phylogenetic
tree/Darwinian tree)
a) Embryological evidence indicated invalid Haeckel’s
phylogenetic tree:
At first evolutionary tree (Phylogenetic tree/Darwinian tree)
was drawn by Haeckel—based on similarity of vertebrates
embryo/recapitulation theory [60]
. He proposed that each
organism as it grows from the one-celled egg to the
multicelled individual passes through all the evolutionary
stages that preceded it—that is, “ontogeny [development]
recapitulates phylogeny,” or, to put it more simply, “each
animal climbs up its family tree” [4]
. Haeckel proposed
the “Biogenetic law” so that researchers could use the stages
of embryological development to help construct
evolutionary/phylogenetic trees [33]
. Furthermore, the
resemblance of early vertebrate embryos is readily explained
without resort to mysterious forces compelling each
individual to reclimb its phylogenetic tree [61]
.
The above statements confirmed that Haeckel’s phylogenetic
tree/Haeckel’s evolutionary tree is constructed based on the
“Biogenetic law”.
But it is proved in this article that invalid Haeckel’s
“Biogenetic law”. So, it could be easily declared that
Haeckel’s evolutionary tree is not valid. In supporting,
Stephen J. Gould declared that the embryo morphologically
recapitulated the evolutionary history of its phylum only [44 &
47]
. So, the evolutionary history can repeat of its phylum level
only.
b) The fossils evidences also indicated that “Invalid Haeckel’s
evolutionary tree”:
Haeckel’s evolutionary tree are also constructed based on the
fossil records. Therefore, it is acknowledged that the actual
6. Journal of Entomology and Zoology Studies
~ 2497 ~
evolutionary history of the primates and man are largely
known from the fossil record [62]
. During the recent years
much emphasis has been placed on the science of phylogeny,
which tries by a study of fossil history [19]
. The ancestry of
living organism may be known from the fossil only [18]
.
So, the above literatures confirmed that phylogenetic is also
constructed based on fossil records [63]
. But the following
literature proved that due to lack of fossil evidence, the
Haeckel’s evolutionary tree can show relationship only at the
level of phyla and its documents are given below:
It is noted that conclusion about common ancestries are not
always valid, because lack of fossil information about their
fossil history [64]
. Absent of fossil of angiosperm, the origin of
angiosperm as looked upon as an abominable mystery by
Darwin and even today poses a knotty problem to modern
student of evolution [65]
. Furthermore, the fossil record
contains a tiny fraction of the species that must have lived in
the past [63]
and offer very little evidences about origins of
major groups of organisms [66]
. Thus, fossil gives a limited
insight in history of many groups [67]
. Consequently, it is
proved that “The direct evidences (paleontology/fossils) of
evolution opposite to Darwin’s theory [13]
”. Consequently, the
fossil record shows just the opposite Haeckel’s evolutionay
tree. As can be seen from the diagram, different groups of
living things emerged suddenly with their different structures.
Some 100 phyla suddenly emerged in the Cambrian Age.
Subsequently, the number of these fell rather than rose
(because some phyla became extinct) [68]
.
The above literature confirmed that “Due to lack of fossil
evidence evolutionary tree can show relationship only at the
level of phyla [63]
”. So, in evolutionary tree the “Twigs,
branches and limbs” (higher taxa i.e. order, family and
genera) are not real but false [69]
. Hence, fossil rejected
Haeckel’s evolutionary tree [68]
.
Thus, both the embryological evidences and the fossils
evidences indicated that invalid Haeckel’s evolutionary tree.
13. Embryological evidences opposite to Darwin’s theory
The following statements proved that embryological
evidences are opposite to Darwin’s theory:
Aware of the problems with the fossil record, Darwin thought
that the best evidence for his theory would come from the
embryology. He believed that early vertebrates embryos are
closely similar, but become, when fully developed, widely
dissimilar. Therefore, Darwin concluded that this was not just
evidence for common ancestry. It was by far the strongest
single class of facts in favor of his theory [28, 37, 70, 71]
. Thus,
Darwin exploited Haeckel’s recapitulation theory as the best
evidence for his theory. But it is seen from the entire article
that Haeckel’s recapitulation theory is not valid.
Consequently, embryological evidences about the common
ancestry are not valid and opposite to Darwin’s theory.
14. Conclusions
Darwin’s theory advocates that all organisms evolve from a
few organisms (that created by the creator). So, those have a
common ancestry. Haeckel’s “Recapitulation theory /
Biogenetic law” also advocates common ancestry. But it is
only based on the embryology. This theory stated that
“Ontogeny” (the development of the organisms/ embryo)
recapitulated the “Phylogeny” (the past evolutionary history).
However, diverse literatures indicated that embryo never
recapitulated the phylogeny. Even many biologists confirm
that invalid “Biogenetic law/Recapitulation theory”. Darwin
used the “Recapitulation theory” as the best and strong
evidence for his theory. So, embryological evidences are
opposite to Darwin’s theory. Again, both the embryology and
the fossil records rejected the “Haeckel’s evolutionary
tree/phylogenetic tree/Darwinian tree”
Ahad [17]
, Castro and Hubner [72]
, Starr and Taggart [69]
, and,
Weisz and Keogh [48]
noted that a theory/law can be
invalidated by new evidence(s). As a result, based on entire
literature of this article; it could be concluded that
“Embryological evidences opposite to Darwin’s theory:
Invalid Biogenetic law (Recapitulation theory)” and Invalid
Haeckel’s phylogenetic tree/Darwinian tree/evolutionary
tree”.
15. Acknowledgement
The author is grateful for the great help of Google for the data
used in this paper. The author is also very thankful to the
writers and the publishers that mentioned in the reference
section for using their information in this article.
16. References
1. Grigg R. Ernst Haeckel: Evangelist for evolution and
apostle of deceit. Creation. 1996; 18(2):33-36.
2. Thompson WR. The Origin of Species, Introduction by
Thompson, W. R. E.P. Dutton and Company, New York,
1956.
3. Pennisi E. Haeckel’s Embryos: Fraud Rediscovered.
Science. 1997; 277(5331):1435-45
4. Curtis H. Biology, 3rd
edn. Wardsworth Publishing Co.,
Inc New York, 1979.
5. Ville CA, Walker WF, Smith FE. General Zoology. W.B.
Saunders Co., Philadelphia, 1968.
6. Cockrum EL, McCauley WJ. Zoology Saunders Student
edn. W. B. Saunders Co. London, 1965.
7. Darwin C. The Descent of Man, and Selection in Relation
to Sex. John Murarry, London, 1882.
8. deBeer GR. An Atlas of Evolution. Nelson, New York,
1964.
9. Waddington CH. Principles of Embryology. George
Allen and Unwin Ltd., London, 1956.
10. Simpson GG, Beck WS. Life: An Introduction to
Biology. Harcourt, Brace and World, Inc. New York,
1965.
11. Richardson M, Keuck G. Haeckel’s ABC of evolution
and development. Biol. Rev. 2002; 77:495-528.
12. Christian JL. Philosophy: An Introduction to the Art of
Wandering, 2nd
edn. Halt, Rinchart and Wiston, 1977.
13. Ahad MA. The direct evidences (paleontology/ fossils) of
evolution opposite to Darwin’s theory and even opposite
to human evolution (descent of man) from the lower
animal like chimpanzee. Am. J. L. Res. Sci. 2015;
3(1):56-76.
14. Ahad MA. Artificial selection/hybridization (the main
force of evolution) opposite to Darwin’s theory and also
opposite to macroevolution through chromosomal
aberration/ chromosomal number mutation. Martinia.
2015a; 6(2):53-67.
15. Ahad MA. Darwinian classification of plant and animal
(taxonomical evidences) opposite to Darwin’s theory J.
Ent. Zool. Stud. 2017; 5(3):06-12.
16. Ahad MA, Ferdous ASM. Impossible of macroevolution
of new species via changing of chromosome number
7. Journal of Entomology and Zoology Studies
~ 2498 ~
mutation and structural mutation (Invalid chromosomal
speciation Theory): Darwin’s Theory and Neo-Darwinian
Theory Oppose it. Martinia. 2015a; 6(2):68-74.
17. Ahad MA, Ferdous ASM. Invalid Oparin-Haldane’s
theory (soup theory) of ‘origin of life’. Martinia. 2016;
7(1):1-19.
18. Dodson EO. Evolution: Process and Product (east-west
student ed). Affiliated East West Press Pvt. Ltd., New,
Delhi, 1960.
19. Sinnott WE, Wilson KS. Botany: Principle and Problems,
6th
edn. McGraw-Hill Book Co., New York, 1963.
20. Niekerk EV. Countering revisionism—part 1: Ernst
Haeckel, fraud is proven. J Creat. 2011; 25(3):89-95.
21. Sedgwick A. On the law of development commonly
known as von Baer’s law; and on the significance of
ancestral rudiments in embryonic development. Q. J.
Microsc. Sci. 1894; 36:35-52.
22. Elinson RP. Change in developmental patterns: Embryos
of amphibians with large eggs. In RA Raff & EC Raff
(eds.). Development as an Evolutionary Process.1987;
8:1-21. Alan R Liss, New York.
23. Denton M. Evolution: A theory Crisis. Bethestda: Adler
& Adler, 1985.
24. Dolce JL, Wilga CD. Evolutionary and Ecological
Relationships of Gill Slit Morphology in Extant Sharks.
Bull. Mus. Com. Zool. 2013; 161(3):79-109.
25. Broyles R. (edited by Cosmato, D.). Ontogeny
Recapitulates Phylogeny: [www.brighthubeducation.com
› Homework Help › Science Homework Help], 2012.
26. Britain T. Haeckel's Embryos - AntiEvolution.org, 2001.
27. Rager G. Human Embryology and the Law of
Biogenesis. Biol. Forum. 1986; 79:451-452.
28. Wells J. Icons of Evolution: Science or Myth? Regnery
Publishing, Washington DC, 2002.
29. Hawkes N. The Times (London), 1997.
30. Coyne J. Are the “gill slits” of vertebrate embryos
a hoax?
[https://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/.../are-the-
gill-slits-of-vertebrate-embryos-a..] Last visited 18/05/18,
2018.
31. Gish DT. Evolution: The Fossils Say No! Creation-Life
Publishers. San Diego, California, 1984.
32. Rutimeyer L. Review of Ernst Haeckel, ''Ueber die
Enstehung und den Stammbaum des
Menschengeschlechts'' und Naturliche
chopfungsgeschichte. Archiv fu ̈r Anthropologie. 1868;
3:301-02.
33. Barnes ME. Ernst Haeckel's Biogenetic Law reddit. The
Embryo Project (PDF), 1866. [
https://embryo.asu.edu/printpdf/6797], 2014.
34. Pitman M. Adam and Evolution (Cosmic Connections),
Revised Version edn. Merops Press, 2016.
35. Richardson M, Hanken J, Gooneratne M, Pieau C,
Paynaud A, Selwood L et al. There is no highly
conserved embryonic state in the vertebrates:
implications for current theories of evolution and
development. Anat. Embryol. 1997; 196:91-106.
36. Fleischmann A. Die Descenddztheoried, 1901.
37. Gould SJ. Ontogeny and Phylogeny. Harvard University
Press, Cambridge, 1977.
38. Richards RJ. Haeckel’s embryos: Fraud not proven. Biol.
Philos. 2009; 24:147-154.
39. Bowler PJ. Evolution: The History of an Idea (Revised
ed.). University of California Press, Berkeley, 1989.
40. Batten D, Catchpoole D, Sarfati J, Wieland C. The
Creation Answers Book. Creation Book Publishers, 2007.
41. Bock WJ. Evolution by Orderly Law. Science. 1969;
164(9):684-685.
42. Harrison RG. Embriology and its relations. Science.
1937; 85:369-374.
43. Wilkins AS. Are there “Kuhnian” revolutions in
Biology? Bio Essays. 1996; 18(9):695-696.
44. Gould SJ. The Panda’s Thumb. Norton, New York, 1980.
45. Gould SJ. The Flamingo’s smile. Norton, New York,
1985.
46. Gould SJ. Wonderful life. Norton, New York, 1989.
47. Gould SJ. The Hedgehog, the Fox and the Magister’s
Pox. Harmony Books, New York, 2003.
48. Weisz PB, Keogh RM. The Since of Biology, 5th
edn.
McGraw-Hill Book Company, New York, 1982.
49. Lovtrup S. On von Baerian and Haeckelian
Recapitulation. Syst. Zool. 1978; 27(3):348-352.
50. Graham K. Biology Pensacola. A Beka Book Publication,
Fladephia, 1986.
51. Gilbert SF. Ernst Haeckel and the Biogenetic Law.
Developmental Biology, 8th edn. Sinauer Associates,
2006.
52. deBeer GR. Darwin's views on the relations between
embryology and evolution. 1958; 44(295):15-23.
53. Blechschmidt E. The Beginnings of Human Life.
Springer-Verlag Inc. 1977.
54. Garstang W. The theory of recapitulation: A critical
restatement of the biogenetic law. J Linn. Soc. (Zool.),
1922; 35:81-101.
55. Seward AC. (editor). Darwin and Modern Science.
Cambridge University Press, 2009.
56. Ehrlich PR, Parnell D. The Process of Evolution.
McGraw–Hill, New York, 1974.
57. Belk C, Maier VB. Biology: Science for Life. Benjamin
Cummings, 2010.
58. Levine J, Miller K. Biology: The Elephant Book. Prentice
Hall, 2000.
59. Medicus G. The Inapplicability of the Biogenetic Rule to
Behavioral Development. Human Dev. 1992; 35(1):1-8.
60. Mayr E, Linsley EG, Usinger RL. Method of Principle of
Systematic Zoology. McGraw Hill Publishing, Inc.,
London, 1953.
61. Ehrlich PR, Holm RW, Ehrlich A. The Process of
Evolution. McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1963.
62. Lull RS. Organic Evolution (Indian Edn.). Seema
Publications, New Delhi, 1976.
63. Purves WK, Orians GH. The Science of Biology, 2nd
ed.
Sinauer Associates Inc. Publishers, Sunderland,
Massachusetts, 1987.
64. Hickman CP. Integrated Principles of Zoology, 4th edn.
The C.V. Mosby Co., Saint Lois, 1970.
65. Shukla P, Mirsa SP. An Introduction to Taxonomy of
Angiosperms. Vikas publishing house Pvt. Ltd, New
Delhi, 1992.
66. Sinha U, Sinha S. Cytogenetics, Plant Breeding and
Evolution. Vikas Publishing House Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi,
1997.
67. Gordon MS. Zoology. Macmillan Publishing Co.,
London, 1976.
8. Journal of Entomology and Zoology Studies
~ 2499 ~
68. Anonymous.[www.darwinismrefuted.com/natural_histor
y_1_02.html].Last visited 21.06.2018, 2018.
69. Starr C, Taggart R. Biology: the Unity and Diversity of
Life, 5th
edn. Wardsworth Publishing Co., Belmonte,
California, 1989.
70. Darwin C. On The Origin of Speices, 2nd edn. John
Murray, London, 1860.
71. Mayr E. The growth of biological thought: Diversity,
evolution, and inheritance. Harvard University Press,
1982.
72. Castro P, Hubner ME. Marine Biology, 2nd
edn. McGraw-
Hill, New York, 1997.