stoned monkeys rule the world
It does. It is NOT true that "ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny." But there are numerous facets of embryological development that make no sense except in the light of common ancestry.What we see in developing embryos is a similar pattern of development; one thing developed first, then another thing, then another couple of things, then a bunch of other bits, all in roughly the same order even when compared between different species, we also see features appear that do not exist in the adult form but the embryos have, like limb buds in Dolphins and human tail buds.While it does not prove evolution outright (and the historical method of using it as proof were shown by scientists to be wrong), evolution does explain this well enough that it is not evidence against: These species share a common ancestor, so their developmental processes occur in a similar way, regardless of what other changes have taken place since their divergence.
It was previously thought that the early stages of the human embryo were similar to those found in other types of creatures (Haeckel's diagrams), but it has now been shown that this is not quite conclusive (google "Haeckel diagram fraud"). There is still a lot of research going on in this area, and the data is constantly changing.
Of common ancestry, though ontogeny does not recapitulate phylogeny, ontogeny, development, can create phylogeny.
the stage when an organism finds a similar organism, both of whom have qualities which may meet requirements of survival, and they thrive and procreate and thus pass along to the next generation the survival traits required for evolution.,
Novelty, Entrepreneurial, and Mass Media
The stages of development of the embryos of certain organisms are extremely similar, a fact that suggests the organisms had common ancestors.
Embryological development in animals displays the same set of nested hierarchies that is known from comparative morphology and genetics, and thus evidence for common descent.Nota bene: this adherence to nested hierarchies is not to be confused with the 19th century hypothesis of ontogeny recapitulating phylogeny. Embryos do not go through evolutionary stages during their development, but they dodisplay atavistic developments that are consistent with phylogenies based on other sources.
The study of embryos is called embryology.
By monitoring how and what an embryo grows as it matures, you can see a lot of things that you cannot see in a fully grown animal. For instance, human embryos have a tail at certain stages in development. They also surprisingly have gills at one stage. Two of these pairs of gill slits disapear as the embryo grows, and the final pair move upwards to become your eustacian canals and ears. This shows us that humans once had tails and that hundreds of millions of years ago we also had gills, which means that at some point in our past we were once sea dwelling.Embryology shows that organisms look the same at their earlier stages. This supports evolution. Evolution is the idea that many organisms have a common ancestor, and that is why they have similar traits.The stages of development of the embryos of different organisms are extremely similar, thereby suggesting common ancestors.
Some believe embryos all looking startlingly alike in the early stages of development suggests that organisms had a common ancestor. However, while it is commonly believed that embryos are very much alike in the early stages of their development, this is actually not true, and is based upon drawings produced by evolutionary apologist Ernst Haeckel in the 19th century. For over 60 years this scientific notion has been recognized as a fraud and the theory of 'embryonic recapitulation' (the reliving of evolutionary history in the embryonic stage of organisms) theory has been invalidated. What is surprising is that this discredited theory is still taught and the pictures reproduced in science textbooks down to the present day. In any case, even if embryos were in fact similar, this would not necessarily prove evolution, but could also quite logically be evidence of a common designer, just as the Porsche and the Volkswagen, with their resultant similarities, were both designed by Dr Porsche.
Embryological development in animals displays the same set of nested hierarchies that is known from comparative morphology and genetics, and thus evidence for common descent.Nota bene: this adherence to nested hierarchies is not to be confused with the 19th century hypothesis of ontogeny recapitulating phylogeny. Embryos do not go through evolutionary stages during their development, but they dodisplay atavistic developments that are consistent with phylogenies based on other sources.
It does. It is NOT true that "ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny." But there are numerous facets of embryological development that make no sense except in the light of common ancestry.What we see in developing embryos is a similar pattern of development; one thing developed first, then another thing, then another couple of things, then a bunch of other bits, all in roughly the same order even when compared between different species, we also see features appear that do not exist in the adult form but the embryos have, like limb buds in Dolphins and human tail buds.While it does not prove evolution outright (and the historical method of using it as proof were shown by scientists to be wrong), evolution does explain this well enough that it is not evidence against: These species share a common ancestor, so their developmental processes occur in a similar way, regardless of what other changes have taken place since their divergence.
Embryological development in animals displays the same set of nested hierarchies that is known from comparative morphology and genetics, and thus evidence for common descent.Nota bene: this adherence to nested hierarchies is not to be confused with the 19th century hypothesis of ontogeny recapitulating phylogeny. Embryos do not go through evolutionary stages during their development, but they dodisplay atavistic developments that are consistent with phylogenies based on other sources.
environmental ethics evolution stages
The morphology of embryos at various stages, and even the developmental patterns of embryos, show the same pattern of nested hierarchies that we find in morphology, behaviour and genomes, independently confirming common descent, but also teaching us how morphologies could diverge through relatively minor genetic shuffling.
It was previously thought that the early stages of the human embryo were similar to those found in other types of creatures (Haeckel's diagrams), but it has now been shown that this is not quite conclusive (google "Haeckel diagram fraud"). There is still a lot of research going on in this area, and the data is constantly changing.
There are no stages to evolution. It is a continuous process of adaptation and divergence.