Haeckels' Drawings Part II

The Columbiea Ecyclopedia entry is quite reasonable, and distinguishes Haeckel's ideas from the earlier ideas of Von Baer. You can't sensibly suggest that Von Baer proposed his ideas as a watered down version of Haeckel, when Haeckel's version of the biogentic law was discredited - nor, even, can you reasonably suggest that Von Baer was motivated by a desire to prop up Darwinian theory.And yes the "gill slits" ARE the same basic structure in human and fish embryos and are a legtimate example of Von Baer's version of the "biogenetic law".

The term "gill slits" is misleading and is becoming obsolete. The structure the term refers to remains - and it is the structure that is evidence of evolution, not whatever name is applied to it.

Actually I have my doubtsd about the use of "biogenetic law" to describe Von Baer's ideas. That's one of the reasons I placed quotes around the ter when using it to refer to anything othr than Haeckel's ideas. Otherwise the Columbia entry seems to be basically sound - at least it does distinguish between Haeckel and Von Baer's ideas.

quote:

---

However, PaulK thinks "gill slits" is still a correct description of what is seen in the embryo.

---

You seem to be missing my use of quotation marks. Doubtless my explicit statement that term is misleading and becoming obsolete was posted just too late for you to see it in time. The term "gill slits" is TECHNICALLY correct, but only as a label - not a description. Hence the use of quotation marks as a sign that I do not fully endorse the term.