Most people have heard of or been taught the idea that the human embryo goes through (or recapitulates) various evolutionary stages, such as having gills like a fish, a tail like a monkey, etc., during the first few months that it develops in the womb.
The idea has not only been presented to generations of biology/medical students as fact, but has also been used for many years to persuasively justify abortion. Abortionists claimed that the unborn child being killed was still in the fish stage or the monkey stage, and had not yet become a human being. Ernst Haeckel has since been discredited as will be discussed later, but his initial drawings and ideas are still being taught in the textbooks 50 years later.
And yet this drawing is still being used in high school anatomy classes around the country. It purports to show a human embryo, that according to the prevailing evolutionarytheory, passes through various stages. In each of these stages of development, our growing human embryo ‘revisits’ our evolutionary past. Thus, when a microscope slide is made of an early human embryo, we discover a sort of visual history of our evolutionary past:
They label it as the “human embryo” and the three vestigial elements that are left over from our evolutionary upgrade from pterodactyl to teacher over millions of years. In certain stages of our development, allegedly we had gill slits which are evidence of our evolutionary fish past. Also the ever present yolk sac which is evidence of our evolution from birds (every egg that you have cracked open has a yoke sac- right). And of course we ‘see’ evidence of the vestigial tail, which is ‘proof positive’ evidence of our monkey past. This fallacious concept was given the name ‘Ontogeny Recapitulates Phylogeny’. This evidence is believed to be virtually conclusive of the validity of evolution, or so most of us were taught and thus believed in order to get a passing grade (well, I knew a lot who believed it but didn’t pass the class- so I guess that was a cheap shot).
So what is the truth? Well for the past 50 years, the actual truth has not been presented in the high school text books. If you took an embryology class in college- and how many students actually do that- you would have been taught something entirely different. The following picture should be used instead.
The yolk sac (which is a misnomer) has nothing to do with yolk. During embryonic development, this organ is the primary route of exchange between the embryo and the mother. The yolk sac also provides nutritional, immunologic, metabolic, endocrine, and hematopoietic functions until the placental circulation is established through the umbilical cord. Extensive first-trimester sonographic examinations have not yet proven that the so called ‘yolk sac’ develops into the umbilical cord but research is continuing.
Let’s look at the alleged gill slits. Gills are used by fish to transfer carbon dioxide into the water and remove oxygen from the water. Gills are filled with blood vessels. On the growing human embryo we do see what appear to be little slits. They are actually pharyngeal pouches which are simply layers of outer skin tissue that fold inward to form glands in the neck and the middle ear canals. That means that since no opening ever forms, they are not even ‘slits’, let alone ‘gill slits’.
How about the vestigial tail of the human embryo is not a tail at all. The vertebrae (spinal bones) grow ahead of the legs to facilitate proper muscle attachment. As the embryo develops, the legs will eventually assume their proper position, removing any semblance of a tail.
The whole concept of the gill slits was, outrageously, never a fact! It was a false idea set forth to prove evolution. It never had any true science behind it. It never had any true science behind it. Over the years I have begun to wonder, what else have I been taught as absolute proof of evolution that will turn out to be, at worst, a hoax or, at best, a serious mistake? And that is the purpose of my blogs to explore the information and seek the truth.
I have come to realize since that much of today’s apparent contradiction between science and the Bible will be intentionally forgotten tomorrow as it turns out to be in error. It will be replaced quietly with the newest and latest ‘proof’. That, in turn, will soon be replaced with something else that is new and astonishing, flashing boldly across the headlines. All the while the Bible remains quietly, persistently presenting its message. No changes will be necessary.