"Originally posted by FreeThinker Lurch , Why are Ernst Haeckel 's `` ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny `` embryo drawings , ( which were proven false in the 1880 's ) still in text books ?"
"Usually as examples of errors , do you have a specific example ? From TO Regarding Futuyma 's use of the Haeckel embryo drawings in the 3rd edition of Evolutionary Biology , Wells writes ( p. 109 ) , `` But it was Futuyma who mindlessly recycled Haeckel 's embryos in several editions of his textbook , until a 'creationist ' criticized him for it. `` However , an inspection of Futuyma 's 1st and 2nd editions of Evolutionary Biology reveals that no such drawings were included in these editions . In the first edition , Haeckel 's biogenetic law and the problems with it are discussed on page 153 in respectable fashion ( this corresponds with page 303 in the second edition ) -- and in fact the primary issue surrounding Haeckel in textbooks , which has always been to debunk Haeckel 's `` ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny `` oversimplification , is in fact admirably discussed in all three editions ."
"Why are Ernst Haeckel 's `` ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny `` embryo drawings , ( which were proven false in the 1880 's ) still in text books ?"
"Usually as examples of errors , do you have a specific example ? ``"