World Library  
Flag as Inappropriate
Email this Article

Recapitulation theory

 

Recapitulation theory

The theory of recapitulation, also called the biogenetic law or embryological parallelism— often expressed in


  • Of Parts and Wholes: Self-similarity and Synecdoche in Science, Culture and Literature

External links

  • Division of Biology and Medicine, Brown University. "Evolution and Development I: Size and shape". 
  • Haeckel, E (1899). "Riddle of the Universe at the Close of the Nineteenth Century". 
  • Richardson, M. et al. (1997). "There is no highly conserved stage in the vertebrates: implications for current theories of evolution and development". Anatomy and Embryology 196 (2): 91–106.  
  • Borchert. Catherine M. and Zihlman, Adrienne L. (1990) The ontogeny and phylogeny of symbolizing, in Foster and Botscharow (eds) The Life of Symbols
  • Bates, E., with L. Benigni, I. Bretherton, L. Camaioni, & V. Volterra. (1979). The emergence of symbols: Cognition and communication in infancy. New York: Academic Press
  • Wynn, Thomas (1979) The Intelligence of Later Acheulean Hominids, in Man (journal), New Series, Vol. 14, No. 3 (Sep., 1979), pp. 371-391

Further reading

  • Danesi, Marcel (1993). Vico, metaphor, and the origin of language. p. 65. 
  •  

  •  

Sources

  1. ^ Blechschmidt, Erich (1977) The Beginnings of Human Life. Springer-Verlag Inc., pg. 32: "The so-called basic law of biogenetics is wrong. No buts or ifs can mitigate this fact. It is not even a tiny bit correct or correct in a different form, making it valid in a certain percentage. It is totally wrong."
  2. ^ Ehrlich, Paul; Richard Holm; Dennis Parnell (1963) The Process of Evolution. New York: McGraw–Hill, pg. 66: "Its shortcomings have been almost universally pointed out by modern authors, but the idea still has a prominent place in biological mythology. The resemblance of early vertebrate embryos is readily explained without resort to mysterious forces compelling each individual to reclimb its phylogenetic tree."
  3. ^ a b c Scott F Gilbert (2006). "Ernst Haeckel and the Biogenetic Law". Developmental Biology, 8th edition. Sinauer Associates. Retrieved 2008-05-03. Eventually, the Biogenetic Law had become scientifically untenable. 
  4. ^ David G. Payne, Michael J. Wenger (1998) Cognitive Psychology p.352 quotation:
  5. ^ Carneiro, (1981) Robert L. Herbert Spencer as an Anthropologist Journal of Libertarian Studies, vol. 5, 1981, pp. 156–60
  6. ^ a b Kieran Egan, The Educated Mind: How Cognitive Tools Shape Our Understanding., p.27 (University of Chicago Press, 1997, Chicago. ISBN 0-226-19036-6)
  7. ^ Paul Thagard (1992) Conceptual revolutions p.259
  8. ^ Danesi (1993) p.6 quotation:
  9. ^ a b Foster, Mary LeCron (1994). "Symbolism: the foundation of culture". In   quotation:
  10. ^ Medicus (1992) p.2 quotation:
  11. ^ Danesi (1993) p.5
  12. ^ Polskie Towarzystwo Socjologiczne (1986) The Polish sociological bulletin: Números 57–72 p.40 quotation:
  13. ^ a b c Danesi (1993) p.65
  14. ^ Lernout, Geert Finnegans wake, fifty years p.56
  15. ^ Danesi, Marcel (1995) Giambattista Vico and Anglo-American science: philosophy and writing p.217
  16. ^ Mayr (1994) [1] in The Quarterly Review of Biology
  17. ^ Desmond 1989, pp. 52–53, 86–88, 337–340
  18. ^ Richardson and Keuck (2002) "Haeckel’s ABC of evolution and development," p. 516
  19. ^ Richards, Robert J. 2008. The Tragic Sense of Life: Ernst Haeckel and the Struggle Over Evolutionary Thought. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Pp. 136–142
  20. ^ Gerhard Medicus (1992). "The Inapplicability of the Biogenetic Rule to Behavioral Development" (PDF). Human Development 35 (1): 1–8.  
  21. ^ "Making visible embryos: Forgery charges". University of Cambridge. Retrieved August 2011. Rütimeyer’s ex-colleague, Wilhelm His, who had developed a rival, physiological embryology, which looked, not to the evolutionary past, but to bending and folding forces in the present. He now repeated and amplified the charges, and lay enemies used them to discredit the most prominent Darwinist. But Haeckel argued that his figures were schematics, not intended to be exact. They stayed in his books and were widely copied, but still attract controversy today. 
  22. ^ "Wilhelm His, Sr". Embryo Project Encyclopedia. 2007. Retrieved August 2011. In 1874 His published his Über die Bildung des Lachsembryos, an interpretation of vertebrate embryonic development. After this publication His arrived at another interpretation of the development of embryos: the concrescence theory, which claimed that at the beginning of development only the simple form of the head lies in the embryonic disk and that the axial portions of the body emerge only later. 
  23. ^ Lovtrup, S. (1978). On von Baerian and Haeckelian Recapitulation Systematic Zoology, 27(3) pp. 348-352
  24. ^ Kalinka, A. T.; Tomancak, P. (2012). "The evolution of early animal embryos: Conservation or divergence?". Trends in Ecology & Evolution.  
  25. ^ Early Evolution and Development: Ernst Haeckel, Evolution 101, University of California Museum of Paleontology, retrieved 2013-02-20 
  26. ^ Herbert Spencer (1861). Education. p. 5. 
  27. ^ Gould 1977, pp. 144
  28. ^ a b Gould 1977, pp. 156–158
  29. ^ a b Taruskin, Richard (2005). The Oxford History of Western Music 4. New York: Oxford University Press. pp. 358–€“361.  

References

See also

Taruskin also developed a variation of the motto into the pun "ontogeny recapitulates ontology" to refute the concept of "absolute music" advancing the socio-artistic theories of Carl Dalhaus. Ontology is the investigation of what exactly something is, and Taruskin asserts that an art object becomes that which society and succeeding generations made of it. For example, composer Johann Sebastian Bach's St. John Passion, composed in the 1720s, was appropriated by the Nazi regime in the 1930s for propaganda. Taruskin claims the historical development of the Passion (its ontogeny) as a work with an anti-Semitic message does, in fact, inform the work's identity (its ontology), even though that was an unlikely concern of the composer. Music or even an abstract visual artwork can not be truly autonomous ("absolute") because it is defined by its historical and social reception.[29]

More recently, several art historians, most prominently musicologist Richard Taruskin, have applied the term "ontogeny becomes phylogeny" to the process of creating and recasting art history, often to assert a perspective or argument. For example, the peculiar development of the works by modernist composer Arnold Schoenberg (here an "ontogeny") is generalized in many histories into a "phylogeny" – a historical development ("evolution") of Western Music toward atonal styles of which Schoenberg is a representative. Such historiographies of the "collapse of traditional tonality" are faulted by art historians as asserting a rhetorical rather than historical point about tonality's "collapse".[29]

Art criticism

The Austrian pioneer in psychoanalysis, Sigmund Freud, also favored Haeckel's doctrine. He was trained as a biologist under the influence of recapitulation theory at the time of its domination, and retained a Lamarckian outlook with justification from the recapitulation theory.[28] He also distinguished between physical and mental recapitulation, in which the differences would become an essential argument for his theory of neuroses.[28]

Developmental psychologist Jean Piaget favored a weaker version of the formula, according to which ontogeny parallels phylogeny because the two are subject to similar external constraints.[27]

English philosopher Herbert Spencer was one of the most energetic promoters of evolutionary ideas to explain many phenomena. He compactly expressed the basis for a cultural recapitulation theory of education in the following claim, published in 1861, five years before Haeckel first published on the subject:[6] G. Stanley Hall used Haeckel's theories as the basis for his theories of child development.

Although Haeckel's specific form of recapitulation theory is now discredited among biologists, the strong influence it had on social and educational theories of the late 19th century still resonates in the 21st century. Research in the late 20th century confirmed that "both biological evolution and the stages in the child’s cognitive development follow much the same progression of evolutionary stages as that suggested in the archaeological record."[9]

Cognitive development

Influence

"Embryos do reflect the course of evolution, but that course is far more intricate and quirky than Haeckel claimed. Different parts of the same embryo can even evolve in different directions. As a result, the Biogenetic Law was abandoned, and its fall freed scientists to appreciate the full range of embryonic changes that evolution can produce—an appreciation that has yielded spectacular results in recent years as scientists have discovered some of the specific genes that control development."[25]

The Haeckelian form of recapitulation theory is considered defunct.[23] However, embryos do undergo a period where their morphology is strongly shaped by their phylogenetic position, rather than selective pressures.[24]

Modern status

Darwin's view, that early embryonic stages are similar to the same embryonic stage of related species but not to the adult stages of these species, has been confirmed by modern evolutionary developmental biology.

Haeckel's drawings were disputed by Wilhelm His, who had developed a rival theory of embryology.[21] His developed a "causal-mechanical theory" of human embryonic development.[22]

Haeckel produced several embryo drawings that often overemphasized similarities between embryos of related species. The misinformation was propagated through many biology textbooks, and popular knowledge, even today. Modern biology rejects the literal and universal form of Haeckel's theory.[20]

For example, Haeckel proposed that the pharyngeal grooves between the pharyngeal arches in the neck of the human embryo not only roughly resembled gill slits of fish, but directly represented an adult "fishlike" developmental stage, signifying a fishlike ancestor. Embryonic pharyngeal slits, which form in many animals when the thin branchial plates separating pharyngeal pouches and pharyngeal grooves perforate, open the pharynx to the outside. Pharyngeal arches appear in all tetrapod embryos: in mammals, the first pharyngeal arch develops into the lower jaw (Meckel's cartilage), the malleus and the stapes. But these embryonic pharyngeal arches, grooves, pouches, and slits in human embryos can not at any stage carry out the same function as the gills of an adult fish.

Otherwise put, each successive stage in the development of an individual represents one of the adult forms that appeared in its evolutionary history. [3] Haeckel formulated his theory as "Ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny". The notion later became simply known as the recapitulation theory.

Ernst Haeckel attempted to synthesize the ideas of Lamarckism and Goethe's Naturphilosophie with Charles Darwin's concepts. While often seen as rejecting Darwin's theory of branching evolution for a more linear Lamarckian "biogenic law" of progressive evolution, this is not accurate: Haeckel used the Lamarckian picture to describe the ontogenetic and phylogenetic history of individual species, but agreed with Darwin about the branching of all species from one, or a few, original ancestors.[19] Since early in the twentieth century, Haeckel's "biogenetic law" has been refuted on many fronts.[3]

Ernst Haeckel's controversial embryo drawings (this version of the figure is often attributed incorrectly to Haeckel).[18]

Haeckel

The first formal formulation was proposed by Robert Edmond Grant, but was opposed by Karl Ernst von Baer's ideas of divergence, and attacked by Richard Owen in the 1830s.[17]

The idea was reprised in 1720 by Giambattista Vico in his influential Scienza Nuova.[13][14][15] It was first formulated in biology in the 1790s among the German Natural philosophers,[16] after which, Marcel Danesi states, it soon gained the status of a supposed biogenetic law.[13]

The earliest recorded trace of a recapitulation theory is from the Egyptian Pharaoh Psamtik I (664 – 610 BCE), who used it as a hypothesis on the origin of language.[11][12] The concept of recapitulation was first formulated outside the field of biology. It was widely held among traditional theories of the origin of language (glottology), being assumed as a premise that children's use of language gives insights on its origin and evolution.[13]

Origins

Contents

  • Origins 1
  • Haeckel 2
  • Modern status 3
  • Influence 4
    • Cognitive development 4.1
    • Art criticism 4.2
  • See also 5
  • References 6
  • Sources 7
  • Further reading 8
  • External links 9

With different formulations, such ideas have been applied and extended to several fields and areas, including the origin of language, religion, biology, cognition and mental activities,[4] anthropology,[5] education theory[6] and developmental psychology.[7]Recapitulation theory is still considered plausible and is applied by some researchers in fields such as the study of the origin of language,[8] cognitive development,[9] behavioral development in animal species.[10]

[3][2][1]

This article was sourced from Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. World Heritage Encyclopedia content is assembled from numerous content providers, Open Access Publishing, and in compliance with The Fair Access to Science and Technology Research Act (FASTR), Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., Public Library of Science, The Encyclopedia of Life, Open Book Publishers (OBP), PubMed, U.S. National Library of Medicine, National Center for Biotechnology Information, U.S. National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health (NIH), U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, and USA.gov, which sources content from all federal, state, local, tribal, and territorial government publication portals (.gov, .mil, .edu). Funding for USA.gov and content contributors is made possible from the U.S. Congress, E-Government Act of 2002.
 
Crowd sourced content that is contributed to World Heritage Encyclopedia is peer reviewed and edited by our editorial staff to ensure quality scholarly research articles.
 
By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. World Heritage Encyclopedia™ is a registered trademark of the World Public Library Association, a non-profit organization.
 



Copyright © World Library Foundation. All rights reserved. eBooks from World eBook Library are sponsored by the World Library Foundation,
a 501c(4) Member's Support Non-Profit Organization, and is NOT affiliated with any governmental agency or department.