Unfortunately, Haeckel is currently best known from second hands overstated opignions. This is a shame because replaced in context he was a genius. This is unquestionable.
If the Haeckel GUT was "genius" then there can be NO opposition to my own use of cell death notions in biology. I however do not agree that I am either crazy or g. Life is full of warts and I have many of them.
I think that 'Ontogeny recapitulates Phylogeny' is simply wrong. I don't think there is even a case to be made for a 'weak' interpretation that doesn't require completely redefining the word 'recapitulate'.
It is certainly both useful and valid to study the ways in which ontogeny reflects phylogeny, which is what evo-devo tries to do.
I can't discard the whole life-work of E. Haeckel because of one thing is wrong. Get back to the dogmatic Xtian context! His birthday was the same year of the last inquisition burning in Spain.
I had seen Holmes' discussing this a way back but honestly I have never been able to preicate that part of his/her discussion. Is there some reason to relate it to Haeckel? I have nothing against German Science in and of itself.
I had seen Holmes' discussing this a way back but honestly I have never been able to predicate that part of his/her discussion. Is there some reason to relate it to Haeckel? I have nothing against German Science in and of itself.
[This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 04-14-2004]