Recapitulation theory still withstanding test of time?

[probableexist]

recapitulation theory still withstanding test of time??

Do recapitulation theory is still a accepted theory that our entire evolutionary history is repeated during the embryo development?i am not a biologist though i am doing undergrad Engineering just studied this in junior high school and very captivated by this because (i am from India and i am not very religious) I keep hearing this from my grandmother(who is a devout Hindu and absolutely no knowledge of science) that human birth is achieved by the "soul" after so many birth as different kind of species viz. insect,cat,rabbit etc.I think that users who are from India might be aware of this.My question is how can this be?? so much similarity (though approximately).how come a "religion" can come even that close to Science??this just blows my mind off.Need desperately expert & Unbiased opinion on this issue thank you.

 

[Jon Richfield]

Do recapitulation theory is still a accepted theory that our entire evolutionary history is repeated during the embryo development?

PE, I'm sorry to disappoint you, but the answer is no. Even to the extent that recapitulation is seen as in any way meaningful in biology nowadays, it has no meaning in any spiritual or even metaphysical sense. I will not go into details, largely because there is a fine article on the subject at this URL:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recapitulation_theory

If that means nothing to you, then I am afraid that you have a certain amount of reading on evolutionary theory to do. If you find yourself running into a brick wall, then write again and ask for details.

If on the other hand, you do indeed follow the points raised in the paragraphs dealing with the modern significance of recapitulation theory, but do not follow what they have to do with souls and scriptural doctrine, you might find it helpful from the engineering point of view to think of recapitulation as analogous to structuring all devices in a given class of function on a previous design, and every time one adapts that design, one minimises the changes in that design, within constraints that the new design must be functional.

As an analogy remember that the first motor cars were largely based on the designs of horse drawn vehicles, and famously, the story that some of the first motor vehicles even included holders for whips, not because the engine needed a whip, but because vehicles had whip holders; everyone knew that!

As far as I know they did not go so far as to include a whip in the holder, but never mind that. Now, by way of analogy, I can hardly move my years at all, and if I could, I would not need to. It would be an improvement to my "design" if I did not have to have useless muscles for moving my ears, wouldn't it?

Yes it would, but the problem is that the improvement would be too small to affect my selection for fitness in terms of ear muscles, and if I were artificially selected for having no ear muscles, it would have bad effects on my selection for other, more functionally important, attributes. In much the same way, if the jig for making horseless carriages included a whip holder, it might be cheaper not to remove it until it became convenient. Maybe as an intermediate step, we might make the whip holder smaller and more streamlined, unable to hold a whip, but still meeting the standards for vehicle design. at some time in the future, no doubt it would become possible to leave the whole thing out; but for now we soldier on and put up with the whip holder...

It is really a matter of control theory or information theory if you like, and nothing at all to do with whether it is a good idea for me to have erector pili muscles at the bases of the hairs on my legs. What would have been a bad idea would be expensive selection to get rid of such useless muscles or for that matter, useless hairs.

Very unspiritual I am afraid!

Go well,

Jon