This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. |
Reporting errors |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
removed behaviorial development from fields in which recapitulation theory is seen as plausible. The citation does not match the assertion. The citation is from someone who incorrectly believes that recapitulation theory is plausible in anatomy and then argues that it's *not* correct in behavioral development.
In fact, recapitulation theory is pretty discredited in the field of early childhood development. I'll add some text when I get citations
Roadrunner ( talk) 06:53, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
Elizabeth Royte in her book, The Tapir's Morning Bath, assumes this theory as fact when describing the development of her baby during her pregnancy while on Barro Colorado Island. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.232.150.32 ( talk) 02:27, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
Ernst Haeckel was utterly discredited by Ken Miller of Harvard in 1993. The article should say so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.89.229.157 ( talk) 05:46, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
The article is tagged as being too narrowly focussed on the 19th century biological theory (Haeckel et al), but in fact both the lead and the body of the article seem quite gracefully to discuss both the discredited biological theory and the existence of newer theories in other fields. Any reason not to remove the tag? Chiswick Chap ( talk) 12:59, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Recapitulation theory/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.
The Haeckel drawing used in this article is also referred to on this page: as Romanes's drawings, which are "often attributed incorrectly to Haeckel." |
Last edited at 17:40, 3 February 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 04:01, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
References
The article correctly states that the embryological theory is (long) outdated. But then it goes on to conflate completely unrelated theories just because they also involve the concept of "recapitulation". This is completely irrational. The article needs to make up its mind if it is about embryology, or about the concept of "recapitulation" in general. In any case it cannot use the findings of embryology to argue that any proposal in, say, psychology or linguistics is or isn't valid. The "origins" of the embryological theory do not lie with Psamtik, this is complete nonsense. And if the article wants to discuss glottogony as its main topic, because apparently there lie the "origins" of the idea, then it cannot lead with the statement that a certain embryological theory is false. -- dab (𒁳) 08:16, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. |
Reporting errors |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
removed behaviorial development from fields in which recapitulation theory is seen as plausible. The citation does not match the assertion. The citation is from someone who incorrectly believes that recapitulation theory is plausible in anatomy and then argues that it's *not* correct in behavioral development.
In fact, recapitulation theory is pretty discredited in the field of early childhood development. I'll add some text when I get citations
Roadrunner ( talk) 06:53, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
Elizabeth Royte in her book, The Tapir's Morning Bath, assumes this theory as fact when describing the development of her baby during her pregnancy while on Barro Colorado Island. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.232.150.32 ( talk) 02:27, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
Ernst Haeckel was utterly discredited by Ken Miller of Harvard in 1993. The article should say so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.89.229.157 ( talk) 05:46, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
The article is tagged as being too narrowly focussed on the 19th century biological theory (Haeckel et al), but in fact both the lead and the body of the article seem quite gracefully to discuss both the discredited biological theory and the existence of newer theories in other fields. Any reason not to remove the tag? Chiswick Chap ( talk) 12:59, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Recapitulation theory/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.
The Haeckel drawing used in this article is also referred to on this page: as Romanes's drawings, which are "often attributed incorrectly to Haeckel." |
Last edited at 17:40, 3 February 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 04:01, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
References
The article correctly states that the embryological theory is (long) outdated. But then it goes on to conflate completely unrelated theories just because they also involve the concept of "recapitulation". This is completely irrational. The article needs to make up its mind if it is about embryology, or about the concept of "recapitulation" in general. In any case it cannot use the findings of embryology to argue that any proposal in, say, psychology or linguistics is or isn't valid. The "origins" of the embryological theory do not lie with Psamtik, this is complete nonsense. And if the article wants to discuss glottogony as its main topic, because apparently there lie the "origins" of the idea, then it cannot lead with the statement that a certain embryological theory is false. -- dab (𒁳) 08:16, 16 September 2017 (UTC)