Editing Embryo drawing (section)

==Haeckel's proponents (past and present)==
Although Charles Darwin accepted Haeckel's support for natural selection, he was tentative in using Haeckel's ideas in his writings; with regard to embryology, Darwin relied far more on von Baer's work.  Haeckel's work was published in 1866 and 1874, years after Darwin's "The Origin of Species" (1859).

Despite the numerous oppositions, Haeckel has influenced many disciplines in science in his drive to integrate such disciplines of taxonomy and embryology into the Darwinian framework and to investigate phylogenetic reconstruction through his Biogenetic Law.  As well, Haeckel served as a mentor to many important scientists, including [[Anton Dohrn]], [[Richard Hertwig|Richard]] and [[Oscar Hertwig]], [[Wilhelm Roux]], and [[Hans Driesch]].<ref>Richardson, Michael K. and Gerhard Keuck, "Haeckel's ABC of evolution and development," p. 496</ref>

One of Haeckel's earliest proponents was [[Carl Gegenbaur]] at the University of Jena (1865–1873), during which both men were absorbing the impact of Darwin's theory.  The two quickly sought to integrate their knowledge into an evolutionary program.  In determining the relationships between "phylogenetic linkages" and "evolutionary laws of form," both Gegenbaur and Haeckel relied on a method of comparison.<ref>Nyhart, Lynn K., ''Biology Takes Form'', p. 150</ref> As Gegenbaur argued, the task of comparative anatomy lies in explaining the form and organization of the animal body in order to provide evidence for the continuity and evolution of a series of organs in the body.  Haeckel then provided a means of pursuing this aim with his biogenetic law, in which he proposed to compare an individual's various stages of development with its ancestral line.  Although Haeckel stressed comparative embryology and Gegenbaur promoted the comparison of adult structures, both believed that the two methods could work in conjunction to produce the goal of evolutionary morphology.<ref>Nyhart, Lynn K., ''Biology Takes Form'', p. 153</ref>

The philologist and anthropologist, [[Max Müller|Friedrich Müller]], used Haeckel's concepts as a source for his ethnological research, involving the systematic comparison of the folklore, beliefs and practices of different societies.  Müller's work relies specifically on theoretical assumptions that are very similar to Haeckel's and reflects the German practice to maintain strong connections between empirical research and the philosophical framework of science.  Language is particularly important, for it establishes a bridge between natural science and philosophy.<ref>Di Gregorio, Mario A., ''From Here to Eternity: Ernst Haeckel and Scientific Faith'', p. 253</ref> For Haeckel, language specifically represented the concept that all phenomena of human development relate to the laws of biology.<ref>Di Gregorio, Mario A., ''From Here to Eternity: Ernst Haeckel and Scientific Faith'', p. 252</ref> Although Müller did not specifically have an influence in advocating Haeckel's embryo drawings, both shared a common understanding of development from lower to higher forms, for Müller specifically saw humans as the last link in an endless chain of evolutionary development.<ref>Di Gregorio, Mario A., ''From Here to Eternity: Ernst Haeckel and Scientific Faith'', p. 254</ref>

Modern acceptance of Haeckel's Biogenetic Law, despite current rejection of Haeckelian views, finds support in the certain degree of parallelism between ontogeny and phylogeny.  A. M. Khazen, on the one hand, states that "ontogeny is obliged to repeat the main stages of phylogeny."<ref name="Richardson, Michael K p. 501">Richardson, Michael K. and Gerhard Keuck, "Haeckel's ABC of Evolution and Development," p. 501</ref> A. S. Rautian, on the other hand, argues that the reproduction of ancestral patterns of development is a key aspect of certain biological systems.  Dr. Rolf Siewing acknowledges the similarity of embryos in different species, along with the laws of von Baer, but does not believe that one should compare embryos with adult stages of development.<ref name="Richardson, Michael K p. 501"/> According to M. S. Fischer, reconsideration of the Biogenetic Law is possible as a result of two fundamental innovations in biology since Haeckel's time: [[cladistics]] and developmental genetics.<ref>Richardson, Michael K. and Gerhard Keuck, "Haeckel's ABC of Evolution and Development," p. 502</ref>

In defense of Haeckel's embryo drawings, the principal argument is that of "schematisation."<ref name="Richardson, Michael K p. 519">Richardson, Michael K. and Gerhard Keuck, "Haeckel's ABC of Evolution and Development," p. 519</ref> Haeckel's drawings were not intended to be technical and scientific depictions, but rather schematic drawings and reconstructions for a specifically lay audience.<ref name="Richardson, Michael K p. 519"/> Therefore, as R. Gursch argues, Haeckel's embryo drawings should be regarded as "reconstructions."  Although his drawings are open to criticism, his drawings should not be considered falsifications of any sort.  Although modern defense of Haeckel's embryo drawings still considers the inaccuracy of his drawings, charges of fraud are considered unreasonable.  As [[Erland Nordenskiöld]] argues, charges of fraud against Haeckel are unnecessary.  R. Bender ultimately goes so far as to reject His's claims regarding the fabrication of certain stages of development in Haeckel's drawings, arguing that Haeckel's embryo drawings are faithful representations of real stages of embryonic development in comparison to published embryos.<ref>Richardson, Michael K. and Gerhard Keuck, "Haeckel's ABC of Evolution and Development," p. 520</ref>