Can it be shown that Ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny?

This little catch-phrase originated with Ernst Haeckl and was debunked by Jonathan Wells (among others) in his recent book Icons of Evolution. It appears that Haeckl fudged his drawings of embryos to make the human embryo appear to resemble animal embryos that he was comparing them to. Some evolutionists still hotly defend Haeckl, or have raised a lot of dust to confuse the issue, while other have (quietly) admitted that his drawings were doctored to support the theory of evolution.

Of course, this phrase has an unexamined premise contained the word "phylogeny", which is that man actually did result from an evolutionary process that began with a single cell and progressed through all the so-called lower animals. If we reject this premise as unproven, then the idea that embryonic development mirrors this evolutionary chain becomes meaningless. What Haeckl did was to ... more.

I cant really gove you an answer,but what I can give you is a way to a solution, that is you have to find the anglde that you relate to or peaks your interest. A good paper is one that people get drawn into because it reaches them ln some way.As for me WW11 to me, I think of the holocaust and the effect it had on the survivors, their families and those who stood by and did nothing until it was too late.