this post was submitted on 02 Jun 2026
675 points (91.4% liked)

Science Memes

20355 readers
2181 users here now

Welcome to c/science_memes @ Mander.xyz!

A place for majestic STEMLORD peacocking, as well as memes about the realities of working in a lab.



Rules

  1. Don't throw mud. Behave like an intellectual and remember the human.
  2. Keep it rooted (on topic).
  3. No spam.
  4. Infographics welcome, get schooled.

This is a science community. We use the Dawkins definition of meme.



Research Committee

Other Mander Communities

Science and Research

Biology and Life Sciences

Physical Sciences

Humanities and Social Sciences

Practical and Applied Sciences

Memes

Miscellaneous

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Sanctus@anarchist.nexus 67 points 1 day ago (4 children)

I do love the "blank slate mammal" look we all seem to share at this stage.

[–] multifariace@lemmy.world 56 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (3 children)

A just a few less cells and it compares to birds, reptiles and fish.

[–] harambe69@lemmy.dbzer0.com 22 points 1 day ago

We all start off as weird worm-like gilled things, huh

[–] GraniteM@lemmy.world 3 points 1 day ago

Ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny.

[–] turdas@suppo.fi 2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

At what stage are these, uh, stages?

[–] multifariace@lemmy.world 3 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Comparative Anatomy and Embryology - Advanced | CK-12 Foundation https://share.google/7DK4c0mlikYsbvPVy

This website is actually pretty helpful for teaching.

[–] turdas@suppo.fi 11 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Damn, that ended being a bit of a rabbit hole.

The source for this image was Wikimedia Commons which describes them as "Romanes' 1892 copy of Ernst Haeckel's fraudulent embryo drawings."

I hadn't heard of these fraudulent drawings that were seemingly so notorious that describing them as fraudulent needed no further elaboration, so I went on Ernst Haeckel's Wikipedia page which has a longish subsection about these specific drawings. Apparently some... shall we say artistic license, was taken to make the different embryos look more similar to one another, and by modern standards they're useful mostly for getting the idea across but are not completely true to life.

Wikipedia even has an article specifically about embryo drawings. The short of this story seems to be that there was some controversy back in Haeckel's day mostly by people who rejected Darwinism. In the 90s some scientists noticed that these drawings didn't match what they see in the lab and wrote a paper about it. Their paper was hijacked by people who reject Darwinism (i.e. creationist nutsos) and so there was more controversy than the matter probably really deserved.

Finally, I found this article on the website of the National Center for Science Education that defends Haeckel's drawings, comparing them to modern photographs with any egg yolk removed (as the embryos were originally depicted without the yolk, something Haeckel was up front about) to show that they weren't that inaccurate:

[–] multifariace@lemmy.world 1 points 1 day ago

Very interesting, indeed. Thank you for sharing your journey.

[–] samus12345@sh.itjust.works 6 points 1 day ago

"Tube that's lumpy on one side and tapers off on the other"

[–] Kefla@hexbear.net 2 points 1 day ago

Behold: Potential Mammal!

[–] disorderly@lemmy.world 3 points 1 day ago

Yeh it's peak, really goes downhill from there.