When examining the medical doctrines of previous empires, they reveal the influence of religion, societal attitudes, and the historical context that influenced the scholars that penned them. The advancements during the Islamic Golden age can be seen in the field of medicine, which had the Greco-Roman medical corpus as their foundation and the source of the theory of the four humors and anatomical beliefs. This paper will analyze the effect of cultural, societal, and historical influences on the medical doctrines of Muslim medieval physicians in the Golden Age and the works of the Roman physician Galen, and demonstrate how these effects result in similarities and differences in medical practice and the understanding of disease and anatomy. Due to translation efforts that were supported by religious views on the accumulation of knowledge and the efforts of the Abbasid empire, resultant acceptance of the theory of the four humors and anatomical doctrines is observed in the treatment and perception of disease, which would consist of this paper's focus on surgery, diet therapy and associations with nature. However, with further analysis of the extent of this acceptance and the findings in the Islamic medical doctrines, the differences in experimental methods, religious interpretations, and cultural attitudes shows a deviation from the Galenic tradition, with the second set of the paper's focus being human dissection, cause of disease, and experimentation. The purpose of this research is to demonstrate the impact of religion, societal attitudes, culture and the accepted paradigm on the practice of medicine and the study of anatomy, and what would cause a challenge against the legacy of Galen.

Georges Cuvier, baptized Georges Jean-Leopold Nicolas-Frederic Cuvier, was a professor of anatomy at the National Museum of Natural History in Paris, France, through the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries. Scholars recognize Cuvier as a founder of modern comparative anatomy, and as an important contributor to vertebrate paleontology and geology. Cuvier studied the form and function of animal anatomy, writing four volumes on quadruped fossils and co-writing eleven volumes on the natural history of fish with Achille Valenciennes. Moreover, Cuvier constructed a system of classification based on specific and well-articulated principles to help anatomists classify animal taxa. Cuvier had public debate in 1830 with Etienne Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire, a dispute centered on whether form or function matters most for the study of anatomy and whether the transmutation of organic forms can occur over time. Cuvier's opinions influenced the development of biology in France, and his arguments against transmutation of types influenced the reception of Charles Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection among many French naturalists.

Etienne Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire, commonly known as Geoffroy, studied animals, their anatomy and their embryos, and teratogens at the National Museum of Natural History in Paris, France in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. Geoffroy also helped develop several specialized fields in the life sciences, including experimental embryology. In his efforts to experimentally demonstrate the theory of recapitulation, Geoffroy developed techniques to intervene in the growth of embryos to see whether they would develop into different kinds of organisms. Moreover, Geoffroy emphasized the concept of l'unite de composition (the unity of plan). Geoffroy disputed in 1830 with Georges Cuvier over whether form or function matters most for the study of anatomy and whether the transformation of organic forms can occur over time. Geoffroy's conceptual contributions, as well as his experimental research, influenced embryological research on animal morphology and teratogens, and later the field of evolutionary paleontology.

In 1830, a dispute erupted in the halls of lÕAcad mie des Sciences in Paris between the two most prominent anatomists of the nineteenth century. Georges Cuvier and tienne Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire, once friends and colleagues at the Paris Museum, became arch rivals after this historical episode. Like many important disputes in the history of science, this debate echoes several points of contrasts between the two thinkers. The two French Ânaturalists not only disagreed about what sorts of comparisons between vertebrates were acceptable, but also about which principles ought to underlie a rational system of animal taxonomy and guide the study of animal anatomy. Digging deeper into their differences, their particular disagreements over specific issues within zoology and anatomy culminated in the articulation of two competing and divergent philosophical views on the aims and methods of the life sciences. The emergence of these two distinct positions has had a lasting impact in the development of evolutionary and developmental biology. This essay will provide an overview of the conceptual themes of the debate, its implications for the development of the life sciences, and its role in the history of embryology and developmental biology.