Fetus' Feet Show Fish, Reptile Vestiges

Discovery News ^ | May 18, 2006 | Jennifer Viegas

[microgood]

It's hard to believe, for example, that a God would use such a vunerable thorax/neck.

It is kind of hard to take your criticisms seriously until you have created your own universe. Personally, I think God did a wonderful job. The beauty and richness of this universe is unbelievable.

[Virginia-American]

So you're saying that there's no "reason" for the nerve to wrap around the heart before ending at the throat?

Exactly.

Picture and diagram

Here's another diagram

[<1/1,000,000th%]

Recycled dog feces.

Finally. Creation science at work.

Next month we'll hear from the creationists that fetuses aren't really human because they're not mentioned in Genesis. Babies are examples of special creation just before their born.

All that weight gain and movement are "just rocks."

[4woodenboats]

Sometimes there's only one solution to a particular scaffolding problem ~ you could conceivably have a line of mammals descended directly from fish without the amphibian/reptile stuff (with some clever use of recombinant DNA technology, of course), and you'd probably end up with a developmental scheme pretty much like the one you see being exercised by mammals today

LOL

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"Didn't say it was."

Then you will agree that this has nothing to do with the recapitulation theory of Haeckel.

[shuckmaster]

Great bookmark. Thanks!

[muawiyah]

So, what do you mean by "this"?

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"So, what do you mean by "this"?"

Eliza, is that you?

I'll take that as an answer to my question.

[VadeRetro]

Four weeks at number one in Australia in 1960, but the world still remembers. I loved that song.

[js1138]

Half right.

[js1138]

Although Haeckel confessed to drawing from memory and was convicted of fraud at the University of Jena, the drawings persist. "That's the real mystery," says Richardson.

Perhaps you would care to outline the errors in Haeckel's drawings. You may use the photographs as a reference. I'm not saying there aren't any errors in Haeckel's drawings. I just bet you can't describe them in any detail. Check out the photographs.

[js1138]

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. :)

Don't. You are responding to a professional troll. He goes from thread to thread and disagrees with the most rational position.

[madprof98]

Perhaps you would care to outline the errors in Haeckel's drawings.

No, I wouldn't care to do anything like that at all. I'm not qualified to do anything like that, though I believe the researcher named in the summary article I posted could do so. It's amazing to me. I noticed this thread and posted a comment (with support) about the historical problems the "ontogency recapitulates phylogeny" idea has encountered, and I get back a barrage of accusation and invective from people who are evidently Evolution Zealots. I have read that Clarence Darrow (pictured so appealingly in "Inherit the Wind") came across the same way. I suspect this sort of humorless fanaticism helps explain why proponents of the teaching of evolution have won so many battles but keep losing the war for the hearts and minds of Americans.

[js1138]

What relevance does a 100 year old controversy, long since resolved, have on the current article?

The fact that you can't describe the errors in Haeckel's drawings, as compared to photograps, indicates the errors are rather small.

Creationists aren't interested at all in the 100 year old scientific dispute. They don't want the drawings displayed because they support common descent. The problem is, that when the drawings are corrected, they still suport common descent.

[Seamoth]

It's obvious they've made up their minds that ontogeny IS Haeckel.

[phantomworker]

Sorry, whenever I hear the word 'platypus', that song comes to mind. It's a real song meme or ear worm. It is a good song though.

Ha! Looking up 'meme'.... it was introduced by Richard Dawkins. LOL! That guy gets around.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meme

[madprof98]

What relevance does a 100 year old controversy, long since resolved, have on the current article?

I answered your question in post #54:

I have no quarrel with the general theory of evolution, but I think it's worth noting that the "ontology recapitulates phylogeny" theory has been supported with a whole lot of wishful thinking as well as willful fraud. I cannot help but wonder if the present "study" has included one or the other.

You know, I'm very sorry I wandered onto your turf. Just keep harassing and ridiculing people who raise the very slightest questions about what you're saying. After a while (a hundred more years, maybe), you'll have browbeaten everyone into submission.

[js1138]

I just want to know why you think bringing up Haeckel is relevant to the current discussion. It strikes me as equivalent to trying to discredit chemistry by bringing up phlogiston.

You aren't going to like the embryo drawings after they are corrected any more than you like the uncorrcted ones.

[shuckmaster]

So, what do you mean by "this"?

Clinton? Is that you?

[balrog666]

Just because they reason like liberals doesn't mean they are all Clintonistas.