Fetus' Feet Show Fish, Reptile Vestiges

Discovery News ^ | May 18, 2006 | Jennifer Viegas

[tongue-tied]

sorry...in my post "bird" should be replaced by "fish". And still....so what? We could actually replace human embryo with marsupial offspring fecal matter...and yet the science seems to be junk.

I never claimed to be smart...so some science/biology guy explain the significance to me, please?

[strategofr]

"The part of the article that is idiotic, and I guess the basis of the "new study," is the attempt to compare fetal development to specific prehistoric fossils. There is no need and no ability to make such a specific comparison."

Thanks. I strongly suspected this. But is the whole premise of the article correct? I'm in my 50s and I remember that when I was a kid this was believed---but I thought it was disproved---but these correlations were found to be coincidental.

[Getready]

Ontogeny recapitulate phylogeny...this concept has been
pretty well ruled out, due to poor research and faked
drawing by Ernest Haeckel in the late 1800's or early
1900's...most embryology textbooks do not say that
"ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny" anymore.
Interesting idea...if a developing human fetus(baby) was
fossilized, would the discoverer(s) think that they had found a half-fish, half human, or 1/4 fish, 1/4 reptile, 1/4
lower reptile, 1/4 human?
Another question would be, is this pattern seen in all
organisms?...for instance, does a bird go through
it's development looking like a reptile, or a dinosaur?
Does a horse look like a protohippus in development?
Does a fish go through a jellyfish embryological phase?

[Ghost of Philip Marlowe]

When I was a baby I looked like Winston Churchill.

I neither grew up to become Winston Churchill nor did I have any of his genes.

[sgtbono2002]

What BS. The appendages of a growing fetus prove nothing except the fact that babies toes and hands need to grow the fetus doesnt come fully formed from the egg stage.

Neither does a chicken. Crack a fertilised chicken egg and you dont see a rooster with its wattles.

Who thinks up this BS?

[Coyoteman]

===> Placemarker <===

[strategofr]

"There were famous illustrations in all the school biology textbooks for many years, showing this kind of fetal development. Most of us probably used one of those textbooks when we were children. They have long been proven to be complete lies."

Thanks. That's what I thought.

[Cvengr]

I just knew I evolved from a trombone!

[js1138]

Those interested in the subject might try their hand at figuring out what species these are.

[Zeroisanumber]

This is something that Darwin himself noticed. It's one of the more interesting tidbits that I learned in Biology 101.

[Old_Mil]

Ontogenic recapitulation is an old theory which has been thoroughly discredited. Of course, that doesn't mean that evolutionary "scientists" are actually going to stop using such a useful fairy tale.

[LoneRangerMassachusetts]

This nonsense was exposed for the lie it is a long time ago.

By whom?

[SampleMan]

Actually, if you look at a human embryo the head is huge and the body spindly. This is obvious proof that we evolved from space aliens. What other possible explanation could there be? Fish heads aren't huge. Reptilian heads aren't huge. No, it is an obvious connection to large headed, saucer eyed, aliens.

[Maynerd]

LOL. "Republican Party Reptile" is a great book and a must read. PJ O'Rouke at his best.

[tongue-tied]

LOL...okay. For some reason I posted to this thread. I needed a tagline?

[Seamoth]

HAECKEL WAS A FRAUD! </sarcasm>

Seriously...

Ontogeny (embryonic development) does not recapture phylogeny (evolution), and thus Haeckel was wrong to say so, and of course, he was wrong to alter these drawings...

However, like anatomy, ontogeny does follow a remarkable progression when you move from species to species in the evolutionary chain.

First, the more similar two species are, and the closer they are in evolutionary history, the more similar their respective ontogeny will be. In most cases, the development of the embryos will be very similar till they diverge at some point in the process.

Second, the more similar two species are, the further to the extent that they can be crossbred:

1. Will voluntarily mate and produce fertile offspring;
2. Will produce fertile offspring, but will not usually voluntarily mate;
3. Will produce infertile offspring;
4. Can copulate but pregnancy will result in spotaneous abortion;
5. Fertilization cannot happen at all.

Haeckel was saying that at some point a baby will turn into a reptile, then a bird, and so on. That, of course, is wrong. But, it is also true that ontogeny has remarkable "leftovers" and insights into our evolutionary history, and this article is one example.

[editor-surveyor]

<"Who thinks up this BS?"

Panicking darwinist mind control freaks, alarmed at the fact that more and more people are seeing through the evo-bunk.

[proudmilitarymrs]

Yeah, and when I was a kid, my brothers said I looked like a toad! This means about as much................

[SampleMan]

Let me guess, they are all animals that have heads, bodies, and appendages.

Care to look at 5 day old tree sprouts and guess species?

[VadeRetro]

The scientists also studied fossils of osteolepiform fish, which appear to be half fish and half reptilian.

They mean half fish and half amphibian, of course.