Replies

Ontogeny recapitulating phylogeny is one of those mistaken ideas like that went out like Lamarkism.

Any idea of strict, predictable recapitulation is gone, yes. Still, Evo-Devo lives in the parallelisms of ontogeny and phylogeny.

Amphibians are thought to have arisen come from fish. (In fact, there's a lot of fossil evidence for this.) Baby frogs look like little fish.

Arthropods are thought to have arisen from worms. (There's some scattered fossil evidence for this.) There are many cases of hatchling arthropods (most insects, for instance) resembling worms.

Hatchling horsehoe crabs look like trilobites. Hatchling lampreys look like primitive cephalochordates. Mammalian embryos start out with what looks like a four-part jawbone, but three bones migrate to the ear. That looks an awful lot like a recapitulation of a funny thing in the fossil record where reptilian cynodont therapsid jaws developed a double-joint and the function of the bones beyond the first part seem to have been increasingly coopted for hearing rather than jaw operation. Perhaps you recall that from an earlier thread.

Ontogeny recapitulating phylogeny <<<<< I am glad we agree that strict recapitulation is gone. All that is left is a series of connections that are just as easily construed as evidence for a common Intelligent Designer as for a proposed evolutionary relationship.

The exceptions to Ontogeny recapitulating phylogeny are so numerous as to point to a common designer as the most logical explanation. In other words, sometimes He used the same code, but He but inserted otherwise inexplicable code segments in it that made a new being.

There are many ways to interpret evidence. For example, claiming this study is evidence for the evolution of feathers from scales. Hey, maybe they did, but how does this experiment support the idea????

Any idea of strict, predictable recapitulation is gone, yes. Still, Evo-Devo lives in the parallelisms of ontogeny and phylogeny.

So the premise is false but you guys are going to try to prove it anyway? This is typical of evolutionists, their premise has been shown to be false but they hope to find a few examples amongst millions of species so they can snow job people with them.