Science Disproves Evolution
Pahu
Evolutionists have taught for over a century that as an embryo
develops, it passes through stages that mimic an evolutionary
sequence. In other words, in a few weeks an unborn human repeats
stages that supposedly took millions of years for mankind. A well-
known example of this ridiculous teaching is that embryos of mammals
have “gill slits,” because mammals supposedly evolved from fish. (Yes,
that’s faulty logic.) Embryonic tissues that resemble “gill slits”
have nothing to do with breathing; they are neither gills nor slits.
Instead, those embryonic tissues develop into parts of the face, bones
of the middle ear, and endocrine glands.
Embryologists no longer consider the superficial similarities between
a few embryos and the adult forms of simpler animals as evidence for
evolution (a).
a. “This generalization was originally called the biogenetic law by
Haeckel and is often stated as ‘ontogeny [the development of an
embryo] recapitulates [repeats] phylogeny [evolution].’ This crude
interpretation of embryological sequences will not stand close
examination, however. Its shortcomings have been almost universally
pointed out by modern authors, but the idea still has a prominent
place in biological mythology.” Paul R. Ehrlich and Richard W. Holm,
The Process of Evolution (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1963), p. 66.
“It is now firmly established that ontogeny does not repeat
phylogeny.” George Gaylord Simpson and William S. Beck, Life: An
Introduction to Biology (New York: Harcourt, Brace & World, Inc.,
1965), p. 241.
Hitching, pp. 202–205.
“The enthusiasm of the German zoologist, Ernst Haeckel, however, led
to an erroneous and unfortunate exaggeration of the information which
embryology could provide. This was known as the ‘biogenetic law’ and
claimed that embryology was a recapitulation of evolution, or that
during its embryonic development an animal recapitulated the
evolutionary history of its species.” Gavin R. deBeer, An Atlas of
Evolution (New York: Nelson, 1964), p. 38.
“...the theory of recapitulation has had a great and, while it lasted,
regrettable influence on the progress of embryology.” Gavin R. deBeer,
Embryos and Ancestors, revised edition (London: Oxford University
Press, 1951), p. 10.
“Moreover, the biogenetic law has become so deeply rooted in
biological thought that it cannot be weeded out in spite of its having
been demonstrated to be wrong by numerous subsequent scholars.” Walter
J. Bock, “Evolution by Orderly Law,” Science, Vol. 164, 9 May 1969,
pp. 684–685.
“...we no longer believe we can simply read in the embryonic
development of a species its exact evolutionary history.” Hubert
Frings and Marie Frings, Concepts of Zoology (Toronto: Macmillan
Publishing Co., 1970), p. 267.
“The type of analogical thinking which leads to theories that
development is based on the recapitulation of ancestral stages or the
like no longer seems at all convincing or even interesting to
biologists.” Conrad Hal Waddington, Principles of Embryology (London:
George Allen and Unwin Ltd., 1956), p. 10.
“Surely the biogenetic law is as dead as a doornail.” Keith Stewart
Thomson, “Ontogeny and Phylogeny Recapitulated,” American Scientist,
Vol. 76, May–June 1988, p. 273.
“The biogenetic law—embryologic recapitulation—I think, was debunked
back in the 1920s by embryologists.” David Raup, as taken from page 16
of an approved and verified transcript of a taped interview conducted
by Luther D. Sunderland on 27 July 1979. [See also Luther D.
Sunderland, Darwin’s Enigma (San Diego: Master Book Publishers, 1984),
p. 119.]
“The theory of recapitulation was destroyed in 1921 by Professor
Walter Garstang in a famous paper. Since then no respectable biologist
has ever used the theory of recapitulation, because it was utterly
unsound, created by a Nazi-like preacher named Haeckel.” Ashley
Montagu, as quoted by Sunderland, p. 119.
http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/LifeSciences24.html#wp1009086
Timothy 1:4a
destroyed in 1921 by Professor Walter Garstang in a famous paper. Why
are you discussing a theory created 142 years ago and discredited 87
years ago?
The evidence for evolution, on the other hand, has grown every year.
Thanks to direct DNA evidence, it is now conclusive.
You should read up on retroviruses. These can mark a DNA strand, much
like putting a dent or scratch on your car. If your mom or dad's
reproductive system was marked in this way, and one of those sperms or
eggs becomes you, every cell in your body will have DNA with the same
dent or scratch - including your own eggs and sperm, which can then
pass the ding to your children, to their children, etc., forever.
Chimpanzees and humans have many of the same dents and scratches in
exactly the same places in the same chromosomes. There's too many for
it to be a coincidence - we have common ancestors.
http://evolution-101.blogspot.com/2006_04_01_archive.html
Ben Kaufman
>Ernst Haeckel
Ernst Heinrich Philipp August Haeckel (February 16, 1834 — August 9, 1919),
(from wiki)
Ben
Budikka666
Pahu is a LIAR as I shall demonstrate shortly.
The first thing to note is that despite creationist LIES, no one is
teaching about Haeckel's embryos except to show how wrong Haeckel was
and how science corrects its mistakes, something creationists are
incapable of doing.
Pahu LIED that the "fraud" was continued for a century. It was not.
As this article shows, Haeckel had already been called out on the
accuracy of his drawings within two years of them first being
published!
http://www.antievolution.org/topics/law/ar_hb2548/Haeckels_embryos.htm
In short, Pahu is a vacuous LIAR and a coward, who cannot offer a
shred of evidence for creation, and so has to content his tiny mind
with making up farcical and transparent stories about evolution.
That's how pathetic he is.
Budikka
panam...@hotmail.com
> [Pahu strawman flushed where it belongs]
>
> Pahu is a LIAR as I shall demonstrate shortly.
>
> The first thing to note is that despite creationist LIES, no one is
> teaching about Haeckel's embryos except to show how wrong Haeckel was
> and how science corrects its mistakes, something creationists are
> incapable of doing.
>
> Pahu LIED that the "fraud" was continued for a century. It was not.
> As this article shows, Haeckel had already been called out on the
> accuracy of his drawings within two years of them first being
>
> In short, Pahu is a vacuous LIAR and a coward, who cannot offer a
> shred of evidence for creation, and so has to content his tiny mind
> with making up farcical and transparent stories about evolution.
>
> That's how pathetic he is.
>
> Budikka
"Pahu" IIRC, is Jabriol. Or at least was, last time someone used that
nym.
-Panama Floyd, Atlanta.
aa#2015/Member, Knights of BAAWA!
Mike Painter
>
> http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/LifeSciences24.html#wp1009086
Pahu is an apt name http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pahu
To call him an idiot or lying is a bit misleading. Like the drum somebody
else lays it and the drum has no concept of what it is saying.
Syd M.
Oh, cripes.
Just when you thought he'd taken off, Watchtower troll returns.
PDW
Uncle Vic
>> "Pahu" IIRC, is Jabriol. Or at least was, last time someone used that
>> nym.
>>
>
> Oh, cripes.
> Just when you thought he'd taken off, Watchtower troll returns.
They deny reality at every turn. Nobody lives a life of fantasy as deep as
the JWs.
--
Uncle Vic
aa Atheist #2011
Separator of Church and Reason.
Convicted by Earthquack.
Devils Advocaat
> One fine day in alt.atheism, "Syd M." <pdwrigh...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >> "Pahu" IIRC, is Jabriol. Or at least was, last time someone used that
> >> nym.
>
> > Oh, cripes.
> > Just when you thought he'd taken off, Watchtower troll returns.
>
> They deny reality at every turn. Nobody lives a life of fantasy as deep as
> the JWs.
Just a thought here, but how many of our resident creationists are
comfortable with the JWs?
WangoTango
@e10g2000vbe.googlegroups.com>, budi...@netscape.net says...
Did you also note that most of his citations were almost 100 years old.
I know that these yahoos like to use old outdated books to base their
lives on, but this is SCIENCE. We have added a bit more information to
the mix in the last 100 years, probably more than in the previous 1000.
Ips-Switch
"Uncle Vic" <add...@withheld.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9B93E4E9...@216.196.97.131...
> One fine day in alt.atheism, "Syd M." <pdwri...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>> "Pahu" IIRC, is Jabriol. Or at least was, last time someone used that
>>> nym.
>>>
>>
>> Oh, cripes.
>> Just when you thought he'd taken off, Watchtower troll returns.
>
> They deny reality at every turn. Nobody lives a life of fantasy as deep
> as
> the JWs.
This is true. They're so isolated from society by the Witchtower Babble and
Trickem Sicksiety they can't help but live in a fantasy world.
MiKeno
"WangoTango" <asga...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.23d923624...@newsgroups.bellsouth.net...
>
> Did you also note that most of his citations were almost 100 years old.
> I know that these yahoos like to use old outdated books to base their
> lives on, but this is SCIENCE. We have added a bit more information to
> the mix in the last 100 years, probably more than in the previous 1000.
>
The Watchtower Society doesn't allow them to read anything newer than very
old material. And hand selected scientific material at that.