Book review in New Scientist discusses the long-drawn-out “lies” of Ernst Haeckel’s fake embryos

_{Denyse O'Leary

January 22, 2015

Darwinism, Education, Intelligent Design, News}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

Here. A review of Haeckel’s Embryos: Images, Evolution, and Fraud

Fraud?

Shoot. At one time, the Haeckel fakes were just another Darwin sneery (= Sure, he lied, but so what? You people need to be lied to!)

So now it matters that someone is lying, even though his lies support Darwin?:

Haeckel wanted to convince his readers that all vertebrates share a common ancestor, and that, as he put it, “ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny” – our embryonic development repeats our evolutionary past. This aphorism was soon disproved, but the use of Haeckel’s drawings persisted, particularly in education. There were waves of criticism, from the 1870s when the drawings were published, up to 1997 as Haeckel’s “fraud” was rediscovered and exploited by creationists.

Excuse O’Leary for News, but all that the creationists did was point out that the embryos were fraudulent.

And a natural question arises, so what else is fake, if these lies were protected so long?

I remember being preached to about the embryos in the sacrosanct halls of science. Apparently, people had known for decades even then that the embryos were one of biology’s famous fakes.

And Darwin’s followers, from whom you may shortly be hearing below, actually wonder why people don’t believe them?

Why we insist on the right to offer dissenting views?

When counselling women trapped in toxic relationships, I tend to say: Here is a key indicator of sociopathy: He doesn’t see why you should care so much that he lied to you. Chances are, he is lying now. Get OUT of the relationship. And get out now. Look, we could get the police to help you. But it can likely be done much more discreetly and conveniently, which is better for you.

Maybe some wavering Darwin followers need this sort of advice too, especially if they are trying to integrate Darwinism with any traditional morality or philosophy.

See also: Sportscaster to be fired for supporting ID on live TV? If so, Darwin’s followers are raising the stakes. Don’t think you can watch the game in peace any more—not unless you acknowledge their prophet. Gosh, you must care about him a lot, to keep doing that.

Follow UD News at Twitter!

Comments

bornagain77, well before your '15 predictions', we asked whether embryos more closely resemble one another than do their adult forms. The '15 predictions' are not an answer to that question, and you have yet to provide one.Zachriel_{January 25, 2015
January
01
Jan
25
25
2015
06:00 AM
6
06
00
AM
PDT}

Zachriel, since you refuse to address any of my evidence on its merits (for instance you refused to address even one of 15 very well established predictions for Theism), and keep repeating your discredited and weak evidence, (i.e. fraudulent drawings of embryos, and imaginary transitional sequence on paper for which you have no actual empirical evidence as to its plausibility), as if it mattered, I will leave this thread now with the satisfaction of knowing ID has a far stronger empirical position than Atheism/Darwinism does. Thanks for your time and willingness to show others how biased Darwinists can be when confronted with empirical evidence.bornagain77_{January 24, 2015
January
01
Jan
24
24
2015
02:06 PM
2
02
06
PM
PDT}

bornagain77: “if you cherry picked your evidence and squint and don’t look real close at the embryos then what you said may be broadly true” That's not a clear answer. Do embryos more closely resemble one another than do their adult forms? bornagain77: As to your so called ‘prediction’, why does only this very strained prediction, which I don’t buy for a moment Why not? It was specific and certainly not obvious. Imagine predicting the content of rocks from the study of embryos.Zachriel_{January 24, 2015
January
01
Jan
24
24
2015
01:07 PM
1
01
07
PM
PDT}

"So you don’t agree that embryos more closely resemble one another than do their adult forms?" Like I said: “if you cherry picked your evidence and squint and don’t look real close at the embryos then what you said may be broadly true" Do you have a reading comprehension problem? As to your so called 'prediction', why does only this very strained prediction, which I don't buy for a moment, count and all the other much more rigorously established failed predictions of materialism/darwinism don't count?
1. Naturalism/Materialism predicted time-space energy-matter always existed. Whereas Theism predicted time-space energy-matter were created. Big Bang cosmology now strongly indicates that time-space energy-matter had a sudden creation event approximately 14 billion years ago. 2. Naturalism/Materialism predicted that the universe is a self sustaining system that is not dependent on anything else for its continued existence. Theism predicted that God upholds this universe in its continued existence. Breakthroughs in quantum mechanics reveal that this universe is dependent on a ‘non-local’, beyond space and time, cause for its continued existence. 3. Naturalism/Materialism predicted that consciousness is a ‘emergent property’ of material reality and thus should have no particularly special position within material reality. Theism predicts consciousness precedes material reality and therefore, on that presupposition, consciousness should have a ‘special’ position within material reality. Quantum Mechanics reveals that consciousness has a special, even a central, position within material reality. - 4. Naturalism/Materialism predicted the rate at which time passed was constant everywhere in the universe. Theism predicted God is eternal and is outside of time. – Special Relativity has shown that time, as we understand it, is relative and comes to a complete stop at the speed of light. (Psalm 90:4 – 2 Timothy 1:9) - 5. Naturalism/Materialism predicted the universe did not have life in mind and that life was ultimately an accident of time and chance. Theism predicted this universe was purposely created by God with man in mind. Scientists find the universe is exquisitely fine-tuned for carbon-based life to exist in this universe. Moreover it is found, when scrutinizing the details of physics and chemistry, that not only is the universe fine-tuned for carbon based life, but is specifically fine-tuned for life like human life (R. Collins, M. Denton).- 6. Naturalism/Materialism predicted complex life in this universe should be fairly common. Theism predicted the earth is extremely unique in this universe. Statistical analysis of the hundreds of required parameters which enable complex organic life to be possible on earth gives strong indication the earth is extremely unique in this universe (Gonzalez). - 7. Naturalism/Materialism predicted it took a very long time for life to develop on earth. Theism predicted life to appear abruptly on earth after water appeared on earth (Genesis 1:10-11). Geo-chemical evidence from the oldest sedimentary rocks ever found on earth indicates that complex photo-synthetic life has existed on earth as long as water has been on the face of earth. - 8. Naturalism/Materialism predicted the first life to be relatively simple. Theism predicted that God is the source for all life on earth. The simplest life ever found on Earth is far more complex than any machine man has made through concerted effort. (Michael Denton PhD) - 9. Naturalism/Materialism predicted the gradual unfolding of life would (someday) be self-evident in the fossil record. Theism predicted complex and diverse animal life to appear abruptly in the seas in God’s fifth day of creation. The Cambrian Explosion shows a sudden appearance of many different and completely unique fossils within a very short “geologic resolution time” in the Cambrian seas. - 10. Naturalism/Materialism predicted there should be numerous transitional fossils found in the fossil record, Theism predicted sudden appearance and rapid diversity within different kinds found in the fossil record. Fossils are consistently characterized by sudden appearance of a group/kind in the fossil record(disparity), then rapid diversity within that group/kind, and then long term stability and even deterioration of variety within the overall group/kind, and within the specific species of the kind, over long periods of time. Of the few dozen or so fossils claimed as transitional, not one is uncontested as a true example of transition between major animal forms out of millions of collected fossils. - 11. Naturalism/Materialism predicted animal speciation should happen on a somewhat constant basis on earth. Theism predicted man was the last species created on earth – Man (our genus ‘modern homo’ as distinct from the highly controversial ‘early homo’) is the last generally accepted major fossil form to have suddenly appeared in the fossil record. (Tattersall; Luskin)– 12. Naturalism/Materialism predicted much of the DNA code was junk. Theism predicted we are fearfully and wonderfully made – ENCODE research into the DNA has revealed a “biological jungle deeper, denser, and more difficult to penetrate than anyone imagined.”. - 13. Naturalism/Materialism predicted a extremely beneficial and flexible mutation rate for DNA which was ultimately responsible for all the diversity and complexity of life we see on earth. Theism predicted only God created life on earth – The mutation rate to DNA is overwhelmingly detrimental. Detrimental to such a point that it is seriously questioned whether there are any truly beneficial, information building, mutations whatsoever. (M. Behe; JC Sanford) - 14. Naturalism/Materialism predicted morality is subjective and illusory. Theism predicted morality is objective and real. Morality is found to be deeply embedded in the genetic responses of humans. As well, morality is found to be deeply embedded in the structure of the universe. Embedded to the point of eliciting physiological responses in humans before humans become aware of the morally troubling situation and even prior to the event even happening. 15. Naturalism/Materialism predicted that we are merely our material bodies with no transcendent component to our being, and that we die when our material bodies die. Theism predicted that we have minds/souls that are transcendent of our bodies that live past the death of our material bodies. Transcendent, and ‘conserved’, (cannot be created or destroyed), ‘non-local’, (beyond space-time matter-energy), quantum entanglement/information, which is not reducible to matter-energy space-time, is now found in our material bodies on a massive scale (in every DNA and protein molecule).
As you can see when we remove the artificial imposition of the materialistic philosophy (methodological naturalism), from the scientific method, and look carefully at the predictions of both the materialistic philosophy and the Theistic philosophy, side by side, we find the scientific method is very good at pointing us in the direction of Theism as the true explanation. - In fact it is even very good at pointing us to Christianity:
General Relativity, Quantum Mechanics, Entropy & The Shroud Of Turin - (video) http://vimeo.com/34084462
bornagain77_{January 24, 2015
January
01
Jan
24
24
2015
12:35 PM
12
12
35
PM
PDT}

bornagain77: So your OK with fraud and being sloppy with evidence. So you don't agree that embryos more closely resemble one another than do their adult forms? bornagain77: You mammalian middle ear evidence is pathetically weak! As we said, the prediction of the fossil evidence from studies of embryonic development must have been a lucky guess. Again.Zachriel_{January 24, 2015
January
01
Jan
24
24
2015
12:14 PM
12
12
14
PM
PDT}

"if you cherry picked your evidence and squint and don’t look real close at the embryos then what you said may be broadly true "That’s all we wanted to establish" So your OK with fraud and being sloppy with evidence. Thanks for being so honest! You mammalian middle ear evidence is pathetically weak! You certainly have no real evidence showing that such a transition is possible and I have much evidence saying it is not possible!bornagain77_{January 24, 2015
January
01
Jan
24
24
2015
11:41 AM
11
11
41
AM
PDT}

That's interesting, I didn't know that. How does ID explain the formation and degeneration of limb buds in dolphin embryos?Radioaction_{January 24, 2015
January
01
Jan
24
24
2015
11:27 AM
11
11
27
AM
PDT}

bornagain77: As to your claim that ‘embryos more closely resemble one another than do their adult forms’, well, as pointed out before, if you cherry picked your evidence and squint and don’t look real close at the embryos then what you said may be broadly true. Good. That's all we wanted to establish. bornagain77: On the Evolution of the Mammalian Middle Ear – Jonathan M. And yet the prediction was made from studies of embryos decades before the fossils were found, even in the predicated strata. Must be a lucky guess. Again.Zachriel_{January 24, 2015
January
01
Jan
24
24
2015
11:08 AM
11
11
08
AM
PDT}

The fact is that embryos, especially when all embryos are compared, instead of just cherry picked embryos at certain stages are compared, the fact is that those embryos look nothing like what Darwinists falsely conveyed for years. That you would refuse to acknowledge even that minor point of blatant fraud on the Darwinists part reveals more about your deceptiveness, (self deception or otherwise), than it does about the actual evidence. Moreover, as to actual empirical evidence, developmental Gene Regulatory Networks, (dGRNS), which control Embryological development, are shown to be "very different even between humans and chimpanzees" as they are very different with all species, and are also shown to be extremely inflexible to perturbations. i.e. Each species is shown to be unique in its embryological development and not conducive to 'random' Darwinian changes! Those are the empirical facts. There is nothing pleasant about those hard empirical facts for Darwinists. For you to pretend otherwise is nothing sort of denialism bordering on mental illness. As to your claim that 'embryos more closely resemble one another than do their adult forms', well, as pointed out before, if you cherry picked your evidence and squint and don't look real close at the embryos then what you said may be broadly true. But I would challenge your claim on the molecular level when we look closely. For instance, even where species are most similar, in genes, we are now finding profound differences that were not expected on Darwinian presuppositions:
Orphan enzymes could be an unexplored reservoir of new drug targets. - 2006 Excerpt: Despite the immense progress of genomics, and the current availability of several hundreds of thousands of amino acid sequences, greater than 39% of well-defined enzyme activities (as represented by enzyme commission, EC, numbers) are not associated with any sequence. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16580971 Mechanisms and dynamics of orphan gene emergence in insect genomes - January 2013 Excerpt: Orphans are an enigmatic portion of the genome since their origin and function are mostly unknown and they typically make up 10 to 30% of all genes in a genome. http://gbe.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2013/01/24/gbe.evt009.full.pdf+html "However, with the advent of sequencing of full genomes, it became clear that approximately 20–40% of the identified genes could not be associated with a gene family that was known before. Such genes were originally called ‘orphan’ genes" http://ccsb.dfci.harvard.edu/web/export/sites/default/ccsb/publications/papers/2013/Tautz_eLS_2013.pdf
of related note: embryological development depends on information that cannot be reduced to the sequences of DNA as presupposed in neo-Darwinism:
Membrane Patterns Carry Ontogenetic Information That Is Specified Independently of DNA - Jonathan Wells - 2014 Excerpt: Embryo development (ontogeny) depends on developmental gene regulatory networks (dGRNs), but dGRNs depend on pre-existing spatial anisotropies that are defined by early embryonic axes, and those axes are established long before the embryo’s dGRNs are put in place.,,, DNA sequences do not specify the final functional forms of most membrane components. Still less does DNA specify the spatial arrangements of those components. Yet their spatial arrangements carry essential ontogenetic information. The fact that membrane patterns carry ontogenetic information that is not specified by DNA poses a problem for any theory of evolution (such as Neo-Darwinism) that attributes the origin of evolutionary novelties to changes in a genetic program—-whether at the level of DNA sequences or dGRNs. http://bio-complexity.org/ojs/index.php/main/article/view/BIO-C.2014.2
and as you have been shown before, your mammalian middle ear reference is a pathetic joke:
On the Evolution of the Mammalian Middle Ear - Jonathan M. - July 25, 2012 Excerpt: Moreover, Meng et al. (2011) report that Liaconodon's middle ear "differs from that of Yanoconodon.",,, In general, what have been interpreted as ear ossicles in Yanoconodon differ significantly from the middle ear elements of Liaoconodon.,,, Finally, in the absence of a viable materialistic mechanism to account for the transition in question, the supposition that one can slap these different structures down on a table and draw arrows between them seems highly suspect. The methodology is circular -- it assumes that these structures are connected by descent. When one's entire interpretative framework presupposes common ancestry at the outset, it is no wonder that any and every observation is taken as supportive of that paradigm. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/07/on_the_evolutio062511.html ‘Transitional form’ in mammal ear evolution—more cacophony http://creation.com/mammal-ear-evolution
Why must Darwinists always rely on fraudulent drawings and imagination to try to make their case for Darwinism? Why doesn't it bother you that you have no actual, (i.e. REAL), empirical evidence for unguided Darwinian processes producing functional complexity above and beyond that which is already found in life? Why can't you be honest with at least that fact? I'll tell you why, it is because your atheistic bias prevents you from being honest with the evidence!bornagain77_{January 24, 2015
January
01
Jan
24
24
2015
10:56 AM
10
10
56
AM
PDT}

bornagain77: Darwin thought embryos were his ‘strongest class of facts’ and thanked Haeckel for those facts in Origin and subsequently in letters to friends. Modern biologists still consider embryos to be strong evidence for evolution. For instance, studies of the embryonic development of the mammalian middle ear predicted the fossil succession. As for Haeckel, it's obvious he exaggerated the similarities, if you think that's important for whatever reason, but the fact remains that embryos more closely resemble one another than do their adult forms.Zachriel_{January 24, 2015
January
01
Jan
24
24
2015
10:05 AM
10
10
05
AM
PDT}

It was not hard at all. Why is it so hard for you to be honest with the evidence? Darwin thought embryos were his 'strongest class of facts' and thanked Haeckel for those facts in Origin and subsequently in letters to friends. Moreover, Haeckel was then, and is now, shown unquestionably to be a fraud: "On investigating Haeckel’s illustrations technically, it becomes clear just how many things Haeckel distorted in the embryo illustrations. His dishonesty can thus not be denied." http://creation.com/haeckel-fraud-proven That you would try to defend such blatant fraud, instead of distance yourself from it, is clear evidence that you could care less for the truth and only wish to maintain your Darwinian delusion. I invite you to stop embarrassing yourself with such antics and try being honest with yourself for a change.bornagain77_{January 24, 2015
January
01
Jan
24
24
2015
09:50 AM
9
09
50
AM
PDT}

bornagain77: Thus, although his PhD was not directly in embryology as I mistakenly said Not sure why that was so hard, but thank you. bornagain77: moreover Darwin did credit Haeckel in Origin, Yes, but Wells claimed that Darwin thought that the early stages show us the form of the ancestor in its original form, rather than being obscured by intervening evolutionary events, suggesting that Darwin supported Haeckel's biogenetic theory. bornagain77: a child would not be able to tell you the specific names of the different embryos but he could readily see the differences. Wells: A good embryologist can see the differences. The fact remains that the embryos more closely resemble one another than do their adult forms.Zachriel_{January 24, 2015
January
01
Jan
24
24
2015
09:39 AM
9
09
39
AM
PDT}

I wasn't 'exaggerating', apparently he was qualified enough in his PhD to teach embryology at the college level. Moreover he states. "I'm actually trained as an embryologist" Jonathan Wells : 5:00 minute mark Icons of Evolution 10th Anniversary: Haeckel’s (Bogus) Embryos – January 2011 – video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lAC807DAXzY Thus, although his PhD was not directly in embryology as I mistakenly said, he certainly is more than qualified enough in embryology to comment on how badly Darwinists distort the evidence to fit their preconceived bias moreover Darwin did credit Haeckel in Origin, In The Origin of Species, Darwin gave credit to Ernst Haeckel: ",,In drawing up the several series he trusts chiefly to embryological characters"" http://www.darwinthenandnow.com/2009/11/haeckel%E2%80%99s-embryos/bornagain77_{January 24, 2015
January
01
Jan
24
24
2015
09:29 AM
9
09
29
AM
PDT}

Zach, a child would not be able to tell you the specific names of the different embryos but he could readily see the differences. A 'good embryologist' could tell you their exact names. Which was exactly the point Dr. Wells was making. Moreover, instead of trying to insist, against overwhelming evidence for fraud, that embryos look the same, why don't you just cite the overwhelming scientific evidence showing how one species can transform into another??? I'll tell you why you don't cite any actual scientific evidence for 'plasticity'. It is because all the evidence we have says that one species cannot be transformed into another species: When Theory Trumps Observation: Responding to Charles Marshall's Review of Darwin's Doubt -Stephen C. Meyer - October 2, 2013 Excerpt: Developmental gene regulatory networks (dGRN) are control systems. A labile (flexible) dGRN would generate (uncontrolled) variable outputs, precisely the opposite of what a functional control system does. It is telling that although many evolutionary theorists (like Marshall) have speculated about early labile dGRNs, no one has ever described such a network in any functional detail -- and for good reason. No developing animal that biologists have observed exhibits the kind of labile developmental gene regulatory network that the evolution of new body plans requires. Indeed, Eric Davidson, when discussing hypothetical labile dGRNs, acknowledges that we are speculating "where no modern dGRN provides a model" since they "must have differed in fundamental respects from those now being unraveled in our laboratories."8 By ignoring this evidence, Marshall and other defenders of evolutionary theory reverse the epistemological priority of the historical scientific method as pioneered by Charles Lyell, Charles Darwin and others.9 Rather than treating our present experimentally based knowledge as the key to evaluating the plausibility of theories about the past, Marshall uses an evolutionary assumption about what must have happened in the past (transmutation) to justify disregarding experimental observations of what does, and does not, occur in biological systems. The requirements of evolutionary doctrine thus trump our observations about how nature and living organisms actually behave. What we know best from observation takes a back seat to prior beliefs about how life must have arisen. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2013/10/when_theory_tru077391.htmlbornagain77_{January 24, 2015
January
01
Jan
24
24
2015
09:12 AM
9
09
12
AM
PDT}

bornagain77: “After finishing my Berkeley Ph.D. I taught embryology at California State University in Hayward, did post-doctoral research at Berkeley, and worked as the supervisor of a medical laboratory in Fairfield, California.” That doesn't constitute a PhD in embryology. He does have a PhD in molecular and cellular biology. There's no reason to exaggerate his credentials. bornagain77: “So again it is probable, from what we know of the embryos of mammals, birds, fishes, and reptiles, that these animals are the modified descendants of some ancient progenitor.” bornagain77: In The Origin of Species, Darwin wrote, “Thus, as it seems to me, the leading facts in embryology, which are second to none in importance, are explained on the principles of variation in the many descendants from some {one} ancient progenitor” That doesn't support Wells's contention that Darwin subscribed to Haeckel's biogenetic law in 'Origin of Species'.Zachriel_{January 24, 2015
January
01
Jan
24
24
2015
09:10 AM
9
09
10
AM
PDT}

Jonathan Wells: "After finishing my Berkeley Ph.D. I taught embryology at California State University in Hayward, did post-doctoral research at Berkeley, and worked as the supervisor of a medical laboratory in Fairfield, California." http://www.amazon.com/Politically-Incorrect-Darwinism-Intelligent-Design/dp/B005DI99LA Vertebrate Gene Expression and Other Properties Don't Support a "Phylotypic" Stage - Casey Luskin - June 14, 2013 Excerpt: a new article in PLoS Genetics, "The Hourglass and the Early Conservation Models -- Co-Existing Patterns of Developmental Constraints in Vertebrates," shows that,, an analysis of the genome based on Darwinian assumptions fails to confirm many predictions of the "phylotypic" stage. ,,, (as they report),,, "During development, vertebrate embryos pass through a "phylotypic" stage, during which their morphology is most similar between different species. This gave rise to the hourglass model, which predicts the highest developmental constraints during mid-embryogenesis. In the last decade, a large effort has been made to uncover the relation between developmental constraints and the evolution of the genome. Several studies reported gene characteristics that change according to the hourglass model, e.g. sequence conservation, age, or expression. Here, we first show that some of the previous conclusions do not hold out under detailed analysis of the data." (Barbara Piasecka, Pawe? Lichocki, Sebastien Moretti, Sven Bergmann, Marc Robinson-Rechavi, "The Hourglass and the Early Conservation Models -- Co-Existing Patterns of Developmental Constraints in Vertebrates Barbara Piasecka," PLoS Genetics, Vol. 9(4) (April, 2013).),,, http://www.evolutionnews.org/2013/06/vertebrate_gene073171.html Three Flawed Evolutionary Models of Embryological Development and One Correct One - Casey Luskin - 2011 Excerpt: When biologists carefully compare embryological data, they find that there is considerable variability at the purported phylotypic stage, leading increasing numbers of biologists to question whether this pharyngular stage exists. As a paper in Nature said last year: "both the model and the concept of the phylotypic period remain controversial subjects in the literature." PZ generally refuses to address this literature, but it nonetheless calls into question the very concept that defines this model and gives PZ's Pharyngula blog its name. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/07/three_flawed_evolutionary_mode048541.html Haeckel’s Embryos Excerpt: In The Origin of Species, Darwin gave credit to Ernst Haeckel: “Professor Haeckel in his “Generelle Morphologie” and in [other] works has recently brought his great knowledge and abilities to bear on what he calls phylogeny, or the lines of descent of all organic beings. In drawing up the several series he trusts chiefly to embryological characters [to establish evolutionary sequences].” Based on what Darwin thought was scientific evidence concluded: “So again it is probable, from what we know of the embryos of mammals, birds, fishes, and reptiles, that these animals are the modified descendants of some ancient progenitor.” In The Origin of Species, Darwin wrote, “Thus, as it seems to me, the leading facts in embryology, which are second to none in importance, are explained on the principles of variation in the many descendants from some … ancient progenitor” http://www.darwinthenandnow.com/2009/11/haeckel%E2%80%99s-embryos/bornagain77_{January 24, 2015
January
01
Jan
24
24
2015
09:01 AM
9
09
01
AM
PDT}

Wells: A good embryologist can see the differences.
Excellent point. It takes a good embryologist to tell the difference between the embryos, while a child can tell the difference between the adult forms. Wells seems to have made the case quite well. Vertebrate embryos more closely resemble one another than do their adult forms.Zachriel_{January 24, 2015
January
01
Jan
24
24
2015
09:00 AM
9
09
00
AM
PDT}

bornagain77: They look quite dissimilar, especially quite dissimilar to the drawings. They are more dissimilar than the drawings, but much more similar than the adult forms. Haeckel obviously exaggerated the similarities, but the fact remains that the embryos more closely resemble one another than do their adult forms. bornagain77: Moreover, earlier stages than those photographed are more dissimilar still than those photographed thus undermining your Darwinian logic Actually, that was not Darwin's view. The earliest forms are often adapted to specific environments for the eggs. Similarly with the larval form when it becomes "at any period of life active and has to provide for itself". bornagain77: Dr. Wells, who has a PhD degree in embryology Wells's PhD is in molecular and cellular biology. We normally don't bother with videos because it's hard to transcribe for discussion. However, we did begin to watch this one.
Wells: {Darwin} believed and wrote in the 'Origin of Species' embryos in the same class or group are most similar in their early stages and become different only as they develop.
That was the evidence available to Darwin, and it has been confirmed by modern research, remembering that it will be derived when it becomes "at any period of life active and has to provide for itself".
Wells: In fact, {Darwin} thought that the early stages show us the form of the ancestor in its original form.
Where does Darwin say this in 'Origin of Species'? Haeckel proposed his biogentic law after the publication of "Origin of Species", and it was controversial from the start.Zachriel_{January 24, 2015
January
01
Jan
24
24
2015
08:50 AM
8
08
50
AM
PDT}

They look quite dissimilar, especially quite dissimilar to the drawings. Moreover, earlier stages than those photographed are more dissimilar still than those photographed thus undermining your Darwinian logic: Dr. Wells, who has a PhD degree in embryology, explains the blatant cherry picking of evidence by Darwinists to make it fit their pre-desired conclusion in the following video Icons of Evolution 10th Anniversary: Haeckel’s (Bogus) Embryos – January 2011 – video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lAC807DAXzYbornagain77_{January 24, 2015
January
01
Jan
24
24
2015
08:07 AM
8
08
07
AM
PDT}

logically_speaking: This doesn’t really prove anything, it could be a case of similar design. In isolation, no, but when combined with the nested hierarchy and the fossil succession, it provides strong evidence of common descent. For instance, the development of the mammalian middle ear in embryos predicted the fossil succession. logically_speaking: All embyos start off round, then gradually change shape. That doesn't explain why a dolphin embryo has hind limb buds (h). http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/images/dolphin_embryo.jpg bornagain77: Side by side comparison of Haeckel’s drawings to actual photographs From your diagram, the tailbud turtle, chicken, rabbit, and and human look quite similar, including the tailbud, branchial arches, and spine. The others seem to still have their yolk-sacs attached.Zachriel_{January 24, 2015
January
01
Jan
24
24
2015
07:41 AM
7
07
41
AM
PDT}

One piece of evidence that early acting mutations in developmental Gene Regulatory Networks (dGRNs) are ‘always catastrophically bad’ (Eric Davidson) is found in the fact that there are a higher percentage of embryonic miscarriages early in fetal development than later:
Embryo Miscarriage Studies using very sensitive early pregnancy tests have found that 25% of embryos are aborted by the sixth week LMP (since the woman's last menstrual period), even if a woman does not realize it.[9][10] Abortions after the sixth week LMP happen in 8% of pregnancies.[10] The risk of them is "virtually complete by the end of the embryonic period," with a rate of only two percent after 8.5 weeks LMP.[11] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embryo#Miscarriage
In fact, neo-Darwinist John Avise used this fact of the high failure rate of early embryonic development to argue, theologically, against Intelligent Design:
"The Human Genome and Theology" John Avise - (half way down the page) Excerpt: "Fallible Design (,,,a extremely high-rate failure of blastulas to implant in the uterus [greater than 55%, in which the Mother-to-be is unaware of her failed attempt to become pregnant] or undergo spontaneous abortions after implantation [miscarriages in the first trimester, during failed embryogenesis, in which the Mother-to-be coincidentally became aware of her potential pregnancy]);" http://www.grg.org/breakingnews2010.htm
Thus, where Darwinists most need plascticity in the genome to be viable as a theory, (i.e. developmental Gene Regulatory Networks), is the place where mutations are found to be 'always catastrophically bad'. Yet, it is exactly in this area of the genome (i.e. regulatory networks) where 'substantial' differences are found between even supposedly closely related species. Needless to say, this is the exact opposite finding for what Darwinism would have predicted for what should have been found in the genome. Of related note to the 'miracle' of embryological development:
Mathematician Alexander Tsiaras on Human Development: "It's a Mystery, It's Magic, It's Divinity" - March 2012 Excerpt: 'The magic of the mechanisms inside each genetic structure saying exactly where that nerve cell should go, the complexity of these, the mathematical models on how these things are indeed done, are beyond human comprehension. Even though I am a mathematician, I look at this with the marvel of how do these instruction sets not make these mistakes as they build what is us. It's a mystery, it's magic, it's divinity.' http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/03/mathematician_a057741.html HOW BIOLOGISTS LOST SIGHT OF THE MEANING OF LIFE — AND ARE NOW STARING IT IN THE FACE - Stephen L. Talbott - May 2012 Excerpt: “If you think air traffic controllers have a tough job guiding planes into major airports or across a crowded continental airspace, consider the challenge facing a human cell trying to position its proteins”. A given cell, he notes, may make more than 10,000 different proteins, and typically contains more than a billion protein molecules at any one time. “Somehow a cell must get all its proteins to their correct destinations — and equally important, keep these molecules out of the wrong places”. And further: “It’s almost as if every mRNA [an intermediate between a gene and a corresponding protein] coming out of the nucleus knows where it’s going” (Travis 2011),,, Further, the billion protein molecules in a cell are virtually all capable of interacting with each other to one degree or another; they are subject to getting misfolded or “all balled up with one another”; they are critically modified through the attachment or detachment of molecular subunits, often in rapid order and with immediate implications for changing function; they can wind up inside large-capacity “transport vehicles” headed in any number of directions; they can be sidetracked by diverse processes of degradation and recycling . . . and so on without end. Yet the coherence of the whole is maintained. The question is indeed, then, “How does the organism meaningfully dispose of all its molecules, getting them to the right places and into the right interactions?” The same sort of question can be asked of cells, for example in the growing embryo, where literal streams of cells are flowing to their appointed places, differentiating themselves into different types as they go, and adjusting themselves to all sorts of unpredictable perturbations — even to the degree of responding appropriately when a lab technician excises a clump of them from one location in a young embryo and puts them in another, where they may proceed to adapt themselves in an entirely different and proper way to the new environment. It is hard to quibble with the immediate impression that form (which is more idea-like than thing-like) is primary, and the material particulars subsidiary. Two systems biologists, one from the Max Delbrück Center for Molecular Medicine in Germany and one from Harvard Medical School, frame one part of the problem this way: "The human body is formed by trillions of individual cells. These cells work together with remarkable precision, first forming an adult organism out of a single fertilized egg, and then keeping the organism alive and functional for decades. To achieve this precision, one would assume that each individual cell reacts in a reliable, reproducible way to a given input, faithfully executing the required task. However, a growing number of studies investigating cellular processes on the level of single cells revealed large heterogeneity even among genetically identical cells of the same cell type. (Loewer and Lahav 2011)" ,,, And then we hear that all this meaningful activity is, somehow, meaningless or a product of meaninglessness. This, I believe, is the real issue troubling the majority of the American populace when they are asked about their belief in evolution. They see one thing and then are told, more or less directly, that they are really seeing its denial. Yet no one has ever explained to them how you get meaning from meaninglessness — a difficult enough task once you realize that we cannot articulate any knowledge of the world at all except in the language of meaning.,,, http://www.netfuture.org/2012/May1012_184.html#2
Verse and Music:
Psalm 139:15 My frame was not hidden from You, When I was made in secret, And skillfully wrought in the depths of the earth; Morning Has Broken - Third Day http://myktis.com/songs/morning-has-broken/
bornagain77_{January 24, 2015
January
01
Jan
24
24
2015
06:38 AM
6
06
38
AM
PDT}

Another fact from embryology that calls Darwinism into question, besides Haeckel's infamous fudged drawings, is that embryological development is found to be unique for each species:
The mouse is not enough - February 2011 Excerpt: Richard Behringer, who studies mammalian embryogenesis at the MD Anderson Cancer Center in Texas said, “There is no ‘correct’ system. Each species is unique and uses its own tailored mechanisms to achieve development. By only studying one species (eg, the mouse), naive scientists believe that it represents all mammals.” http://www.the-scientist.com/news/display/57986/ A Listener's Guide to the Meyer-Marshall Debate: Focus on the Origin of Information Question -Casey Luskin - December 4, 2013 Excerpt: "There is always an observable consequence if a dGRN (developmental gene regulatory network) subcircuit is interrupted. Since these consequences are always catastrophically bad, flexibility is minimal, and since the subcircuits are all interconnected, the whole network partakes of the quality that there is only one way for things to work. And indeed the embryos of each species develop in only one way." - Eric Davidson http://www.evolutionnews.org/2013/12/a_listeners_gui079811.html Latest Encyclopedia of DNA Elements data enable researchers to compare genome regulation across species Excerpt: Ho and his coauthors also found key differences in the structure of heterochromatin between species.,,, ,,,these data show that “heterochromatin is not the same thing in different organisms, not only in terms of distribution but also in terms of composition.” http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/40891/title/Expanding-ENCODE/ Evolution by Splicing – Comparing gene transcripts from different species reveals surprising splicing diversity. – Ruth Williams – December 20, 2012 Excerpt: A major question in vertebrate evolutionary biology is “how do physical and behavioral differences arise if we have a very similar set of genes to that of the mouse, chicken, or frog?”,,, A commonly discussed mechanism was variable levels of gene expression, but both Blencowe and Chris Burge,,, found that gene expression is relatively conserved among species. On the other hand, the papers show that most alternative splicing events differ widely between even closely related species. “The alternative splicing patterns are very different even between humans and chimpanzees,” said Blencowe.,,, http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view%2FarticleNo%2F33782%2Ftitle%2FEvolution-by-Splicing%2F Podcast - Richard Sternberg PhD - On Human Origins: Is Our Genome Full of Junk DNA? Part 2 (Major Differences in higher level chromosome spatial organization) 5:30 minute mark quote: "Basically the dolphin genome is almost wholly identical to the human genome,, yet no one would argue that bottle-nose dolphins are our sister species" http://www.discovery.org/multimedia/audio/2014/11/on-human-origins-is-our-genome-full-of-junk-dna-pt-2/ "Where (chimps and humans) really differ, and they differ by orders of magnitude, is in the genomic architecture outside the protein coding regions. They are vastly, vastly, different.,, The structural, the organization, the regulatory sequences, the hierarchy for how things are organized and used are vastly different between a chimpanzee and a human being in their genomes." Raymond Bohlin (per Richard Sternberg) - 9:29 minute mark of video https://vimeo.com/106012299 Transcription Factors: More Species-Specific Biology - Cornelius Hunter - October 2011 Excerpt: In fact, the binding sites are often so-called “lineage-specific,” meaning that the transcription factor binds to a section of DNA that is unique to that species. As one writer explained: "Remarkably, many of these RABS [repeat-associated binding sites] were found in lineage-specific repeat elements that are absent in the comparison species, suggesting that large numbers of binding sites arose more recently in evolution and may have rewired the regulatory architecture in embryonic stem cells on a substantial scale." http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2011/10/transcription-factors-more-species.html
The reason why mutations early in embryonic development are 'always catastrophically bad' is clearly explained in the following video and article by Dr. Paul Nelson:
Darwin or Design? - Paul Nelson at Saddleback Church - Nov. 2012 - ontogenetic depth (excellent update) - video Text from one of the Saddleback slides: 1. Animal body plans are built in each generation by a stepwise process, from the fertilized egg to the many cells of the adult. The earliest stages in this process determine what follows. 2. Thus, to change -- that is, to evolve -- any body plan, mutations expressed early in development must occur, be viable, and be stably transmitted to offspring. 3. But such early-acting mutations of global effect are those least likely to be tolerated by the embryo. Losses of structures are the only exception to this otherwise universal generalization about animal development and evolution. Many species will tolerate phenotypic losses if their local (environmental) circumstances are favorable. Hence island or cave fauna often lose (for instance) wings or eyes. http://www.saddleback.com/mc/m/7ece8/ Understanding Ontogenetic Depth, Part II: Natural Selection Is a Harsh Mistress - Paul Nelson - April 7, 2011 http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/04/understanding_ontogenetic_dept_1045581.html
bornagain77_{January 24, 2015
January
01
Jan
24
24
2015
06:37 AM
6
06
37
AM
PDT}

Side by side comparison of Haeckel's drawings to actual photographs http://www.ichthus.info/Evolution/PICS/Haeckel-2.jpg Other embryo photographs by Richardson that make the point that they are VERY DIFFERENT: http://www.ichthus.info/Evolution/PICS/embryo3.jpgbornagain77_{January 24, 2015
January
01
Jan
24
24
2015
04:26 AM
4
04
26
AM
PDT}

Zacheriel, everyone can see for themselves how badly Haeckel fudged the drawings:
Haeckel's Embryos - original fraudulent drawing http://www.darwinthenandnow.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/Haeckels-Embryos-Cropped-II.jpg Actual Embryos – photos (Early compared to Intermediate and Late stages); http://www.ichthus.info/Evolution/PICS/Richardson-embryos.jpg
As anyone can see with their own eyes, that drawing certainly is a blatant misrepresentation of the actual evidence! As I said before, not much seems to have changed since Darwin’s day in terms of Darwinists misrepresenting the actual scientific evidence! (As you yourself constantly try to do Zachriel) Also of note:
Haeckel's Bogus Embryo Drawings - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ecH5SKxL9wk Icons of Evolution 10th Anniversary: Haeckel's (Bogus) Embryos - January 2011 - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lAC807DAXzY
bornagain77_{January 24, 2015
January
01
Jan
24
24
2015
03:44 AM
3
03
44
AM
PDT}

Zachriel says, "The fact remains that vertebrate embryos more closely resemble one another than do their adult forms". This doesn't really prove anything, it could be a case of similar design. However there's a much simpler explanation, it's just shape dynamics. All embyos start off round, then gradually change shape. So embyos will be similar up to a point, how many ways are there to morph a circle into a rectangle? Non of this is evidence of evolution or common decent either way.logically_speaking_{January 24, 2015
January
01
Jan
24
24
2015
12:03 AM
12
12
03
AM
PDT}

Box: What matters of course are those pesky differences that Haeckel and others tried to minimize. The similarities and differences matter. Box: Where does the information come from? Descent with modification.Zachriel_{January 23, 2015
January
01
Jan
23
23
2015
10:13 AM
10
10
13
AM
PDT}

What matters of course are those pesky differences that Haeckel and others tried to minimize. Where does the information come from? Darwinism has no explanation whatsoever. The coming into existence of one single protein is probably already an insurmountable problem.Box_{January 23, 2015
January
01
Jan
23
23
2015
09:37 AM
9
09
37
AM
PDT}

Box: Not because he was a liar for Darwin? The fact remains that vertebrate embryos more closely resemble one another than do their adult forms.Zachriel_{January 23, 2015
January
01
Jan
23
23
2015
09:16 AM
9
09
16
AM
PDT}

Zachriel: Presumably he used schematics to make the similarities easier to see.
Not because he was a liar for Darwin? Just like you?Box_{January 23, 2015
January
01
Jan
23
23
2015
09:13 AM
9
09
13
AM
PDT}

Box: However not near as close as Darwin, Haeckel and you would like. We have no preference. It is what it is. The fact remains that vertebrate embryos more closely resemble one another than do their adult forms. Box: So why did Haeckel fake it? Exaggerate the similarities? Presumably he used schematics to make the similarities easier to see.Zachriel_{January 23, 2015
January
01
Jan
23
23
2015
09:00 AM
9
09
00
AM
PDT}

1 2 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply