New paper: Different vertebrate classes arise in “radically diverse ways”

5 Replies to “New paper: Different vertebrate classes arise in “radically diverse ways””

1. 1
   bornagain77 says:

   July 22, 2022 at 3:06 am

   As to:

   The Diverse Early Embryonic Development of Vertebrates and Implications Regarding Their Ancestry
   David W. Swift – July 21, 2022
   Excerpt: It is well known that the embryonic development of vertebrates from different classes (e.g., fish, reptiles, mammals) pass through a “phylotypic stage” when they look similar, and this apparent homology is widely seen as evidence of their common ancestry. However, despite their morphological similarities, and contrary to evolutionary expectations, the phylotypic stages of different vertebrate classes arise in radically diverse ways. This diversity clearly counters the superficial appearance of homology of the phylotypic stage, and the plain inference is that vertebrates have not evolved from a common vertebrate ancestor. The diversity extends through all stages of early development—including cleavage and formation of the blastula, gastrulation, neurulation, and formation of the gut and extraembryonic membranes. This paper focuses on gastrulation, during which the germ layers originate and the vertebrate body-plan begins to form.
   https://bio-complexity.org/ojs/index.php/main/article/view/BIO-C.2022.1/pdf

   ,,, here is a related quote from Michael Denton,

   “The earliest events leading from the first division of the egg cell to the blastula stage in amphibians, reptiles and mammals are illustrated in figure 5.4. Even to the untrained zoologist it is obvious that neither the blastula itself, nor the sequence of events that lead to its formation, is identical in any of the vertebrate classes shown. The differences become even more striking in the next major phase of embryo formation – gastrulation. This involves a complex sequence of cell movements whereby the cells of the blastula rearrange themselves, eventually resulting in the transformation of the blastula into the intricate folded form of the early embryo, or gastrula, which consists of three basic germ cell layers: the ectoderm, which gives rise to the skin and the nervous system; the mesoderm, which gives rise to muscle and skeletal tissues; and the endoderm, which gives rise to the lining of the alimentary tract as well as to the liver and pancreas.,,, In some ways the egg cell, blastula, and gastrula stages in the different vertebrate classes are so dissimilar that, where it not for the close resemblance in the basic body plan of all adult vertebrates, it seems unlikely that they would have been classed as belonging to the same phylum. There is no question that, because of the great dissimilarity of the early stages of embryogenesis in the different vertebrate classes, organs and structures considered homologous in adult vertebrates cannot be traced back to homologous cells or regions in the earliest stages of embryogenesis. In other words, homologous structures are arrived at by different routes.”
   Michael Denton – Evolution: A Theory in Crisis – pg 145-146

   Besides this rather stunning falsification of Darwinian expectations, it is now also found, via the extension of Godel’s incompleteness into quantum physics, that ‘biological form’ is forever beyond the reductive materialistic explanations of Darwinists.

   And this failure of the reductive materialistic framework of Darwinists to explain biological form, (or any other ‘form’ in the universe for that matter), occurs at a much lower level than the DNA/molecular level.

   Specifically, in the following article entitled ‘Quantum physics problem proved unsolvable: Gödel and Turing enter quantum physics’, which studied the derivation of macroscopic properties from a complete microscopic description, the researchers remark that even a perfect and complete description of the microscopic properties of a material is not enough to predict its macroscopic behaviour.,,, The researchers further commented that their findings challenge the reductionists’ point of view, as the insurmountable difficulty lies precisely in the derivation of macroscopic properties from a microscopic description.”

   Quantum physics problem proved unsolvable: Gödel and Turing enter quantum physics – December 9, 2015
   Excerpt: A mathematical problem underlying fundamental questions in particle and quantum physics is provably unsolvable,,,
   It is the first major problem in physics for which such a fundamental limitation could be proven. The findings are important because they show that even a perfect and complete description of the microscopic properties of a material is not enough to predict its macroscopic behaviour.,,,
   “We knew about the possibility of problems that are undecidable in principle since the works of Turing and Gödel in the 1930s,” added Co-author Professor Michael Wolf from Technical University of Munich. “So far, however, this only concerned the very abstract corners of theoretical computer science and mathematical logic. No one had seriously contemplated this as a possibility right in the heart of theoretical physics before. But our results change this picture. From a more philosophical perspective, they also challenge the reductionists’ point of view, as the insurmountable difficulty lies precisely in the derivation of macroscopic properties from a microscopic description.”
   http://phys.org/news/2015-12-q.....godel.html

   Verse:

   Psalms 139:13
   For You formed my inmost being; You knit me together in my mother’s womb.
2. 2
   kairosfocus says:

   July 22, 2022 at 5:53 am

   They are still trying to make the embryological resemblance argument?
3. 3
   relatd says:

   July 22, 2022 at 10:32 am

   Sure, why not? They need to support ‘common descent.’ We’re related to apes and lemurs and fish…

   https://press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/book/chicago/H/bo18785800.html
4. 4
   martin_r says:

   July 22, 2022 at 11:57 pm

   from the abstract:

   It is well known that the embryonic development of vertebrates from different classes (e.g., fish, reptiles, mammals) pass through a “phylotypic stage” when they look similar ….

   just another example, when people who are not qualified to talk about highly advanced engineering (biologists) make some just-so claims / assumptions / think something.

   I don’t understand, how this could be a proof of common ancestry. Let’s assume that these species were designed from scratch (including their development/self-replication). Could some smart Darwinist name a single reason, why it should not look similar at a certain, very early developmental stage ? HOW ON EARTH COULD DARWINISTS KNOW HOW SUCH COMPLEX SELF-REPLICATING SYSTEMS SHOULD LOOK LIKE AT ANY STAGE ? DARWINIAN BIOLOGISTS NEVER MADE ANYTHING, NOT EVEN A SIMPLE CELL … SO HOW COULD THEY POSSIBLE KNOW ?????? THIS IS A GROTESQUE ….
5. 5
   relatd says:

   July 23, 2022 at 1:16 pm

   Martin_r at 4,

   It’s quite obvious that these things need to be repeated over and over by supposed scientists who need to convince the general public that no one made them and that we were not made by God.