That’s inconvenient if one is arguing for common ancestry of vertebrates.
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, 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. Despite its key role in embryonic development, gastrulation occurs in fundamentally different ways in different classes of vertebrates. The inference against common ancestry becomes progressively stronger as more is discovered about the genetic and molecular mechanisms that implement development. It is increasingly evident that these are of such complexity that it is unrealistic to think that undirected variations (random mutations) could produce constructive changes to development, such as those required to account for a diversification of development from that of a common ancestor, especially while retaining a similar phylotypic stage.Swift D (2022) The diverse early embryonic development of vertebrates and implications regarding their ancestry. BIO-Complexity 2022(1):1–10. doi:10.5048/BIO-C.2022.1
Are we talking Haeckel’s [famous fake] embryos here?
5 Replies to “New paper: Different vertebrate classes arise in “radically diverse ways””
,,, here is a related quote from Michael Denton,
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.”
They are still trying to make the embryological resemblance argument?
Sure, why not? They need to support ‘common descent.’ We’re related to apes and lemurs and fish…
from the abstract:
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 ….
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.