Jump to content


Photo

What Can We Agree On Part 2 - Embryology


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
22 replies to this topic

#1 PhilC

PhilC

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 632 posts
  • Age: 42
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • UK

Posted 17 June 2010 - 08:58 AM

Even more controversial than geology, causing more arguments than the fossil record. Is there any evidence behind those evolutionist claims?

Once again, I will drop any pretence of being an evolutionist. I will present the evidence without any explanation of it. Each one of these things is either true or false independantly of what you use to explain them later.

1. A human embryo at four weeks old is indistinguishable from a fish embryo.
2. There are some pouches in the neck of both.
3. The anterior pouch in fish forms a piece of cartilage which is known as meckels cartilage which forms part of the jaw.
4. The anterior pouch in humans also forms a piece of cartilage which eventually disappears apart from two ossified pieces in the ear which are the incus and malleus.

You can see that I have not attempted to explain any of these but have presented observable pieces of evidence.

No assumptions are required at all to decide whether the above is true or not. Please, do not tell me that evolution cannot explain these things as I don’t care. Don’t tell me that Haeckel has been discredited, I already know. Have I used Haeckel here? No. I have only presented four pieces of evidence that are observable and empirical.

#2 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,000 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 17 June 2010 - 10:40 AM

Even more controversial than geology, causing more arguments than the fossil record.  Is there any evidence behind those evolutionist claims?

Once again, I will drop any pretence of being an evolutionist.  I will present the evidence without any explanation of it.  Each one of these things is either true or false independantly of what you use to explain them later.

1. A human embryo at four weeks old is indistinguishable from a fish embryo.
2. There are some pouches in the neck of both.
3. The anterior pouch in fish forms a piece of cartilage which is known as meckels cartilage which forms part of the jaw.
4. The anterior pouch in humans also forms a piece of cartilage which eventually disappears apart from two ossified pieces in the ear which are the incus and malleus.

You can see that I have not attempted to explain any of these but have presented observable pieces of evidence.

No assumptions are required at all to decide whether the above is true or not.  Please, do not tell me that evolution cannot explain these things as I don’t care.  Don’t tell me that Haeckel has been discredited, I already know.  Have I used Haeckel here? No.  I have only presented four pieces of evidence that are observable and empirical.

View Post


Yet these are allong the same line as Haeckel. Wasn't Haeckle convicted of fraud? Why even bring this up when the courts of law have already made a decision on this?

#3 PhilC

PhilC

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 632 posts
  • Age: 42
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • UK

Posted 17 June 2010 - 12:41 PM

Yet these are allong the same line as Haeckel. Wasn't Haeckle convicted of fraud? Why even bring this up when the courts of law have already made a decision on this?

View Post


First post, straight to Haeckel! There are many other people that have worked on embryology, one notable person is Von Baer, but the only person creationists ever mention is Haeckel.

There is one huge difference between what Haeckel says and what I saay and that is that Haeckel tried to explain some of these details, I am not.

The details I have put are either true or false and can be confirmed by empirical study.

#4 Cassiterides

Cassiterides

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 631 posts
  • Age: 20
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • uk

Posted 17 June 2010 - 01:38 PM

Even more controversial than geology, causing more arguments than the fossil record.  Is there any evidence behind those evolutionist claims?

Once again, I will drop any pretence of being an evolutionist.  I will present the evidence without any explanation of it.  Each one of these things is either true or false independantly of what you use to explain them later.

1. A human embryo at four weeks old is indistinguishable from a fish embryo.
2. There are some pouches in the neck of both.
3. The anterior pouch in fish forms a piece of cartilage which is known as meckels cartilage which forms part of the jaw.
4. The anterior pouch in humans also forms a piece of cartilage which eventually disappears apart from two ossified pieces in the ear which are the incus and malleus.

You can see that I have not attempted to explain any of these but have presented observable pieces of evidence.

No assumptions are required at all to decide whether the above is true or not.  Please, do not tell me that evolution cannot explain these things as I don’t care.  Don’t tell me that Haeckel has been discredited, I already know.  Have I used Haeckel here? No.  I have only presented four pieces of evidence that are observable and empirical.

View Post


What you claim to be 'observable', in fact is not... You also offer no evidence for your claims of such observation (the same as in the geology thread).

You are being dishonest with your points.

Firstly point 1 ''A human embryo at four weeks old is indistinguishable from a fish embryo.'' is a blatent lie since fish and human embryo's can be distinguished at four weeks...Firstly by this stage the human embryo shows signs of ears, while fish don't have protuding ears.

http://www.sciencemu...ifecycle/50.asp

#5 Cassiterides

Cassiterides

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 631 posts
  • Age: 20
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • uk

Posted 17 June 2010 - 01:58 PM

Yet these are allong the same line as Haeckel. Wasn't Haeckle convicted of fraud? Why even bring this up when the courts of law have already made a decision on this?

View Post


Yes you can read up on Haeckel's fraud on the net. PhilC's claims of 'observation' i exposed above as a lie, he probably got this lie from Haeckel.

I don't think PhilC is ignorant at this stage, i think he just wants to find some 'common ground' with creationists. However he needs to realise he can't start off his threads with evolutionist lies or evolutionist assumption. So there is clear dishonesty in his threads since he puts forwards things apparently 'observable' when in fact they arn't.

#6 falcone

falcone

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 497 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 36
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Scotland

Posted 17 June 2010 - 02:32 PM

Yes you can read up on Haeckel's fraud on the net. PhilC's claims of 'observation' i exposed above as a lie, he probably got this lie from Haeckel.

I don't think PhilC is ignorant at this stage, i think he just wants to find some 'common ground' with creationists. However he needs to realise he can't start off his threads with evolutionist lies or evolutionist assumption. So there is clear dishonesty in his threads since he puts forwards things apparently 'observable' when in fact they arn't.

View Post

From Bionalogy.com, a site for nurses and midwives:

During the 4th and 5th weeks of development, the human embryo closely resembles a fish embryo. In particular, the series of parallel ridges seen on the side of the future head and neck region (in relation to the pharynx) resemble the developing gill arches of the fish embryo. This resemblance prompted the earlier embryologists to refer to the corresponding arches in the human embryo as branchial arches, where ‘branchium' means ‘gill'. (Not to be confused with ‘brachium', which means ‘arm'!) However, at no stage do perforations occur between the arches of the human embryo - as they do in fish embryos to form the gill-slits - and it has now become more acceptable to refer to these structures as pharyngeal arches, rather than branchial arches. Be prepared to hear both terms - clinicians especially will tend to refer to branchial arches, branchial cysts, etc - but try to use the term ‘pharyngeal arches' when you can.


This article from the Institute of Creation Research says:

True enough, at an early stage of development the human fetus does have certain folds or creases which resemble these found in a fish embryo.



#7 Cassiterides

Cassiterides

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 631 posts
  • Age: 20
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • uk

Posted 17 June 2010 - 03:50 PM

From Bionalogy.com, a site for nurses and midwives:
This article from the Institute of Creation Research says:

View Post


Saying something smally resembles something is different to this statement:

''human embryo at four weeks old is indistinguishable from a fish embryo''

What PhilC is doing is inserting evolutionist lies in his starting points to trick or mislead creationists.

#8 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,000 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 17 June 2010 - 09:15 PM

Why fish? Why not monkey's since "we are related closer", or what about some other animal that is related closer... :lol: :D :P

Seems the evos are grasping at straws, looking at something that can be similar and then saying it's proof of evolution...

Realistically what does it matter that there are folds in the embryo that go on to develop different parts of the body... It doesn't prove anything, except that there are folds in the embryo that go on to develop different parts of the body....

Having something that looks similar can be totally different..

Some evos are hypocritical with this, as with their species classification, (sorry to tangent), mentioned in the other thread. Some evos count the tiniest change as cause to a new species classification.. Yet when it suits them if something is similar it is said to be the same.... :rolleyes:

#9 PhilC

PhilC

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 632 posts
  • Age: 42
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • UK

Posted 17 June 2010 - 10:22 PM

Now I'm being accused of being a liar?

What about points 2 -> 4 Cass?

Are you going to throw the baby out with the bath water?

This is not an attempt to trap people. If you don't agree with a point, then you don't have to. This is not about me telling you what you have to accept, this is finding out what you will accept.

For the sake of Cass I will drop point 1.

Why fish? Why not monkey's since "we are related closer", or what about some other animal that is related closer...   

Seems the evos are grasping at straws, looking at something that can be similar and then saying it's proof of evolution...

Realistically what does it matter that there are folds in the embryo that go on to develop different parts of the body... It doesn't prove anything, except that there are folds in the embryo that go on to develop different parts of the body....

Having something that looks similar can be totally different..

Some evos are hypocritical with this, as with their species classification, (sorry to tangent), mentioned in the other thread. Some evos count the tiniest change as cause to a new species classification.. Yet when it suits them if something is similar it is said to be the same


Read my latest post in the 'Hi' thread:

http://www.evolution...=20

I have said that creationists keep on saying that there is no evidence when evolutionsists keep saying just look at the evidence.

In this thread I have dropped the theory. I am just looking at the evidence, but creationists keep on saying "but this doesn't explain anything" or "but that doesn't prove anything"

I'm not trying to! I am trying to find evidence that we can discuss. Please, drop your theories, and look at the modified points:

1. There are some pouches in the neck of fish monkey and human embryo's.
2. The anterior pouch in fish forms a piece of cartilage which is known as meckels cartilage which forms part of the jaw.
3. The anterior pouch in humans and in monkeys also forms a piece of cartilage which eventually disappears apart from two ossified pieces in the ear which are the incus and malleus.

There I have removed a contentious point and included monkeys for Gilbo's sake.

Any creationist can add any other evidence to this too, remember.

#10 PhilC

PhilC

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 632 posts
  • Age: 42
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • UK

Posted 18 June 2010 - 01:28 AM

At least we are now debating the physical evidence, not the theories. I have to say that I wasn’t lying, though. I may have been enthusiastic about that point but for particular reasons that are to do with Darwin and Von Baer.

Let us now discuss the contentious issue:

Creationist website (biased against evolution): True enough, at an early stage of development the human fetus does have certain folds or creases which resemble these found in a fish embryo.

Evoutionist website (biased towards evolution): During the 4th and 5th weeks of development, the human embryo closely resembles a fish embryo. In particular, the series of parallel ridges seen on the side of the future head and neck region (in relation to the pharynx) resemble the developing gill arches of the fish embryo.

Both sides agree that they look the same! I’ll freely admit indistinguishable may be too far, but that doesn’t make me a liar. Especially when I present this as something to be discussed, not something to take on authority.

The thing neither of these discusses is the fact that internal examination of these pouches in the early weeks shows the same level of similarity. The blood vessels and nerves of the pharyngeal pouches in human, fish (and monkey!) embryo’s are all the same.

In later development, the fish blood vessels and nerves stay like that, in humans and monkeys they change.

Let me reword the list of points:

1. Fish human and monkey embryo’s look very similar to each other in the first weeks of life.
2. There are some pouches in the neck of fish monkey and human embryo's.
3. These pouches, in the early part of the embryo’s life have the same nerve and blood supply.
4. Later in the development of the embryo’s, the fish pouches retain this supply, but the monkey and human embryo’s don’t.
5. The anterior pouch in fish forms a piece of cartilage which is known as meckels cartilage which forms part of the jaw.
6. The anterior pouch in humans and in monkeys also forms a piece of cartilage which eventually disappears apart from two ossified pieces in the ear which are the incus and malleus.


Is this okay with everyone?

#11 PhilC

PhilC

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 632 posts
  • Age: 42
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • UK

Posted 18 June 2010 - 01:38 AM

Now is the time for an admission.

I realised earlier today have deceived you, but not on purpose (it really was unintentional). I wrote something in this thread which I do not have empirical evidence for. This was not intentional but sometimes things just slip in. As I am trying to do this in an open and honest way it is right that I inform you, but with my playful side, I thought it might be fun for someone to spot.

The theory of evolution has been used in this thread to make a prediction! I have no evidence but the theory that what I have claimed is true. Top marks to any creationist that spots the point. ½ marks to any evolutionist.

PM me your answers, and I will reveal all on Monday.

You may wish to halt discussion on this until this has been revealed, as your comments may be tarnished. It’s your choice, I will answer any point in my usual way.

#12 PhilC

PhilC

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 632 posts
  • Age: 42
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • UK

Posted 18 June 2010 - 11:03 PM

Okay, I'm bored of this. :lol:

I have put 'monkey' in when I have no evidence of what a monkey embryo looks like. I used the theory of evolution to predict its position, and will continue to make predictions purely on the position of monkey (the human and fish part I will stick to empiricism). Anyone can then find the details and show that I am wrong. This would be a chance for a creationist to show evolution to be wrong.

#13 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,000 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 20 June 2010 - 07:40 PM

At least you admit this... :)

I touched on this with...

"Some evos are hypocritical with this, as with their species classification, (sorry to tangent), mentioned in the other thread. Some evos count the tiniest change as cause to a new species classification.. Yet when it suits them if something is similar it is said to be the same.... :P "

Most people let their worldview determine the evidence rather than, the evidence determining their worldview.... :lol:

#14 PhilC

PhilC

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 632 posts
  • Age: 42
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • UK

Posted 21 June 2010 - 05:16 AM

I've changed my points based on creationist arguments.

You are right, and I have personally said that "looking alike" is not scientific, but at the moment we are not talking about science we are talking about observation.

Talking amongst ourselves, obviously, dogs all look like each other.

The same is true of early embryo's. We can get onto the subject of whether there is a scientific basis to say they are empirically the same once creationists say they agree with these points (or disagree, when I will change them if necessary).

#15 PhilC

PhilC

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 632 posts
  • Age: 42
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • UK

Posted 25 June 2010 - 01:11 AM

Will a creationist care to comment on whether these points are valid?

#16 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 25 June 2010 - 02:02 AM

Even more controversial than geology, causing more arguments than the fossil record.  Is there any evidence behind those evolutionist claims?

Once again, I will drop any pretence of being an evolutionist.  I will present the evidence without any explanation of it.  Each one of these things is either true or false independantly of what you use to explain them later.

1. A human embryo at four weeks old is indistinguishable from a fish embryo.
2. There are some pouches in the neck of both.
3. The anterior pouch in fish forms a piece of cartilage which is known as meckels cartilage which forms part of the jaw.
4. The anterior pouch in humans also forms a piece of cartilage which eventually disappears apart from two ossified pieces in the ear which are the incus and malleus.

You can see that I have not attempted to explain any of these but have presented observable pieces of evidence.

No assumptions are required at all to decide whether the above is true or not.  Please, do not tell me that evolution cannot explain these things as I don’t care.  Don’t tell me that Haeckel has been discredited, I already know.  Have I used Haeckel here? No.  I have only presented four pieces of evidence that are observable and empirical.

View Post


If the embryo goes through all this in 9 months, it proves that evolution does not take millions of years. And therefore the excuse used as to the reason evolution cannot be observed because it take millions of years does not hold water. And therefore neither does this illustration.

Also, what needs to be answered is:

1) Why do the supposed organs of our past evolution disappear?
2) Why don't they hang around as vestigial organs?
3) And why did all the abilities go away when it's pretty clear that some sticking around would have been helpful for certain cultures and populations?

#17 PhilC

PhilC

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 632 posts
  • Age: 42
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • UK

Posted 25 June 2010 - 02:15 AM

Thanks for replying, Ikester. Your points may or may not have validity and your questions may need answering, but that is not what this thread is about.

Are the points I've raised empirically verifiable or not? No theory, no presupposition. Does the anterior pharyngeal pouch of the human embryo first resemble the anterior pouch in fishes (including the circulation and nerve system) and then does it form a piece of cartilage along the jaw which disappears apart from two ossified pieces in our ear?

This is something that is empirically observed. The cartilage was discovered in 1820, for example.

#18 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,000 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 25 June 2010 - 04:49 AM

Thanks for replying, Ikester.  Your points may or may not have validity and your questions may need answering, but that is not what this thread is about.

Are the points I've raised empirically verifiable or not?  No theory, no presupposition.  Does the anterior pharyngeal pouch of the human embryo first resemble the anterior pouch in fishes (including the circulation and nerve system) and then does it form a piece of cartilage along the jaw which disappears apart from two ossified pieces in our ear?

This is something that is empirically observed.  The cartilage was discovered in 1820, for example.

View Post


I think proving evolution via embryology is a waste of time... personally :D

If you go back far enough, of course a human embryo will look the same as a fish embryo... At Day 0 all vertibra are identical, (egg with a sperm in it.. :) )...

The embryo hasn't had the time to develop the distinguishing features it has coded in its DNA that separate it from other kinds.. As such, I think its wasted effort :)

#19 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 25 June 2010 - 05:27 AM

Thanks for replying, Ikester.  Your points may or may not have validity and your questions may need answering, but that is not what this thread is about.

Are the points I've raised empirically verifiable or not?  No theory, no presupposition.  Does the anterior pharyngeal pouch of the human embryo first resemble the anterior pouch in fishes (including the circulation and nerve system) and then does it form a piece of cartilage along the jaw which disappears apart from two ossified pieces in our ear?

This is something that is empirically observed.  The cartilage was discovered in 1820, for example.

View Post


But claiming it proves or supports evolution is more of an assumption back up by words. So no it's not empirical as you claim. And Haeckel would not have had to fraud those pics if it were so convincing. But then again truth is relative so anything can be enpirical as long as it supports evolution only.

#20 PhilC

PhilC

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 632 posts
  • Age: 42
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • UK

Posted 25 June 2010 - 05:43 AM

Ikester, either the anterior pouch forms two bones in the middle ear or it doesn't. That is true, no matter what.

Obviously, I'm picking the evidence, but if you read earlier, it is open to valid criticism.

I'm trying to find some baseline from where a discussion can start. If you wish to add some other empirically observed details, then feel free. We can discuss them.

This is not a method for me to browbeat people into accepting anything they don't want to, it is doing what creationists keep on asking us to do: Looking at the evidence.

Forget Haeckel, even if his claims were valid, I would not describe them here because they are an explanation, not what the explanation is about.

What does the nerve and blood system of the pharyngeal pouches of a 24 day old human embryo look like? It resembles a fish. There have been creationist sources showing that this is true.

Does the anterior pharyngeal arch form a cartilage in humans and fish?

Does this cartilage form the jaw in fish and two ear bones in humans?




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users