Haeckels' Drawings Part II

In jawless fish, the pharyngeal pouches develop into gills. This is the connection across species of jawless fish.In jawed vertebrates with gills (jawed fish and amphibians) most of the pharyngeal pouches develop into gills, and a portion develop into jaws. This is the connection across species of vertebrates with gills.In reptiles, most of the pharyngeal pouches do not develop into gills, but a portion of them develop into jaws, just like in jawed fish. This is the connection across species of non-mammalian vertebrates.In mammals, most of the pharyngeal pouches do not develop into gills; but of the portion that is homologous to the portion that develops into jaws in reptiles, most of this develops into the bones of the mammalian jaw that are homologous to jaw bones of reptiles -- the remaining portion, which in reptiles develops into jaw bones that are missing in mammals, develops into two of the inner ear bones.This is very simplistic since there are other structures that develop from the pharyngeal pouches, and I don't know enough about bird jaws to definitely say what happens there.But there is your connection across species. The same embryonic structure that can be identified visually across species develops into homologous structures in various vertebrate species.At the extremes, the pharyngeal pouches in jawless fish develop into quite different structures than in mammals; however, there are these intermediaries, where portions of the pharyngeal pouches develop into the same structures in jawless and jawed fish; portions develop into the same structures in jawed fish and reptiles; and portions develop into the same structures in reptile and mammals.Edited to correct typos.This message has been edited by Chiroptera, 08-Jul-2005 07:26 PM

Oh, Ned! You don't realize just how hard it was to keep from mentioning the fossil record!

I have already given you a way to falsify the theory of evolution. Namely, if a sequence of fossils were found that showed unambiguously that whales evolved directly from fish. You didn't seem understand how that would falsify ToE.In fact, you stated that the scientists would just claim that whales evolved from fish, and that all the mammals evolved from whales. That you could make such a claim indicates how little you understand the theory of evolution, and all of the evidence that exists that supports it. That is your problem, but now you creationists are bent on making your problem everyone else's problem as well.

...through the following nonsensical statements:

quote:

---

On the whale example, if evolutionists decided the data best fit with fish to whale transitions, they would argue that, yes.

---

quote:

---

There are fossils of remarkably different species that evolutionists piece together to make the claim that whales evolved from them, but they do not actually show whales evolving.

---

quote:

---

Moreover, there are no series of fossils that show whales evolving from anything but whales.

---

By the way, here is a link to a page that describes whale evolution for anyone who wants to know what scientists have to say about it.

quote:

---

How many different species do you think it would take to evolve a land mammal to whales, and how many mutations and differences is it reasonable to expect?

---

Every day, artificial flowers appear in my yard. I say that they were placed there by an Intelligent Litterbug (IL theory). Some claim that they blow into my yard from the cemetary across the street (those proposing the religion of atheist naturalism!).For those atheists (and those lukewarm "Christians") I have a challenge: take this particular blue cloth flower I found in the side garden. Identify where in the cemetary it started, and tell me the exact path it took to get to my garden. Also, identify exactly how it got into the cemetary to begin with (do you think artificial flowers grow in cemetaries, haw haw).

Sorry that I introduced a topic that derailed the discussion.But I still think that the point that I made is valid:I presented the possibility of finding transitional fossils linking whales directly to fish as a way of falsifying the theory of evolution. That randman can seriously propose that scientists could easily ignore well over a century of paleontological and taxonomical research in order to claim that whales evolved directly from fish indicates how little randman understands the biological sciences.Maybe that was off topic, too; I was replying to randman's repeated claims that evolution is unfalsifiable.

I wish you would actually take the time to read the posts to which you are replying.You have made the claim that evolution cannot be falsified.I supplied one set of data that would falsify evolution: a set of transitional fossils linking whales directly to fish.You then replied that evolutionists would then claim that whales evolved from fish and land animals from whales.You did make this claim, and that is what my post is saying.Edited to fix link and redo subtitle.This message has been edited by Chiroptera, 22-Aug-2005 04:33 PM

---

"The cradle of every science is surrounded by dead theologians as that of Hercules was with strangled serpents" -- T. H. Huxley

Trying to change the subject? I wrote:Then you replied: In responding to my post you distorted what I said. Rather than admit that you might have misread it, you are now trying to avoid the subject. That is dishonest.

I agree that it is a waste of time dealing with you, but I am simply calling you out on how you have distorted what I said in a post.

quote:

---

It appeared to me you were insinuating I claim whales evolved from fish.

---

And you were wrong. I think my post was pretty clear.-

quote:

---

But more importantly, the whole side issue here is meaningless.

---

Not really. This isn't the first time you have distorted another person's message.-

quote:

---

But more importantly, the whole side issue here is meaningless.

---

A completely ridiculous statement that can only make sense to someone who believes that the acceptance of the theory of evolution depends on systemic bias.

Clearly he's stunned by my eloquence and the sharp clarity of my logic.

---

"Intellectually, scientifically, even artistically, fundamentalism -- biblical literalism -- is a road to nowhere, because it insists on fidelity to revealed truths that are not true." -- Katha Pollitt