human tails and the midriff - hiccups, what are the creatonist theories about them?

Hello everyone, I'm back. got my new laptop and all so we can continue this discussion. Unfortunately, I do not possess Darwin's origin of species. The quote comes from a creationist source. I you do want to invalidate that quote as being misquoted, you'll have to provide the context and show how Darwin was not meaning that our embryos ressemble our ancestors adult forms. I've thought about this a bit and I may be wrong, but doesn't the fact that embryology hasn't developped a complete theory relating it to Darwinian evolution (since embryonic recapitulation) speak about the reticence of embryologist to associate their field to the ToE. Principally because of the errors of the past ?In this thread was the first time I encountered an attempt to relate embryology and evolution aside from embryonic recapitulation, by Dr.Adequate, and I do not find it very expressed as other aspects of evolution are.Oh, and by the way, we could say that the quote I had was a little old I would disagree. Saying to childrens 'things evolve all the time, such as mickey mouse, etc" and then using this fact to present the ToE as fact is not a strategy that should be promoted at school.Kids aren't idiots, if they are too young to understand the basic mutation+Natural selection concepts, then it is children indoctrination. If they are old enough to understand these two concepts, why not present them to them ? We will be discussing this counter-example, as to determine in which category it is. Besides, I could just as quickly find and example this kind from talkorigins.org Of course, this allopatric model of speciation was an integral part of ponctuated equilibrium. But it is also true that it was Eldredge and Gould who proposed that this speciation process would explain the gaps in the fossil record. In other words, why did they favor this model of speciation over another and as such developped ponctuated equilibrium ? Because of the gaps in the fossil record.

All this suggests to me is that you don't know anything about modern embryology/ developmental biology. One of the hottest and most productive approaches in modern biology is evolutionary developmental biology, colloquially known as evo-devo. One would be hard presed to find an article in any current developmental biology journal which doesn't look at the comparative aspects of the developmental mechanism and genetics involved and place them into an evolutionary context. Indeed developmental biology is perhaps the only way to understand how such small genetic changes as a single base pair substitution can cause gross morphological changes in an organism, a key point in any discussion of the progression of evolutionary phenotypic/morphological change.Theodosius Dobzhansky famously said, "Nothing in Biology makes sense except in the light of evolution." This is especially true of developmental biology. Indeed Gould wrote extensively about the relationship between developmental biology and evolution.TTFN,WK

quote:

---

Unfortunately, I do not possess Darwin's origin of species. The quote comes from a creationist source. I you do want to invalidate that quote as being misquoted, you'll have to provide the context and show how Darwin was not meaning that our embryos ressemble our ancestors adult forms.

---

Like many books old enough to be out of copyright the Origin can be found online. And you should always be very cautious when dealing with using creationists as secondary sources. They often omit important context - or worse. (In fact you should always be cautious using secondary sources - but creationists are among the worst).You may find the relevant chapter here.In this case the omission of the start of the sentence is a pretty clear attempt at deliberate misrepresentation. I have italicised the words omitted.Also Darwin goes on to support this idea, appealing to the work of Fritz Muller There is no specific reference to humans in this case, but there is one to mammals in general. This should make it clear that the qualifications used by Darwin were genuinely meant.

quote:

---

I've thought about this a bit and I may be wrong, but doesn't the fact that embryology hasn't developped a complete theory relating it to Darwinian evolution (since embryonic recapitulation) speak about the reticence of embryologist to associate their field to the ToE. Principally because of the errors of the past ?

---

I don't think so. Certainly there is more work than you seem to be aware of. And 10 years ago "evo-devo" was recognised as a field of research in itself (which in itself required the accumulation of sufficient work to justify it).

quote:

---

I would disagree. Saying to childrens 'things evolve all the time, such as mickey mouse, etc" and then using this fact to present the ToE as fact is not a strategy that should be promoted at school.

​

Kids aren't idiots, if they are too young to understand the basic mutation+Natural selection concepts, then it is children indoctrination. If they are old enough to understand these two concepts, why not present them to them ?

---

If you remember the article you know that the teacher was facing a major obstacle - Creationist indoctrination of the children. He had to work hard to stop the kids just shutting down and rejecting what he had to say.

quote:

---

We will be discussing this counter-example, as to determine in which category it is. Besides, I could just as quickly find and example this kind from talkorigins.org

---

I very much doubt it. The CMI argument is one that has been known to be false for decades, at the least. And it is a major part of their discussion of evolution. You might find an old and outdated article on talkorigins.org (especially as the site doesn't seem to be actively maintained), but that would not be a true equivalent.

quote:

---

Of course, this allopatric model of speciation was an integral part of ponctuated equilibrium. But it is also true that it was Eldredge and Gould who proposed that this speciation process would explain the gaps in the fossil record.

---

Is it ? Where is your evidence ?

quote:

---

In other words, why did they favor this model of speciation over another and as such developped ponctuated equilibrium ?

---

Because it was ALREADY the favoured model of speciation when they formulated their theory. They would need a good reason to use some other model !

No.A quick look at reality will show you that synthesis of the two fields continues apace. The fact that you didn't know how embryology relates to evolution would be a consequence of you only reading creationist nonsense on the subject. Of course they don't want you to know what biologists say about embryology, because it's such a slam-dunk for evolution.Here's a challenge for you. Can you find me one living biologist who has anything to say about Haeckelian recapitulation except that it's wrong?As for "very expressed as other aspects of evolution are", I don't know what you mean.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.