Why are Haeckel's drawings being taught in school?

What makes you think these are gill pouches or pharyngeal or branchial pouches?Ever looked into it for yourself?

They may be called gill pouches, but they certainly are not gill pouches. Calling something that it isn't is called not telling the truth.As far as the tailbone, of course, we humans do have tail bones, but to call the spine a tail is a misrepresentation, and the fact some people are born with deformities is neither here nor there for evidence of humans evolving from apes or some such. It's just more overstatements and misrepresentations, which in my experience is what evolutionists generally rely on for evidentiary claims.

Care to comment on:
homologous structures

quote:

---

So, what we have here is multiple lines of evidencelocation, function, several molecular markers, and developmental origins and processesthat converge to show that parathyroid glands and the gills of fishes have a common evolutionary origin.

---

I think the claim is merely trying to revive a dead concept in part, to resurrect the longstanding claim of human gill slits.Now, as far as the details on the parathyroid being related to gills, I would need to see more details than mere claims, especially in area where in the past evolutionists have made claims, and still do sometimes, which have been proven false and at times just unproven.I certainly would not accept any factual claim of a site like Panda's Thumb.As far as molecular markers, what other "markers" exist in the parathyroid? Where is the peer-reviewed discussion of this? Finding one genetic marker hardly seems like a definitive argument. Maybe the gene is involved in any organ related to salt regulation, or related to salt regulation?The idea that the location is that meaningful is not persuasive either, and once again appears to be just resurrecting a dead argument. We have eyes in our heads too. That must mean we all evolved eyes from a common ancestor, eh?Except that, well, it doesn't mean that.None of the arguments in that article are persuasive, and neither are of such a comprehensive nature as to commend the article.For example, have any of these claims been criticized, and if so, what are the arguments of the critics and how are they wrong? I didn't notice that, and in general it just is a very weak argument and presentation once you look into the details a bit more.Do you care to comment on the claims posted earlier that the folds described as gill slits are really just biomechanical folds growing as the head grows near the heart in the embryo and are not in fact branchial?Also, I found an article which expresses my sentiments here, and edited to add the link. One significant point is that if the glands were located somewhere else, evolutionist could just argue either it evolved from something else, or that it was moved in evolution. The claims are not falsifiable because regardless of where you would place the glands in humans, evolutionists would just find some way to fit them into the concept of common descent, and that's because common descent is a presumption. It's not that this is evidence for common descent, but a circular logic takes place where one tries to make something fit into the belief, exactly what evolutionists insist their critics do in fact.Note too the claims of functional similarity are bogus since they are not functional similar since one is more or less a filter and another a production center. http://www.darwinism-watch.com/bbc_2004_12_b.phpThis message has been edited by randman, 07-04-2005 03:13 AMThis message has been edited by randman, 07-04-2005 03:30 AM

Here is the problem, the critics you quote have as poor a concept of the principles involved as you do.The point of a structure being homologous is not that it evolved from whichever structure it is homologous to but that they both evolved from a common ancestral structure. Therefore the human arm and bird wing are considered homologous both being thought to derive from the ancestral tetrapod limb.Do you have absoloutely any credible source that agrees with your quotes claim that a gill is essentially just a 'tap' rather than a 'pump that constantly monitors the chemical composition of the water'. On the opposing hand we have a number of references. Which shows that the gills can both extract calicum and export it. Which details a number of ion pumping activites in the gills.You could always read the original research article upon which the Pharyngula piece was based (Okabe and Graham,2004).Why on Earth do you credit the 'factual' claims of the people at Darwin-Watch?TTFN,WKThis message has been edited by Wounded King, 07-04-2005 09:04 AM

I did read that discussion, but it is irrelevant to this one, since that seemed to be discussing the nomenclature of pharyngeal pouches, not the existence of pharyngeal pouches. Where the existence of pharyngeal pouches was questioned, it is still irrelevant. My point is that the very source you cited, discusses the existence of pharyngeal pouches as being very real. How do you know what I believe? I never used the word gill slit in the entirety of the post you are replying to, perhaps you didn't read it? Let me recap for you:You said: I replied by saying that Richardson specifically refers to structures known as pharyngeal pouches: So why on earth are rambling on to me about gill slits?This message has been edited by Modulous, Mon, 04-July-2005 02:59 PM

That's the problem with creationists. Creationists see one paper in a sea of papers that criticizes and falsifies one model of the phylotypic stage, you guys insist that all models are falsified. So what? Well, your opinion is fine, but not relevant. I have shown you data that demonstrates a phylotypic stage. Evolutionists rarely say something is a proven piece of data. Phylotypic stage: when a vertebrate has a notochord, somites, neural tube and perhaps pharyngeal pouches.In the small data set that was used, all vertebrates did share some kind of phylotypic stage by those definitions. When the definition gets more specific and larger data sets are used, some models fall, as Richardson showed. I have done, why? I wasn't intending to, I was merely pointing out what I have learned, in the hope that you would explicitly list what your claims actually were so that we could discuss them, without misrepresentation. Which is why I said

quote:

---

You briefly outline the claims you are making, with one or two sources that back up them up. From what I have learned so far:

---

Why should they have known these things? Who showed these things? To whom did they show them? When did they show them? Let's compile the strongest critic from each approximate decade and see what they did to show that evolutionists claims were false. So far we have von Baer. Can we shoot forwards 10-20 years and find out what someone actually said about the images that were appearing in textbooks? Anti-evolutionists are always saying that evolutionist claims are very false, wheat from chaff, spaghetti on the wall, boy crying wolf...just saying it isn't good enough, they have to actually show it. And not ust to one another, not just in self published books, not just in small public debates...in the scientific literature. You can't seriously have said to have pressented a critique which should be seriously considered by the scientific community unless you present it to them in scientific terms. To me its more like finding out that the Mona Lisa was not only a simplified copy of the original, but years later discovering that whilst it has some similar points to the original, it was wildly different in some important areas. You are once again conflating textbook makers with evolutionists. And you have yet to present any major attack. I agree that it was a travesty that this happened, and textbook makers are notoriously bad at getting things wrong, and that this is a bad thing.This happens all over the place, notably in history books which repeat claims which are known to have been shown as false. The apatosaurus/brontosaurus incident springs to mind also. Your mistake, randman, is to take textbook gaffs as being indicative of something else entirely. You seem to think it is a symptom of some self-delusional disease, of evolutionists refusing to release the grip on them...despite the fact that one of the most famous evolutionists publically spoke out against them in the 70s.If you wish to tar all evolutionists with the same brush, then that is your affair. If, however, you want to use your tarring brush to conflate us evcers or scientists, or teachers with the same brush as incompetent textbook makers then I will likewise tar you with the same brush I tar Hovind with. Which would be silly.I condemn textbook makers and their slack quality research. Their trade is that of chinese whispers, parroting the phrases their predecessors did. I will join you in the condemnation of those idiots. If you want to convince me there is more to it that stupidity and crapness, you have to do some work, which you have so far failed to do. I applaud what work you have done to date, but it is only enough to demonstrate that a problem exists, not the reason for that problem. After that it becomes your opinion and your own theories, with no historical support.This message has been edited by Modulous, Mon, 04-July-2005 03:07 PM

The problem is that it's not just the textbooks, but what was taught in high school and college classrooms, and presented as a major piece of evidence since Darwin. It was a fundamental argument and standard practice for evolutionists to overstate the embryonic case for evolution, and imo, the overstatements are still on-going.Let me put it this way. This is one of the major reasons people believed evolution to be true, and allowed the premise of common descent to color their perception of the evidence. It affected everyone because all Phds at one point had to learn this, and so it wasn't just a textbook error of a minor proportion that maybe some teachers corrected, but a systematic deception passed on and believed by the evolutionist community as a whole, so much so the evolutionist community has had a difficult time completely abandoning the claims, wanting to somehow still make a link between fish gills and humans for example.

OK, so what was taught in high school and college classrooms? Was it just what was in the text books? I honestly never had this presented to me as a major piece of evidence, and I've never regarded it as a particularly good piece of evidence at that. I though that the fossil record, combined with morphology, DNA mutations and the existence of natural selection all provide the more fundamental lines of evidence taught at school. I'm not saying you are wrong, but I question this. I reckon most people think evolution is true because of the fossil record. Let me reword your paragraph slightly so that I am more inclined to accept it. Until such time as you can demonstrate that it was a 'systematic deception', it remains an opinion.

First of all, it is not what is in (all of) the textbooks, as you have been shown previously. Why do you ignore responses to your posts, other than the fact that you are not debating in good faith? Second, when were you last in a high school or college biology class? How do you know what is taught? I'm glad that we have your opinion on this. It is not shared by many, however. Nonsense. The major reason is the preponderance of evidence for common descent. And as we all know, all PhD's are credulous sheep when it comes to thinking. So, this is part of the great evolutionist plot! But, as you have been shown, there is a link. I can see what your problem is here, Rantman. You are completely impervious to anyt facts that are inconvenient for you. For you, they literally do not exist.

2+2 does not equal 3 therefore it equals 5??Obviously an absolutely FALSE argument. What it makes him is a scientist that does not accept the theory of evolution. period. Given the time period not a big surprise. Then I suggest you stop doing so and substantiate your claims or admit that they are assumptions on your part, with no credibility.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

quote:

---

I reckon most people think evolution is true because of the fossil record.

---

Maybe most people, but to me the most compelling evidence for evolution is the hierarchical classification of life. Not that this changes your point any. Carry on.

The same thing that makes me thing the two things I stand on are legs -- that's what they are called.

I leave your answer on gill pouches to ned, as his post adequately questions your word games on that issue. Ummm ... apes also do not have tails, but do have very similar tailbones to those that humans have. In fact this structure is more consistent to apes than to other families of species. As such it is an argument for common descent from a tailboned (but tailless) common ancestor.Regardless, the whole fleshy appendage south of the hind leg buds is a tail in the human embryo. The other curious thing about those "deformities" is that they occur in the tailbone region, and not, say on a knee or an elbow: they are an atavistic expression of an archaic feature, with muscles and nerves, and not some spontaneous deformity.FROM: ScienceMuseum.org (click)
Again, let's not play word games: the tailbone is not formed yet (heck neither the spine nor any other bones have formed yet), in animals with tails this structure grows into a tail with bones and muscles etcetera, while in apes (including humans) it (usually) gets absorbed during later development.FROM: Pictures of human tails (click)
FROM: TalkOrigins(click)
You have features that are the same in different embryos, yet which develop into different features in the fetal stages. Calling them different names and claiming that the {embryonic features} do not develop into the {fetal features} of a different species and that therefore the {embryonic feature} is not the {fetal feature} is playing word games.And the features don't care what you call them.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

What details do you need? Exactly which claims do you believe are false? What reasons do you have to believe they are false? So you agree that there are markers connecting them? How many do you need to be convinced? On what basis do you believe that what you have isn't enough to be strongly indicative if not definitive? Why isn't it reasonably definitive in light of the other data? Why not?Do you disagree with the development shown from the 5 week old embryo? Why? Why isn't this useful information for coming to a tentative conclusion? I don't know? Can't you find any criticisms? I think it is your turn to do so. This is an example of information that makes your claims seem to be a bit unfounded. Do you have arguments against it at the same level of detail? Has WK's post Message 245 answered this point for you? If not why not?