- May 5, 2017
- 5,611
- 4,000
- 55
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- Married
Been quite a week. A new creationist on the scene thinks that regurgiposting dozens of quotes that he had copied from creationist websites helps his cause (they don't). He started a thread with 5 or 6 posts oozing with dozens of quotes and no commentary at all (which I thought was against the rules?). I've learned to ignore most of them, as they are of dubious accuracy and relevance.
But I thought I would take one and go to town.
This one is from a creationist engineer ranting about the coccyx. As one with graduate training and professional experience in teaching human and vertebrate anatomy at the college level, I cringe (but I love it!) when I see creationists with no business discussing this sort of thing pontificating like they were Vesalius himself. The quote as per our pal Tolkien, ellipses and all*:
“Shouldent students be skeptical when they're told that evolutionist can simply look at folds in embyoes and see gill slits? The truth is those are only folds of tissue in the pharynx region of vertebrates during the pharyngula stage of development....they never develop into a structure that is in any way like fish gills....the human tail is another misnomer born of evolutionist “look- imagine- see” methodology. What we actually see through time are early precursors to the spine forming the axial skeleton....so when evolutionist see a lower portion of the afial skeleton where the embryo is yet to grow, they “see” a transient “tail” in their imaginations. Human embroyes are recapitulating their reptilian past. But there never is a tail. The embryo grows down to its coccyx, which begins anchoring devolving muscles of the pelvic floor.”
-Randy Guliuzza P.E M.D Haeckel's Embryos Born of Evolutionary Imagination
Let's go though this point by point.
“Shouldent students be skeptical when they're told that evolutionist can simply look at folds in embyoes and see gill slits?"
Creationists should be skeptical when a professional propagandist for Christ claims that any such thing is taught. In fact, very few modern texts use the phrase "gill slits" except in historical reviews, and those that do use the term (I have a book from the 1990s that uses the term) indicate very clearly that they are not actually gills, or that they only become gills in fish. Interestingly, I am betting our engineer creationist friend Randy has no problem looking at something and seeing Creation!
And as an aside, it was never merely looking at them and calling them gill slits - Haeckel observed these structures in fish embryos and other vertebrate embryos, and erroneously concluded that they were gills. I guess Randy forgot that Haeckel wrote his treatise more than 100 years ago, and did not have the imaging technology we do today.
"The truth is those are only folds of tissue in the pharynx region of vertebrates during the pharyngula stage of development....they never develop into a structure that is in any way like fish gills...."
They are not even really "folds" as such - they contain bundles of primordia that are 'encased' in a thin layer of tissue, and this produces the appearance of folds (I guess we can attack Randy for calling these structures folds?). In fish, they DO develop into gills. Amphibians also, at least in some stages of their life cycle. The creationist only seems to be focusing on humans, of course, neglecting or being ignorant of the fact that ALL vertebrate embyos contain this pharyngeal apparatus. They all contain the same primordia (aortic arch, cartilage, mesoderm, etc.). In fish, they become gills and parts of their face and neck (if they had necks - the area behind the mouth), and in mammals and reptiles, they become parts of the face and neck and associated structures.
"the human tail is another misnomer born of evolutionist “look- imagine- see” methodology. What we actually see through time are early precursors to the spine forming the axial skeleton....so when evolutionist see a lower portion of the afial skeleton where the embryo is yet to grow, "
What? The embryo IS growing there, too. When one looks at other vertebrate embryos, one sees something very similar, hence the connection.
"they “see” a transient “tail” in their imaginations. Human embroyes are recapitulating their reptilian past."
This is Haeckel's thesis, and it is wrong and is not taught in textbooks anywhere since maybe 1915 (as seen in the movie "Flock of Dodos").
But there never is a tail. The embryo grows down to its coccyx, which begins anchoring devolving muscles of the pelvic floor.”
-Randy Guliuzza P.E M.D Haeckel's Embryos Born of Evolutionary Imagination
I do enjoy this creationist claim about how the coccyx "anchors" things. Pshun2404 claimed the coccyx "anchored" the nervous system. I have seen creationists claim that it 'anchors' the spinal cord and such. And now this guy is claiming that it 'anchors' the muscles of the pelvic floor.
Anchoring something, in my view, means that it is very strong and holds something in place. Fair? The coccyx does not do anything like that. It happens to be in a place where the tendons of several pelvic floor muscles pass. People born without a coccyx have those muscles simply joining to the perineal body. Be very skeptical when creationists ascribe all manner of superlative function to the coccyx.
Haeckel was wrong in his interpretation, but the universality of the pharyngeal apparatus in vertebrates (even in the lungless, gill-less groups of salamanders) is very good evidence for common descent, creationist desperation or ignorance-based dismissal/rejections notwithstanding.
*2 things - 1. I noticed something - this quote seems to contain typos not in the original (horrible) article - does Tolkien actually re-type these collected quotes? Does he not know how to use the copy-paste function? He must! Maybe he typed them by hand into his quote-bomb archive, then just copy-pastes from there?
2. The engineer creationist also declares that students are still taught the errors that Haeckel made as fact. Which means that even professional creationists are liars.
But I thought I would take one and go to town.
This one is from a creationist engineer ranting about the coccyx. As one with graduate training and professional experience in teaching human and vertebrate anatomy at the college level, I cringe (but I love it!) when I see creationists with no business discussing this sort of thing pontificating like they were Vesalius himself. The quote as per our pal Tolkien, ellipses and all*:
“Shouldent students be skeptical when they're told that evolutionist can simply look at folds in embyoes and see gill slits? The truth is those are only folds of tissue in the pharynx region of vertebrates during the pharyngula stage of development....they never develop into a structure that is in any way like fish gills....the human tail is another misnomer born of evolutionist “look- imagine- see” methodology. What we actually see through time are early precursors to the spine forming the axial skeleton....so when evolutionist see a lower portion of the afial skeleton where the embryo is yet to grow, they “see” a transient “tail” in their imaginations. Human embroyes are recapitulating their reptilian past. But there never is a tail. The embryo grows down to its coccyx, which begins anchoring devolving muscles of the pelvic floor.”
-Randy Guliuzza P.E M.D Haeckel's Embryos Born of Evolutionary Imagination
Let's go though this point by point.
“Shouldent students be skeptical when they're told that evolutionist can simply look at folds in embyoes and see gill slits?"
Creationists should be skeptical when a professional propagandist for Christ claims that any such thing is taught. In fact, very few modern texts use the phrase "gill slits" except in historical reviews, and those that do use the term (I have a book from the 1990s that uses the term) indicate very clearly that they are not actually gills, or that they only become gills in fish. Interestingly, I am betting our engineer creationist friend Randy has no problem looking at something and seeing Creation!
And as an aside, it was never merely looking at them and calling them gill slits - Haeckel observed these structures in fish embryos and other vertebrate embryos, and erroneously concluded that they were gills. I guess Randy forgot that Haeckel wrote his treatise more than 100 years ago, and did not have the imaging technology we do today.
"The truth is those are only folds of tissue in the pharynx region of vertebrates during the pharyngula stage of development....they never develop into a structure that is in any way like fish gills...."
They are not even really "folds" as such - they contain bundles of primordia that are 'encased' in a thin layer of tissue, and this produces the appearance of folds (I guess we can attack Randy for calling these structures folds?). In fish, they DO develop into gills. Amphibians also, at least in some stages of their life cycle. The creationist only seems to be focusing on humans, of course, neglecting or being ignorant of the fact that ALL vertebrate embyos contain this pharyngeal apparatus. They all contain the same primordia (aortic arch, cartilage, mesoderm, etc.). In fish, they become gills and parts of their face and neck (if they had necks - the area behind the mouth), and in mammals and reptiles, they become parts of the face and neck and associated structures.
"the human tail is another misnomer born of evolutionist “look- imagine- see” methodology. What we actually see through time are early precursors to the spine forming the axial skeleton....so when evolutionist see a lower portion of the afial skeleton where the embryo is yet to grow, "
What? The embryo IS growing there, too. When one looks at other vertebrate embryos, one sees something very similar, hence the connection.
"they “see” a transient “tail” in their imaginations. Human embroyes are recapitulating their reptilian past."
This is Haeckel's thesis, and it is wrong and is not taught in textbooks anywhere since maybe 1915 (as seen in the movie "Flock of Dodos").
But there never is a tail. The embryo grows down to its coccyx, which begins anchoring devolving muscles of the pelvic floor.”
-Randy Guliuzza P.E M.D Haeckel's Embryos Born of Evolutionary Imagination
I do enjoy this creationist claim about how the coccyx "anchors" things. Pshun2404 claimed the coccyx "anchored" the nervous system. I have seen creationists claim that it 'anchors' the spinal cord and such. And now this guy is claiming that it 'anchors' the muscles of the pelvic floor.
Anchoring something, in my view, means that it is very strong and holds something in place. Fair? The coccyx does not do anything like that. It happens to be in a place where the tendons of several pelvic floor muscles pass. People born without a coccyx have those muscles simply joining to the perineal body. Be very skeptical when creationists ascribe all manner of superlative function to the coccyx.
Haeckel was wrong in his interpretation, but the universality of the pharyngeal apparatus in vertebrates (even in the lungless, gill-less groups of salamanders) is very good evidence for common descent, creationist desperation or ignorance-based dismissal/rejections notwithstanding.
*2 things - 1. I noticed something - this quote seems to contain typos not in the original (horrible) article - does Tolkien actually re-type these collected quotes? Does he not know how to use the copy-paste function? He must! Maybe he typed them by hand into his quote-bomb archive, then just copy-pastes from there?
2. The engineer creationist also declares that students are still taught the errors that Haeckel made as fact. Which means that even professional creationists are liars.
Last edited: