Do you ever get tired of dragging out these old PRATT arguments?
Do you know who exposed Haeckel? Other scientists. You see, science is self correcting. It's one of it's greatest strengths. It corrects its mistakes. You do not. You've been shown to be in error when it comes to irreducible complexity, yet you hold onto that argument. I consider that to be intellectually dishonest.
"Haeckel's pictures are irrelevant to the question of whether the embryos are similar. What matters are the embryos themselves. Within a group, early embryos do show many similarities. For example, all vertebrates develop a notochord, body segments, pharyngeal gill pouches, and a post-anal tail. These fundamental similarities indicate a common evolutionary history. Other embryological similarities are found in other lineages, such as mollusks, arthropods, and annelids".
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB701.html
Again, you are shown to be in error here. The question is, will you correct yourself?
I'm not in error, the Haeckel pictures are not irrelevant to whether your textbooks contain bald-faced lies, and in this case "science" didn't self correct.
"Science" doesn't do anything. Scientists have the incumbency to speak the verifiable truth, and most do so most of the time. That's great, and laudable.
How could I have been shown to be in error about irreducible complexity when you havent even told us what you think irreducible complexity is?
Was it you that mentioned intellectual dishonesty?
I don't remember.
Upvote
0