-
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Why do human embryos start with tails and gills?
- Thread starter joshua 1 9
- Start date
![[serious]](/data/avatars/m/160/160873.jpg?1431539545){kind=avatar}
Subduction Zone
Regular Member
Unlike ICR, there is no requirement for people that write for Talk Origins to reject the scientific method.
Talk Origins sites its sources and quite often links them. ICR rarely if ever links the scientific sources that it quote mines. It is much more difficult catching someone in a lie if you do not supply them with links to the articles that you are quoting out of context (please note, I am using a generic "you" that actually applies to ICR and not to any members here).
Upvote
0
Simply wrong. Not only do those creationist sites peddle known falsehoods, but the Talk Origins site is openly praised by the scientific community, including it's main journal Science, the Smithsonian Institution, the National Academies of Science, BioMed, and many more. It's used by dozens of University courses, science textbooks, online courses, and so on.
Juvi, of all people, since you claim to have some geology connections, I'd expect you be lauding the talk origins site too, since it is endorsed by the Geological Society of America. Aren't you a member? Or is this yet another area where you are out of step with those who understand geology?
Check them out here: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/awards/
In Christ-
Papias
Upvote
0
It is more than outward appearance. The same genes are responsible for producing these features, from humans to fish.
"Patterning of the vertebrate facial skeleton involves the progressive partitioning of neural-crest-derived skeletal precursors into distinct subpopulations along the anteroposterior (AP) and dorsoventral (DV) axes. Recent evidence suggests that complex interactions between multiple signaling pathways, in particular Endothelin-1 (Edn1), Bone Morphogenetic Protein (BMP), and Jagged–Notch, are needed to pattern skeletal precursors along the DV axis. Rather than directly determining the morphology of individual skeletal elements, these signals appear to act through several families of transcription factors, including Dlx, Msx, and Hand, to establish dynamic zones of skeletal differentiation. Provocatively, this patterning mechanism is largely conserved from mouse and zebrafish to the jawless vertebrate, lamprey."
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0012160612004708
Upvote
0
- Jun 18, 2006
- 3,855,055
- 52,388
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
Upvote
0
This would also be an argument for a common Creator. We identify the art of artists based on common features that always appear in that person's art.....
Upvote
0
The difference is that objects created by a common creator don't fall into a nested hierarchy.
"Although it is trivial to classify anything subjectively in a hierarchical manner, only certain things can be classified objectively in a consistent, unique nested hierarchy. The difference drawn here between "subjective" and "objective" is crucial and requires some elaboration, and it is best illustrated by example. Different models of cars certainly could be classified hierarchically—perhaps one could classify cars first by color, then within each color by number of wheels, then within each wheel number by manufacturer, etc. However, another individual may classify the same cars first by manufacturer, then by size, then by year, then by color, etc. The particular classification scheme chosen for the cars is subjective. In contrast, human languages, which have common ancestors and are derived by descent with modification, generally can be classified in objective nested hierarchies (Pei 1949; Ringe 1999). Nobody would reasonably argue that Spanish should be categorized with German instead of with Portugese."
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html#nested_hierarchy
Vertebrates, including both humans and fish, fall into a nested hierarchy. This is the pattern of similarity that we would expect to see from evolution, but not from a common creator. A common creator could mix and match parts from all areas of life. For example, a common creator of mammals and birds could create a species with feathers, three middle ear bones, mammary glands, and flow through lungs. Such a species with that mixture of characteristics would falsify evolution. We never see these types of species. We only see the mixture of features that we should see if evolution is true.
Upvote
0
Pictures like these are pretty awesome in that regard. As they develop you can see how closely, or distantly, species are related.
Upvote
0
A human baby starts as a notochord which develops into a brain and spinal cord (in other words, the central nervous system). That means it has a top and a bottom. At the bottom of what becomes the spine is the coccyx. The coccyx is simply the end of the spine and never functions anything like a "tail". It isn't a tail.
Just because something looks like something else, doesn't mean they are the same thing.
Upvote
0
A human baby starts as a notochord which develops into a brain and spinal cord (in other words, the central nervous system). That means it has a top and a bottom. At the bottom of what becomes the spine is the coccyx. The coccyx is simply the end of the spine and never functions anything like a "tail". It isn't a tail.Just because something looks like something else, doesn't mean they are the same thing.
Why do we only see things that look like what evolution says our ancestors should be? We never find things that look like birds in human embryology. We only see things that the theory of evolution says we should see.
We also find tail muscles in the coccyx. There is a muscle that spans a fused joint in the tailbone. That same muscle in other animals lifts the tail, but in humans it can't do anything because the joint is fused.
Upvote
0
By this logic, are you suggesting that humans and birds didn't share a common ancestor in the evolution theory?
That suddenly two different kinds of non-living materials suddenly came to life (not unlike a Disney fantasy) and one turned into a fish which became a human and the other turned into some weird creature that became a bird....oh wait, that weird creature that suddenly came alive from non-living material (in spite of the law of biogenesis) had to become a dinosaur before he could become a bird!
Upvote
0
I am saying that evolved features do not jump between the branches on the tree of life. Features that evolved in the bird branch of the tree should stay on that branch, if evolution is true. However, with a common creator, there is no reason why bird specific features should not find their way into a mammal species.
Therefore, when we observe this branching pattern of shared and evolved features it is evidence for evolution, not a common creator.
Non-living material coming to life by magic is what you believe in.
Upvote
0
yeah...tell me where the platypus falls in that hierachy...a mammal that lays eggs. There are plenty of animals that are artificially grouped somewhere even though biologist realize they don't really fit well...
Upvote
0
No, I believe in a known Creator. You do too...you just don't know his name but instead suggest that somehow the cosmos lined up a weird way just one time and somehow magically erased the laws of science so that non-living material turned into living material. I don't have a problem with the concept that there is something bigger than we are. Ironically, even though you have to believe in some unknown unlogical invisible force, you want to challenge that I just accept that a God does exist. I also have faith that there will be air in the next room I walk into even if I don't see it. I don't think either faith is silly or illogical.
Upvote
0
I don't know how life came about.
You are the one who believes life magically poofed into being. Not I.
The problem I have is in believing something that has no evidence to back it up.
I don't have to believe in anything. I don't know how life came about, nor do I need to know how life came about in order to understand how life changed once it was here.
That isn't faith. You have evidence that nature will expand air out evenly.
Upvote
0
It fits perfectly between placental mammals and our egg laying reptilian ancestors.
Did you forget that reptiles also lay eggs?
Upvote
0
Life had to start somewhere. Evolutionists have no idea where it came from. Creationist do.
Just because you can't see the or accept all the wonderous proofs in nature that a God has to exist does not mean that it doesn't. The fact that anything is alive I think is proof that there is a God.
And I have no idea of what you mean that 'nature will expand air out evenly'...let car exhaust leak into a room tell me that a room full of carbon monoxide looks any different than a room full of air. I act in faith when I assume that the next room is safe to breath in. I also act in faith that there is a God that created life...because honestly, that is the only explanation that makes any sense. Your fear of believing in a god or God, doesn't take away from my awe of actually acknowledging Him.
Upvote
0
oh...so the platypus is part reptile and part mammal? (your biology book looks very different than mine)
Upvote
0
Similar threads
