Replies

e.g. Evolution never throws out a good thing once it's developed. So we're supposed to believe us losing our 'fur coats' is a good thing? Our ability to move swiftly with the agility of an animal? How come there are SO many animals that have these 'good handy developments' that they lost? If you say "they lost it because they developed something better" then how come WE lost all those good things just because we developed intelligence? Surely a fur covering and agility/precociousness doesn't interfere with that?

You have to keep things in evolutionary perspective. Homo spp. are believed to have originated to a warm climate. There would be no need for "fur covering". Any adpatation that requires energy input (as in fur) that did not provide a selective advantage, could easily be lost.

In addition they used the 'fetal development' stuff that has been disproved as a hoax as evidence. They're STILL using that idea!

Not true. Current biology text books do not use Haeckle's embryo's. The theory has been refined and modified, no mention of gill slits.

If evolution is true, then by the same standards, so is global warming, and we'd better see these conservative evolutionists capitulating to those who would have us forfeit our freedom in order to save the environment.

No idea where you are going here. Science is the process of examining evidence. I see evidence everywhere of evolution. I see little evidence of human induced global warming.

No idea where you are going here. Science is the process of examining evidence. I see evidence everywhere of evolution. I see little evidence of human induced global warming.

Well that's so special. I don't see evidence anywhere of evolution, nor global warming. IN fact I see evidence everywhere of design. So why is it that some people look at the same thing and come to different conclusions AT ALL LEVELS OF EDUCATION?

Current biology text books do not use Haeckle's embryo's. The theory has been refined and modified, no mention of gill slits.

I would hope so. But I wonder how "current" a text should be to avoid mention of Haeckle's work, which was initially discredited over a century ago (I admit to not knowing when the actual function of those constructs considered gill slits was actually determined).

My high school biology text in the mid-80s had variants on Haeckle's drawings, including labelled gill slits. I've seen texts published in 1999 with the same diagrams. And I was just watching a piece on Discovery Health that implied the same thing, albeit with color CGI morphing rather than line art.

My point: Whether or not the actual theory uses discredited data as support, proponents of that theory continue to propogate that data within introductory texts aimed at youth, and have for far longer than even a sympathetic viewer would deem reasonable. This is unconscionable, and if evolutionists won't clean their house of such crap, they shouldn't be surprised when their adversaries make them smell it.

Cyrano

You have to keep things in evolutionary perspective. Homo spp. are believed to have originated to a warm climate. There would be no need for "fur covering". Any adaptation that requires energy input (as in fur) that did not provide a selective advantage, could easily be lost.

Looking at things from the 'evolutionary perspective' we once had fur, so why did we lose it? Other critters in hot places did not lose it. The premise that we never lose 'good' features is clearly flawed. Unless you are willing to invent elaborate reasons why indevidual features were kept or discarded without any evidence for those reasons except that they feature is or is not still there. The other posters premise was that that the program he watched was using false information about evolutionary theory. I think his point stands.

Current biology text books do not use Haeckle's embryo's.

What the poster said was that the program he watched DID use it so someone somewhere is still using that idea.