Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Jerry Coyne Defends Haeckel's Embryos: Why Darwinism Is False (Part IV)
Discovery Institute ^ | April 29, 2009 | Jonathan Wells, Ph.D.

Posted on 04/29/2009 8:29:52 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts

Jerry Coyne Defends Haeckel's Embryos: Why Darwinism Is False

So evolutionary theory needs better evidence than the fossil record can provide. Coyne correctly notes: “When he wrote The Origin, Darwin considered embryology his strongest evidence for evolution.” Darwin had written that the evidence seemed to show that “the embryos of the most distinct species belonging to the same class are closely similar, but become, when fully developed, widely dissimilar,” a pattern that “reveals community of descent.”...

(Excerpt) Read more at evolutionnews.org ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; News/Current Events; Philosophy
KEYWORDS: abiodumbbells; artbell; creation; darwiniacs; evolution; intelligentdesign; science; templeofdarwin; themagicwand
Note: This is Part 4 in a series reviewing Jerry Coyne's Why Evolution Is True. Read Part 1 here, Part 2 here, and Part 3 here.
1 posted on 04/29/2009 8:29:53 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: All

What amazes me is that nobody ever talks about the fact that “Darwin considered embryology (read: recapitulation!) his strongest evidence for evolution.”


2 posted on 04/29/2009 8:31:01 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: metmom

Hi Metmom,

Don’t have my ping list handy. Would you mind pinging this post to yours?

Thanks a bunch—GGG


3 posted on 04/29/2009 8:32:11 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts
Jerry Coyne Defends Haeckel's Embryos: Why Darwinism Is False.

Followed by Note: This is Part 4 in a series reviewing Jerry Coyne's Why Evolution Is True.

?

Guess I will be forced to read the who series to understand.

4 posted on 04/29/2009 8:49:42 PM PDT by doc1019 (Without White Liberal Guilt, Obama would just be another worthless Congress critter.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Finny; vladimir998; Coyoteman; allmendream; LeGrande; GunRunner; cacoethes_resipisco; ...

Ping!


5 posted on 04/29/2009 9:01:38 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Finny; vladimir998; Coyoteman; allmendream; LeGrande; GunRunner; cacoethes_resipisco; ...

Ping!


6 posted on 04/29/2009 9:01:39 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Finny; vladimir998; Coyoteman; allmendream; LeGrande; GunRunner; cacoethes_resipisco; ...

Ping!


7 posted on 04/29/2009 9:01:41 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: doc1019

Not really, each part makes sense all by themselves.


8 posted on 04/29/2009 9:04:13 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

Thanks for the ping!


9 posted on 04/29/2009 9:06:41 PM PDT by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts
I don't have much time, but I'm amazed someone like Coyne would hang onto Haeckel's embryo fraud. There are two problems with this that the 'less-educated' evolutionists out there don't understand. The first, of course, is the known fraudulent nature of Haeckel's drawings compared to the real thing. But even with this information many evolutionists emotionally want to hang on to the basic concept Haeckel advanced.

That's why I think it is helpful to explain that there is really no reason from an evolutionary viewpoint to think Haeckel was right. Haeckel's conception of evolution (and a common one at the time) was that evolution occurred by adding stages of life.

For example, once upon a time there was a single living cell. But then some cells lived longer and grew into worms. They still started life as a single cell, but developed into something more.

Then some of these worms lived longer and grew into fish. Once again they started as single cells and grew into worms, but then continued on to become fish.

Haeckel and others believed this process continued all the way up to humans. I still see many evolutionists today who believe you start out as a single cell because that's how our ancestors lived, and then we grow into a worm, a fish, an amphibian and so on until birth.

But this was based on a total misunderstanding of genetics, one that is flatly contradictory to Neo-Darwinism. Within modern evolutionism, mutations are responsible for transforming bacteria into humans, not longer lives. And those mutations are just as likely to transform developmental pathways as they are to alter end of life phenotypes. So embryological development has just as much opportunity to change as any other stage of life, and would presumably do so.

Not surprisingly, those skeptical of Haeckel's fraud find innumerable contradictions to this 19th century evolutionary myth in modern embryological studies, yet it captures the imagination and is still a valuable tool for preaching evolution, so it is hard to see it ever being weeded out. And that's sad, not just for biblical creation but for science and truth generally.

10 posted on 04/29/2009 9:18:01 PM PDT by Liberty1970 (Democrats are not in control. God is. And Thank God for that!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Liberty1970

All excellent points. What amazes me is the fact that Darwin thought Haekelesque recapitulation was one of the “strongest” arguments for common descent!


11 posted on 04/29/2009 9:27:02 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

Haeckel faked the drawings! And that has been known and admitted to for over 100 years!


12 posted on 04/29/2009 10:36:11 PM PDT by LiteKeeper (When do the impeachment proceedings begin?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: LiteKeeper

But did you know that darwood considered the discredited Haeckeliac recapitulation as one of the strongest arguments for evolution?!?!?


13 posted on 04/29/2009 11:26:28 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: LiteKeeper

Not to mention the fact that Jerry Coyne is still defending Haeckel!


14 posted on 04/29/2009 11:27:14 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

Once you establish that a literal interpretation of Genesis has to be accepted as a historically and scientifically correct account, and effectively put a religous test on who can and can’t be a scientist, what’s next?


15 posted on 04/30/2009 4:07:58 AM PDT by tacticalogic ("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

You actually believe that the Earth was created some 6000 years ago?

Kook spam.


16 posted on 04/30/2009 5:07:16 AM PDT by Darwin Fish
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Darwin Fish
You actually believe that the Earth was created some 6000 years ago?

No, That would be a bunch of BS, just like evolution and evoloserism.

17 posted on 04/30/2009 7:22:48 AM PDT by varmintman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Darwin Fish

In fact our living world and local environment may actually ybe six or ten thousand years old, but the Earth viewed as a collection of rocks is somewhat older than that. But not billions of years old. Robert Bass once redid Lord Kelvin’s heat equations for the Earth WITH a maximum possible figure for radioactive elements included and got an upper bound of around 200,000,000 years for the Earth’s age. Evolosers, of course, do not have any OTHER reason for rejecting Lord Kelvin’s basic findings.


18 posted on 04/30/2009 7:26:08 AM PDT by varmintman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Darwin Fish

By the way, how are things over at DC? Is there a sort of a morbid excitement from being part of one of the last little groups of committed evolosers??


19 posted on 04/30/2009 7:27:35 AM PDT by varmintman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: varmintman

Don’t live in DC, and have no idea what you are talking about. But I am sure it makes sense in your mind.


20 posted on 04/30/2009 7:54:07 AM PDT by Darwin Fish
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: varmintman
"No, That would be a bunch of BS, just like evolution and evoloserism. "

The actual "believing the earth is 6000 years old" post is addressed to the originator of the post, if you will look at my post. Yes, GGG believes the earth is 6000 years old, so your "bunch of BS is directed at her.

21 posted on 04/30/2009 7:59:21 AM PDT by Darwin Fish
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Darwin Fish

Darwin Central: where all of the evolosers who can’t take the heat on other websites eventually end up. Sort of an old folks home...


22 posted on 04/30/2009 7:59:47 AM PDT by varmintman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Darwin Fish
“Kook spam.” [excerpt]
Yes, that is your opinion.

23 posted on 04/30/2009 11:27:54 AM PDT by Fichori (The only bailout I'm interested in is the one where the entire Democrat party leaves the county)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: varmintman

How big is the DisHonesty Institute list of “scientists” who dispute common descent compared to the “Steve List”?


24 posted on 04/30/2009 10:46:15 PM PDT by Phileleutherus Franciscus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson