Human embryos resemble those of other species

[Urbanguerrilla]

Human embryos resemble those of many other species because all animals carry very ancient genes. These genes date back to the origin of cells, which are expressed during a middle phase of embryonic development, according to two separate papers published in this week's Nature.

The findings help to explain why our embryos have a tail when they are a few weeks old and why human embryos retain other characteristics, such as fur-like hair and fish embryo similarities, seen in the developmental stages of other species.

 

[R.C. Christian]

Startling news. Really, no shit?

 

[Urbanguerrilla]

Startling news. Really, no shit?

Yes, no shit.

Does this not challenge your ideas on 'faith' versus reality?...jus' aksin'

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Mind boggling.

Startling news. Really, no shit?

Yes, no shit.

Does this not challenge your ideas on 'faith' versus reality?...jus' aksin'

YOu really do not understand faith, do you? Faith does not conflict with reality, it augments it. [ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cNu4CluFOcw[/ame]

 

[JBeukema]

American Trolling League
Rejected
​

We regret to inform you that your submission has been rejected. Your trolling is simply not up to ATL standards. USMB requires all trolls to be registered with the ATL and to have current ATL certification to ensure quality. In accordance with the Terms of Use and applicable rules, regulations, and standards, you are ordered to CEASE AND DESIST your activities until you are able to meet ATL standards and acquire certification.

Sincerely

James Beukema
Master Poe, American Trolling League

 

[Urbanguerrilla]

Mind boggling.

Startling news. Really, no shit?

Yes, no shit.

Does this not challenge your ideas on 'faith' versus reality?...jus' aksin'

YOu really do not understand faith, do you? Faith does not conflict with reality, it augments it. [ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cNu4CluFOcw[/ame]

Nonsense. Religious people just pretend to believe in 'faith', in reality they dont sit praying when their kids are sick, they go to a doctor; they dont walk across a road blindfold 'knowing that their god/gods will save them', they are very carefull of the fast moving metal they know will kill them if they dont avoid it.

See, reality versus faith

 

[Sunni Man]

Human embryos resemble those of many other species..............

So what?

A Ford Pinto resembles a Ferrari F430

4 tires, engine, transmission, steering wheel,

But that's about all they have in common.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Mind boggling.

Yes, no shit.

Does this not challenge your ideas on 'faith' versus reality?...jus' aksin'

YOu really do not understand faith, do you? Faith does not conflict with reality, it augments it. [ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cNu4CluFOcw[/ame]

Nonsense. Religious people just pretend to believe in 'faith', in reality they dont sit praying when their kids are sick, they go to a doctor; they dont walk across a road blindfold 'knowing that their god/gods will save them', they are very carefull of the fast moving metal they know will kill them if they dont avoid it.

See, reality versus faith

 

[frazzledgear]

Human embryos resemble those of many other species because all animals carry very ancient genes. These genes date back to the origin of cells, which are expressed during a middle phase of embryonic development, according to two separate papers published in this week's Nature.

The findings help to explain why our embryos have a tail when they are a few weeks old and why human embryos retain other characteristics, such as fur-like hair and fish embryo similarities, seen in the developmental stages of other species.

Shockingly this is such an ingrained built-in part of the evolution myth, it is still being taught in public schools today. To find out that the embryos of different vertebrates really DON'T look much like each other after all and often don't even follow the same stages of development after all even among similar species -requires taking advanced sciences which the vast majority of people will never do. This little show to reinforce the myth is done for the masses -by those who are politically invested in the theory of evolution. While they insist it is those who realize how badly flawed this theory is and even flat out wrong in places who have the real problem. Those who recognize it is flawed are demanding MORE scientific research, those who insist evolution be treated as a religion insist it may NOT be challenged and then drag out something like this while ignoring the reams of papers challenging or criticizing some aspect of the theory of evolution. No coincidence THIS was shown -but the considerable research on MANY fronts that challenge it and contradict it in some way or focuses on the significant flaws and errors with the theory is NEVER shown. The left are the new flat earthers who fear their worldview would be upended if their pet theory were to be challenged the flaws and errors of it widely acknowledged. When the left becomes politically invested in some scientific theory (and it is always the LEFT that does), their response to any criticism or challenge to whatever theory du jour they fell in love is a demand their favored theory be treated as if writ in stone, increasingly insist it has been "proven" in spite of the glaring lack of proof and contradictions that exist to challenge it - and that scientific principles be thrown out the window for their pet theory. In fact the theory of evolution cannot EVER be proven and Darwin knew it -he said so himself! He said the ONLY supporting evidence for it at all could only be found in the fossil record where he theorized the vast majority of fossils would be "in-between" fossils showing one species in the process of turning into another one. And said even if that were true, it still could not prove his theory to be true. Yet here we are more than a century later with the fossil record tremendously added to -and not only are the majority NOT "in-between" fossils as Darwin theorized they would be IF his theory were true - there isn't a single one. For ANY species. If Darwin were alive today he would be the first to admit he got it wrong. Legitimate theories that were eventually proven true were proposed to explain a single phenomenon and properly challenged for accuracy. There is a reason the theory of evolution is still a theory and always will be. The theory is in fact an incredibly overly simplistic theory that attempted to explain EVERYTHING -but in fact explains nothing. I learned the following (along with the MANY other problems with the theory) at a university when I took Comparative Anatomy. It was repeated in Microbiology and yet again in Zoology. As a scholar in the advanced sciences I was expected to KNOW this -not turn around and offer up years later as if it had never been proven to be a FRAUD!

"Haeckel's Embryos: Fraud Rediscovered", "In reality, Richardson and his colleagues note, even closely related embryos such as those of fish vary quite a bit in their appearance and developmental pathways. 'It looks like it's turning out to be one of the most famous fakes in biology .. .... But Haeckel's confession got lost after his drawings were subsequently used in a 1901 book called Darwin and After Darwin and reproduced widely in English language biology texts." (Science, p.1435, V.277, 9/5/97)

[/QUOTE] Evidence for Evolution - Embryology:
(claimed) Embryos of different vertebrates look alike in their early stages, giving the superficial appearance of relationship. (crit) Embryos of different vertebrates DO NOT look alike in their early stages. "This idea was fathered by Ernest Haeckel, a German biologist who was so convinced that he had solved the riddle of life's unfolding that he doctored and faked his drawings of embryonic stages to prove his point." (William R. Fix, "The Bone Peddlers: Selling Evolution," 1984, p. 285.) Haeckel was exposed as a fraud in 1874 by Professor Wilhelm His. Nevertheless, Haeckel's fraudulent drawings (or similar representations) remain in high school and college biology textbooks to this day as evidence for evolution.

Haekel, Ernst (1834-1919) -- from Eric Weisstein's World of Scientific Biography

"Although Haeckel confessed ... the drawings persist. 'That's the real mystery.' says Richardson.", (New Scientist, p23, 9/6/97)

"Haeckel was not prudish in the selection of tools for his fight. In order to prove the validity of the law of biogenesis, he published several figures, the original and legends of which were faked up." ... "This fake is now shown in a few examples. For this purpose he used the same printing stock three times and invented a different legend for each copy." ... "There are a number of other figures, the originals of which were changed by Haeckel in order to demonstrate that human ontogeny successively passes through stages of development which repeat phylogeny." ... "This is not the first time that Haeckel's fake has been revealed. The well-known zoologist, Ludwig Rutimeyer (1868), protested against it." ... "The law of biogenesis has to use cheating tricks in order to fit data to the theory." (Human Embryology and the Law of Biogenesis, G. Rager, in Rivista di Biologia, Biology Forum 79, 1986, p 451-452)

Haeckel, who in 1868 advanced this "biogenetic law" that was quickly adopted in textbooks and encyclopedias throughout the world, distorted his data. Thompson explains: "A natural law can only be established as an induction from facts. Haeckel was of course unable to do this. What he did was to arrange existing forms of animal life in a series proceeding from the simple to the complex, intercalating [inserting] imaginary entities where discontinuity existed and then giving the embryonic phases names corresponding to the stages in his so-called evolutionary series. Cases in which this parallelism did not exist were dealt with by the simple expedient of saying that the embryological development had been falsified. When the `convergence' of embryos was not entirely satisfactory, Haeckel altered the illustrations of them to fit his theory. The alterations were slight but significant. The `biogenetic law' as a proof of evolution is valueless." W. R. Thompson, "Introduction to The Origin of Species," p. 12

"The history of the so-called Law of Recapitulation is briefly examined from its inception down to Ernst Haeckel who finalized it as the "Biogenetic Law." Because of many short-comings discovered since Haeckel's day, the idea of "Recapitulation" is no longer generally recognized as a "Law" and some modern texts on evolution omit all reference to the topic. Some post-1960 textbooks, however, still present the illustrations of supposed embryological stages by Ernst Haeckel as support for the theory of evolution. Original criticisms of the honesty of Haeckel's arguments and illustrations are presented here, based on translated excerpts from the original German reviews by L. Rutimeyer, professor of science at the University of Basel, and early critic of Haeckel. These original sources indicate that Haeckel's woodcut series illustrating the ova and embryo were fraudulent. Articles by Wilhelm His, Sr., embryologist and anatomist of the University of Leipzig, also demonstrate that Haeckel's works contained distortions that were evidently perpetrated with the direct intent to deceive. It is suggested that future editions of science texts eliminate all use of Haeckel's questionable materials. Perpetuating these distorted drawings as true representations of the embryos in question and as having weight in the argument for evolution is certainly regrettable. (Ontogeny Recapitulates Phylogeny, Wilbert H. Rusch, Sr., Creation Research Society Quarterly, Vol. 6, June 1969, pp. 27-34)

"Much research has been done in embryology since Haeckel's day, and we now know that there are all too many exceptions to this analogy, and that ontogeny does not reflect accurately the course of evolution." EVOLUTION OF THE EARTH, p.86

In her book Jane Oppenheimer said that the work of Haeckel "was the culmination of the extremes of exaggeration and even fraud which followed Darwin." She lamented that "Haeckel's doctrines were blindly and uncritically accepted," (Essays in the History of Embryology and Biology (MIT Press, 1967 p. 150)

Interesting the show insisted human embryos share characteristics with stages fish go through -when even similar species of fish frequently don't look alike in their embryonic stage! One of the often repeated lies is the claim human embryos have "gills" at one point in their development when they do not. What the frauds insisted (and sometimes still do to this day) were "gills" are actually nothing but natural folds in the embryonic tissue that share nothing in common with fish and their development in that same area. Human embryos don't really have a tail either. Their central nervous system initially develops at a faster rate than the rest of the body which doesn't kick into gear until later. It is why the head is so large too -the brain and spinal cord undergo rapid changes early on. The "tail" so often pictured isn't a tail at all. It is their spinal cord, not a bony structure of any kind and the bones of the spine don't even develop until later. It is central nervous system tissue -and it does not does not shrink with continued development. The rest of the body grows to catch up with it and eventually bone tissues grows to surround the spinal cord. But it is NOT a tail at all, it is the embryo developing the necessary nervous system connections needed before further development of other systems can take place. If you look at a real (not doctored up) embryo of an animal that really DOES have a tail whether it is a tailed monkey, dog, mouse, cat or elephant -there is a sharp, distinctive difference between what the spinal cord looks like and a REAL tail which contains no spinal cord tissue at all. And even though the spinal cord extends way beyond the rest of the body until the rest of the body catches up too like it does in humans - it never looks like their true tail. A true tail does NOT have the same kind of surrounding tissue found on central nervous system tissue from which the trunk and lower limbs will develop. Calling it a "tail" suited the purposes of those intent on finding a nonexistent relationship between tailed animals and untailed species that does not exist. Wishing it were so cannot make it so.

 

[Old Rocks]

Whatever.

The science of genetics has established our relationship to the rest of life in this world that is simply beyond arguement.

 

[FA_Q2]

Human embryos resemble those of many other species because all animals carry very ancient genes. These genes date back to the origin of cells, which are expressed during a middle phase of embryonic development, according to two separate papers published in this week's Nature.

The findings help to explain why our embryos have a tail when they are a few weeks old and why human embryos retain other characteristics, such as fur-like hair and fish embryo similarities, seen in the developmental stages of other species.

Shockingly this is such an ingrained built-in part of the evolution myth, it is still being taught in public schools today. To find out that the embryos of different vertebrates really DON'T look much like each other after all and often don't even follow the same stages of development after all even among similar species -requires taking advanced sciences which the vast majority of people will never do. This little show to reinforce the myth is done for the masses -by those who are politically invested in the theory of evolution. While they insist it is those who realize how badly flawed this theory is and even flat out wrong in places who have the real problem. Those who recognize it is flawed are demanding MORE scientific research, those who insist evolution be treated as a religion insist it may NOT be challenged and then drag out something like this while ignoring the reams of papers challenging or criticizing some aspect of the theory of evolution. No coincidence THIS was shown -but the considerable research on MANY fronts that challenge it and contradict it in some way or focuses on the significant flaws and errors with the theory is NEVER shown. The left are the new flat earthers who fear their worldview would be upended if their pet theory were to be challenged the flaws and errors of it widely acknowledged. When the left becomes politically invested in some scientific theory (and it is always the LEFT that does), their response to any criticism or challenge to whatever theory du jour they fell in love is a demand their favored theory be treated as if writ in stone, increasingly insist it has been "proven" in spite of the glaring lack of proof and contradictions that exist to challenge it - and that scientific principles be thrown out the window for their pet theory. In fact the theory of evolution cannot EVER be proven and Darwin knew it -he said so himself! He said the ONLY supporting evidence for it at all could only be found in the fossil record where he theorized the vast majority of fossils would be "in-between" fossils showing one species in the process of turning into another one. And said even if that were true, it still could not prove his theory to be true. Yet here we are more than a century later with the fossil record tremendously added to -and not only are the majority NOT "in-between" fossils as Darwin theorized they would be IF his theory were true - there isn't a single one. For ANY species. If Darwin were alive today he would be the first to admit he got it wrong. Legitimate theories that were eventually proven true were proposed to explain a single phenomenon and properly challenged for accuracy. There is a reason the theory of evolution is still a theory and always will be. The theory is in fact an incredibly overly simplistic theory that attempted to explain EVERYTHING -but in fact explains nothing. I learned the following (along with the MANY other problems with the theory) at a university when I took Comparative Anatomy. It was repeated in Microbiology and yet again in Zoology. As a scholar in the advanced sciences I was expected to KNOW this -not turn around and offer up years later as if it had never been proven to be a FRAUD!

"Haeckel's Embryos: Fraud Rediscovered", "In reality, Richardson and his colleagues note, even closely related embryos such as those of fish vary quite a bit in their appearance and developmental pathways. 'It looks like it's turning out to be one of the most famous fakes in biology .. .... But Haeckel's confession got lost after his drawings were subsequently used in a 1901 book called Darwin and After Darwin and reproduced widely in English language biology texts." (Science, p.1435, V.277, 9/5/97)

Evidence for Evolution - Embryology:
(claimed) Embryos of different vertebrates look alike in their early stages, giving the superficial appearance of relationship. (crit) Embryos of different vertebrates DO NOT look alike in their early stages. "This idea was fathered by Ernest Haeckel, a German biologist who was so convinced that he had solved the riddle of life's unfolding that he doctored and faked his drawings of embryonic stages to prove his point." (William R. Fix, "The Bone Peddlers: Selling Evolution," 1984, p. 285.) Haeckel was exposed as a fraud in 1874 by Professor Wilhelm His. Nevertheless, Haeckel's fraudulent drawings (or similar representations) remain in high school and college biology textbooks to this day as evidence for evolution.

Haekel, Ernst (1834-1919) -- from Eric Weisstein's World of Scientific Biography

"Although Haeckel confessed ... the drawings persist. 'That's the real mystery.' says Richardson.", (New Scientist, p23, 9/6/97)

"Haeckel was not prudish in the selection of tools for his fight. In order to prove the validity of the law of biogenesis, he published several figures, the original and legends of which were faked up." ... "This fake is now shown in a few examples. For this purpose he used the same printing stock three times and invented a different legend for each copy." ... "There are a number of other figures, the originals of which were changed by Haeckel in order to demonstrate that human ontogeny successively passes through stages of development which repeat phylogeny." ... "This is not the first time that Haeckel's fake has been revealed. The well-known zoologist, Ludwig Rutimeyer (1868), protested against it." ... "The law of biogenesis has to use cheating tricks in order to fit data to the theory." (Human Embryology and the Law of Biogenesis, G. Rager, in Rivista di Biologia, Biology Forum 79, 1986, p 451-452)

Haeckel, who in 1868 advanced this "biogenetic law" that was quickly adopted in textbooks and encyclopedias throughout the world, distorted his data. Thompson explains: "A natural law can only be established as an induction from facts. Haeckel was of course unable to do this. What he did was to arrange existing forms of animal life in a series proceeding from the simple to the complex, intercalating [inserting] imaginary entities where discontinuity existed and then giving the embryonic phases names corresponding to the stages in his so-called evolutionary series. Cases in which this parallelism did not exist were dealt with by the simple expedient of saying that the embryological development had been falsified. When the `convergence' of embryos was not entirely satisfactory, Haeckel altered the illustrations of them to fit his theory. The alterations were slight but significant. The `biogenetic law' as a proof of evolution is valueless." W. R. Thompson, "Introduction to The Origin of Species," p. 12

"The history of the so-called Law of Recapitulation is briefly examined from its inception down to Ernst Haeckel who finalized it as the "Biogenetic Law." Because of many short-comings discovered since Haeckel's day, the idea of "Recapitulation" is no longer generally recognized as a "Law" and some modern texts on evolution omit all reference to the topic. Some post-1960 textbooks, however, still present the illustrations of supposed embryological stages by Ernst Haeckel as support for the theory of evolution. Original criticisms of the honesty of Haeckel's arguments and illustrations are presented here, based on translated excerpts from the original German reviews by L. Rutimeyer, professor of science at the University of Basel, and early critic of Haeckel. These original sources indicate that Haeckel's woodcut series illustrating the ova and embryo were fraudulent. Articles by Wilhelm His, Sr., embryologist and anatomist of the University of Leipzig, also demonstrate that Haeckel's works contained distortions that were evidently perpetrated with the direct intent to deceive. It is suggested that future editions of science texts eliminate all use of Haeckel's questionable materials. Perpetuating these distorted drawings as true representations of the embryos in question and as having weight in the argument for evolution is certainly regrettable. (Ontogeny Recapitulates Phylogeny, Wilbert H. Rusch, Sr., Creation Research Society Quarterly, Vol. 6, June 1969, pp. 27-34)

"Much research has been done in embryology since Haeckel's day, and we now know that there are all too many exceptions to this analogy, and that ontogeny does not reflect accurately the course of evolution." EVOLUTION OF THE EARTH, p.86

In her book Jane Oppenheimer said that the work of Haeckel "was the culmination of the extremes of exaggeration and even fraud which followed Darwin." She lamented that "Haeckel's doctrines were blindly and uncritically accepted," (Essays in the History of Embryology and Biology (MIT Press, 1967 p. 150)

Interesting the show insisted human embryos share characteristics with stages fish go through -when even similar species of fish frequently don't look alike in their embryonic stage! One of the often repeated lies is the claim human embryos have "gills" at one point in their development when they do not. What the frauds insisted (and sometimes still do to this day) were "gills" are actually nothing but natural folds in the embryonic tissue that share nothing in common with fish and their development in that same area. Human embryos don't really have a tail either. Their central nervous system initially develops at a faster rate than the rest of the body which doesn't kick into gear until later. It is why the head is so large too -the brain and spinal cord undergo rapid changes early on. The "tail" so often pictured isn't a tail at all. It is their spinal cord, not a bony structure of any kind and the bones of the spine don't even develop until later. It is central nervous system tissue -and it does not does not shrink with continued development. The rest of the body grows to catch up with it and eventually bone tissues grows to surround the spinal cord. But it is NOT a tail at all, it is the embryo developing the necessary nervous system connections needed before further development of other systems can take place. If you look at a real (not doctored up) embryo of an animal that really DOES have a tail whether it is a tailed monkey, dog, mouse, cat or elephant -there is a sharp, distinctive difference between what the spinal cord looks like and a REAL tail which contains no spinal cord tissue at all. And even though the spinal cord extends way beyond the rest of the body until the rest of the body catches up too like it does in humans - it never looks like their true tail. A true tail does NOT have the same kind of surrounding tissue found on central nervous system tissue from which the trunk and lower limbs will develop. Calling it a "tail" suited the purposes of those intent on finding a nonexistent relationship between tailed animals and untailed species that does not exist. Wishing it were so cannot make it so.

All that and you fail to realize that this has nothing to do with or has any bearing on the validity of evolution. So we do not all develop the same, what the hell does that matter in the realm of evolution. So the OP is not correct. That is all that you had to say instead of going off on an ideological fallacy that has nothing to do with the reality of the OP.

 

[Mad Scientist]

Human embryos resemble those of many other species because all animals carry very ancient genes. These genes date back to the origin of cells, which are expressed during a middle phase of embryonic development, according to two separate papers published in this week's Nature.

The findings help to explain why our embryos have a tail when they are a few weeks old and why human embryos retain other characteristics, such as fur-like hair and fish embryo similarities, seen in the developmental stages of other species.

Is this some sort of News Flash or revelation for you? We learned this in elementary school.