Re: Homologous Myth (There are no gill slits)


DJT wrote:
mccoy@xxxxxxxxxx wrote:

(rolls my eyes.... here he goes again)

It is all too often that an evolutionist will champion the supposed
relatedness of one form of animal to another through reference to
"similarities" that are supposedly found on the anatomy of each of
the said kind. These similarities are called homologous.


Homology, doofus.

Actually, if I were to use the word homology I would have said, "The
study of homology." But as it is, I used the word appropriately.


Websters
puts it, "Corresponding in basic type of structure and deriving from
a common primitive origin..."

The unfortunate thing is that the word homologous is abused.

It certianly is, when you use it. Scientists use it correctly,
however.

Let's see if you can write anything substantive.


In many
cases the word is asserted as if it were true when no proof has or can
be provided.

Actually there are a great deal of observational evidence provided.

You've had the chance BEFORE to make that case and you never have. I
wonder why that is?



> In particular, when an evolutionist is asserting that
the structures had a "common primitive origin" such assertion
demands proof. Or they fall into the category of belief, imagination,
and fairy tale.

That's why the evidence of homology is provided.

Assertion. Note: no evidence provided.


Even to this day, it is the belief of some that human embryos had
"gill slits."

Which of course, they do. Anyone can see these structures for
themselves, by consulting any photomicrograph of a human embryo.

More assertion. Looks like Dana believes that there are actual gills
in human embryos. Is that what you're saying, Dana?


These imaginary slits do not exist, but only in the
minds of those who hold the evolutionary myth.

Look for yourself:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/images/human_embryo.jpg

Are you saying those are gills? Air goes in there and there are actual
slits there?



Charles Darwin called
these imaginary stuctures "bronchial slits."

The word is "Branchial", and is derived from the Greek for "gills".
The term was not coined by Darwin.

They are imaginary nonetheless.



The Origin of Species, 2nd ed., 1860, Chapter XV Recapitulation and
Conclusion

"The similar framework of bones in the hand of a man, wing of a bat,
fin of the porpoise, and leg of the horse--the same number of vertebrae

Yes, the creator put function into those structures, for movement of
course. And if I were a car designer I would make similar structures
in different cars. But that doesn't mean cars evolved from cars. Only
Dana Tweedy can think that one set of evidence forces us to believe in
evolution. Why, everyone accepts the law of gravity, yet there are
millions in the educated world who do not believe in evolution.


forming the neck of the giraffe and of the elephant--and innumerable
other such facts, at once explain themselves on the theory of descent
with slow and slight successive modifications. The similarity of
pattern in the wing and in the leg of a bat, though used for such
different purpose--in the jaws and legs of a crab--in the petals,
stamens, and pistils of a flower, is likewise, to a large extent,
intelligible on the view of gradual modification of parts or organs,
which were aboriginally alike in an early progenitor in each of these
classes. On the principle of successive variations not always
supervening at an early age, and being inherited at a corresponding not
early period of life, we clearly see why the embryos of mammals, birds,
reptiles, and fishes should be so closely similar, and so unlike the
adult forms. We may cease marveling at the embryo of an air-breathing
mammal or bird having branchial slits and arteries running in loops,
like those of a fish which has to breathe the air dissolved in water by
the aid of well-developed branchiae."


Darwin was wrong.

No, Darwin was correct. You are wrong.

So Tweedy is actually stating that there are gill slits.



He mislead people into thinking that embryos had bronchial slits.

No, he was reporting a fact already known by scientists of the time.

A fact? So you contend that the human embryo has "gill slits"? Are
you prepared to annouce that as certain?


The
structures that he referred to are actually parts of the human jaw,
mouth and ear.

Actually, in the embryo, they are branchial arches.

After stating several times they are "fact" Tweedy pulls a sleight of
hand. He says "branchial arches.' Science is exact. Darwin said
branchial arches. As stated, no branchial tissue exists in those
structures. They become the jaw and parts of the ear. How can they be
"branchial" when they form parts of the jaw? Do you believe in magic?


They don't become
part of the jaw, mouth and ear until later. Since the jaw, mouth and
ear in mammals is derived from the branchial arches of primitive
jawless fish, this finding is what's expected with evolutionary theory.


They never are branchial Tweedy. They are as they see them and they go
directly into the shape of the jaw, mouth and ear. They are just what
they are, nothing more, nothing less.


There is not a single tissue having any relationship
with or related to what Darwin called, "bronchial."

Branchial, moron. And all of the tissue involved is branchial.

I'm not a moron, Tweedy. We are still writing about the same thing.
They are not gills. You've said that they are.



The
structures may look somewhat similar to other specimens of animals in
their embryonic state,

Identical, in fact. That's why they are considered homologus.

They aren't identical, Dana. If they were would contain branchial
tissue in them. But they don't so they aren't identical. You've been
told this before so why can't you learn?


\

but such resemblance only amounts to the fact
that there are some resemblances in their adult state as well.

Because they are derived from a common ancestory.

So by your assertion they are related? Prove that they are of a common
ancestry and prove that the there are slits and that they are
branchial. If they dont' have the fundamental structure to become jaws
then they wouldn't become jaws. So why do they become jaws, Dana? Are
you saying that there are "gills" there that somehow decompose and
magically start forming jaw structure?



For
instance, most animals have two eyes, a nose and a mouth.

Because they inherited those features from a common ancestor. Many
animal species do not have eyes, nose or a mouth, as they are
unicelluar animals.

Should not
these resemblance continue into the embryonic state, or should the
rodent embryo not have a mouth, or maybe have two mouths.

If there was no relationship by common descent, there would be no
reason to expect that embryos of disparate species such as fish,
salamanders, birds, reptiles, and mammals to have common features, much
less identical features. There's no reason why embryos would
resemble other embryos at the same stage.

Maybe the
evolutionists think that rodents should have only one eye so as to not
to deceive them into thinking that all of them are related in "common
origin".

Since "evolutionists" understand and accept common ancestory, there's
no reason to suspect that rodent embryos would have only one eye. If
Creationists were correct, there would be no reason why embryos would
share any similarities. Rodent embryos could have one eye, or two
mouths, or even three tails, as long as they developed into the
"finished" creature before birth. That vertibrate embryos share
specific similiarities at specific stages is a strong indication of
common ancestory.

So cars evolved from cars because they are similar and not from a
common ancestor? My, you're into pontification. And you expect me to
believe it and even pay for it.That sounds rather cultish.




Maybe the creator should have made animals that are tripods instead so
that evolutionists wouldn't think everything of common origin.

Maybe the creator should have. What you need to ask now, is why
didn't he, or she? It's almost as if the creator wanted people to
accept evolution.

Maybe the creator put trees into the geologic strata inorder to confuse
you. I mean, since every inch must represent a million years I suppose
the tree was abnormally resistant to decay. So then by the time it got
covered over it must have been several millions of years. Which,
interestingly enough puts into question as to how fast deposition
actually did take place. I mean with the obvious fact that numerous of
those buried fossils were evidently animals that were still living when
they got buried. And that means when you find a lot of fossils in an
area all meshed in together, then that means a sizeable area got buried
rather quickly. No, you can't prove that an inch represents a million
or even a year, sometimes. Nobody was there to observe it.



But evolutionists are stuck on calling these structures homologous.

How does recognizing a common biological fact make one "stuck"?

No gill slits makes it not a fact.



Do
they ever take the time to prove it?

Yes, if by "prove" you mean "provide plenty of strong evidence".

They do not. In fact, if you were
to look under the microscope would you find Darwin's "bronchial
slits" to have any "bronchial" tissue in them.

Again, doofus, the word is B R A N C H I A L It derives from the
Greek for "gill". It's not the "bronchial" tissue of the lungs at
all. You are continuing to make a foolish error, and making yourself
look more foolish every time you repeat it. Learn some basic biology
before you start up again.

Silly me. It makes NO difference if those tissues are related to the
lungs or not, Dana. You're losing the trees with the forest while the
whole forest is burning down. They're not gills, do you understand?



No. These tissues
are were meant and designed for something else.

Exactly what would be expected from the study of the parts involved.
Again, from the fossil record we see that the jaws, mouth and ear
structures of vertibrates derive from the gill arches in ancient fish.
We can see these structures in veribrate embryos which start out as
homologus to gills, develop into jaw, mouth and ear structures.

If some evolutionist
were to find a natural lump on his arm, would that prove that he was
related to a frog because he found a lump on the frog?

Humans are related to frogs (distantly), but no one states that lumps
in skin of humans is homologus to lumps found in frogs. That's
because we know that the tissue is not derived from the other.

I guess the argument went over your head. You're doing the same thing.
When you see a bump on an embryo and another bump on another embryo,
you claim that both are related. There's a big gap there. Could you
explain why you make the leap?





This idea of common origin is a naturalistic myth.

Common descent is a scientific fact. It's confirmed by genetic,
biochemical, molecular and fossil evidence, as well as embryology.

Common descent is not a scientific fact, Dana. God created everything
using atoms. Why would he use something else for another creature just
to prove that they aren't related? Similarities prove common creator.
Just as if you looked at artwork you could postulate a common artist.
Why must it be a sin to say so?



Sort of believing
in martians from another planet, another naturalistic myth.

I don't think there is anyone who "beleives in martians from another
planet". The only "martians" would have to come from Mars, and as far
as science is concerned, there is no definitive evidence that there is
any life on Mars. Creationists, however have claimed that UFO's were
real, and linked to Satan.

The whole
stuff of homlogolousity is based on pure speculation,


Note below, how Dana Tweedy dissects word for word, chopping up each
sentence and rendering my arguments unintelligible. This is a
dishonesty. Look below and try to follow.


Read : observation

belief,

Read: evidence

and
artificial construct.

Read: Careful scientific work.

Not belonging in the area of science, it is now
time for the evolutionists to abandon such ideas until they can test
and prove them.

Since they have been tested and "proved" (meaning plenty of strong
evidence) already, there's no need to "abandon" this field of study.


You might be wondering as to why Darwin saw branchial slits in the
human embryo.

Darwin reported those structures that were already known to exist.

Darwin, like those evolutionists that surrounded him,
wanted to believe in a biogenetic law.

Darwin didn't have any answer for how life began.

> A law that was named by Haeckel
but also proffered by Agassiz.

Agassiz was a Creationist, by the way.

Darwin hoped that such a law was
proven true. He knew that it wasn't proven, but he wanted to believe.

Darwin, like any scientist, had hopes and expectations.

He wanted it to be true. Evolutionists want their ideas to be true.

So does anyone. However scientists don't simply "want" they provide
evidence to support their statements. Creationists reject ideas they
don't want to be true. Real scientist change their opinions based on
the evidence.

Scientists should not try to make the facts fit their point of view.



Some do so because they were taught as children to believe.

Fortunatley, the evidence supports evolutionary theory. It doesn't
matter what they were "taught as children".

Now
evolutionists, like everyone, make mistakes.

Unlike Creationists, real scientists admit their mistakes, and try to
learn from them.

So now you will admit you can't prove that embryos have gill slits?



They are humans. And they
possess egos and get defensive about their views.

But unlike Creationists, are still willing to change their minds,
should the evidence go against them.

>They are unwilling to
bend or change to the times.


True of Creationists, but false about real scientists.

They experience embarrassment and shame
and an assortment of other basic human emotions. They make mistakes.

Again, true of all humans, but describes Creationists much more. When
scientists make mistakes, they try to correct them. Creationists have
no such desire to correct their mistakes.


Darwin said that he wanted to believe embryo recapitulation.

If Darwin had said something like that, he still would have had to face
the fact that embryos don't recapitulate. They do, however, show
homology with other vertibrate embryos, which indicates common descent.


He hoped
this to be a law of nature.

It doesn't matter what he "hoped". It's what the evidence shows that
matters.


He said, "Agassiz believes this to be a
law of nature; but I AM BOUND TO CONFESS THAT I ONLY HOPE TO SEE THE
LAW HEREAFTER PROVED TRUE."

The full quote is from Chapter XIII of Origin

Thanks for proving it for me. But it just proves that you can find it
but that means very little to the fact that you said that there are
gill slits in embryos when there are none.



http://www.mala.bc.ca/~johnstoi/darwin/darwin_XIII.htm

"As all the organic beings, extinct and recent, which have ever lived
on this earth have to be classed together, and as all have been
connected by the finest gradations, the best, or indeed, if our
collections were nearly perfect, the only possible arrangement, would
be genealogical. Descent being on my view the hidden bond of connexion
which naturalists have been seeking under the term of the natural
system. On this view we can understand how it is that, in the eyes of
most naturalists, the structure of the embryo is even more important
for classification than that of the adult. For the embryo is the animal
in its less modified state; and in so far it reveals the structure of
its progenitor. In two groups of animal, however much they may at
present differ from each other in structure and habits, if they pass
through the same or similar embryonic stages, we may feel assured that
they have both descended from the same or nearly similar parents, and
are therefore in that degree closely related. Thus, community in
embryonic structure reveals community of descent. It will reveal this
community of descent, however much the structure of the adult may have
been modified and obscured; we have seen, for instance, that cirripedes
can at once be recognised by their larvae as belonging to the great
class of crustaceans. As the embryonic state of each species and group
of species partially shows us the structure of their less modified
ancient progenitors, we can clearly see why ancient and extinct forms
of life should resemble the embryos of their descendants,--our existing
species. *Agassiz believes this to be a law of nature; but I am bound
to confess that I only hope to see the law hereafter proved true.* It
can be proved true in those cases alone in which the ancient state, now
supposed to be represented in many embryos, has not been obliterated,
either by the successive variations in a long course of modification
having supervened at a very early age, or by the variations having been
inherited at an earlier period than that at which they first appeared.
It should also be borne in mind, that the supposed law of resemblance
of ancient forms of life to the embryonic stages of recent forms, may
be true, but yet, owing to the geological record not extending far
enough back in time, may remain for a long period, or for ever,
incapable of demonstration."

Agassiz was a Creationist, by the way. Darwin stated that although
he felt that the recapitualation might be true, it hadn't been
established, at the time of his writing or "for ever incapable of
demonstration".

I can cite to you an individual who tried to redefine words so that
humanists could cite the Christian creeds and seem like they believe
every word of it but in fact do not. It is well known that there was
and continues to be pretense when it comes to people claiming to be
Christians when they are not. Take Wescott and Hort, two individuals
that had a heavy influence in radical Bible interpretation. Little do
most know, these two individuals spent time in the Ghost Society. Of
course the Bible specifically forbids such practice. The Fabian
Society used a wolf clothed in sheepskin as a logo. Now, I wonder what
that means. I guess Tweedy doesn't because he'll argue against it all
the same.





Hardly the words of someone who depended on this being correct.


What other things did Darwin hope to be
true?

That his children would grow up, that his wife would be provided after
his death, that he might have steak and kidney pie for supper.....
None of these caused any reason to question his theory.


Did his hopes shaped his observations?

Not likely. Darwin was too good a scientist to allow that, unlike
creationists.

Did he become blind to
the actual nature of things?

No, Darwin saw nature with exceptional clarity, again, unlike
Creationists.



Science is about accuracy. It's about observation. It's not about
what one wishes to be true.

All three reasons why Creationists cannot be scientists.

What? Gill slits and Piltdown Men. My gosh, Sir Arthur Keith wasn't a
scientist!


Darwin elimenated disqualified himself
from science.

How? by being accurate? by observing?, and by publishing the evidence,
not what he wanted to be true? How does that disqualify Darwin?


He saw phantom "bronchial slits" before his eyes.

Branchial, moron. And he wasn't the one to discover those structures.

As said before, no gill slits are on human embryos.



But
this phantom

Then why do they show up in every photograph of vertibrate embryos at
that stage of development??

- a product of hopes and imagination, hit rock bottom and
was jarred out of existence as if awakening from a bad dream.

Do you think photographic evidence is "a bad dream"? For
creationists, it must be.

> Sadly
to say, the evolutionary establishment

what "evolutionary establishement"?


has perpetuated the myth of the
gill/bronchial slits for too long.


How, exactly? Did they graft these structures on every vertibrate
embryo studied?

Appearing in textbooks for much too
long, the supposed myth needs to be given a rest so that true
scientists can do their work without coercion.

Real scientists do work without coersion. That's why creationists
need to be opposed.


Coercion has become the
evolutionist way and such coercion has no place in science.

Exactly how are scientists "coerced" by "evolutionists"?


DJT

Dana,

You've made lots of basic assertions but once again you haven't proven
anything.

1. There are no gill slits on human embryos so how do you contend with
this glaring mistake?
2. You've made a great deal about bronchial versus branchial but I
hardly see the difference. Irregardless there are no gill tissues and
there are no slits. This is an important fact to learn. There is not a
single tissue that is related to gills on the human embryo.
3. Darwin promoted this idea of "branchial slits." He deceived many.




Then you proceed to state that creationists (now you are on attack mode
rather than addressing the problem) aren't qualified to be scientists
when creationists have accurately said that there are no gill slits or
branchial slits.

I quoted Darwin as stating that he was hoping that the biogenetic law
was correct and all you could do was cite the chapter to which the
quote came, proving me to be correct. Yet, you're still adament about
evolutionists like Darwin not ever making mistakes. And when they do
you ignore it and count it as nothing. Yet creationists have been
accurate in stating that these mistakes do exist.

JM

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Homologous Myth (There are no gill slits)
    ... Actually there are a great deal of observational evidence provided. ... he was reporting a fact already known by scientists of the time. ... Because they are derived from a common ancestory. ... Since "evolutionists" understand and accept common ancestory, ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Perhaps slightly off topic
    ... The overwhelming amount of evidence reflected in a number of different ... Genetic and DNA studies that not only strongly supports common ... YEC is not an attack on Christianity, but upon a part of that faith ... rewarding those scientists who completely change everything we think ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Perhaps slightly off topic
    ... The overwhelming amount of evidence reflected in a number of different ... Genetic and DNA studies that not only strongly supports common ... YEC is not an attack on Christianity, but upon a part of that faith ... rewarding those scientists who completely change everything we think ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Letter from the Governor of Kentucky
    ... Robin Levett wrote: ... "scientific fact" by some evolutionists. ... Common descent is ... Identify and provide the evidence for your great-great-grandfather; ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Letter from the Governor of Kentucky
    ... "scientific fact" by some evolutionists. ... Common descent is ... Identify and provide the evidence for your great-great-grandfather; ... creationists, Dr Colin Patterson. ...
    (talk.origins)
Loading