Darwinist's Dilemma (Are I.D. Biologists Legit?)

At earlier stage of our evolution we had gills and still do in early stage of embronic growth. In fact we have tails and many other traces of our evolutionary history in the first few months in the womb. This fact is (in English) summarized for all medical students in three sophisticated / complex words:

"Ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny."

For me, this is the epitomy of intelectual concentration in one three-word sentence.

I bet yours is: "God is love."

I assume you are ignorant of the well established fact that initially the Earth had no free oxygen. - Oxygen was all made much later by green plants. If you were not so ignorant and were consistent, you would conclude God's creation, Earth, has been polluted by a gas (O2), poisonous to the anaerobic creatures* He placed here.

I also assume you deign all these facts, but I am curious about one thing in your creation story: God made woman from one of Adam's ribs, but men have the same number on both the right and left side. Is God with an odd number of ribs? Adam must have been and he was made in God's image.
----------------------
*BTW, a few of them have managed to survive the poison gas attack. - They can be found sheltered inside the guts of many animals and are still fighting the "good fight" to reclaim Earth by releasing methane, trying to raise the temperature, and thereby cause the poisonous gas to combine with other elements so it will be safe for them to emerge and reclaim the Earth God gave to them.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

So that's how we got thrown out of Eden. Our gills were repossessed, and we had to put clothes on and walk around on dirt.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Intelligent Design is not science: why this matters

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Unfortunately, the medical students are getting out of date information. "Ontogeny recapitulates Phylogeny" is actually false.

See here for more info:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/wells/haeckel.html


And a quote here:
The ideas of Ernst Haeckel greatly influenced the early history of embryology in the 19th century. Haeckel hypothesized that "Ontogeny Recapitulates Phylogeny", meaning that during its development an organism passes through stages resembling its adult ancestors. However, Haeckel's ideas long have been superseded by those of Karl Ernst von Baer, his predecessor. Von Baer suggested that the embryonic stages of an individual should resemble the embryonic stages of other closely related organisms, rather than resembling its adult ancestors. Haeckel's Biogenetic Law has been discredited since the late 1800's, and it is not a part of modern (or even not-so-modern) evolutionary theory. Haeckel thought only the final stages of development could be altered appreciably by evolution, but we have known that to be false for nearly a century. All developmental stages can be modified during evolution, though the phylotypic stage may be more constrained than others. For more about Haeckel's Biogenetic Law, developmental phylotypes, and the evidence embryology provides in modern evolutionary theory, see "Wells and Haeckel's Embryos" by PZ Meyers, or refer to a modern developmental biology college-level textbook such as Gilbert 1997, pp. 912-914.


http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section2.html

 

No, it does not mean "resembling its adult ancestors." I was not aware that it ever did.* It means, to quote your text again, "resemble the embryonic stages of other closely related organisms" and that is true. For example, it is very difficult to tell a month old pig embrio from a human one by simple visual inspection alone.
-------------------------------
*When the microscope was first invented and applied to biological research, there were several false ideas suggested. One report, published in a science journal (perhaps even in the Proceeding of the Royal Acd. of Sciences, as I think it was the first?), tells of observing a well formed human shape in the sperm of a man. For a long time in much of mankind, the woman's role in making baby was just to be the "nest" in which the "all from the man" baby would grow.

Consequently I am very willing to believe that originally "Ontogeny recapitulates Phylogeny" did mean "resembling its adult ancestors" but that has not been the meaning of those words for at least 150 years.

For better understanding of this exchange, see post 41.

The mean of words evolves too. For example, now days, a cop may bring an intoxicated lady into the station instead of let her remain passed out in the street. "Lady" was only used to refer to a Lord's wife 250 years ago.

 

Keep trying Billy T, you still haven't got your pants pulled up.

 

Billy T is a case in point of a Darwinist spewing b.s. and not knowing any better himself, like the Darwinists espousing "Piltdown Man" and "Nebraska Man" as supposed ancestors of humankind.

 

Is only name calling, personal attack your only reply?

Why did God make the pig embryo at one-month look essentially identical to the human one? Why are all mammals so similar in their early structure?

What about my last question in post 41. - Does God have an odd number of ribs? Or was Adam not really made in God's image? (Recall he had odd number before giving up one rib to get a wife.)

Two questions here for you to answer if you can break the name calling habit.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

It wasn't namecalling, I was painting a picture representing reality.

"Ontology Recapitulates Phylogeny," good one.

Maybe they look similar because they are young fetuses?

Can't answer the rib deal, but I don't think it's a Bible breaker.

 

Go to art school. - Your image of reality is extremely distorted; only based on early childhood indoctrination, not yet escaped from.

 

God is a spirit. He doesn't have ribs.

The "image" refers to man's tri-unity (body, soul, and spirit) as compared to God's (the Trinity).

 

No long white beard either?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

How can man be in his image?

Is "spirit" completely non material? If yes, how can it interact with matter?

 

Thanks Nutter.

 

Would it not be more logical to assume that the rib thing is just one of many metaphorical references in the bible and not a literal description of actual happenings?

 

Welcome back supe:thankyou:

 

Hi sam!

 

Remember I said I was going to read "The Selfish Gene" by Dawkins? Read it. It's changed my mind on some things I thought were solid fact. Oh well.

 

Like what?

 

Individual and group selection for one thing. I was certain that group selection was a solid fact. Not so. Selection appears to operate on "genes" and that's it. Dawkins presents a very convincing story in my opinion.

 

I think fitness is a matter of gene-environment interaction that works; it depends on both of them remaining in a steady state. Change in environment would nullify any benefits that a gene confers. The answer is genetic variation of course, so that there are always some genes which confer benefits under any environmental conditions. Its neither the genes nor the environment, but what works together best.