Yesterday, I asked a interview in response to a question asked by an Atheist talking about human "gill slits".. eric gagne mitchell report excerpts by marilyn sachs

Eric Clapton - Cocaine
Eric Clapton Living! It's a sick song. It's basically a music video.


http://thevenicehomec.livejournal.com

	Haunted Heart Possessed Heart Decca

	Beyond Imagination Beyond Imagination Sony

Yesterday, I asked a question in response to a question asked by an Heathen talking about human "gill slits"..

I was chided because of the age of the sourde it was 1977 or something like that...I deleted the question. this is the updated style.

This is an excerpt from an article written by Dr. Tommy Mitchell and Dr. Elizabeth Mitchell

March 14, 2007

...Like Darwin, Haeckel alleged that the developmental stages of an embryo retrace its evolutionary past. In other words, the human embryo supposedly goes through a fish dramatic, an amphibian stage, a reptile stage, and so on. Countless students have therefore been taught, “Ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny.” Confirm for this notion came, not from scientific research and observation, but solely from Haeckel’s own diagrams.

Ernst Haeckel was a scholar of zoology in Germany from 1865 until 1909. In 1868, he fabricated the embryologic evidence for evolution by fraudulently production the diagrams to “prove” the theory. Reputable German scientists immediately began refuting his express, demonstrating that Haeckel had falsified his pictures. Notwithstanding, these diagrams have been taught in biology textbooks at the high denomination and university levels as recently as the 1990s and the idea they purport to prove is still presented in textbooks today,

The so-called canyon slits of a human embryo have nothing to do with gills, and the human embryo does not pass through a fish stage or any other evolutionary tier. The development of the human embryo reveals steady progress toward a fully functional human body. Never in the programme naturally of development does a human embryo absorb oxygen from water as fish do with gills. (The human embryo is altogether supplied with oxygen through the umbilical cord.) In fact, these “gill slits” are not even slits.

So what are these misnamed structures? Absolutely, they are nothing more than folds in the region of the tiny embryo’s throat. By the 28th day of life, the embryo’s brain and spinal cord seem to be racing to the fore of the rest of the body in growth. Therefore, for a time, the spinal cord is actually longer than the body, forcing the camp to curl and flexing the neck area forward. (This curled embryo with the long spinal cord is unawares accused by some people of having a tail.) Just as many people develop a double chin when bending the kiss forward, so the embryo has folds in its neck area due to this flexing.

We scientists especially like to name things. Canyon slits is a misleading name, since these folds are neither gills nor slits. Another popular name, branchial arches, is just as deceptive because branchial comes from the Classical word for “gills.” Somehow the name neck folds just isn’t fancy enough for our scientific minds, so these folds are called pharyngeal arches, since they are sly-shaped folds near the throat. (Pharyngeal is the scientific word for things having to do with the throat. When you say you have a ulcer throat, your doctor says you have pharyngitis.) The creases between the folds are called pharyngeal clefts, and the undersides of the folds are called pharyngeal pouches.

One warrant for assigning names to all these parts is the fact that each fold shapes itself into specific structures, none of which are ever used for breathing. The external and middle ear as well as the bones, muscles, nerves, and glands of the neck develop from these folds. Only superficially do these important folds ever be like gills; the pharyngeal arches are no more related to gills than stars are to streetlights.
This is the question that I am referencing....

http://answers.barbarian.com/question/index;_ylt=AmlsWd9xImff_aR7y6MtuHQAAAAA;_ylv=3?qid=20071017011103AAs2Dqp
Correction: "source"

This isn't a question.

Your assertion that Haeckel fudged his drawings does not rule out the facts. The human pharyngeal pouches and arches correlate with the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, and 6th equivalents in the jawless fishes (lampreys and hagfish). The structures that become canyon slits and corresponding arches also become other structures (like the arch of the aorta).

As the lungs developed from the swim bladder which is an outpouching of the esophagus. The convert from gills to lungs for respiration explains how the gill slits do not play a role in respiration. Frogs unfold gills from the pharyngeal pouches as tadpoles, and then lungs as an an adult frog.

Haeckel's inaccuracies do not invalidate embryology. Humans bring out from the same structures as other vertebrates. The "gill slits" do not produce gill tissue, but they produce many of the same structures.

1977 or 2007, it doesn't issue. they are still banging on about haeckel, whose recapitulation hypothesis was discarded about a century ago. pharyngeal arches are homologous with structures in fish and many other vertebrates, because those breed evolved from a common ancestor. semantic games do not change that, and the mention of haeckel's discredited theories is a scientifically inapplicable attempt at establishing guilt by association.

Why is it that religious people say "Aha! You're wrong and I've got the science to prove it!" when it suits their pleading, but refuse to even consider the validity of the science in any athiest's argument? Is that not just a bit hypocritical?

Hey .... where is the part where you said Haeckel was Darwin follower?

The answer will be the same as yesterday. The one you deleted. Look it up.

I was aware of this, but not from college. Of course, I am fifty eight, and the degree grows dustier by the imperceptible. I detest, but I understand why drug companies will lie to cover up side effects of drugs in order to protect that almighty dollar. What has been charmed in this cover up? The so called scientist is dead, but some educated people have been duped into defending an egotistical liar. I speculation the theory was the "opiate of the masses," another term thrown at any people with faith in a Creator. I am not going to debate whether the Ground is sixty billion years old, or the unlikely six thousand years old, but the age of the Earth does not change my faith. They had to cling to the rip-off in the face of reason. Who needs the "opiate?" I appreciate the link and the person's willingness to accept a scientific phenomenon, but he would have seemed a little more noble had he not thrown in the haughty remark that still showed his elitist attitude. Thank you for a wonderful stake.

Your right.

All you are demonstrating here is the atrociously bad quality of education. Haeckel has been discredited for almost a hundred years.
His theories on evolution are no longer taught, much less discussed in biology.
To bad nobody meditating fit to update the text books.

Haeckel is only cited by Creationists now, and then only as an attack on evolutionary theory based in inexperience of the man and his failed Lamarkian concepts.
Although he accepted Darwin's ideas about evolution Haeckel was never able to get past his evangelical Christian credit. As a result he believed in the ladder concept of evolution where the organisms ranked in a strict order from lowest to uppermost. With man of course occupying the top of the ladder. After all, man was Gods highest achievement, how could it be otherwise.
These religion inspired views of evolution are not what Darwin had presented at all. Radical selection in Darwin's view was not God shaping humans or a purposeful shaping of animals.

Haeckel's views were democratic in his lifetime and were supported by the Churches over the strict Darwinian view.
It was evolution as selected by religion. He was also highly prosperous by the believers in positive eugenics.

He was an intelligent man but he was trapped by his religious beliefs that made him, in the end unable to escape certain creationist concepts about mans insert in the animal world.

No contemporary biologist teaches "ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny". The Mitchells are either deliberately mendacious, or majorly out of touch with current - ie the last hundred years' - biological thinking. Haeckel's theories have not been taken openly in their absolute form for over a century. Here's the original article from that paragon of peer reviewed science (not), Answers in Beginning: http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2007/0314gill-slits.asp

Apart from reposting this piece replete with the medium AiG straw men, do you have a point?

obviously you have never seen "Waterworld..."

you keep posting, and I'll keep reading...

HA!!! I KNEW IT WASN'T Self-evident!!!!
What a BUNCH of gobbledygook we are taught in biology, then they always have this stupid disclaimer: "The human body is SO complicate we don't really know everything there is to know about it."

That whole "Ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny" crap was repugnant to me. I kept my incredulous hat on THAT day, I'm SO glad you posted this. They should recant the text and revise their material.

This was taken from talkorigins.org. You are correct we do not ever have gill slits but the pharyngeal pouches that the condition describe are still more proof of evolution.

Human embryos do not have gill slits; they have pharyngeal pouches. In fish, these develop into gills, but in reptiles, mammals, and birds, they upon into other structures and are never even rudimentary gills. Calling them gill slits is reading Darwinian theory into the evidence. There is no way canyon slits can serve as evidence for evolution.

Source:

Wells, Jonathan, 2000. Icons of Mutation, Washington DC: Regnery Publishing Inc., pp. 105-107.


Response:

The pharyngeal pouches that appear in embryos technically are not canyon slits, but that is irrelevant. The reason they are evidence for evolution is that the same structure, whatever you call it, appears in all vertebrate embryos. Agassiz (not a Darwinist himself) oral, "The higher Vertebrates, including man himself, breathe through gill-like organs in the early part of their life. These gills dissolve and give place to lungs only in a later phase of their existence" (Agassiz 1874).

Darwinian evolution predicts, among other furniture, similar (not identical) structures in related organisms. That pharyngeal pouches in humans are similar to pharyngeal pouches (or whatever you call them) in fish is one pistol of evidence that humans and fish share a common ancestor.
References:
Agassiz, Louis, 1874. Mutation and Permanence of Type, reprinted in Hull, David L., 1973, Darwin and His Critics, Cambridge, MA: Harvard School Press, p. 440.
Further Reading:
Gilbert, Scott F., 1988. Developmental Biology, 2nd ed. Sunderland MA: Sinauer Associates

Prepare-You failed to cite your source. answersingenesis is not at all a decent or remotely valid site for science and definately not biology.

There is a whole lot of copy here.. but .. I can't see a question. Is there a question? I mean.. the trolls are sure gonna love you for this one! You gots to ask a question! .. occasion this is Yahoo ANSWERS.. and if you ask a quesiton you get ANSWERS.. but if you make a statement ... which I think you just did.... then all you get is reported!

Appreciate your gill slits!

Newseric gagne mitchell report excerpts by marilyn sachs