Quote Originally Posted by gypski
Why don't those non-believers in evolution look an a chart of the phases of human embryo development into a complete human. The stages are very distinctive as the genetic code unfolds and the body develops. Reptillian and fish are are just two of the phases. :jointsmile:

If you want an religion that mimics evolution, look at Hindu and the transmigration of the soul through the life cycles and animal species. :stoned:

Evolutionists have taught for over a century that as an embryo develops, it passes through stages that mimic an evolutionary sequence. In other words, in a few weeks an unborn human repeats stages that supposedly took millions of years for mankind. A well-known example of this ridiculous teaching is that embryos of mammals have ??gill slits,? because mammals supposedly evolved from fish. (Yes, that??s faulty logic.) Embryonic tissues that resemble ??gill slits? have nothing to do with breathing; they are neither gills nor slits. Instead, those embryonic tissues develop into parts of the face, bones of the middle ear, and endocrine glands.

Embryologists no longer consider the superficial similarities between a few embryos and the adult forms of simpler animals as evidence for evolution (a). Ernst Haeckel, by deliberately falsifying his drawings (b), originated and popularized this incorrect but widespread belief. Many modern textbooks continue to spread this false idea as evidence for evolution (c).

a. ??This generalization was originally called the biogenetic law by Haeckel and is often stated as ??ontogeny [the development of an embryo] recapitulates [repeats] phylogeny [evolution].?? This crude interpretation of embryological sequences will not stand close examination, however. Its shortcomings have been almost universally pointed out by modern authors, but the idea still has a prominent place in biological mythology.? Paul R. Ehrlich and Richard W. Holm, The Process of Evolution (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1963), p. 66.

??It is now firmly established that ontogeny does not repeat phylogeny.? George Gaylord Simpson and William S. Beck, Life: An Introduction to Biology (New York: Harcourt, Brace & World, Inc., 1965), p. 241.

??The enthusiasm of the German zoologist, Ernst Haeckel, however, led to an erroneous and unfortunate exaggeration of the information which embryology could provide. This was known as the ??biogenetic law?? and claimed that embryology was a recapitulation of evolution, or that during its embryonic development an animal recapitulated the evolutionary history of its species.? Gavin R. deBeer, An Atlas of Evolution (New York: Nelson, 1964), p. 38.

b. Haeckel, who in 1868 advanced this ??biogenetic law? that was quickly adopted in textbooks and encyclopedias worldwide, 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, p. 12.

??To support his case he [Haeckel] began to fake evidence. Charged with fraud by five professors and convicted by a university court at Jena, he agreed that a small percentage of his embryonic drawings were forgeries; he was merely filling in and reconstructing the missing links when the evidence was thin, and he claimed unblushingly that ??hundreds of the best observers and biologists lie under the same charge??.? Pitman, p. 120.

c. ??Another point to emerge from this study is the considerable inaccuracy of Haeckel??s famous figures. These drawings are still widely reproduced in textbooks and review articles, and continue to exert a significant influence on the development of ideas in this field.? Michael K. Richardson et al., ??There Is No Highly Conserved Embryonic Stage in the Vertebrates,? Anatomy and Embryology, Vol. 196, No. 2, August 1997, p. 104.

In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - 20. Embryology