The Darwinian view of embryos seems to show how a mythological view of biology can develop based on blurred imagery and vague reasoning. Most Darwinists no longer say that ontogeny (the way that embryos develop) recapitulates phylogeny (their ancestral history or development) because that would obviously be ignorant and stupid, instead they say that ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny occasionally. Modern Darwinists argue that if embryos look similar to the embryos of other species (in the Darwinian mind it seems that any similarity will do) then that is sound evidence of their common ancestry. For example:
Although a human embryo does not “recapitulate” the adult stage of any previous ancestor, certain ancestral conditions and particular structures are clearly recapitulated. This figure is from Mayr’s book What Evolution Is. According to Mayr, “embryonic similarities, recapitulation, and vestigial structures . . . raise insurmountable difficulties for a creationist explanation, but are fully compatible with an evolutionary explanation based on common descent, variation, and selection.” As Mayr also notes, if evolution is not true, “why should the embryos of birds and mammals develop gill slits [They’re actually not gill slits.], like fish embryos?” Hawaii.edu
Given Darwinian “reasoning” in which any similarities among embryos verify common descent one would think that deep distinctions and differences among embryos would therefore falsify common descent because verification and falsification are logically linked. Unfortunately Darwinism has little to do with logic and evolution is rooted in hypothetical goo in which the “fact of evolution” has already been established based on more of this sort of reasoning: “This looks a little bit like that or something!” Given that it is already established there actually can be no such thing as scientific evidence against “evolution” and all arguments against it are based on ignorance while all apparent evidence against it can be interpreted as a gap in knowledge.
It’s ironic that anyone would argue that biological observations are “fully compatible” with evolution given that there are apparently no biological observations which are not compatible with hypothetical goo. What sort of observations would not be compatible with “evolution”? It’s interesting to think about exactly what sort of observations could “raise insurmountable difficulties” for theories of evolution in general.
Here are pictures of embryos:
Unfortunately students have often been taught that the blurred form of imagery represented in Haeckel’s forged embryos (a blurring which seems to be typical to the Darwinian urge to merge) has something to do with the empirical evidence. In contrast, some iconoclastic proponents of ID have sought to shatter such imagery. Imagery which is still in use, although proponents of Darwinism have claimed, “This illustration, and re-drawings of it, should not be included in any biology textbook today, nor is it now.” (Textscience.org, Emphasis added) They went on to argue, “Embryological similarities are indeed excellent evidence to support the truth of evolution, and thus they should be included in introductory textbooks, since they are a vivid graphic example…”
It seems to me that Haeckel’s forgeries lasted so long in textbooks (and does in many to this day) because the Darwinism “meme” needs to pollute impressionable minds with “vivid” imagery (i.e. propaganda) which then tends to structure a largely imaginary view of biology in general. In my experience Darwinists often use the term “overwhelmed” to describe their mental state with respect to their view of the evidence but being overwhelmed may have more to do with indoctrination than eduction.
Filed under: Uncategorized |