Proof of Evolution - Part 4 Embryology | ||||
|
Regarding caring for young:
Tags: proof, of, evolution, evidence, embryology, developmental, biology, heckel, embryo, intelligent, design, creationism, vs Published: 21 May 2008, 19:14
| ||||
Comments | |
|
Published: 3 March 2010, 19:13
, Edited: 3 March 2010, 19:13
@77Alacazam77 the haekelian WOODCUTS in question are not in this video anywhere. There are illustrations though. There's actually a reason why with the exception of certain labratory manuals most anatomical texts use illustrations rather than photos. It's because individual body parts are poorly defined in actual bodies. It all looks like a monochrome pile of flesh. It takes a well trained eye like surgeons to actually pick those things out time after time Published: 2 March 2010, 08:31
, Edited: 2 March 2010, 08:31
like? Published: 25 February 2010, 20:49
, Edited: 25 February 2010, 20:49
When talking about embryology, don't use pictures that were proven false DECADES ago. Published: 5 February 2010, 17:12
, Edited: 5 February 2010, 17:12
Yes the cell types, their relative positions and their developmental migrations has changed over time. The same little folding is just more pronounced in one tissue in one form or another Published: 5 February 2010, 17:12
, Edited: 5 February 2010, 17:12
Good and Evil, Ketchup and Mustard. Democrat and republican, Pizza and calzones Published: 29 January 2010, 02:32
, Edited: 29 January 2010, 02:32
Fantastic playlist! This serious should have been more called "Observing Evolution". Keep it up! Published: 29 January 2010, 02:02
, Edited: 29 January 2010, 02:02
Gavin de Beer "Structures as obviously homologous as the alimentary canal in ALL vertebrates can be formed from the roof of the embryonic gut cavity (sharks), floor (lampreys, newts), roof and floor (frogs), or from the lower layer of the embryonic disc, the blastoderm, that floats on the top of heavily yolked eggs (reptiles, birds)... Published: 29 January 2010, 02:01
, Edited: 29 January 2010, 02:01
de Beer Cont. "It does not seem to matter where in the egg or the embryo the living substance out of which homologous organs are formed comes from. Therefore, correspondence between homologous structures CANNOT be pressed back to similarity of position of the cells of the embryo or the parts of the egg out of which these structures are ultimately differentiated." Published: 29 January 2010, 00:30
, Edited: 29 January 2010, 00:30
Everything in this world has its counterpart: Good and Evil, Male and Female,Life and Death,Hot and Cold, Negative-Positive,Science and Religion, Right and Left etc. Before, Creation has no counterpart until Charles Darwin exist Since then Creation has now its counterpart the so called "EVILUTION" that makes the world balance...It makeS sense... Published: 27 January 2010, 23:29
, Edited: 27 January 2010, 23:29
You're close. The gene is left over and there is no natural selection driving its removal from the organism's genome. This is why it's possible to construct such a detailed phylogenetic tree of life; inherited genes pretty much hang around forever. Published: 27 January 2010, 16:49
, Edited: 27 January 2010, 16:49
Omg the Ted Haggard comment killed me! Nice, very nice. Published: 27 January 2010, 12:19
, Edited: 27 January 2010, 12:19
The only way you were made to know biogenic law is if you're over 70 years old or you took a history of science class. Published: 25 January 2010, 15:53
, Edited: 25 January 2010, 15:53
Wow, I have heard alot of ranting before, but that was ridiculous. Bird wings and Human arms are identicle? Seriously? Haeckel wasn't wrong? So in a nut shell, a complete fraud is the foundation to Embryology Evolution. Whales from cows? Duh, that is a loss of information and if it were not just completely ridiculous enough, a loss of information is the opposite of evolution. How long did that cow have to swim before she magically grew fins? Published: 24 January 2010, 21:41
, Edited: 24 January 2010, 21:41
snakes curl up in a ball Published: 23 January 2010, 19:05
, Edited: 23 January 2010, 19:05
Haeckel was indicted because of his fraud. The German embryologist and scientist Erich Blechschmidt, who proved Haeckels lies as wrong. Despite of this Haeckels ideas and 'laws' were taught in schools for half a century (At least in Austria and in Germany). I had myself to memorize this 'laws' of H. to get a good mark in biology. Published: 22 January 2010, 04:07
, Edited: 22 January 2010, 04:07
DonExodus, just what are you doing using this controversial evidence of evolution. Haeckel's drawings were fraud and so is this theory. No reputable scientist will use this stuff as any kind of proof of evolution. Of course you're not reputable so that explains it. Anyone proposing birds evolving from dinosaurs can't be reputable. It's another disproven theory. Where's the self-correction you always rant about? Published: 13 January 2010, 08:57
, Edited: 13 January 2010, 08:57
ah of course, I was thinking too linear.... it doesn't have to always be the gene that makes the leg be the same gene that mutates, it can be a mutation causing the phenotype to change AFTER that which is the mutation that evolution 'got hold of'.... something still not sitting 100% with me on this though, would be really good to get more scientific on this. Thanks for the wake up call though! Published: 12 January 2010, 21:03
, Edited: 12 January 2010, 21:03
1: it is a left over gene that can not go away because it is a part of the animals evolution and it is apart of it's DNA. Published: 12 January 2010, 21:00
, Edited: 12 January 2010, 21:00
This statement doesn't completely answer your question so I'll finish by saying; the reason why thy embryo goes through stages of common ancestry through its stages of development is because since all of these genes are past down from generation to generation, while the embryo is developing into its true form it shows its common ancestry because it is present in the genes but discards what it doesn't need automatically. It's probably part of how evolution happens in the first place. Published: 12 January 2010, 21:00
, Edited: 12 January 2010, 21:00
I'll try to answer this question. I'm not a scientist but I consider myself to be logical. I think they keep the gene that is not needed for 2 reasons. 1: it is a left over gene that can not go away because it is a part of the animals evolution. 2: logic tells me that if a gene was needed for any given species such as the legs of a whale it would be easier to convert back to legs if the legs gene was still present. Published: 11 January 2010, 08:39
, Edited: 11 January 2010, 08:39
I would like to know that too. It seems rather useless. Published: 9 January 2010, 11:50
, Edited: 9 January 2010, 11:50
Oh yeah? Well I'm a bio-geneticist too and I say your full of shit. Published: 7 January 2010, 19:28
, Edited: 7 January 2010, 19:28
yea there different but every animal is for sumthing they all have a purpose. Published: 7 January 2010, 08:22
, Edited: 7 January 2010, 08:22
does anyone know the answer to the reason "why" the embrio goes through stages of common ancestor design in development? e.g. if an org. evolves not to need hind legs, why WOULD they develop I can see that what DOES happen does show common ancestry, but WHY does it happen when it's not needed? anyone? cheers | |
Video previews | |
   | |
Video search | |
|
| |
Related videos | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
