This kind of harmony and similarity between species is so beautiful that the only possible explanation is that it was designed by someone or something far superior to ourselves.

I hope you’re fooling around (?)

The similarities between life forms, from the DNA structure of all life to the embryonic development (which you’ve demonstrated), are the result of common descent.

Perhaps I should elaborate…

Matthias is correct. This is a drawing by Ernst Häckl that appeared in many science textbooks before the 1970’s. And he is also correct in that the theory that Häckl was using his drawing to support has since been discredited (although I believe it was called biogenetic law, which boils down to the idea that an organism’s evolutionary history repeats itself as it develops as an embryo).

Many (Un)Intelligent Designers like to use this fact to support the idea that all current and future science textbooks and theories are rot with the same flaws. Because as we know, ID survives solely by attacking the validity of evolution, not by supporting itself with its own evidence.

So, I (sarcastically) proposed the argument that this drawing is actually evidence for intelligent design, instead of evidence against evolution, in an attempt to show that virtually anything can be used and spun in different directions to support an idea that exists solely on the basis of belief and personal dissatisfaction with present scientific theory (much like the banana, or peanut butter).

Note that this is not meant to be actual evidence for evolutionary theory. God knows ( ) there is plenty of real evidence for evolution that can be found elsewhere.

“God knows ( ) there is plenty of real evidence for evolution that can be found elsewhere.” Made me giggle.

Peace!

Anyways, I thought I would drop this line since the largely reproduced ‘information’ is wrong and was a fraud and has been deemed such by science.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v20/i2/fraud.asp

-Rick

http://www.antievolution.org/topics/law/ar_hb2548/Haeckels_embryos.htm

EDIT: Moderator approved comment in the spirit of allowing anyone to post, even though they don’t read the other comments.

sigh … forgive my sarcasm, but you might have read Chris’ comment the precedes yours … and … it might occur to you that those who embrace science might know something about its past errors.

I’m at least intrigued enough to read some more of your blog, but I must admit, that your sarcasm was lost on me as well, at first.

I think it would be interesting to see the accurate drawings, and even more interesting to see the reaction of the fanatic sectarians … how many will claim that the figure is clearly found in the bible and how many will denounce it as another fake?

Miller and Levine have a page title Haeckel and his Embryos. They include actual pictures of embryo development for a fish, chicken, pig, and human. Those pictures are derived from video sequences of embry development which are available on the pbs site, here.

In 1998 Miller and Levine added a corrected figure illustrating embryo development to the 5th addition of their text. Here’s the link.

p.s. Chris, I’ve had some trouble commenting here today, if this shows up twice … please apply your omnipotence as moderator

Ben: Here is an actual picture of the embryos in the drawing’s first stage…

Do you have a quota set for how many posts one individual may make?

I’ve tried to post twice earlier today … however, the posts haven’t showed up

So I decided to put up a post on my blog!

Do you have a quota set for how many posts one individual may make?

I’ve tried to post twice earlier today … however, the posts haven’t showed up

I have a filter set to catch any comments that contain more than one link, and hold the comment for moderation.

However, that is my own filter, and Akismet spam filter was catching your comments for some reason. Still not sure why, but all is back to normal for the moment.

Love the post on your blog. Funny stuff and good info too!

I put up almost as many posts as you get visitors commenting … meanwhile your posts easily outnumber my visitors’ comments.

I’d make some quip about quality and quantity, but I’m feeling sufficiently insufficient already

Ben Stein has made a documentary about the debate: http://www.expelledthemovie.com/playground.php According to the film’s press release, Expelled is “a disturbing new documentary that will shock anyone who thinks all scientists are free to follow the evidence wherever it may lead.”

why can’t scientists question the theory of evolution.

It’s called “testing,” duke. It’s done all the time.

I find it laughable that someone who probably thinks himself intelligent enough to actually debate the intricacies of evolutionary theory could, without a hint of sarcasm, propose the idea that evolution is unquestioned by scientists.

Just one of many examples at your fingertips: To Test Evolution…

Perhaps you would be so kind as to propose a test that could be performed on a theory that might replace evolution or otherwise cause it to be discarded, no? With bated breath, we wait…

I’m curious about the polls I see that claim there are only 2 or 3% Atheist in the world. From what I see on post from all over the world it seems like the figure should be much higher.

Is it possible that maybe when asked the question many just reply with the easy answer to avoid all the consternation? I have been an atheist since the age of 12 (when as an Alter-Boy I figured it was nonsensical), I try not to insult the religious, but I also try to avoid them because their minds are locked at a certain stage and because of their beliefs cannot move forward.

Has anyone done any research on the polling of atheism?

Bugsy asked: Has anyone done any research on the polling of atheism.

I haven’t looked into the psychology of such polls, but here is a link regarding estimate of major religions of the world ranked by number of adherents.

1. Christianity: 2.1 billion
2. Islam: 1.5 billion
3. Secular/Nonreligious/Agnostic/Atheist: 1.1 billion
4. Hinduism: 900 million
5. Chinese traditional religion: 394 million
6. Buddhism: 376 million
7. primal-indigenous: 300 million
8. African Traditional & Diasporic: 100 million
9. Sikhism: 23 million
10. Juche: 19 million
11. Spiritism: 15 million
12. Judaism: 14 million
13. Baha’i: 7 million
14. Jainism: 4.2 million
15. Shinto: 4 million
16. Cao Dai: 4 million
17. Zoroastrianism: 2.6 million
18. Tenrikyo: 2 million
19. Neo-Paganism: 1 million
20. Unitarian-Universalism: 800 thousand
21. Rastafarianism: 600 thousand
22. Scientology: 500 thousand

http://www.adherents.com/Religions_By_Adherents.html

I must admit, I just love how the Pagans outnumber the scientologists by 2 to 1

Personally I don’t see any substance behind such polls. Popularity of opinion has nothing to do with the existence of god or gods.

In any event, he can be given some latitude … he does realize he’s an “ignorant christian”.

Not that all christian’s are ignorant, but …

Shades of strawmen…

I wasn’t directing the “ignorant xian” comment at anyone in particular i was just saving people the trouble of having to call me that later on. Considering that when I say that i am an xian most atheists will immediatly disregard anything that I have to say about anything, So no offence to you Chris you seem like one of the good ones, so sorry if i offended you.David

Far be it from me to comment on what most atheists would do, but I try to treat each person as an individual. My general disposition is to be curious why otherwise intelligent people would believe such disgusting and irreconcilable things like those that are in the bible. If it’s any consolation, I tend to blame the parents.

Even so, “ignorant” would not be the correct label until you demonstrated that you had no idea what you were talking about.

What can I say … hmmm, how about “hook, line, and sinker”

The post was a parody of sorts.

Regarding your remarks;The figure is *not* being used in textbooks today, and certainly is not relevant with respect to the character of science, but only relevant with respect to the character of Häckl.

Did you guys know that this was fudged?

Reading is a lost art.

apoc: “I never realized how people can dismiss facts about religion/God”

You can be the first to reveal the facts. Please enlighten all of mankind what those would be.

You understanding of what science claims and what its motives are is so horribly distorted from the reality that I suspect you claims to “facts about religion/God” are also a distortion.

However, I would love that is be otherwise. The day such observable facts are known, religion will die and that spiritual pursuit will become part of the material one we call science.

As you’re reading this, please keep in mind that I’m not taking any time to validate your claims on fossils and whatnot, I’m only using them to further your understanding of how your logic does not follow.

First you say that science proves the bible’s validity over and over, then you cite an example in science that does just the opposite. You surreptitiously use the common thread of ‘a snake’ to make the supposition that science is validating the bible’s claims that the snake was forced to move on its belly for all eternity, when, in fact, it does nothing of the sort. The fossils only show that there was a change. The bible’s claim is that the change was made by the hand of God. Simply because you’re willing to assume that any change of that sort is made by your god does not mean that’s what the fossils are telling you.

And if you’re going to pretend that the bible is only claiming that the snake used to have legs before it was possessed and subsequently punished for someone else’s actions, and then use that claim to project and extrapolate validation to all the other outrageous claims, then please, tell us now. That way, we know you are incapable of carrying on a conversation about facts, and can rightfully ignore your meanderings into the realm of science and religion.

But that’s not all. The best part is that you commit the exact same crime when you talk about an asteroid hitting the Earth. The only common thread is that both are referencing something hitting the Earth. Nevermind that an asteroid is not a star, and surely your omniscient invisible man would know this. but ignore that little inconsistency, sticking with your thesis… somehow this is supposed to be science proving the bible’s validity. As if the very fact that scientists are researching the how, when, and where of a possible asteroid strike validates the bible’s claim that a star will strike the center of the Earth. Here’s a hint, it doesn’t.

And if a star were to strike the center of the Earth, you can bet your mother’s life that more than two thirds of the Earth’s population would perish, that’s what science tells us, and it perfectly contradicts the bible’s claim in this situation.

Any more “facts” that you’d like to throw out there? I’m assuming the laws of physics are off limits since that science debases the whole reason for christianity to exist in the first place. I’ll make it easy… I’ll let you cherrypick the sciences you want to reference when you say it validates the bible’s claims… fair?