creationist tried to tell me embrology doesn't support evolution.

[justin]

okay so i was talking to this older lady the other day about some different things. she started off by asking when did i become an atheist and then talking about some pretty friendly stuff like people we knew from churchs, death, etc. Well we hit upon creationism and Evolution somehow (surprise suprise). I was telling her how i love genetics and Evolution. She then tells me to look into ICR.com and how there is alot of proof supporting the bible and dissproving evolution. i asked her If this was the same orginization ken ham was in works with and she said yes (and i laughed). I said i knew who these people were and was familar with ken ham. I skipped the whole creation vs. evolution debate for a second and said even if evolution is wrong how does that have anything to do with creationism? that wouldn't bring validation to their propersition. that was that god of the gaps argument and flaw. she just looked at me funny. i then told her that i have found more evidence for evolution than the theory of gravity. she start talking about ICR again and how evolution has thing that are proven wrong. i said like what? she began to tell me about how embrology didn't support evolution and it was just a bunch of drawings and should've been taken out of the books a long time ago. she said that evolutionist were saying we went from fish to reptiles to mammals etc. i was kinda of amazed of the ignorance but i attempted to explain the similar development every species has and how DNA is pretty much all the same up till a point for animal etc. during this it was like her mind shut off and her response was just, "yeah, they have pretty much proven that wrong". talking about evolution. anyone wanna shed some light on what argument she was trying to make? kinda reminded me of wendy wright talking to dawkins to be honest. bitch was crazy1

[popeyespappy]

Doesn't answer your question but relevant never the less. “Gill slits” by any other name…

[Angrboda]

She's most likely referring to the "fraudulent" use of Ernst Haeckel's drawings of the embryological development of various species, showing remarkable similarity at certain stages, which was consonant with a view at the time that embryological development "recapitulated" or replayed the evolutionary stages of development of the species during embryological development. A few things. First, Haeckel's drawings which attracted the primary charges of fraud were those of 1868 (see Wikipedia article), not the 1874 drawings which creationists typically cite as being fraudulently repeated in modern textbooks. (The latter drawings attracted some similar controversy, but less according to substance. If you compare the 1874 drawings to modern drawings or photographs, they hold up quite well. The fact of the matter is that species do go through a stage of development in which their embryos are remarkably similar, this stage being known as the pharyngula stage, also known as the bottleneck of embryological development.) Second, the degree to which even the 1874 drawings have been represented as good science in textbooks has repeatedly been exaggerated by creationists. Of course, creationists care nothing of this, they just want to smear the integrity and credibility of evolutionary biology with any scandal they can lay their hands upon.

[Minimalist]

should've been taken out of the books a long time ago.

Exactly how I feel about fucking jesus.

[justin]

She's most likely referring to the "fraudulent" use of Ernst Haeckel's drawings of the embryological development of various species, showing remarkable similarity at certain stages, which was consonant with a view at the time that embryological development "recapitulated" or replayed the evolutionary stages of development of the species during embryological development. A few things. First, Haeckel's drawings which attracted the primary charges of fraud were those of 1868 (see Wikipedia article), not the 1874 drawings which creationists typically cite as being fraudulently repeated in modern textbooks. (The latter drawings attracted some similar controversy, but less according to substance. If you compare the 1874 drawings to modern drawings or photographs, they hold up quite well. The fact of the matter is that species do go through a stage of development in which their embryos are remarkably similar, this stage being known as the pharyngula stage, also known as the bottleneck of embryological development.) Second, the degree to which even the 1874 drawings have been represented as good science in textbooks has repeatedly been exaggerated by creationists. Of course, creationists care nothing of this, they just want to smear the integrity and credibility of evolutionary biology with any scandal they can lay their hands upon.

Thank you you. That was exactly what iI was wondering. You're always helpful

---

I went to my biology professor and told her what she said and asked what was she talking about and she was like one step away from literally saying "Da Fuck?" Lol. I tried explaining how embrology supports evolution but this lady showed she wasn't open to it. there was not point. I have a strong feeling that soon scientist are yet again going to be in courts defending against crazy creationist again . Four states in u.s. are trying to pass creationism in schools again now.

[thesummerqueen]

Where do you go to school, Justin?

[justin]

i go to york tech in south carolina (Bible Belt) right now but my professor is from winthrop university. this lady wasn't my professor i just went and told my professor what happened and asked if i was right in explaining how embrology supported Evolution. My professor knew what i was dealing with and is easy to talk to. She shares a passion for science and especially genetics and has the experiance in genetic reasearch that i dream of having one day. Thankfully i don't have to put up with people like that in class.

[Minimalist]

i go to york tech in south carolina

Yeah....bad infestation of xtians there. You'd think they could spray to control that, wouldn't you?

[The Grand Nudger]

They can, but apparently some asshole in The Hague would disapprove.

[Mister Agenda]

i go to york tech in south carolina (Bible Belt) right now but my professor is from winthrop university. this lady wasn't my professor i just went and told my professor what happened and asked if i was right in explaining how embrology supported Evolution. My professor knew what i was dealing with and is easy to talk to. She shares a passion for science and especially genetics and has the experiance in genetic reasearch that i dream of having one day. Thankfully i don't have to put up with people like that in class.

Yo, shout out from Columbia!