How do the presence of a tail and gill slits support the theory of evolution?
I have to ask ya’ll because i don’t believe in evolution one bit. and i need to get my grade up in chemistry.
I have to ask ya’ll because i don’t believe in evolution one bit. and i need to get my grade up in chemistry.
July 21st, 2010 at 7:19 am
if you trace an animal with a tail and an animal with a gill you *should* be able to find a common species, which would prove evolution’s hypothesis of Universal Common Descent.
So the real question you should be asking is which species broke off to eventually cause the formation of tails and gills in future offsprings.
I do not know the answer to that question, nor do I think an evolutionist can give you a straight answer to that question. Most likely they do not know.
July 21st, 2010 at 7:19 am
Is this an extra credit question? The German scientist Ernst Haeckel claimed that the developmental stages of an embryo retrace its evolutionary past. In 1868, he fabricated the embryologic evidence for evolution by fraudulently producing a set of 24 drawings purporting to show eight different embryos in stages of development. Several of the stages (including humans) supposedly show tails and gill slits.
Even though the drawings were faked, I know this idea is still taught in biology textbooks today and I’d be willing to bet that is what the question is about. I have even seen the concept used in at least one science fiction movie (something about a super shark). It is called “Ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny”. Supposedly this shows that our ancestors were once fish. By the way, I don’t believe in evolution either, but proponents of creation theory usually know a lot more about evolution than people that blindly accept its dogma without question because they have to defend their theory. If you want to know more you can Google “Haeckel” or “Ontogeny…” or check the wikis. Hope this helps.
Edit: I just wanted to point out the complete hypocrisy of evolutionist’s interpretations of this evidence. They are NOT “gills” slits or folds at all! They are simply folds of skin which later stretch out as the embryo develops. The same goes for the “tail” which is NOT a tail but an essential part of the spine. As pointed out earlier, that they have anything at all to do with evolution is a complete hoax and simply an interpretation based on presuppositional beliefs. Evolutionists try to fool people into thinking that evolution is operational science which has brought us new technology and medical breakthroughs. However, evolution deals with past events which can never be repeated, observed or measured and therefore does not fall under the purview of the scientific method and is therefore simply a philosophical belief. The evolutionists interpretation of gill folds in embryos is based on the presupposition that evolution is already true and is therefore circular reasoning. Properly interpreted, homology points to a common designer, not a common ancestor.
Evolution is always, always, always about belief BEFORE understanding!
July 21st, 2010 at 7:51 am
They are not gill “slits”, they are gill *folds*.
(The technical name is ‘pharyngeal arches’ or ‘branchical arches’.)
All vertebrate embryos have them. In fish and amphibians, these are the starting point for gills. In air-breathers they develop in to completely different structures in the neck and jaw. This supports the theory of evolution because it shows signs of common ancestry between lung-breathers and gill-breathers.
The tail in human embryos is a different kind of evidence. It is not a common structure that develops into something very different in later stages. It is a structure that *disappears* in later stages. In other words, it supports evolution because it shows that we have the genes for constructing a tail, even though we don’t have one as adults.
I have to add that I am baffled at how you can’t see how intellectually dishonest your Creationism has made you. You already have concluded that you “don’t believe in evolution one bit” BEFORE you understand the evidence! All you care about is “getting your grade up”, or else you wouldn’t be considering the evidence at all!
This is what Creationism teaches you to do … to approach it dishonestly … to specifically *AVOID* looking at evidence or even thinking about it very hard … and instead parroting back words on a test that you don’t understand. If you keep down this path, you will never really *understand* science at all … and you will slowly learn to distrust it, and eventually to hate science and scientists.
Trust your own mind! Learn about a topic with some depth … and really make an honest attempt to *understand* it BEFORE you decide whether or not you *believe* it.
Science is always, always, always about *understanding* BEFORE belief!
July 21st, 2010 at 8:16 am
what the hell does this have to do with chemistry?