For those of you that aren't familiar with the term, it refers to the theory that we can see the process of evolution through the development of a fetus in the womb. I know that strictly, it is no longer considered valid, because many of the original ideas surrounding this theory were incorrect. However ... the underlying basis of the argument seems as if it could have some basis ... we "evolve", if you will, in the womb from a one-celled organism, to a simple multi-celled organism, to a "water-dwelling" creature with a tail ... and eventually a human being. What are your ideas and opinions?
2007-02-11 03:53:45 · 8 answers · asked by Anonymous in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
i've always wondered how people can deny that we evolved from lesser life forms, because we begin life as a single sperm cell. to me, thats evidence enough that something can come from practically nothing.
mostly, the only people who fight the idea of evolution cite religious beliefs without offering any evidence or explainations. i think that looking at how complex human life is, and evolution is... that should be considered that it was all part of a plan by a higher power. i'm not saying that anyone NEEDS to, but its certainly a theory that science and religion can coincide.
i'd like to think that if theres a god, he wants us to learn and grow and become more than what we are, and the best way would be to make us try to find out where we came from. people dont even stop to think "why do we care where we came from?". animals dont, plants dont, but we do. why is that? and if all the answers were given to us, theres no challenge. i think that if "god" really wanted us to learn, he'd have done things in a way that nobody could be sure if he was even there at all.
and the tail thing is PROOF in my mind of evolution. why do we have organs that we dont need, and a tail bone, unless our ancestors needed these things?
2007-02-11 04:03:15 · answer #1 · answered by CentralDouche 2 · 3⤊ 1⤋
Well we evolve but within our selves. We have a range. First from fetus to child to kid to grown up to oldies to death. This is what is evolution in my view.
We see the process of evolution through the development of a human, which ends in his death.
2007-02-11 03:59:07 · answer #2 · answered by Danny's Not Cool 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I don't think that constitutes evolution. I think the evolution occurs in how the DNA and RNA instructs that simple celled organism to grow into something far more complex.
2007-02-11 03:59:51 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
I'm all for it.
I read that rudimentary hind limbs appear briefly in the embryos of whales and dolphins and Baptists.
And I said "BRIEFLY? That's not good enough!" That doesn't prove anything.
I have since tempered my views. I now consider myself in favor of recapitulation, but within reason.
It has a nice ring to it. Say it slowly and with a soft accent on the third syllable. RE- CAP- IT- UL- ATI- ON-
I like it.
Let's teach it in school, shal we?
2007-02-11 03:59:13 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
I think it's a good analogy. But not a direct representation of evolution. I think there are a lot of better examples of evolution in nature.
2007-02-11 03:59:00 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
9 months submerged in mothers womb was long enough... the bugs are a differant story.
2007-02-11 03:57:48 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
You have point... in it's simplest terms, you can see a sort of microcosm of evolution-like development.
2007-02-11 03:58:12 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
Science is past that belief, but it was an interesting notion back in the day.
2007-02-11 03:56:59 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋