... and that the human fetus bares a striking resemblance to a fish (complete with functional gills) at its early stages?
Does that strike you as slightly beyond cooincidence?
2007-02-11 19:47:27 · 9 answers · asked by Anonymous in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
my apologies, they don't function, but there are gills in all mammals during fetal development:
http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/mole00/mole00114.htm
2007-02-11 19:55:21 · update #1
Gills? Seriously? Now I'm interested, can you show me the article or whatever?
Seriously.
2007-02-11 19:50:36 · answer #1 · answered by Adia Azrael 4 · 0⤊ 1⤋
For a start, sea water is not homogenous, the salinity varies.
Also amniotic fluid contains far more than just salt. After 10 weeks the liquid contains proteins, carbohydrates, lipids and phospholipids, urea and electrolytes, all which aid in the growth of the fetus. Most of the amniotic fluid actually comes from the baby's urine.
As for the gill slits, embryonic pharyngeal arches are not gills and do not carry out the same function. They are the enseathed areas between the pharyngeal pouches, and they open the pharynx to the outside. These pouches appear in all tetrapod animal embryos.
In mammals, the first gill bar (in the first pouch) develops into the lower jaw, the malleus and the stapes. In a later stage, all gill slits close, with only the ear opening remaining open.
Yes, they are remarkably similar but they are not gills. Although I agree that it does show signs of common descent but then I thought that was already obvious from the fact that most embryos are similar.
2007-02-11 20:01:18 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
Creationists are not interested in such things; having made up their minds, they are uninterested in being confused by anything as inconvenient as a fact. You have probably heard the expression "ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny", which in English (!) means that the development of a fetus is comparable to the evolution of the species. It is sufficient that (a) evolution is a satisfactory explanation for present day species; (b) evolution is a proven fact (details on request), and (c) creationism, being irrefutable, is useless as a predictive tool. Which is all that is necessary, and more.
2007-02-11 19:55:03 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
There you go god has done it again. You simply can't beat that guy.
'Why is god considered an explanation of anything? It's not. It's a failure to explain, a shrug of the shoulders, an "I dunno" dressed up in spirituality and ritual. If someone credits something to god, it generally means that they do not have a clue, so they are attributing it to an unreachable, unknowable sky-fairy. Ask for an explanation of where that bloke came from and odds are that you'll get a vague, pseudo-philosophical reply about having always existed, or being outside nature. Which, of course , explains nothing'
2007-02-11 19:55:04 · answer #4 · answered by The Stainless Steel Rat 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Like all life started out from the sea? That water is the key factor for life like in planet Mars? Want to hear more.
2007-02-11 19:52:27 · answer #5 · answered by Frontal Lobe 4 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Not at all when the same creator created fish he used the same compounds for the fetus . So what?
2007-02-11 19:51:27 · answer #6 · answered by Tribble Macher 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
So do your cells. Something like 4%.
Hardly a coincidence, we came from the sea.......
2007-02-11 19:51:37 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 0⤋
congratulations once again
2007-02-11 19:57:30 · answer #8 · answered by dogpatch USA 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
not at all; another evidence of intellegent design.
2007-02-11 19:49:59 · answer #9 · answered by karen i 5 · 1⤊ 4⤋