Why is National Geographic still tlaking about gil slits in embrios?

Question

Mistakes recapitulate mistakes?

human embryos have skin fold that aren't gills and they aren't slits... so why are they referred to as gil slits

Haekel made some fraudulent drawings about 150 years ago trying to cliam that embrios went though evolutionary cycles before human birth and was well known then to be a fraud but it didn't keep Carl Sagan or National Geographic from alluding to it as if true.. why is this... and why does bad claims long ago shown fraudulent show up in supposedly scientific texts or alluded to as in a recent National Geographic photo essay

Answer 1

I guess if you did real research not done by creationists trying to make up excuses to deny the truth, you'd have your answer.

Answer 2

Another lemming off the belief cliff. Actually, they are gill slits, the structure of the gills migrates through the body tracing the path of evolution as the embryo develops. All structural evolutionists and embyronic biologists will tell you this, its obvious. All animals have the same structure as a blastocyst and differentiate (branch-off) at times the closely mimic the evolutionary tree. But since you have seen and dissected these "skin folds" for yourself or have some real scientific basis for your claims, we sure appreciate your input

Answer 3

Because the appearance of these "gill slits" are one of the proofs for community of descent. Acknowledging the presence of these anomalies does not equate to the belief in Haeckel's Biogenetic Law. Haeckel came to the wrong conclusion about them.

Answer 4

Possibly in the hope that people will begin to spell consistently.

Answer 5

Because they, like most atheists,will never admit that they ARE wrong. I think they still are sticking to the story about 'piltdown' man as well.