Creationists, why do humans have gills?

Question

I was just wondering why is it that when humans are in the embroynic stage we develop and lose gill slits? Did God create land based mammals (Humans) to have gills like fish? Or are these biological characteristics (Vestigial organs) from a
pre-evolutionary lifeform? Which hypothesis seems more plausible?

Isiah you don`t know what you`re talking about. Look up vesitigal organs.

Answer 1

Apparently you haven't heard yet. The theory that when humans are in the embroynic stage they develop and lose gill slits was disproven in 1874. Not 1974, but 1874. That's 133 years ago.

See the following link.

http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/rossuk/recapitu.htm

Embryonic Recapitulation

The idea that human embryonic development recapitulates the evolutionary pathway has long been disproved but is still taught in some textbooks.

The idea that human fetuses have gill slits is a part of what was known as the Biogenetic Law. "The idea that the embryo of a complex animal goes through stages resembling the embryos of its ancestors is called the Biogenetic Law." This "Law", also known as recapitulation theory, (i.e., "ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny") was formulated in 1866 by Dr. Ernst Haeckel, an early scientific convert to Darwinism.

In 1874 another German professor, Wilhelm His, showed that Haeckel had deliberately altered earlier sketches of human and dog embryos to support the Biogenetic Law. Professor His was ignored by evolutionists in spite of the "blatant fraud" and the exacting detail in which he was able to show how the fraud had been generated. Taylor comments: "His, whose work still stands as the foundation of our knowledge of embryological development, was not the first to point out the deficiencies of Haeckel's work, nor indeed was he the last, yet Haeckel's fraudulent drawings have continued to the present day to be reproduced throughout the biological literature."

This dishonesty was admitted in the Introduction to the Centennial Edition of Darwin's Origin of the Species (1956): "When the 'convergence' of embryos was not entirely satisfactory, Haeckel altered the illustrations of them to fit his theory. The 'biogenetic law' as proof of evolution is valueless."

Nonetheless, the propaganda value of "gill slits" is strong, and it lives on. In a debate with creationist Dr. Duane Gish, anti-creationist Dr. Ashley Montagu said, in response to a reference to this fraud: "The theory of recapitulation was destroyed in 1921 by Professor Walter Garstang in a famous paper, since when no reputable biologist has ever used the theory of recapitulation, created by a Nazi-like preacher [sic] named Haeckel."

Answer 2

This Site Might Help You.

RE:
Creationists, why do humans have gills?
I was just wondering why is it that when humans are in the embroynic stage we develop and lose gill slits? Did God create land based mammals (Humans) to have gills like fish? Or are these biological characteristics (Vestigial organs) from a
pre-evolutionary lifeform? Which hypothesis seems more...

Answer 3

In humans, they are merely folds forming various glands and facial features.

far different from the gills of fishes.

"Is it correct that the human embryo goes through various stages during its development that resemble its evolutionary ancestors? No, it is not.
As Jonathan Sarfati noted: “A human embryo never looks reptilian or pig-like. A human embryo is always a human embryo, from the moment of conception; it is never anything else. It does not become human sometime after eight weeks” (2002, p. 202, emp. in orig.).
The scientific community has known for decades that Ernst Haeckel—the man responsible for conjuring up this theory and then falsifying drawings to support it—purposely misled the public during the late 1800s.
Embryologist Erich Blechschmidt regarded Haeckel’s “Great Biogenetic Law” (as it came to be known) as one of the most egregious errors in the history of biology."

"Imagine, then, scientists’ surprise when the new Bush administration research guidelines classified embryos as “human subjects” (see Kass, 2002).
In this report of the President’s Counsel on Bioethics, the statement is made: “We hold that the case for treating the early-stage embryo as simply the moral equivalent of all other human cells is simply mistaken” (p. LIV).
Erika Check, a staff writer for Nature, sounded the battle-cry for scientists in an article titled “U.S. Biologists Wary of Move to View Embryos as Human Beings,” which appeared in the November 7, 2002 issue.
For the first time in U.S. history, scientists are facing a new definition of human beings that may force them to rein in some of their experimentation on human embryos. With embryos now being classified as humans, they no longer will be subjected to experiments that result in their death.
Nor can they any longer be “conveniently” washed down the drain. And scientists aren’t very happy about it! So, prepare to see more of Haeckel’s hoax promoted—as uneasy U.S. researchers decry this classification of embryos as human, and try to shift the focus away from human life and back toward “worms and reptile-like creatures.”
Call it a reptile, amphibian, or pig, but that does not change the fact that it is, and always will be, a human being."
---
excerpted from article
.

thank someone that your mother and father didnt think you were less than human... and kept you.
.

Answer 4

I think God put the gills there to draw attention away from the occasional case of 'true human tail'.

Answer 5

Second one!

The creationist theory is just a figment of some body's imagination.

If they had the X-Ray machines when the Bible was written, they would have probably see the tail like extension of the human spine and justified that by saying, "There was a big earthquake and God selected a chosen few and gave them tails and held on to them till the earthquake was over"

Answer 6

There is no God.
Every creature has evolved himself by mutation and then by natural selection of the best variants.
Long back , millions of years ago, life originated in water, they were like fish (with gills) and later some creatures adapted to live on land and then further mutated to various creatures including human.
All the while , these mutations were getting recorded in the DNA which passes down from generations to generations.
While the embryo is developing , the DNA causes the play back of the recording to generate the organism from scratch but speedily.
And so we can see the past history of human beings as water based creatures in the embryonic stage.
The creationists oppose all this , but I ask them, how do you explain the tail present in embryos.

Answer 7

iTS EVIDENT humans pass through the stage of having gills but its important that they come out of the school of fish phemomena i.e. stop studying and dissecting everything and you will naturally breathe and be human.If you don't you will not pass out as a mammal,worse you may end up living an anerobic existence.

Answer 8

The slits, properly called pharyngeal pouches, alternate with the brachial arches. This feature relates back to the jawless fish (hagfish, lampreys). Where they have six arches, humans have five which are numbered in accordance to the homologous arch -- 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th and 6th. These arches and pouches ultimately develop into specific structures, and a variety of specific conditions are associated with the abnormalities during the development of these structures. Knowledge of the evolution of these structures is critical in surgery of the head, neck and thorax.

Answer 9

According to the Center for Science & Culture web-site, Scientists do not support the Evolutionary theory anymore.
see: www.dissentfromdarwin.org - it's a real ego basher !!!

P.S. Well stated "Northstar" ... most Evolution subscribers do not know what they are talking about nor do they keep up to date on the current Scientific beliefs about it !!!

Answer 10

I do not have any idea why they are there, I just know I wish they still were. I love snorkeling but can only go so deep for so long.