Yesterday, I asked a question in response to a question asked by an Atheist talking about human "gill slits"..

Question

I was chided because of the age of the sourde it was 1977 or something like that...I deleted the question. this is the updated version.

This is an excerpt from an article written by Dr. Tommy Mitchell and Dr. Elizabeth Mitchell

March 14, 2007

...Like Darwin, Haeckel claimed that the developmental stages of an embryo retrace its evolutionary past. In other words, the human embryo supposedly goes through a fish stage, an amphibian stage, a reptile stage, and so on. Countless students have therefore been taught, “Ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny.” Support for this notion came, not from scientific research and observation, but solely from Haeckel’s own diagrams.

Ernst Haeckel was a professor of zoology in Germany from 1865 until 1909. In 1868, he fabricated the embryologic evidence for evolution by fraudulently producing the diagrams to “prove” the theory. Reputable German scientists immediately began refuting his evidence, demonstrating that Haeckel had falsified his pictures. Notwithstanding, these diagrams have been taught in biology textbooks at the high school and university levels as recently as the 1990s and the idea they purport to prove is still presented in textbooks today,

The so-called gill slits of a human embryo have nothing to do with gills, and the human embryo does not pass through a fish stage or any other evolutionary stage. The development of the human embryo reveals steady progress toward a fully functional human body. Never in the course of development does a human embryo absorb oxygen from water as fish do with gills. (The human embryo is fully supplied with oxygen through the umbilical cord.) In fact, these “gill slits” are not even slits.

So what are these misnamed structures? Actually, they are nothing more than folds in the region of the tiny embryo’s throat. By the 28th day of life, the embryo’s brain and spinal cord seem to be racing ahead of the rest of the body in growth. Therefore, for a time, the spinal cord is actually longer than the body, forcing the body to curl and flexing the neck area forward. (This curled embryo with the long spinal cord is mistakenly accused by some people of having a tail.) Just as many people develop a double chin when bending the neck forward, so the embryo has folds in its neck area due to this flexing.

We scientists especially like to name things. Gill slits is a misleading name, since these folds are neither gills nor slits. Another popular name, branchial arches, is just as deceptive because branchial comes from the Greek word for “gills.” Somehow the name neck folds just isn’t fancy enough for our scientific minds, so these folds are called pharyngeal arches, since they are arch-shaped folds near the throat. (Pharyngeal is the scientific word for things having to do with the throat. When you say you have a sore throat, your doctor says you have pharyngitis.) The creases between the folds are called pharyngeal clefts, and the undersides of the folds are called pharyngeal pouches.

One reason for assigning names to all these parts is the fact that each fold shapes itself into specific structures, none of which are ever used for breathing. The outer and middle ear as well as the bones, muscles, nerves, and glands of the neck develop from these folds. Only superficially do these important folds ever resemble gills; the pharyngeal arches are no more related to gills than stars are to streetlights.

This is the question that I am referencing....

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AmlsWd9xImff_aR7y6MtuHQAAAAA;_ylv=3?qid=20071017011103AAs2Dqp

Correction: "source"

Answer 1

This was taken from talkorigins.org. You are correct we do not ever have gill slits but the pharyngeal pouches that the term describe are still more proof of evolution.

Human embryos do not have gill slits; they have pharyngeal pouches. In fish, these develop into gills, but in reptiles, mammals, and birds, they develop into other structures and are never even rudimentary gills. Calling them gill slits is reading Darwinian theory into the evidence. There is no way gill slits can serve as evidence for evolution.

Source:

Wells, Jonathan, 2000. Icons of Evolution, Washington DC: Regnery Publishing Inc., pp. 105-107.


Response:

The pharyngeal pouches that appear in embryos technically are not gill slits, but that is irrelevant. The reason they are evidence for evolution is that the same structure, whatever you call it, appears in all vertebrate embryos. Agassiz (not a Darwinist himself) said, "The higher Vertebrates, including man himself, breathe through gill-like organs in the early part of their life. These gills disappear and give place to lungs only in a later phase of their existence" (Agassiz 1874).

Darwinian evolution predicts, among other things, similar (not identical) structures in related organisms. That pharyngeal pouches in humans are similar to pharyngeal pouches (or whatever you call them) in fish is one piece of evidence that humans and fish share a common ancestor.
References:
Agassiz, Louis, 1874. Evolution and Permanence of Type, reprinted in Hull, David L., 1973, Darwin and His Critics, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, p. 440.
Further Reading:
Gilbert, Scott F., 1988. Developmental Biology, 2nd ed. Sunderland MA: Sinauer Associates

Edit-You failed to cite your source. answersingenesis is not at all a decent or remotely valid site for science and definately not biology.

Answer 2

Yes you saying your an Atheist is a proper response. :-) I believe if you go back through the messages you received from that person. You'll realize that person was not asking you if you believe in God. They were only sharing with you that their. Favorite question to answer is do you believe in God. Their least favorite question is why are Atheists in r&s. I believe the person told you that is their least favorite question to answer. Because it is asked so many times. They literally feel like hitting their head against their computer desk. Because they are tired of seeing that question asked. I believe the person only intended on talking to you as a person. They didn't want to talk about what either one of you believe. They just wanted to get to know you as a person. I'm not a stupid Christian or a young Christian. I do know what Atheist do not believe. Now I know not to get to know Atheists as people.

Answer 3

This isn't a question.

Your assertion that Haeckel fudged his drawings does not eliminate the facts. The human pharyngeal pouches and arches correlate with the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, and 6th equivalents in the jawless fishes (lampreys and hagfish). The structures that become gill slits and corresponding arches also become other structures (like the arch of the aorta).

As the lungs developed from the swim bladder which is an outpouching of the esophagus. The switch from gills to lungs for respiration explains how the gill slits do not play a role in respiration. Frogs develop gills from the pharyngeal pouches as tadpoles, and then lungs as an an adult frog.

Haeckel's inaccuracies do not invalidate embryology. Humans develop from the same structures as other vertebrates. The "gill slits" do not produce gill tissue, but they produce many of the same structures.

Answer 4

I was aware of this, but not from college. Of course, I am fifty eight, and the degree grows dustier by the minute. I detest, but I understand why drug companies will lie to cover up side effects of drugs in order to protect that almighty dollar. What has been protected in this cover up? The so called scientist is dead, but some educated people have been duped into defending an egotistical liar. I guess the theory was the "opiate of the masses," another term thrown at any people with faith in a Creator. I am not going to debate whether the Earth is sixty billion years old, or the unlikely six thousand years old, but the age of the Earth does not change my faith. They had to cling to the deception in the face of reason. Who needs the "opiate?" I appreciate the link and the person's willingness to accept a scientific fact, but he would have seemed a little more noble had he not thrown in the haughty remark that still showed his elitist attitude. Thank you for a wonderful post.

Answer 5

All you are demonstrating here is the atrociously bad quality of education. Haeckel has been discredited for almost a hundred years.
His theories on evolution are no longer taught, much less discussed in biology.
To bad nobody thought fit to update the text books.

Haeckel is only cited by Creationists now, and then only as an attack on evolutionary theory based in ignorance of the man and his failed Lamarkian concepts.
Although he accepted Darwin's ideas about evolution Haeckel was never able to get past his evangelical Christian faith. As a result he believed in the ladder concept of evolution where the organisms ranked in a strict order from lowest to highest. With man of course occupying the top of the ladder. After all, man was Gods highest achievement, how could it be otherwise.
These religion inspired views of evolution are not what Darwin had presented at all. Natural selection in Darwin's view was not God shaping humans or a purposeful shaping of animals.

Haeckel's views were popular in his lifetime and were supported by the Churches over the strict Darwinian view.
It was evolution as selected by religion. He was also highly favoured by the believers in positive eugenics.

He was an intelligent man but he was trapped by his religious beliefs that made him, in the end unable to escape certain creationist concepts about mans place in the animal world.

Answer 6

No contemporary biologist teaches "ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny". The Mitchells are either deliberately lying, or majorly out of touch with current - ie the last hundred years' - biological thinking. Haeckel's theories have not been taken seriously in their absolute form for over a century. Here's the original article from that paragon of peer reviewed science (not), Answers in Genesis: http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2007/0314gill-slits.asp

Apart from reposting this piece replete with the standard AiG straw men, do you have a point?

Answer 7

There is a whole lot of writing here.. but .. I can't see a question. Is there a question? I mean.. the trolls are sure gonna love you for this one! You gots to ask a question! .. cause this is Yahoo ANSWERS.. and if you ask a quesiton you get ANSWERS.. but if you make a statement ... which I think you just did.... then all you get is reported!

Enjoy your gill slits!

Answer 8

1977 or 2007, it doesn't matter. they are still banging on about haeckel, whose recapitulation hypothesis was discarded about a century ago. pharyngeal arches are homologous with structures in fish and many other vertebrates, because those species evolved from a common ancestor. semantic games do not change that, and the mention of haeckel's discredited theories is a scientifically irrelevant attempt at establishing guilt by association.

Answer 9

Why is it that religious people say "Aha! You're wrong and I've got the science to prove it!" when it suits their argument, but refuse to even consider the validity of the science in any athiest's argument? Is that not just a bit hypocritical?

Answer 10

HA!!! I KNEW IT WASN'T TRUE!!!!
What a BUNCH of gobbledygook we are taught in biology, then they always have this stupid disclaimer: "The human body is SO complex we don't really know everything there is to know about it."

That whole "Ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny" crap was repugnant to me. I kept my sceptical hat on THAT day, I'm SO glad you posted this. They should recant the text and revise their material.