Development a mirror of evolution?
August 1, 2008 – 12:57 am by William Wallace
So now we know where the evolanders learned about evolution: embryo development. It seems that if you took enough LSD in your youth, patterns in embryo development translate into macro evolution.
Yes, the evolanders believe that evolution is proven through the study of the development of embryos.
Yet, scientific arguments are not provided; merely assertions of truth. For example:
I keep saying this to everyone: if you want to understand the origin of novel morphological features in multicellular organisms, you have to look at their development. “Everything is the way it is because of how it got that way,” as D’Arcy Thompson said, so comprehending the ontogeny of form is absolutely critical to understanding what processes were sculpted by evolution.–PZ Myers @ Panda’s Thumb
I’d go there to ask, but apparently they don’t like people asking why the emperor has no clothes. (They prefer to sing to the choir.) But of course, it sounds as though PZ’s tautology is not scientific.
Indeed, the idea seems odd, and pseudo-scientific.
I mean, dog breeders know that Cocker Spaniels evolved from Springer spaniels. Yet, it is highly doubtful that embryonic cocker spaniels transition through stages, larger to smaller stages.
I am no expert, but as far as I can tell, Embryology was a pet theory of the German Darwinist, Ernst Haeckel, whose infamous fraudulent drawings are fodder in the creation/evolution wars.
It is indeed intersting that Evolanders persist in asserting the truth of Embryology without providing any scientific basis for doing so.
To be precise, I am not asserting that Embryology has nothing to say about evolution; rather, I am highly skeptical that it has much if anything to say.
12 Responses to “Development a mirror of evolution?”
I don’t get it either. But remember, PZ is two drinks short of alcoholics anonymous.
By A.S. on Aug 1, 2008
What do you expect from a man who raised a daughter to believe that bestiality was okay?
Next he will try to argue the study of sheep rectums proves evolution.
By Not Okay on Aug 1, 2008
Also, why don’t fetuses look like monkeys, then?
By A.S. on Aug 1, 2008
Good point, A.S.
By William Wallace on Aug 1, 2008
Fetuses have tails, like monkeys. Early on, they have gill slits like fish.
Monkey fetuses and human fetuses share an enormous degree of similarity through all stages of development. Have you actually studied this A.S., or are you just blabbering?
Ad hominem arguments really don’t carry much intellectual fodder. Just because you don’t like someone doesn’t mean they’re wrong.
Neither do straw man arguments. Evolutionary biologists believe that evidence for evolutionary theory can be found in the study of embryology. Evidence.
If you don’t get it, try reading more about it. Pick up a textbook on embryology and see if that helps.
By Rob on Aug 1, 2008
Rob,
You say evidence, I say resemblance.
Can you recommend a book that provides scientific reasoning beyond resemblance and an assertion of the equivalence of evolution and development?
A book on embryology sounds about as useful as a book on homeopathy.
I’d prefer something a little more critical.
By William Wallace on Aug 1, 2008
“Rob,
You say evidence, I say resemblance.
Can you recommend a book that provides scientific reasoning beyond resemblance and an assertion of the equivalence of evolution and development?”
People don’t because philogeny doesn’t recapitulate ontogeny. There are fascinating signs of earlier stages of life during embryonic developments. But it is not the case, as was thought MUCH previously (this idea is fairly old), that every embryonic stage exactly correlates to ancestral lifeforms.
Notice, William, that YOU are the scientific latecomer with no evidence for whatever theory you’d like to propose. It’s YOUR burden to provide an alternative hypothesis for the evidence. Why else would we see ANY resemblance of fetal development between, say, humans and fish? You may write off the importance, but until you have a HYPOTHESIS (that is, until you are a SCIENTIST), your point is moot.
The real evidence for evolution is, of course, observed evolution (animal husbandry, fruit flies, moths, etc.), the fossil record, DNA evidence (wherein related species share DNA and thus the predictions of evolution are confirmed), and evolution’s explanatory power in general.
By ArekExcelsior on Aug 1, 2008
Hypothesis: Coincidence.
LOL. But I think you have it backwards.
If I assert that something can be learned about how cotton candy is manufactured by by studying cumulus nimbus clouds, or that watching Zorro on a Greyhound bus causes Chinese men to go bezzerk, the burden is on me to explain why.
By William Wallace on Aug 1, 2008
Fails common sense test.
By FOTF on Aug 3, 2008
“If I assert that something can be learned about how cotton candy is manufactured by by studying cumulus nimbus clouds, or that watching Zorro on a Greyhound bus causes Chinese men to go bezzerk, the burden is on me to explain why.”
But if you have a theory to point to that has explanatory evidence, then the burden shifts back to your opponents. Obviously CUMULO-nimbus clouds and BERSERK Chinese men have no such theory. Evolution is such a theory.
Your coincidental hypothesis only reiterates what you said before: You think that evolution doesn’t explain embryological fact because you don’t like the theory of evolution. But I asked you to explain EMBRYOLOGY, not the relation between evolution and embrology. You clearly can’t do so. Evolution clearly does, which means that once again when your theory is tested it fails to make any useful predictions or explanations and evolution does not. Your own test proves evolution’s validity.
So, to repeat: In the absence of evolutionary hypotheses, why does the embryo develop in ways that suggest (not strictly recapitulate but certainly suggest) ancestral development predicted by evolution?
By ArekExcelsior on Aug 4, 2008
Let us assume evolution is correct.
How would a final product (adult creature) be different than the ancestral final products? By developing differently. Where does a significant amount of development occur? During the embryo stage.
Seems fairly straightforward to me. Any changes in the developmental pathways (even small ones) can produce significant differences in the adult forms.
The more closely related two species are to one another, the more closely matched the embryonic development is.
“I don’t get it either. But remember, PZ is two drinks short of alcoholics anonymous.
By A.S. on Aug 1, 2008″
ad hominem, and unfounded.
“What do you expect from a man who raised a daughter to believe that bestiality was okay?”
ad hominem, and twisted truth. His daughter does not find anything inherently wrong with bestiality (and there isn’t anything inherently wrong with it - giving an animals sexual release is a fairly decently paid job in farming), though she does find causing pain/suffering/or other abuse to animals wrong. Where the two intersect, she considers it wrong. Then again, you probably apply the ‘its distasteful to me therefore its morally wrong’ reasoning.
“Can you recommend a book that provides scientific reasoning beyond resemblance and an assertion of the equivalence of evolution and development?”
Why turn to books? Why not primary literature?
Embryological features of Tofieldia glutinosa and their bearing on the early diversification of monocotyledonous plants, Holloway SJ, Friedman WE.:
A study was made of the embryology of Tofieldia glutinosa, a member of an early divergent monocot clade (Tofieldiaceae), and aspects of its development were compared with the development of other early divergent monocots in order to gain insight into defining reproductive features of early monocots…The analysis suggests that the shared common ancestor of monocots possessed persistent and proliferating antipodals similar to those found in T. glutinosa and other early-divergent monocots (e.g. Acorus and members of the Araceae). Helobial endosperm among monocots evolved once in the common ancestor of all monocots excluding Acorus. Thus, the analysis further suggests that helobial endosperm in monocots is homoplasious with those helobial endosperms that are present in water lilies and eudicot angiosperms.
Pubmed will spill out a thousand studies that you can look out for.
If you insist on a book, try “Cells, Embryos, and Evolution: Toward a Cellular and Developmental Understanding of Phenotypic Variation and Evolutionary Adaptability” by John Gerhart and Marc Kirschner
By Mod on Aug 6, 2008
rock on mod! wallace, you compare embryology to homeopathy, i compare your religion to every other cult. we both have a flair for hyperbole, but yours is over-reaching.
By Clockwork Watchmaker on Aug 17, 2008