Don Exodus: wrong on gill slits on human embryos?

[waw460]

Recapitulation is not a fraud... Haeckel overdid it for personal glory.

[sweetmikser]

"Dumb Excrement" is wrong on MANY things... lol

[freethinker923]

I know exactly what you're doing here science check. You went above and beyond the call of duty with this video while throwing ad hominems and red herrings all over the place. Don't anyone be fooled. this is part of the dishonest creationist wedge strategy which attempts to discredit evolution, and you should be ashamed of yourself.

[benthemiester]

In his other video he admits that recapitulation is wrong. In this video he is supporting it.

[tomestubbs]

Do you mean Bronchial?

[2punchpikey]

ScienceCheck: FAIL!

I did do my own research, which coincides with your suggestion. DonExodus is referring to embryology, a scientific field of study that backs up exactly what he says.

SOME of Haeckel's drawings were fudged, though later found to be accurate. Since embryology deals with similarities between species during developing stages, he extended those similarities to species he hadn't yet observed, and indeed this turned out to be accurate.

The Darwin-Haeckel-Hitler thing ...false.

[LeopardFrogPilboxhat]

I think the point stands. They are structures that are homologus to gill slits. Homologus genes build these across vertebrate phyla in the same way.

The matter of calling them "gill slits" is purely a semantic argument. Homology has been established and that's what evolutionary theory depends on

[velvetbc]

ok we say those are not gills in human embryo and that is not a tail in embryo, but we can't say those hairs covering the whole fetus in some stages are not hairs..you can find the next quotation on the net by googling it : "When the fetus is about 5.3 inches long and weighs about 6 ounces, it grows a moustache! Fine hair forms on the upper lip. This fine hair spreads to eventually cover the entire body! The unborn baby remains completely hairy for many weeks."

[benthemiester]

This example of whats referred to as biogenetic law is a misnomer and is classified as a discredited myth by every major encyclopedia in the world including evolution friendly Wikipedia. It's unfortunate that this superficial wives tale is still being perpetuated in the 21st century. Don x is a salesman of snake oil.

[tomestubbs]

No religious nut cases are.

[ProcInc]

Two major major problems with your silly video.

1. Pharyngeal gill slits (pouches) are not gills and no one is claiming they are, especially DonExodus. They aren't even gills in fish at the same stage of development. They are both the same structure but they become gills in fish and some neotonous tetrapods (axolotl).

2. Hitler banned Monism writings in Nazi Germany's writings (Look up item 5 on "Die Bucheri" blacklist)

[theeyeisblind]

haha another creationist bites the dust

[ProcInc]

Its true what they say that calling out and refuting creationists has become an internet sport. Shooting fish in the proverbial barrel

[devil238]

So uhh, why didn't you just rip the video from the site, as opposed to filming your monitor?

[RichardMNixon]

You're just arguing semantics here...

Then comes 1:20...

How dishonest can you be? "Up to you to check your facts?" Bullshit. You made unjustified assertions and then claimed it was ok since you're not saying they're definitely true.

\Monism is not a religion in any sense of the word. You're referring the Monist League, which has no connection to Monism.

[ScienceCheck]

Your emotionalism has betrayed you. You need to study up on science, "RichardMNixon."

[RichardMNixon]

I never said anything about science. Pharyngeal arches are commonly referred to as gill slits because that's what they look like. You argue semantics, and then you posit some disingenuous bullshit about "Monism." Trying to compare one side of a debate to Hitler is hardly a neutral point of view.

Haeckel's drawings were made up, but we've taken photographs since then that show many of the same similarities, in most cases just less extreme than Haeckel hoped.

[ScienceCheck]

In correct. phrangeal arches are not commonly referred to as gill slits, now, however, they referred to as gill slits in Darwin's day up till the 60's. It was once believed that these slits were actual openings that acted as real gills. And Don Exodus FAILED in his examination of gill slits by using old textbooks.

[patrickledford420]

@ScienceCheck im sure he didnt mean actual gills but phrangeal arches

[MumblingMickey]

@ScienceCheck they still are referred to as gill slits, then again when your computer fails you call it a 'crash' but it doesn't actaully collide with anything!

And moreover they are referred to as gill slits even in embryonic fish and in mammals even though at that stage of development even the fish don't have real gill slits!

These structures make up meckals cartilage they are the stem material which goes on to form a jaw in mammals and the first gill in fish.

Did you know that?

[MumblingMickey]

@ScienceCheck It was also 'never' believed they were real gills since as I stated even the fish don't have gills at that early stage of development and that was known in 1820 by the guy who discovered them in the first place.

Where did you get the idea anyone but a total retard thought these were actual gills? Could you give me an example of any book, paper or statement by any embryologist at any time that said this?

Joe the uneducated who likes a side of salmon for his supper doesn't count!

[yourboycal]

good stuff ,keep it up science check :)

[RyuDarragh]

It goes far beyond that. I'd refer you to the various homeobox genes that have homologous equivalents in species with gills, but then you assume I know nothing based on *your* faulty assumptions about what I know or do not know.

[RyuDarragh]

You are making assumptions based on faulty knowledge of me and my credentials. Do not presume to do so and I will not do so on your part, but your wording suggests you are being disingenuous.

[ScienceCheck]

I did not base any ideas about assumptions on your faulty knowledge. I base it on what you actually said. You said: "The features that gave rise to gill slits do indeed form, but not into full gill slits" This is an assumed position. It's based on tautology. "These features gave rise to gill slits because these features were once gill slits. How do we know, because these features gave rise to gill slits."

[EternalSoul175]

You got it right, my friend. I hope you didn't pay attention to any of these ignoramuses. Not all of you, but most notably RyuDarragh.

[RyuDarragh]

Since when have any of you nitwits actually done the research to find this out on your own? I suggest the author of this vide recheck his facts by asking a qualified biologist focused on the field of embryology.

[ScienceCheck]

I provided the citation in the video. It is detrimental for science to perpetuate viewpoints which are false. In this case, if you wish to prove a special theory, it is best to not advance a false idea in order to advance it.

[RyuDarragh]

This news is old. This was corrected by the process of science. It was not a fabrication or fraud in the conventional sense, but an attempt by Haeckel to emphasize what he thought he saw (typical of "Exaggerated for Clarity" thinking.. and you thought this was new?). The fact of the matter is that Serres and Haeckel were partly right. The features that gave rise to gill slits do indeed form, but not into full gill slits. Just like the spine, the gut and other homologous structures.

[ScienceCheck]

Sciencecheck will excuse your lack of knowledge in this field, but university art courses that specialize in science, hand out F's for: 1. not drawing from life, but from a reproduction 2. embellishment in order support a theory. It's the purpose of the drawing that determines whether the drawing is a fraud or not Haeckel fabricated the chart in order to persuade. That is no acceptable in modern science. In fact Haeckel completely fabricated the "monera", the predecessor of life.

[DebateCrusher]

Interesting.

[sphynxalive]

What is there to argue about? The scientific community does not accept that the folds are related in any way to gills as in fishes. This is the same argument posted by evolutionists that the tiny bones in the rear of the whale is actually a vestigial hip bone. This has also proven to be false as these bones are used to enable whales to mate. Evolution is a religion masqueraging as science. It is in fact a hindrance to science as many qulaified scientists have said.

[Kirkwhisper]

Someone needs to inform that genius, DonExodus that this argument was laughed out of existence 150 yrs ago.

[Chirios1]

They are called gill slits simply for ease. They evolve from similar precursor structures.

[Kirkwhisper]

Since when did Don Exodus ever have a desire to be scientifically accurate? Like his comrades in error he forces facts into his evolutionary mold and let the truth be hanged.

[Chirios1]

What truth is missing from this video?

[Kirkwhisper]

"They are called gill slits simply for ease." Good grief, fella, what the heck is the matter with you? Don't you even make a mental assent that we should be scientifically accurate?

[Chirios1]

Scientifically accurate yes, when we're you know, writing a doctoral thesis or applying for peer review. But, this is simply a video for those uneducated about evolution to understand something more about evolution, and to counter claims made by intelligent design proponents that there is no evidence for evolution. So, yes, gill-slits is valid, since it is something that the uneducated can understand easily, as compared to pharyngeal arches.

[niekvdbogert]

Although im all pro-"make it understandable even for the novice" this seems to be a dangerous path. Being vague about 'what it is' / 'what its function is' and 'what it looks like', to me, seems an invitation to misconeptions. Especially for the uninitiated.

[euphemus2]

"The pharyngeal arches and clefts are frequently referred to as branchial arches... [but] since the human embryo never has gills called "branchia", the term pharyngeal arches... has been adapted for this book"

I'm no expert on embryology but I can read. That seems to say: they are commonly called gill-slits because they are the same as branchial arches/clefts, but since they don't ever become gills in humans, to avoid misunderstanding in students, we will use the term throat-slits. Your point?

[ScienceCheck]

The structures called gills do not have branchial tissue.

[euphemus2]

At what stage?

Would you be so kind as to quote the entire sentence/paragraph? What does the "[but]" in your quote replace?

[euphemus2]

BTW: I only used ellipses due to space constraints on YouTube. Your video was not similarly constrained. So, could you add the omitted text?

[euphemus2]

I just looked through your responses to others with a similar comment to my own.

You respond in one: "Branchia refers to breathing. Gills implies breathing. Understand. Get your science checked."

Huh? Doesn't "branchia" come from the Greek for "gill"?

[crimsontearz24]

@euphemus2 That's what I got out of it, too. To answer the video's title, "No, DonExodus2, our Lord and Savior, was not wrong. Hallelujah and Ramen."

[TheProf1988]

Mammals most definatly DO have pharageal gill arches in embryo development.

pharyngial gill arches are one of the diefining criteria of chordates, they are present.

end of story. YOU check YOUR facts

[keiryuujin]

Wow... resorting to nit-picking now haven't' we?

[taberr5]

Insping Hitler? Can you say Godwin's law?

[edd77]

Yep, totally wrong. Don Exodus studies for 10 years and clearly doesn't know as much as some kid who read the bible. Get over yourself

[leondias480]

What a shame such a smart man Don Exodus, like Eugenie Scott, Dawkins, but under close examination they are exposed as frauds. Willing to lie, cheat and steal in order to justify their theory. Actually these embryos are being taught at my college, when I confronted the teacher and showed him that they were fraudulent doctored drawings he got defensive. Here is a good U tube video to watch explaining Haeckel's fraudulent drawings: Email #05- Haeckel's Embryos Even Fooled Darwin

[ussupreme1]

Don Exodus is angry at God for having a small penis. That's all it is.

[Rissoleking]

Now now ussepreme, I'm sure Don Exodus loves Him no matter how small the Lord's penis is.

[vadimcream]

You got it backwards... not just backwards, but inside out, with your head poking out the sleeve...

[whamii]

even if the drawings are false, how does that disprove evolution?

[leondias480]

I don't mean that the drawings disprove evolution they don't. I just meant that if the drawings were proven to be fraudulent 100 years ago then I think you should question the person's motives who uses them. Certainly there is more honest data to argue common ancestry right? Why does someone need to use manipulated false drawings?

[whamii]

And what are his motives?

The point of his video was his explanations, the drawings have no relevance.

Just curious, do you believe in evolution?

[EtaCarinae22]

Yeah...Can't you figure out that this "Science Check" is likely a creationist "vote bot"?

[Englishdosser86]

He wasn't lying. This video is twisting the truth. They are commonly referred to as gill slits because thats what they would have DEVELOPED into in our predecessors. The quotation from the text book is true in that humans have never had 'working' gill slits, they are not technically gills at all. So: the textbook tries to clear up the issue that humans never had usable gills, however that is not what Don Exodus was saying. They would both agree that are predecessors did.

[leondias480]

Englishdosser86,

Isn't twisting the truth lying? If not then what is it?

[Englishdosser86]

I think you've misunderstood me. I meant THIS video is twisting the truth. It is completely correct about what the text book and Don Exodus said, but makes it look like they're contradicting each other, when they're not,

On a side note, twisting the truth can be called lying I suppose.

[matero10889]

A. the book u cited was written in 1975...times change as new information is accumulated

B. humans DO have gill slits in their embryonic stages. they become our lungs

[DiggityDogg56]

Take old world and new world vultures. They are very close genetically right? Common structures, common morphologies and all, right?

Wrong!

Old world vultures are closer to storks, new world vultures are closer to hawks. So much for the similar function, similar morphology therefore similar DNA nonsense.

Take the rose, the daisy and the apple tree. Oh hell I'll just cut to the chase, the rose is much closer genetically to an apple tree than it is to a daisy.

[DiggityDogg56]

There are deep homologies between fish gills and human physiology. The second and fourth branchial arches are used in humans for among other thing the development of the cartilage around the thyroid gland. "Gcm-2 is a marker for the parathyroid in tetrapods". And guess what? Gcm-2 shows up fish embryo's branchial arches. Surprise surprise. And if you knock out Gcm-2 in the fish embryos? They don't develop gills, just like tetrapod embryos don't develop a thyroid. Deep deep homologies.

[DiggityDogg56]

The creationist answer: "Hey look, Haeckal was a fraud!"

[DiggityDogg56]

Did you get that, fish gills and the tetrapod thryoid gland are tied together to Gcm-2. How is this explained in 'common function or common morhology would share similar genes across species' explain this. It doesn't. Evolution explains it effortlessly.

[DiggityDogg56]

So when are you going to do some fact checking on creationist claims? You are neutral after all (/chuckle)

[VenomVengerX]

probably as soon as you change your name.

[machalot]

Seems like the text is saying

"Normally those slits are called gill slits in animals that have gills. But since humans don't have gills, we will call those slits something else."

That's just a terminology change. The fact that they are vestigial to gill slits remains true.

[ScienceCheck]

It's also a factual change.

[machalot]

Notice the phrase at the end of the excerpt:

"...has been adapted FOR THIS BOOK."

It was the authors' choice to deviate from the naming convention.

[xander55577]

All semantics. Literalists will take anything they can get and trumpet it to the sky.

[CornCake50]

Yeah Don Exodus makes bad videos. His videos are all biased and based on assumptions like the theory of evolution.

[ProudToBLoud]

you are 100 percent correct corncake.

[aZeroGodist]

Yeah I mean who would believe such things like evolution, big bang, red-shift, plate-tectonics, magnetic polar reversing in volcanic rock, the age of the sun being derived from Fusion mass-loss, what a load of nonsense, those two pages in the bible says it all, f*ck the thousands of tons of so called scientific research.

[AgentCool017]

Amen!

[ProudToBLoud]

my friend sciencecheck has done a great job of debunking mr don exodus here, but i am sure donexodus fanboys wont like it, but thats tough, thats why mr exodus has a following on youtube but you do not see him making waves outside of it, i told did he ever go and post on uncommon descent, that got his goat, he wants to control the debate on his videos, if you show him up then he can ban you.

[ProudToBLoud]

also don exodus makes alot of assertions, he talks about abiogenesis as if it actually happened, as if he was there stirring that primordial soup with a big spoon, people are intimidated by don exodus because he is a biologist but what matters is evidence not complex biological speak , when you challenge mr exodus on the evidence, he dosent like it, he resorts to name calling and aggresive behaviour like saying let me blast you, but he couldnt blast me, he ended up banning me for showing him up

[LogicIncognito]

Your version of showing DonExodus up is continually making stupid claims over and over again and quote mining. Even after someone disproves you, you continue on regardless. They realise that there is no point talking to a brick wall and move on. You somehow claim this as some kind of victory but in reality you are just showing yourself up for the troll you are.

[ProudToBLoud]

i am suprised people take don exodus seriously, i pointed out the contradiction of evolutionists on things like so called vestigial organs, thats all i did point out their own contradictions, i followed up by posting a quote of an evolutionist who said that evolutionists are guilty of circular reasoning in using evolution to explain fossils and then using fossils to justify evolution, in the various posts i had made on his videos,he never refuted anything, just insult and then he banned me.

[Awsomeguy134]

I'm glad don exodus bloked you I mean you're clearly nothing more then a creatinst troll. BTW Is'nt it a sin to lie in your religion. I mean your channel says you are a 106.

[frewa43]

you took a good point but made a jackass out of yourself with it =/ sorry

[DonExodus2]

Actually, you can find my response as one of the oldest comments on this video.

[Gorillathehun]

Um what was the point of this? The reason Langman used the term, "pharyngeal," instead of, "branchial," is because in mammals they don't develop into components of the skull and neck instead of gills. Changing the word does not change what the structure is, which is why they are still refered to as, "gill slits," or, "branchial arches."

[Gorillathehun]

I kind of fucked that up, sorry. In mammals phryngeal arches DO develop into components of the neck and skull.

[califoniania]

If you are just trying to point out a mistake, that's fine, but this really seems like it could be leaning toward an ad hominem attack, especially with the word 'fraud' so liberally sprinkled throughout the video. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt though. The ad Hitlerem attack is just inexcusable, please refrain from using it.

[mayartay]

Nothing ad hominem about it. Every claim is backed up by evidence.

[ScienceCheck]

Don Exodus made a serious mistake when he used the words "gill slits" in his relatively recent video. The term gill slits had been the talk of fraudhood since the 70's, in numerous debates, books and reports. Exodus simply breeze through an old textbook. He's not an expert.

[RavenBlaze]

Madam Curie and studiers of radicatian sickness studied nuclear compounds, do that dirrectly link them to the dropping of the bombs, the cold war, north Korea, world pollution, Cherynoble and Iran?

[RavenBlaze]

ok to check the chart, all we need to do is check embryose at different stages, and as far as "gill slits" go, aren't gill slits nothing more that a passage way, in all reality gills like lung are gas exchange pathways. And I do not understand the point of bringing Hitler in. What the nazi's did was wrong and hitler was psycho, but just b/c Hitler acknowledged science (specifically hereditary science), does not make hereditary science bad.

[scrumpmonkey]

erm.. he made ones mistake with a characteristic that looks like gill slits (im giving you the benefit of the doubt and assuming you ARE right on this matter. i like it how this is the ONLY thing you can call don exodus on.

maybe if you CONTRIBUTED instead of just nit-picking minor mistakes out of peoples otherwise brilliantly accurate videos. what are you trying to prove?!

[Denamic]

Can't say I really disagree with you on the gill slits thing, but you could've gone about it way better than that.

It's not like it's bad to shoot down arguments, but the video looks like some kind of victory dance and it's pretty childish.

Also, you might want to post links to your sources if you want to nitpick at someone else, lest you seem like a tool.

We like to check facts.

[VortexDelta]

So, you want boring and monotonous videos on Youtube. If you want to criticize and call something "childish" try introducing yourself as a person with an agenda and then try again.

[Denamic]

I have to have an agenda to point out why a video with a perfectly valid point got such a low score?

[VortexDelta]

You have to be a troubled individual in order to support a refuted idea and then tell us that you follow the ratings system for your opinions. I guess you didn't know that I invited mostly those who were diehard supporters of Exodus to view this video. They had already commented on his videos stating words like "awesome". My video concerning scientific fact isn't going to stop hero worship. Nor was it meant to be. It was meant to challenge people to think. "My son could never do any evil".

[Denamic]

What are you on about?

When did I support a refuted idea? When did I say that I did? I said I agreed with the point made in this video to some extent, but I criticized on how the the video was made and said that it could have been done much better.

I always take just about everything with a grain of salt anyway; It's not like I need your help to think.

Now, strop trying to be 'holier than thou'. You only sound like a presumptuous dick.

[Englishdosser86]

I think that they can rip it out of Don Exodus IF he was incorrect on an important point. But this was a 6 sec clip of a 10 minute video, and he wasn't really wrong either.

[Drowzor]

Here is a little known (or often over looked) fact for you ScienceCheck, I've often seen Charles Darwin's work used as proof there was no God, and evolution was the way we were created. However Charles Darwin himself was infact a Christian and believed evolution was just his explaination that God didn't have to make each stage of creatures and each individual part - that was down to evolution.

[ScienceCheck]

Interesting. Seems like you're needing to debate a creationist.

[Pawn2King4]

1. 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).

K.

[alunhughes]

Agassiz 1874 - "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"

These are not technically Gill Slits that's just a name used to describe their structure. These structures appear in all vertebrate embryos

[ScienceCheck]

That's a good quote. During Agassiz time it was believed that there were gill openings that took in oxygen from the embryonic fluid. Other evolutionists described the gills of later closing up. However, it is now know that these structures were never gills at anytime, and are just folds similar to folds in the neck.

[alunhughes]

exactly similar to the ones that develop into gills in fish

[silicon2001]

There are mountains of evidence for the theory of evolution published by leading experts in the field. Obviously any documentation I produce will be refuted by you in the way of counter documentation produced by creationists. All you can do is look at the available evidence and make an informed decision. I look for proof and ratioanl evidence. Just because we do not yet have all the answers does not justify leaping to illogical claims of deities or Gods. We now know the world is round!

[ScienceCheck]

Looks like you're ready to do battle with creationists and theists. As for adjectives like "mountains" of evidence, it sounds like a mountain load of specific facts to which you are quite sure you know what each fact means. A daunting challenge to be sure.

[silicon2001]

I try to make an informed decision. Did life evolve on the planet and is evolution an ongoing process? Or maybe an invisible onipotent entity snapped his fingers and produced the universe. We have substantial evidence in favour of the former theory but the latter requires an incredible leap of faith into the supernatural. Winged horses, cyclops, hydra's and a myriad of mystical cretures were thought to exist till the light of science exposed them as stories.

[ScienceCheck]

Silicon, I've studied those photo and I don't see the resemblance. If you wish to be convincing to any creationist I suggest that you dump embryology. Better safe than sorry and not be lumped with Haeckel who was found to be a fraud. He literally went away, stopped preaching evolution and started "monism". Even some of his photos speak of guilt. Darwin even had a dispute with him.

[silicon2001]

I agree the raw data points to evolution. As stated we all evolved from a common ancestor the evidence points to that, its not a case of any bias one way or the other. We can take insects and evolve them into different sub species in controlled conditions as we can manipulate thousands of generations in a very short time due to their very short lifespans.

This of course can be done to any animal including us but as we live approx 70/80 yrs an experiment to prove it would take some time.

[ScienceCheck]

You make a lot of claims but I see little in the way of documentation, which is what I'm interested in.

[tmcthree]

Still no response to my question below asking why this video was posted as a response to a completely unrelated video rather than Donexodus's video it was supposed to be "debunking"?

I can only imagine the reason for the lack of response is that the answer is too painful for Sciencecheck to admit to. You see, he wants to do his science checking behind peoples backs because he's a coward.

GET YOUR INTEGRITY CHECKED!

[ScienceCheck]

TMCthree, I answered your question below. To repeat, I gave it little thought and wish I had. I wanted it to be seen so I picked a popular Youtuber to post it to. The other two videos I actually posted to the original youtuber. But his account was suspended so I posted to another popular youtuber.

[tmcthree]

Sorry, ScienceCheck, just to be clear.

You are saying that, on the 22nd July, Donexodus2's account was suspended and that is why you couldn't post it as a response to his video?

[ScienceCheck]

No. I posted two of my 3 videos to Desertphile. But his account was suspended and I posted these again to a popular youtuber. It was about that time that I realized by 3 video and posted that to a popular youtuber.

[tmcthree]

Your credibility diminishes with every post.

Desertphiles account has nothing to do with this conversation as you know.

In future, if you are addressing a point in a video, post your response to the "offending" video. This will give the community the opportunity to see both sides and, more importantly it will the author the chance to respond.

Otherwise you will look, as you do now, like you are avoiding the scrutiny to which you subject others, like an intellectual coward.

IntegrityChecked!

[ScienceCheck]

I will certainly post these videos to the videos I am addressing. Secondly, my credibility has no relevance. This isn't a format about me. It's about science.

[tmcthree]

"my credibility has no relevance"

LOL, fair enough!!!!!

[ScienceCheck]

tmcthree, You're right. The videos should be evaluated on their own, not by peer pressure as you suggest.

[silicon2001]

If we go back far enough all animals are related. We share 99.9% dna with the apes and in fact many of us even share the same blood type as monkeys. Yes the RH blood group (Rhesus blood type first discovered in Rhesus Monkeys). Why do some people baulk at this? Do they believe man is somehow not part of the animal kingdom?

[VortexDelta]

Silicon, you need to check your facts. The human and chimp genomes haven't been thoroughly compared yet. Additionally, we know that there is no neutrality on the part of those who are doing the deciphering. For instance, the "fusion" theory has already been invented to account for the differences in chimps and men in an evolutionary perspective. The only true comparison is with NO bias, and with raw data.

[alunhughes]

//we know that there is no neutrality on the part of those who are doing the deciphering. // How can you know this?

The Fusion theory was predicated long before it was discovered. You should check your facts sir.

[ScienceCheck]

The claim is made that this was a prediction.  But a prediction indicates prejudice.

[tmcthree]

Why did you post this a response to a completely unrelated video rather than Donexodus's video?

[ScienceCheck]

I haven't given it much thought. Next time I will. I wanted the video seen so I posted on what I thought was a popular youtuber. That's it.

[DonExodus2]

1) Pharyngial pouches, arches, and clefts are synonymous with Branchial pouches, arches, and clefts. Branchial = gill. We still call an Adam's apple an apple, yet we know its not made of fruit- why don't you jump on that as well?

2) I never said, or implied the gill arches (which is what they are called) are used for respiration in humans- indeed, they are not.

3) re: Haeckel, I addressed that at the end of the video. Did you not bother to watch the whole thing before making this?

[DonExodus2]

Actually, I will add this response to the description of my video, so people can be clear on the terminology, and that they are NOT used for respiration.

[ScienceCheck]

That' cool and acceptable.

[ScienceCheck]

The graphic that you used is the same that I found in a textbook. The words gill slits is misleading and should not be used to the extent that some authors have already scrapped the word as noted in the quote that I had provided. You also ignore the fact that early investigators actually believed those "gill slits" were actually open gills. Lastly, regardless of what you say about Haeckel that doesn't excuses using those fraudulent charts.

[ScienceCheck]

Branchia refers to breathing. Gills implies breathing. Understand. Get your science checked.

[tmcthree]

I don't know enough about this subject to comment, but, as far as I read it, doesn't say humans never had gill slits it says they never had gill slits called branchia.

It seems like this passage is merely refering to nomenclature.

If this is the case then this is quote mining at its worst.

Also, and more importantly, why on earth wasn't this posted as a response to Donexedus's video?

Seems somewhat underhanded and cowardly.

[EGarrett01]

Search for "Kent Hovind Destroyed by Evolution Grad Student." This exact silly issue is the first thing the Grad Student destroys in the video.

Creationism has no logic. I guarantee you will never find a single logically valid point in the whole of your sad attempts to break down understanding.

[ScienceCheck]

I found the video "kent hovind Destroyed by Evolution Grad Student." The first thing he said was, "nobody is calling them gills." In my video the chart that Exodus used, straight out of textbook, labels the human embryo as having gills. EGarrett01, that's false, and ScienceChecked!

[EGarrett01]

Download the entire mp3 if you want more of it. They're gill pouches.

[UnusVita]

I think your channel concept is an excellent one, there are a hell of a lot of unqualified people making unfounded claims to scientific knowledge. Don Exodus however strikes me as being exceptionally competent and honest, doubtless he will review your video and do the required research to verify your facts, and amend his video.

[Y2Krashman]

1. Humans ancestors, the bridge between human and monkey, had tails. Human embryos develop tails until the point of recession, whereby it develops into the coccyx bone.

2. Whales are mammalian and their evolution is traced back to land mammals. They have small leg bones deep within their torsos. Whilst developing as an embryo, leg development first occurs then recedes. They also develop hair, as do all mammals during embryonic development, but lose it as they further develop.