Darwinism Vs.Creationism: Ernst Haeckel's Evidences

Exploring the great evidences provided by Ernst Haeckel to prove Darwinism

Category:

Education

Tags:

• Ernst
• Haeckel
• Evolution
• Creationism
• Ontogeny
• Recapitulates
• Phylogeny
• Biogenetic
• law
• Monera
• Java
• Man

[isreasontaboo]

Evolution is not a theory. It is a fact.

Religion is just BLIND belief without evidence.

[SofaKingLoaded]

He "explained" nothing. But why don't you give it a shot? What are it's general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomenon? What are it's confirmations? It's predictions? How is it falsifiable? What are it's prohibitions? On what model does it accurately describe a large class of observations? What exactly is creation "theory"? C'mon throw us a bone here..

[foxlake02]

watch?v=myfifz3C0mI

NUFF SAID

[isreasontaboo]

@NoriDavis Next time you reply to a comment make sure it's 3 years old. It's called thread-digging for a reason.

The macro vs micro-evolution rhetoric is typical creationist propaganda. "macro" evolution is micro-evolution's effect after millions or billions of years. And it's been observed. We've even used it when we bred new dog species.

[NoriDavis]

@isreasontaboo Well, you have to define your terms here. It is a fact that we see lots of variety and we can observe change. We have not, however, observed any testable or demonstrable evidence to support that there is not extreme limitations. So, is microevolution a fact? Yes, its a poor term but it happens. Is macroevolution, organic evolution, stellar and planetary evolution, chemical evolution or cosmic evolution fact? No, its a religion, not science. Not testable or demonstrable

[Foot0fGod]

@prototypo I did. Turns out the Discovery Institute is a bunch of liars on this occasion, too (no surprise to anybody at this point). Of the few books they do reference, some of them take the pictures from sections about the history of embryology research. Haeckel and his drawings are undoubtedly important in the context of history and since science doesn't make a habit of ignoring mistakes of the past and pretending like they never happened, of course they appear as such.

[prototypo]

@Foot0fGod please search on Google the following text:

What do Modern Textbooks Really Say about Haeckel's Embryos?

;)

[AtheistCitizen]

@SicSkatez so your answer is "LALALA can't hear you"?

Plenty of convincing fossil evidence. Loads of transitionals. Man, an ape, has plenty of ancestral ape ancestors.

Plenty of explanation of why abiogenesis is difficult to trace, but then science is never going to be lax on that, and will continue to dig & in the lab to address this wonderful opportunity for further study.

[SicSkatez]

@AtheistCitizen There is no adequate explanation for the origin of life from dead chemicals. Even the simplest life form is tremendously complex.

The fossil record, our only documentation of whether evolution actually occurred in the past, lacks any transitional forms, and all types appear fully-formed when first present. The evidence that "pre-men" (ape-men) existed is dubious at best. So called pre-man fossils turn out to be those of apes, extinct apes, fully man, or historical frauds

[f0xfree]

I put up a video response.