Morality

http://islambasics.com/view.php?bkID=111&chapter=4

Category:

Entertainment

Tags:

• Atheist Christian Muslim

[StopSpamming1]

@farzanatasneem

Well if I understand it correctly that is the point they make. The Richardson claim "hardly undermines the strong support for common descent from embryology".

The paper also does nothing to support your claim that Haeckl is discredited and supports my suggestion to revisit and re-ascertain your judgement.

[farzanatasneem]

@StopSpamming1

From the link you gave

""This shared developmental program reflects shared evolutionary history. "

The shared developmental program has nothing to do with evolution ., what Haeckel meant by Ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny is that the embryos of different organism pass through stages they have undergone during evolution.

[StopSpamming1]

@farzanatasneem

Haha, neither have I, but it looks so intuitively obvious and is substantiated in the literature.

Did you look into the Haeckl dispute and the updates?

Can I insert this link to a paper?

ncse . com/book/export/html/2317

If it works go and take a look. Much better than I can do here.

[farzanatasneem]

@StopSpamming1

I have not studied fish embryology and so you can takeover with your knowledge of fish embryology saying that it starts the very same way in fish but becomes gills

RIGHT??

[StopSpamming1]

@farzanatasneem

So a simple yes would have been more efficient.

After the fifth week they do resemble gills - even in humans.

Again: where do gill arches in fish come from, since you did not answer that question?

[farzanatasneem]

@StopSpamming1

Each arch consists of a mesenchymal core derived from mesoderm and neural crest cells and each is lined internally by endoderm and externally by ectoderm. Each arch also contains an artery (one of the aortic arches) and a cranial nerve and each will contribute specific skeletal and muscular components to the head and neck.

Now none of these structures even remotely resemble a gill

[StopSpamming1]

@farzanatasneem

Oh. well, I had expected something more substantial. And I never claimed they were the basis for lungs, you brought them up. Ok, do you agree that each arch contains a cartilaginous core and has a cranial nerve?

Do you also agree that in humans the mesenchyme then go on to form different parts of the head and the mesoderm the supportive tissue?

Where does the development lead in a whale or a fish?

[farzanatasneem]

@StopSpamming1

From Embryology books

[StopSpamming1]

@farzanatasneem

May I ask where you get this from?

[farzanatasneem]

@StopSpamming1

This is what is called :Brainwashing

Just read about pharyngeal arches from any embryology book !

These arches are NOT residual equipment .

They are the origin of many structures in face and neck , but not lungs !