Embryological Evidence for Evolution

This is essential information which will be applied in a later video. I discuss how organisms develop, and how their developmental pathways can be used to determine their position in a phylogenetic tree of life.

I touch upon this subject lightly, and do not even mention cleavage, fate, symmetry, etc.
A quick glance at the following is recommended:

Aronra: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5MXTBGcyNuc&feature=channel_page

Me: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eblrphIwoJQ

Sparknotes: http://www.sparknotes.com/101/biology/animal_evolution_and_diversity/animal_o...

Tree image used in the video: http://yfrog.com/5aphylotreej

Category:

Science & Technology

Tags:

• evolution
• intelligent
• design
• taxonomy
• developmental
• biology
• embryology
• protostome
• coelom
• evidence
• for
• charles
• darwin
• dawkins

[matthewj1985]

What is a "sea anenome"? I know what anemones are and I want to say I have seen one in your tanks.

[DonExodus2]

Typo probably.

[jzuidema]

@mejc2 A day of great joy for me personally would be the day when illiterate, unschooled, untrained, ignorant and scientifically lazy creationists like yourself stop confusing Haeckels drawings and his ideas with MODERN embryology.

Pick up a book, read science magazines, check articles and papers (PubMed anyone?), visit museums....GET SCHOOLED BEFORE MAKING DUMB ARGUMENTS

[JaMoond]

Why are you insisting that Haeckel's exaggerated drawings discredits the entire field of modern embryology. Modern embryology doesn't depend on a 100 year old drawing. Or are you just so full of yourself that you don't even know what you are talking about? The evidence is in front of you; watch the video.

[SevenSixTwoNato]

@NephilimFree Ernst Haeckel's drawings were shown to be exaggerated, nothing more.

Moreover, his motives have no bearing on the body of observable and reproducible facts that has amassed in the decades since his drawings--facts which do not contradict evolution (specifically as it relates to embryology and development).

[AcanLord]

@NephilimFree the dunning-kruger effect strikes again! 

[ZeldasDiner]

Very nice and informative description of 'what is'

[jzuidema]

@jzuidema I meant of course ontogeny instead of ontology. I will try to refrain from Nephy's phylolegy-speak in the future better.....

[jzuidema]

@mejc2 Somehow your 2 braincells were able to devise and execute a plan to show the audience I was both correct in my first assessment of your ignorance, as well as adding more proof of your stupidity.

I will correct your dumb error once more: Haeckels drawings and the implications he attached to it, including the "ontology recapitulates phylogeny" hypothesis, have little implications on MODERN EMBRYOLOGY, nor does modern embryology rely on the concepts mentioned above. GET SCHOOLED!

[jzuidema]

@micah1116 And on a different note, do you still adhere to Nephilimfree's argument that morphological change is required by evolution, and that chimps and humans are morphologically different, but the different dog breeds are not? I know you got thoroughly schooled on it on tLoR forums, and I wondered if you've changed your position to whatever degree....

[jzuidema]

@micah1116 (cont) But please elaborate on your view if you think i am missing something. I would once again like to ask you why this designer of yours never ever has violated the tree of life (the branching hierarchy we see)? Like I mentioned: feathers: why ONLY in birds? Evolution produced different types of eyes, why not share one design on this aspect, but do share others?

And why do we see this tree everywhere? Morphology, genetics, embryolgy, fossil record? Why not ONE deviation?