Proof of Evolution - Part 4 Embryology

Regarding caring for young:
Crocs and gators do not usually care for their young for extended periods of time. They do care for them until they hatch, and shortly afterwards, but nowhere near what is found in mammals.
Furthermore, even if they did, since crocodilians diverged such a long time ago, this would most likely be a simple case of convergent evolution.

"She buries the eggs and fiercely guards her nest. When the eggs hatch in July or early August, the female helps carry her young to the water, but, unlike the alligator, she will not continue to care for her young."

The documentary I saw was on crocs, not gators. Damn you discovery channel! I feel so used :(


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.

Category:

Science & Technology

Tags:

• proof
• of
• evolution
• evidence
• embryology
• developmental
• biology
• heckel
• embryo
• intelligent
• design
• creationism
• vs

[KennyTew2]

@tpstrat14 "Evolution is based on seeing E.. coli learn to metabolize citrus. Somehow we see this happen and make the connection that both humans and E. coli are descended from the same ancestor?"

It always amazes me how people can conclude that evolution didn't happen BEFORE learning about it. And even when you do make an effort you always read books and sites like, 'why evolution is an evil lie'.

It's like trying to get a balanced view of Margret Thatcher from Arthur Scargil!

[KennyTew2]

@tpstrat14 "No, he didn't theorize like a fool. He merely explained what he saw. Nothing more..."

He measured and observed reality and drew conclusions thereon, just like all scientists. If you think that theorising is foolish, please stop typing and throw your computer in the bin. The communication technology I am kicking your ass on would not work without the theory of relativity, and your computer requires quantum theory. Lets all stop theorising and get back to the stone age!

[KennyTew2]

@tpstrat14 "Newton's discoveries were based on evidence"

There are tens of thousands of papers with evidence for evolution, but that wasn't the point I was making. You made the completely erroneous and incredibly stupid claim that evolution cannot explain how life changes through time without also explaining the origin of life. My Newton example showed how stupid this line of thought is. It is customary, for the honest at least, to accept when they are wrong.

[tpstrat14]

@KennyTew2 Newton's discoveries were based on evidence. Evolution is based on seeing E.. coli learn to metabolize citrus. Somehow we see this happen and make the connection that both humans and E. coli are descended from the same ancestor? HUH?!?!?! Newton wasn't so foolish. He never made a claim saying "since gravity exerts predictable forces, therefore....". No, he didn't theorize like a fool. He merely explained what he saw. Nothing more...

[KennyTew2]

@tpstrat14 "And I respond OK then, be dishonest."

Dishonest? Am I dishonest for accepting Newtons Laws? Which Newton dishonestly only applied after the origin of matter? Come on Newton you cretin, you cant get away with such incredible dishonesty. How dare you offer an explanation for one thing without explaining another, you make me sick Newton, I cant trust a word you say! Everyone knows that unless you explain everything you explain nothing!!!

Why are creationists so dumb?

[KennyTew2]

3) Evolution is an explanation of how life diversifies and changes with time, a bit like how Newtons laws explain the motion of matter through time. Evolution requires life, as Newtonian mechanics require matter, but neither explains the origins of their subject matter, only it's behaviour once it exists.

Claiming that evolution is wrong because it doesn't explain the origin of life is directly akin to throwing out newtons laws because the don't explain the origin of matter. Seriously stupid.

[tpstrat14]

@KennyTew2 "It is the holes that are of interest to science" OK, then why don't we go with the theory of Mormonism or Scientology. There's holes in those theories as well! Let's fill 'em up! It's the "scientific" way!

[KennyTew2]

2) This series has no major gaps let alone one big point of differentiation between ape and man, this is why creationist 'experts' never agree on which are fully human and which are fully ape.

"None of the massive holes in the theory matter"

While I am aware of no massive holes, it is the holes that are of interest to science, science is interested in what it doesn't know not what is well established.

There are many types of creationist, the most common being young earth creationist.