There are numerous cases where very similar, or identical, proteins are
used for some function throughout the plant and animal kingdoms, yet,
when you compare the actual genes that code for these proteins, they
are not so similar: one finds that codons for a particular amino acid
have been replaced by "synonymous" codons that have a different
sequence of nucleotides but code for the same protein. A minor example
is the enzyme cytochrome-c, which is identical in humans and
chimpanzees, but differs in one nucleotide in the genes of the two
species.

So similarites between species prove Evolution.

And differences
between species also prove Evolution.

Isn't that amazing?

That is called philosphical opportunism.

With regard to embryos, specifically, a pair of fascinating examples is
found in the embryos of baleen whales. These whales, which filter-feed
on krill, have no teeth after birth, using large sheets of baleen or
whalebone instead, but their embryos grow teeth (similar to those in
adult forms of certain extinct whales), and then resorb them. At one
stage, the embryos also have hind limb buds, such as other mammalian
embryos (including, presumably, the terrestrial ancestors of whales)
develop on the way to growing hind legs, but again, these are (in most
cases) resorbed and the whale lacks limbs at birth.

Aha. The old "embryo rehearses species evolution" scam.

It never
dies.

Steven J. wrote:

Dan Wood wrote:

"Dana Tweedy" <reddfrogg@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:cI6dnfxWadVxxN_YnZ2dnUVZ_qOdnZ2d@comcast.com...

<mccoy@sunset.net> wrote in message
news:mccoy-1161974435.931170.119220@k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

Roy Jose Lorr wrote:

http://www.prolifeamerica.com/fusetalk/forum/messageview.cfm?catid=7&threadid=2128&enterthread=y

Ontogeny Recapitulates Phylogeny? Haekel's faked embryonic
drawings The theory of embryonic recapitulation asserts that
the human fetus goes through various stages of its
evolutionary history as it develops. Ernst Haeckel proposed
this theory in the late 1860's, promoting Darwin's theory of
evolution in Germany. He made detailed drawings of the
embryonic development of eight different embryos in three
stages of development, to bolster his claim. His work was
hailed as a great development in the understanding of human
evolution. A few years later his drawings were shown to have
been fabricated, and the data manufactured. He blamed the
artist for the discrepancies, without admitting that he was
the artist.

This is a new twist.

Or it's not true.

I haven't checked out your claims but I've never
read anywhere, up till now, the supposed fact that he blamed it on the
artist, but not revealing that he was the artist. This makes the
situation, if actual, worse for evolutionists DJT and et. al. Let's
wait and see.

Why would this make it "worse"? Vertibrate embryos still show

similarities

that demonstrate common descent.

Explain why similarities demonstrate common descent rather than a common
designer working with a common theme with variation.

Basically, because the similarities sometimes exist even when the
functions of the similar structures are notably dissimilar (e.g. whale
flippers and bat wings, yet, in other cases, structures with very
similar functions are strikingly dissimilar in "design" (e.g. bat wings
and bird wings). We see, in the case of wings, that all birds,
regardless of size or how they fly (or even if they fly) use the same
basic wing design, while small insect-eating bats and large fruit bats
again use the same, non-birdlike design. This (and many other
features) suggest a pattern of branching descent with opportunistic
modification (you inherit features that your ancestors had, and modify
them, and your descendants inherit, in turn, the modifications) rather
than a pattern of separate designs using common features.

There are numerous cases where very similar, or identical, proteins are
used for some function throughout the plant and animal kingdoms, yet,
when you compare the actual genes that code for these proteins, they
are not so similar: one finds that codons for a particular amino acid
have been replaced by "synonymous" codons that have a different
sequence of nucleotides but code for the same protein. A minor example
is the enzyme cytochrome-c, which is identical in humans and
chimpanzees, but differs in one nucleotide in the genes of the two
species.

So similarites between species prove Evolution. And differences
between species also prove Evolution. Isn't that amazing?

That is called philosphical opportunism.

With regard to embryos, specifically, a pair of fascinating examples is
found in the embryos of baleen whales. These whales, which filter-feed
on krill, have no teeth after birth, using large sheets of baleen or
whalebone instead, but their embryos grow teeth (similar to those in
adult forms of certain extinct whales), and then resorb them. At one
stage, the embryos also have hind limb buds, such as other mammalian
embryos (including, presumably, the terrestrial ancestors of whales)
develop on the way to growing hind legs, but again, these are (in most
cases) resorbed and the whale lacks limbs at birth.

Aha. The old "embryo rehearses species evolution" scam. It never
dies.

TCross

Steven J. wrote:

Dan Wood wrote:

"Dana Tweedy" <reddfrogg@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:cI6dnfxWadVxxN_YnZ2dnUVZ_qOdnZ2d@comcast.com...

<mccoy@sunset.net> wrote in message
news:mccoy-1161974435.931170.119220@k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

Roy Jose Lorr wrote:

http://www.prolifeamerica.com/fusetalk/forum/messageview.cfm?catid=7&threadid=2128&enterthread=y

Ontogeny Recapitulates Phylogeny? Haekel's faked embryonic
drawings The theory of embryonic recapitulation asserts that
the human fetus goes through various stages of its
evolutionary history as it develops. Ernst Haeckel proposed
this theory in the late 1860's, promoting Darwin's theory of
evolution in Germany. He made detailed drawings of the
embryonic development of eight different embryos in three
stages of development, to bolster his claim. His work was
hailed as a great development in the understanding of human
evolution. A few years later his drawings were shown to have
been fabricated, and the data manufactured. He blamed the
artist for the discrepancies, without admitting that he was
the artist.

This is a new twist.

Or it's not true.

I haven't checked out your claims but I've never
read anywhere, up till now, the supposed fact that he blamed it on the
artist, but not revealing that he was the artist. This makes the
situation, if actual, worse for evolutionists DJT and et. al. Let's
wait and see.

Why would this make it "worse"? Vertibrate embryos still show

similarities

that demonstrate common descent.

Explain why similarities demonstrate common descent rather than a common
designer working with a common theme with variation.

Basically, because the similarities sometimes exist even when the
functions of the similar structures are notably dissimilar (e.g. whale
flippers and bat wings, yet, in other cases, structures with very
similar functions are strikingly dissimilar in "design" (e.g. bat wings
and bird wings). We see, in the case of wings, that all birds,
regardless of size or how they fly (or even if they fly) use the same
basic wing design, while small insect-eating bats and large fruit bats
again use the same, non-birdlike design. This (and many other
features) suggest a pattern of branching descent with opportunistic
modification (you inherit features that your ancestors had, and modify
them, and your descendants inherit, in turn, the modifications) rather
than a pattern of separate designs using common features.

There are numerous cases where very similar, or identical, proteins are
used for some function throughout the plant and animal kingdoms, yet,
when you compare the actual genes that code for these proteins, they
are not so similar: one finds that codons for a particular amino acid
have been replaced by "synonymous" codons that have a different
sequence of nucleotides but code for the same protein. A minor example
is the enzyme cytochrome-c, which is identical in humans and
chimpanzees, but differs in one nucleotide in the genes of the two
species.

So similarites between species prove Evolution. And differences
between species also prove Evolution. Isn't that amazing?

That is called philosphical opportunism.

With regard to embryos, specifically, a pair of fascinating examples is
found in the embryos of baleen whales. These whales, which filter-feed
on krill, have no teeth after birth, using large sheets of baleen or
whalebone instead, but their embryos grow teeth (similar to those in
adult forms of certain extinct whales), and then resorb them. At one
stage, the embryos also have hind limb buds, such as other mammalian
embryos (including, presumably, the terrestrial ancestors of whales)
develop on the way to growing hind legs, but again, these are (in most
cases) resorbed and the whale lacks limbs at birth.

Aha. The old "embryo rehearses species evolution" scam. It never
dies.

TCross

Scooter the Mighty wrote:

Roy Jose Lorr wrote:

http://www.prolifeamerica.com/fusetalk/forum/messageview.cfm?catid=7&threadid=2128&enterthread=y

Ontogeny Recapitulates Phylogeny? Haekel's faked embryonic
drawings The theory of embryonic recapitulation asserts that
the human fetus goes through various stages of its
evolutionary history as it develops. Ernst Haeckel proposed
this theory in the late 1860's, promoting Darwin's theory of
evolution in Germany. He made detailed drawings of the
embryonic development of eight different embryos in three
stages of development, to bolster his claim. His work was
hailed as a great development in the understanding of human
evolution. A few years later his drawings were shown to have
been fabricated, and the data manufactured. He blamed the
artist for the discrepancies, without admitting that he was
the artist. (source: Russell Grigg, "Fraud Rediscovered",
Creation, Vol. 20, No. 2, pp.49-51) Haeckel' Forgeries
Creationary Links Another Evolution Fraud Exposed Evolution
Fraud in Current Biology Textbooks - Haeckel's Ontongeny
Haeckel's distortions did not help Darwin by Stephen Jay
Gould Haeckel's Fake Drawings - Pictures Please Urge
Publishers to Fix Textbooks by Texans for Better Science
Education

Let me know when you want to talk about Creationist frauds. Remove the
plank from your own eye, and so on.

Scientific creationism and Judge Overton's decision should be a
required discussion for Lorr. The scientific creationists claimed that
they were scientists, but they called their organizations "Christian
ministries" and pulled their "science" right out of the Bible. Some of
them even signed pledges that they would not do science in order to
join the Institute of Creation Research. The sad fact is that as bad
as these guys were, they did admit that they were Christian ministries
and not scientific institutes and they actually did present things that
could be tested (their problem was that science had already tested them
and found them wanting, often over a century before). Compared to the
next generation of creationist scam artists these guys were angels.

Intelligent design, Ohio 2001-2002, and Dover 2005 should be of
interest in the fraud department too. He can explain the creationist
bait and switch scam. They sold the rubes on intelligent design, but
they couldn't deliver any science so they stuck them with a replacement
scam that didn't even mention that intelligent design had ever existed.
The Dover rubes wouldn't take the replacement and intelligent design
got to be shown to be nothing but a creationist scam in court.

Teach the controversy and Ohio and Kansas should be discussed. How did
things like the lie about "no moths on tree trunks get into the Ohio
creationist model lesson plan? Why did the Ohio board take the
replacement scam from the same guys that they had just caught lying to
them about intelligent design? When they found out that these guys
were lying to them again, why didn't they drop the replacement scam?
Why did they carry on for until just recently? What happened to the
replacement scam? Why did it get dropped? If it was about the
science, why did creationist web links get into the early drafts when
ID and creationism wasn't even mentioned in the body of the lesson
plan?

It isn't just a plank in the eye that Lorr has to worry about.
Dishonesty and scam seems to be a way of life for the guys he supports.
Can he point to an honest creationist argument? Before he puts up
anymore of this junk, why can't he put up something from the
creationist side that he is proud of? My guess is that anything he
cares to put up will have zip to do with science, or will just be
another creationist scam. Really, just imagine if he really believes
that the above argument is worth anything or isn't basically a scam?
Where were all the honest arguments when the creationists needed them
in court and they had to testify under oath? Heck, some of them even
lied under oath and got caught. Where did the money for the
creationist textbooks come from that they were going to use to teach
the kids ID in Dover? Why did the perps feel that they had to lie
about the source of the money?

It is weird that Lorr can worry about something that happened over a
century ago and was cleared up by scientists, and he can't come to
grips with the scams and dishonesty currently going on that affect his
beliefs, and that are being perpetrated by the guys he keeps getting
his junk from or that believe the same way he does.

Ron Okimoto