Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site psivax.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!bellcore!decvax!ittvax!dcdwest!sdcsvax!sdcrdcf!psivax!friesen
From: friesen@psivax.UUCP (Stanley Friesen)
Newsgroups: net.origins
Subject: Re: The Scientific Case for Creation: (Part 8)
Message-ID: <415@psivax.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 24-Apr-85 11:45:02 EST
Article-I.D.: psivax.415
Posted: Wed Apr 24 11:45:02 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 27-Apr-85 06:32:57 EST
References: <339@iham1.UUCP>
Reply-To: friesen@psivax.UUCP (Stanley friesen)
Distribution: net
Organization: Pacesetter Systems Inc., Sylmar, CA
Lines: 43
Summary: 

In article <339@iham1.UUCP> rck@iham1.UUCP (Ron Kukuk) writes:
>
>     THE SCIENTIFIC CASE FOR CREATION: 116 CATEGORIES OF EVIDENCE
>
>I.  (Life Sciences): THE THEORY OF ORGANIC EVOLUTION IS INVALID.  (See
>    1-13.)
>                                      ...
>
>    B.  ALL  ARGUMENTS  FOR  EVOLUTION  ARE  OUTDATED,  ILLOGICAL,  OR
>        WISHFUL THINKING.
>
>
>       17.  As an embryo develops, it does not pass through the  adult
>            stages    of    its    alleged   evolutionary   ancestors.
>            Embryologists   no   longer   consider   the   superficial
>            similarity that exists between a few embryos and the adult
>            forms of simpler animals as evidence for evolution  [a-h].
>            The   drawings   by  Ernst  Haeckel,  which  led  to  this
>            widespread belief, were deliberately falsified [i-l].
>

	This is not really relevant, the recapitulation hypothesis was
never *central* to evolutionary theory, which is a theory about a
*process*, not about particular phylogenies. Just because it is not
possible to read off the adult ancestors of an organism from its
embryology says nothing about the *process* of evolution. Besides,
embryology is *still* considered useful in elucidating the evolutionary
history of an organism, through comparisons of the *embryonic* stages,
which are considered to retain similarity to one another even when the
adult stages have changed significantly.
	Thus there are three errors here, one is the continued use of
outdated science as arguments against evolution, this matter has been
adequately dealt with. In fact the references listed are the papers in
which it *was* dealt with, that is the quotes were taken out of context.
Third, there is a conceptual error, the hypothesis is presented as
totally rejected, without any mention of the revised(replacement) form
based on embryological similiarity. This is misleading.
-- 

				Sarima (Stanley Friesen)

{trwrb|allegra|cbosgd|hplabs|ihnp4|aero!uscvax!akgua}!sdcrdcf!psivax!friesen
or {ttdica|quad1|bellcore|scgvaxd}!psivax!friesen