Evolution – Evidence from Development
======================================================Table of Contents What is Evolutionary Embryonic Development? History of Evolutionary Embryology Examination of Embryonic Developments Mitosis – Embryos Need More then DNA References
Embryology is the study of the developmental stages that living organisms go through before they are born.
Evolutionists point out specific features in embryonic development in attempt to prove their theory. You will find in biology text books that the evolutionary theory dominates the explanation of how embryos from each species form and have features that point to a common ancestor.
“The similarity between early stages in the development of many different animals helped convince Darwin that all forms of life shared common ancestors.”
– BSCS Biological Science 1978 p. 628
“Darwin considered this ‘by far the strongest single class of facts in favor of’ his theory.” Haeckel called it the “biogenetic law.”
– Icons of Evolution, p. 82
– Merrill Earth Science 1993 p. 451
History of Evolutionary Embryology
It is both well documented and surprising to find that the entire history of evolutionary embryology was devised upon lies from Earnest Haeckel. Earnest Haeckel was the biologist who created the first embryonic pictorial, showing that each organism had similarities during early stages of development. He forged his drawing to make each embryo to look similar to provide ‘proof’ for Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution because no proof had been excreted at that time (nor exists today).
– Creation Ex Nihilo March-May 1996 p. 33
By 1868 many evolutionists were worried about the lack of evidence for Darwin’s theory. Ernst Haeckel, one of the worried evolutionists, decided to manufacture some evidence.
The fraud began in 1868 while Haeckel was drawing a “family tree” for mankind. He became worried about the large gap between non-living and living organisms.
To have a “completed” chart, Haeckel decided to create a series of organisms he called Monera. In 1869, Thomas Huxley (English Biologist) claimed to have discovered these organisms in ocean mud samples. He named them Bathybius haeckelii in honor of Haeckel.
In 1875, the chemist John Buchanan revealed that Huxley’s discovery was simply calcium sulfate from the seawater. Haeckel refused to admit his fraud and reprinted the Monera drawings in his book The History of Creation.
He fraudulently created a missing link called Pithecanthropus alalus, which means “speechless ape-man”. Haeckel reached an all-time low when he began presenting his “biogenetic law,” also known as the “law of recapitulation.”
Haeckel taught that each animal retraces the stages of evolution in its embryonic development.
The depictions of Haeckel’s fake drawings.
– 1874 Creation ex nihilo Mar-May 1998 p. 51
Haeckel’s Fake drawing compared to real photographed pictures of embryos
It is well depicted in actual photographs that each organism is completely different from one another. Of course few similarities would point to a perfect design made to match the designer’s environment (womb)
Þ See Evolution – Microbiology Homology
When tried by the Jena University Court, and convicted of fraudulence concerning his forgeries in the field of science, embryology, he confessed:
“A small percent of my embryonic drawings are forgeries; those namely, for which the observed material is so incomplete or insufficient as to FILL IN AND RECONSTRUCT THE MISSING LINKS by hypothesis and comparative synthesis.”
I should feel utterly condemned…were it not that HUNDREDS of the best observers, and biologists LIE UNDER THE SAME CHARGE.”
– Records from the University of Jena trial in 1875.
– Dr. Edward Blick, Blick Engineering, Norman, OK
Despite its status as a fake, Darwin continued to use the biogenetic law as the most important evidence of common descent. This law states that as an organisms embryo develops it will always retain traces of its past evolutionary forms to some degree.
“The ‘biogenetic law’ as a proof for evolution is valueless.”
– W. R. Thomson, Forward to 1956 edition of Origin of Species
Examination of Embryonic Development
Supposed Homologous Features in Embryos:
Once you examine the evidence in embryonic development, you find that the supposed similarities and features are actually quite different and that each embryo is uniquely different from the embryos of other organisms.
It is still taught in text books supporting evolutionary theories, stating that embryos have gill slits. It is a well known fact that the folds in the forming embryo of humans and non-aquatic organisms have nothing to do with gill slits, but are rather the organs that develop into the throat and ear canals.
Here this text book drawing shows humans have gill slits during development, but they never have anything to do with breathing!
They are absolutely not leftover organs from previous evolving states but are rather part of the necessary development of the baby.
-Asking About Life Tobin and Dusheck 1998 p. 381
Isn’t the yoke sac a leftover vestigial organ, leftover from when our ancestors came form eggs? Indeed chickens lay eggs and have yoke sacs which are needed for nutrients, but we get our nutrients from our mother.
Upon analysis, biologists find that it isn’t a yoke sac at all, but is rather the source of the baby humans blood cells, and it would die without it.
Does the embryo have a vestigial tail which points to a previous evolutionary stage? The tail in the human embryo is the coccyx or the tail bone which we all humans have. It is a primarily important part of the human anatomy. It allows us to have a distinctive upright posture, and it the focal point of several important muscles, necessary for bowel movements. The reason it sticks out in the first month of development is because muscles and limbs haven’t developed yet to envelope it inside the body.
Embryos Need More Then DNA
Research has found that DNA alone is not sufficient to create new life. As an organism is forming, the stem cells must somehow synchronize and communicate with each other to know which sequence the cells need to be created in (to correctly complete different organs, etc.). The question researchers have is, how does a stem cell know where it is placed in the proper sequence in order to correctly form a living creature. In a creature with billions of dividing cells, how does each cell know when to start or stop its growth, where and when to begin new organs and dividing tissues?
Animals have the four main types of tissue-
To manufacture each of these in the proper order to get a functioning organ, there is a mechanism that stimulates the stem cell to determine what type of cell it is going to become in its proper sequence. Contractions in nearby muscles have been found to influence what the cells are going to form into and when, and different forces from the contractions of surrounding cells promote that differentiation.
This shows that DNA is NOT the only necessity for the creation of life, but cells also need the interacting contractions of nearby cells to make the determination of what it is going to become.
Cells literally need the communal networking of the entire system to function from the very start of their development.
This further complicates the evolutionary model as now, not only is random DNA sequences supposed to make a perfect match to create a multi-cellular organism. Now, somehow, the cell needs to have programmed information on how to ‘read’ the cells interacting around it that will influence and ‘telling’ it what to become to work, in order, with the rest of the cell to create the proper sequence of a complete structure for the organism.
Similarities in Embryonic Creation
The truth about Haeckel’s fakes reveals that embryos between different organism are not the same at all. As for certain parts that even seem to look similar during development between two different organisms actually carry completely different genes and eventually form very different organs or structures. For example we know that the ‘gill slits’ on human embryos are not gills at all like on fish embryo’s, but rather are genetically coded to form into the throat and ears.
However, we can still question, why are there are some similarities in development between two different embryos, i.e symmetry, shape, etc. ? So if the answer is not evolution, how could some of the embryonic stages be somewhat similar, or somewhat comparable to that of other organisms? Why do we see slight similarities in the patterns of development between two different embryos from different kinds of animals?
The answer for similitude in embryology is the same as found in the similarities of homologous structures and similarities found in genetics. An intelligent designer who has a working pattern, or a pattern that best fits the natural world we see in biology, would use similar patterns for the development stages of all His creatures. For example, if the structure of an embryo in the shape of a U best suites one animal, or better yet, is the perfect design based on the laws of physics and biology we experience in our universe, why not give this same/similar design to all creatures.
Even though the embryonic ‘shape’ may be similar, the genetic coding and formation would be radically different, just as we physically experience in embryology.