In his 2009 book Why Evolution is True professor Jerry Coyne, whom people pay to teach their children, informs his readers that "All vertebrates begin development looking like embryonic fish because we all descended from a fishlike ancestor with a fishlike embryo. We see strange contortions and disappearances of organs, blood vessels, and gill slits because descendants still carry the genes and developmental programs of ancestors." [79] There's only one problem: it isn't true.First, humans—and most other vertebrates for that matter—do not "begin development looking like embryonic fish" and second humans do not have gill slits at any embryonic stage.
This is yet another example of evolution corrupting science. It is the worst of bad theory infecting science with misrepresentations of the empirical evidence.
All of this is the result of religious conviction that penetrated scientific thinking long before Darwin. Like a Trojan horse, evolutionary thinking injected religious mandates into science, and now science is constrained to the absurd. Garbage in, garbage out. You can see more examples here, here, here, here and here.
Semantics: The term "gill slits" is also sometimes used to refer to the folds of skin in the pharyngeal region in all vertebrate embryos, including those of humans. However, the term gill suggests a particular anatomical structure or function, and the "gill slits" in amniotes have neither. Therefore, a better modifier is pharyngeal, as in pharyngeal arches or pharyngeal slits.
ReplyDeleteCoyne: All vertebrates begin development looking like embryonic fish because we all descended from a fishlike ancestor with a fishlike embryo.
ReplyDeleteWell, not quite. Vertebrates most resemble each other during the phylotypic stage. They diverge before and after that, depending on their various evolutionary adaptations. The developmental circuits involved (e.g. Hox genes) show how incremental changes in development led to species diversification.
We see strange contortions and disappearances of organs, blood vessels, and gill slits because descendants still carry the genes and developmental programs of ancestors." [79] There's only one problem: it isn't true.
ReplyDeleteSomebody should tell these people:
http://www.cumc.columbia.edu/dept/genetics/index.html
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteMay as well post this again. Three mammals that are quite distinct and recognizable in adult form. What are they?
ReplyDelete3 Embryos.
LOL! CH, you're so brightly glowing green with envy at Coyne's success you make the Incredible Hulk look like an albino.
ReplyDeleteThing is, if you got off your butt and did some actual research you could write a real science book too instead of posting anti-science nonsense on a backwater blog.
CH: "This is yet another example of evolution corrupting science. It is the worst of bad theory infecting science with misrepresentations of the empirical evidence."
ReplyDeleteWhen I started to read this I thought CH was going to point out exactly how Jerry Coyne has misrepresented the evidence, and that perhaps CH would show us how exactly the evidence should be interpreted. But instead we simply get a lot of hand-waving that Coyne is wrong, and that is.
Not one of CH's better posts! Where's the science here?
As the "religion drives science", it's nice that CH has provided sources to back up his claim. But on inspection, every single one, of this sources is just a link to his own blog. Of course from a critical thinking perspective this is rather suspect.
CH - how about an external source for a change to back up your "religion drives science" claim? So far you've failed to make even a slightly compelling case, but it comes across as an obsession on your part, that you cannot back up.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteJanfeld said...
ReplyDeleteAs the "religion drives science", it's nice that CH has provided sources to back up his claim. But on inspection, every single one, of this sources is just a link to his own blog. Of course from a critical thinking perspective this is rather suspect.
CH - how about an external source for a change to back up your "religion drives science" claim? So far you've failed to make even a slightly compelling case, but it comes across as an obsession on your part, that you cannot back up.
I think the big problem here is that CH has his own pet definition of 'religion', different that the one used by every other person on the planet.
How about it CH, can you please give us your definition of 'religion'?
David,
ReplyDeleteBefore you go telling people that they are wrong, why don't you take a stab at identifying the 3 embryos?
Let your faith guide you...
LOL! CH, you're so brightly glowing green with envy at Coyne's success//
ReplyDeleteTheology books always sold well in evolution circles, of course Coyne would do well with such a book, Darwin-logic never gets old.
"These mysteries about how we evolved should not distract us from the indisputable fact that we did evolve"--Jerry Coyne--
Smokey,
ReplyDeleteGet off your high horse and read for comprehension.
(Those folks at Columbia are my heroes.)
There's one other problem with this quote (which is actually from page 84). Before it, Coyne explicity states what he means by gill slits, or rather, he uses "branchial arches" or simply "arches" instead of "gill slits". You can read the full chapter at Google books, starting at p. 78.
ReplyDeleteHe introduces branchial arches starting on p. 78: "Perhaps the most striking fish-like feature is a series of five to seven pouches, seperated by grooves, that lie on each side of the embryo near its future head. These pouches are called branchial arches, but we'll call them "arches" for short. [...] As fish and shark embryos develop, the first arch becomes a jaw and the rest become gill structures: the clefts between the pouches open up to become the gill slits, [...]. But in other vertebrates that don't have gills as adults, these arches turn into very different structures - structures that make up the head."
And there's a figure with a shark and a human embryo, with an arrow pointing at the pouches of both embryos labelled "branchial arches".
IMO, if you actually read the book instead of looking for a quote that can be misrepresented, than there's no way in which you can claim that Coyne actually means that human embryos have gill slits like those in adult fish. Even embryonic fish do not have open gill slits like an adult fish.
Thorton, since when is 'success' in book sales a measure of intellectual rigor?
ReplyDeleteThe Bible is the best selling book of all time.
You must be jealous?
Nonsense... Ad Populum
rob-lock said...
ReplyDeleteThorton, since when is 'success' in book sales a measure of intellectual rigor?
The Bible is the best selling book of all time.
LOL! So you think Cornelius Hunter wrote the Bible?
You IDCers sure are a deluded lot!
JLT wrote:
ReplyDelete"IMO, if you actually read the book instead of looking for a quote that can be misrepresented, than there's no way in which you can claim that Coyne actually means that human embryos have gill slits like those in adult fish."
I don't think that Dr. Hunter is capable of reading anything without looking for a quote that can be used to fool his audience.
"Even embryonic fish do not have open gill slits like an adult fish."
That's his strategic omission.
David, sorry about that. I confused you with someone else.
That's OK, Smokey,
ReplyDeleteJust be careful about whom you Haeckel in the future.
Thdey are not "gill slits" so any use of that term in reference to them is misleading at best and most likely just outright deception.
ReplyDeleteAnd there isn't any genetic data which demonstrates that fish can evolve into anything but fish.
ReplyDeleteIOW Universal Common Descent exists only in the minds of those whose position requires it.
Zachriel:
ReplyDeleteThree mammals that are quite distinct and recognizable in adult form. What are they?
There are many mammals that are quite distinct and recognizable in adult form.
And the embryos you linked to don't look the same- IOW each is distinct and recognizable.
Thornton: "How about it CH, can you please give us your definition of 'religion'?"
ReplyDeleteI guess we'll never know. CH has already move on in throwing more things at the wall to see if anything sticks.
I love the silliness of the ID critics. Cornelius points out an obvious misrepresentation on the part of Coyne (wherein he says exaggerated things like "*all* vertebrates begin life looking like embryonic fish" and within a few sentences then talks about "gill slits") and, by golly, anyone that points out that exaggeration/misrepresentation is guilty of making a purely "semantic" argument. Once again, the ID critics are guilty of confirmation bias in that all evidence *must* be interpreted in such a way that it confirms their bias. Evolutionists can do no wrong. ID proponents can do right. Evolutionists are deified. ID proponents are demonized. Reasonable discussion is impossible. Not sure why we even bother trying.
ReplyDeleteThis is not a blog post... nothing said was even supported... what a 3rd grade argument... you, sir, should be ashamed.
ReplyDelete@Mike
ReplyDeleteEvolutionists can do no wrong . . . Evolutionists are deified
Kindly offer a single example of an "evolutionist" who holds these views.
Here's a link to something like a reply from Coyne:
ReplyDeletehttp://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2012/06/14/are-the-gill-slits-of-vertebrate-embryos-a-hoax/
Here's a really great and detailed response to the gill slit's argument:
http://pigeonchess.com/2012/05/31/gill-slits-by-any-other-name/