Here is a small yet interesting article on comparisons with animal embryo's found supposedly 600 million years ago with embryo's we can see today. It's a very small article but I think it packs a big punch in that it asks the simple obvious question: Where are the supposed changes over millions and millions of years? I suppose one could answer the way a fellow co-worker of my once answered; "you can't see it because it happens so slow" Hhhmmm......... Enjoy the article.
AiG
Last year in China, geologists discovered fossilized animal embryos, which evolutionists believe to be 600 million years old. One would logically assume that if evolution were true, modern embryos, after hundreds of millions of years of evolution, would be very different from those found in China.
The China embryos, however, appear to be identical to those of animals living today.
Because evolutionist researchers are committed to their belief in a very old geologic column, they automatically assume the embryos found in China are hundreds of millions of years old. The most logical and defendable explanation, however, is that these fossils were formed quickly and catastrophically, most likely during the Flood of Noah’s time 4,300 years ago.
8 comments:
Have you tried to find out what these embryos look like?
What mental image do you have, and/or did you have, after reading that article? Can you describe roughly your mental image of those fossil embryos? What different kinds of animals? What kinds of structures or details did they have (in your mental picture)that were unchanged?
LOL... what kind of mental image did you have of the embryos? Now that you have that image... fast forward a million years and think of your great great great great etc grandkids. Do you hope that one of them looks like you? I'm betting one of them probably will if Jesus hasn't returned by then. My point... we're not evolving so the genes that you pass on will remain in your blood line forever and you never have to worry about your future relatives looking like a turtle.
"One would logically assume that if evolution were true, modern embryos, after hundreds of millions of years of evolution, would be very different from those found in China."
Is their assumption based on a correct understanding of how evolution is understood to work?
Is their assumption based on a correct understanding of embryology and development?
Is their assumption based on what kinds of animals these embryos actually were?
How solid is the information about these fossils and what types they were?
Here you go:
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2006/10/dissecting_embryos_from_half_a.php
This is an evolutionists' research on the embryo's. Listen to his peppered comments throughout the article on the similarity from these "ancient" embryo's to the modern embryo's and enjoy the pictures.
Joe
"Is their assumption based on a correct understanding of how evolution is understood to work?
Is their assumption based on a correct"...........
I believe the burden of proof is on you. You need to answer these questions. I also think your dodging the obvious. Evolutionist claim that over millions of years we now have all that we see today. Now your questioning these embryo's that are supposedly 600 millions years old dated by your own evolutionist? (which I would question the method of dating and assumptions used to obtain these dates) Do you mean to tell me based on the theory of evolution, this is not enough time for us to see obvious change? How much is enough time then? According to you, did not man arrive about three million years ago? What is this in comparison to 600 million years?
Joe
These fossils might say something about the time course of the evolution of certain groups of animals. They say nothing against evolution as a whole.
These fossil embryos are small clumps of cells, for instance 2-celled, 3-celled, 4-celled, 16-celled, 64-celled and some larger clumps that are harder to count. They are at the very earliest stages of embryonic development. The authors aren't talking about later stage embryos like vertebrate embryos where you would see features of organs and little legs and eyes. These are just a few cells. And they are from a period long before vertebrates.
There is not a big amount of difference you can expect from a few cells, is there? It turns out there are ways that division can differ, and they are important for looking at an early stage embryo. But when you think about how there should be a difference after 600 million years, well, seriously, how much difference can you expect in the arrangement of four cells?
And why would you assume there had to be a difference. There does not have to be a difference at all. There's nothing in evolutionary theory that says a structure must have changed over time, especially such a very simple basic cell arrangement.
An embryo starts out with a single fertilized egg - a single cell. If it divides uniformly, it would divide first into two, then four, then eight cells etc. Some kinds of embryos divide unevenly and the divisions do not happen simultaneously so you could see a ball of 3 or 5 cells etc. One of the researchers wrote a paper about polar lobed cells which si a form of uneven division, and he showed pictures of some of these fossil embryos of 3 and 5 cells with the additional lobe. The significance of the lobe seemed to be that it could be a sign of bilateral animals, which had been thought not to evolved that early, but 40 million years later. As far as I can tell, this is a suggestive finding only; there would have to be more evidence. If it is true, it says that the ancestors of modern day bilateral animals evolved earlier than previously thought.
These are mineralized fossils. All they can see is the size and shape of the cells (and how they fit together in the clumps). And there are areas of difference that look like they might have been locations of cellular organelles - maybe nuclei or yolk granules. But there is no way to tell. There aren't any molecules to test. It's just size, shape, number.
If we had some DNA or protein from the embryos, we would probably see many of the same proteins and general genes that we see now. After all, we share similar proteins with all other life forms. Those haven't changed. We would expect to see a difference in the exact genetic sequence, and probably in the unimportant amino acids in the proteins. SO we would expect some similarities and some differences. But we have no proteins or DNA to compare from these fossil embryos. All we have is the apparent cell shape and number. And again, these are the earliest embryos with few cells. So how much difference could you expect to find?
But there is a difference that was mentioned in that pharyngula link you sent. He described the similarity AND the difference. Both things are true. There is similarity and also some difference in the embryos. Read the last paragraph:
"One of the hallmarks of the development of modern metazoans, from sponges on up, is the early formation of sheets of cells—even the terms diploblast and triploblast refer to the number of tissue layers formed, and in derived organisms like the zebrafish what we watch in early development is the formation of ectodermal and mesodermal sheets of tissue, and their movements and interactions. These embryos don't exhibit any sign of doing that! The absence of such a key feature suggests that these animals are very primitive, and that what we're seeing in this collection are the preserved remains of the embryos of stem-group metazoans."
The clusters of cells also don't appear to have a hollow center. This is a difference that the authors of the paper mention.
Why did you skip over that point in the essay? Why did the AIG people skip over those points?
At this point, the researchers do not know what types of animals those embryos would have been. The types of animals are so early that they may have no descendants. But there is no reason that the basic biochemistry or genetics would be different and no reason why you would assume a big difference in how a two cell embryo or 64-cell embryo would look, although if some differences are also reasonable. It wouldn't matter either way for evolution: no difference, big difference, some difference.
Sorry Highdesert, but your views don't seem consistent with evolutionary theory/thinking. Yes after millions of years according to your theory one would assume there has been some change. After all you believe through evolution and one organism we have all that we have today. So did Darwin:
"Analogy would lead me one step further, namely, to the belief that all animals and plants have descended from some one prototype."
So he/they believe everything came from one organism. So why wouldn't we see change over 600 million years with a “simple” cell, as if cells were simple? Dare I state the obvious? Maybe they are not 600million years old.
Joe
Post a Comment