From left to right: Fisch, Salamander, Schildkrote, Huhn, Schwein, Rind, Kaninchen, Mensch (Fish, Salamander, Turtle, Chicken, Pig, Cattle, Rabbit, Man)
Some interesting features:
- the embryos of all the organisms at the earliest stage are uncannily similar
- what later becomes the gills in fish are still present in the other embryos, even though the fully developed babies do not have gills. In other animals they become part of the jaws
- human babies have tails in the earlier stages of their development. Indeed every now and then a human baby is born with a tail
Someone on my Evolution module forum after the discussion on the above:
"hi all
i was just thinking thru the discussions we had in class yesterday. we talked abt how evidences of fossils and embryogenosis had implications for both evolution and intelligent design and discussed how each theory would come up w either ad hoc statements or assumptions to back up the existence of such evidences.
i realised that whenever we talked about intelligent design, we come to a point whereby we focused on the intelligence of the intelligent being who designed certain features in creatures that seem redundant. One example is the gill like features in embryos. the redundancy seem to point to many how there is inconsistency in the intelligence of the intelligent designer.
However i am pretty curious about why there is this assumption that we can understand the reasons behind the designer's plan, which may imply a cockiness on our part to assume that we may have a similar if not higher intelligence level to infer rationale of the designer. Moreover intelligence is rather subjective, and needs to be clarified further before we could engage in a debate of whether redundacy would imply the lacking in intelligence. Is intelligence a measure of how the designer is just able to create designs that perform a function? would it be an assumption that we tend to make due to valuing of functionability in the modern society today? Or is it a scientific principle that we need to look out for functionability in our observations?
Moreover it is also argueable that our observations are not entirely complete. In the embryos example, could there be a function to why these gill-like features in the embryotic environment, which would be redundant in a human environment? To what extent is our scientific knowledge fully adequate to inder the pure redundacy of such features, as we know that knowledge consistently is infinite and constantly changing. The function of those gill like features may have yet to be found. So how are we as less intelligent (i make this assumption as if it was not so, we all would be able to be designers in our own right, creating new creatures) designs of the designer then able to establish that our knowledge supercedes the intelligent designer's insight and plans? In such a way that we could question his intelligence in his designs?
just wondering about this issue. hope u can grant me a deeper insight."
Me: "If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it is a duck.
If we work from a scientific viewpoint, we do not make any assumptions about the character, intelligence or other features of any designer that may or may not be present.
If one wants to come up with ad hoc hypotheses to support a theory, one can come up with pretty interesting interpretations of reality. For example, we could say that the earth is 10,000 years old, and that this designer created it so that it'd look 4.5 billion years old. Fossils were likewise designed by this designer and implanted nicely into fossil layers. Light from distant galaxies was created in mid-path, complete with shifts due to the doppler-effect. For what rhyme or reason, we don't know why.
Why stop there? We could assume that outside of Earth, nothing really exists, and that beyond the Thermosphere, outer space doesn't exist: it's a gigantic screen on which light is projected. The solar wind that strikes earth is emitted by some gigantic generator.
It might also be profitable for one to ask how we knew that we weren't in the Matrix and being tricked into thinking that we were going about our daily lives. We don't - but all the evidence points to the fact that reality does exist and we are not brains in vats.
In the end, all I can say is this: if this designer wants to give us the impression that he is not really that intelligent, I must bow to his superior wisdom and knowledge and believe what he wants me to believe.
"Certum est, quia impossibile est" (The fact is certain because it is impossible) - Tertullian"
In any case, the joys of Evolution shall never again be open to USP students, since the fundies have succeeded in killing it.
Which necessitates the all-important question: Why did they take the class if they were so resolutely opposed to the idea in the first place, and just wanted to come up with ever more ridiculous arguments for so-called "Intelligent Design"? People are welcome to believe that the world is flat if they wish, but then they spoil the market for everyone else, it is patently unfair.
***
Comments on my Anti-Halal Manifesto:
ceci: hi, i think we shouldn't be talking about "banning religion" or say something like "My anti-Halal manifesto". What the world should be promoting is tolerance, humility and respect. To someone who believes in his religion, dismissing it equates to dismissing his belief system. You and I have strong beliefs about certain things, not all rational, and if those beliefs were strong enough nothing anyone says will make you throw those beliefs away. The road towards progression for mankind isn't to pick at all the dubious points in each religion and throw them away, but to address the fundamental issue that we are opionated creatures who want to enforce our beliefs on other, and if possible, kill everyone who's different.
Me: You're missing the point. Sigh.
xue: This is a bit extreme but as we hear so often these days, I may not agree with what you say but you should be allowed to say it. At least you're attempting rational debate/discussion, instead of unsubstantiated rants, which makes a bit difference. A Millean liberal at home, I believe that if a set of beliefs are 'true', they should be able to stand up to any and every objection. If one has to resort to repressing dissent in order to sustain one's belief system, it shows how inadequate that belief system is.
ceci: Maybe I shouldn't have started off with "we shouldn't be talking about ...". My intention is not to suppress free speech or dissent. What I meant was that the way to achieve religious harmoney is through tolerance and respect, not by picking out what you perceive are flaws in that, and using that as a basis to discredit the religion.
It's not so much what is being said, but how it is being said.
"My anti-Halal manifesto?" I think that is downright disrespectful and provocative. You can discuss an issue but even if you think you're right it doesn't mean you can use such a disrespectful tone.
You will know from my previous comments that I am pro Buddhist and pro peace. I hesitate to call myself a Buddhist because I don't think I can be as unantagonistic and unworldly as a true Buddhist would be. But I think some principles hold true.
Yes, no one should suppress you, but you should be respectful when discussing others' belief systems.
Fact- Religion is a sensitive issue.
Fact- People have waged war because of it, and are still doing it
Fact- Ultimately, change must come from within. No outsider can expect anything but a vigorous retaliation when he criticises a group's sacred beliefs.
These are principles and mankind will never free itself from religious conflict until it understands the concept of tolerance and consideration.
Me: The way to achieve religious harmony is not to shut up, say nothing and pretend that valid questions about religion do not exist. Discussion and debate are surely ways to achieve greater understanding. We cannot hide behind religion and pretend that if keep mum everything will be alright.
Tolerance and respect are not the same thing. I allow that some people believe that the world is flat because their religions say so, and don't try to enlighten them, but that does not mean that I respect them.
The right to question and offend is paramount. To quote Rowan Atkinson:
"Unfortunately, what is very arguable is the definition of the terms – the definition of a tolerant society. Is a tolerant society one in which you tolerate absurdities, iniquities and injustices simply because they are being perpetrated by or in the name of a religion and
out of a desire not to rock the boat you pass no comment or criticism. So as not to cause discomfort to anyone, not to cause embarrassment.
*A society with a veneer of tolerance concealing a snake pit of un-aired and of course unchallenged views... Should the predictability of offence being taken mean that you have committed a crime? ... some are bound to be offended by it? Surely not. The right to offend is more important than the right not to be offended."
Just as the unexamined life is not worth living, the unexamined belief is not worth believing in. Besides which, Muslim theologians themselves engage in debate about this manner of issues. What makes my take on them any different from theirs? If it is, you have just killed off the entire field of comparative theology.
Fact - We laugh at people whose religions tell them that the earth is flat, or that lunar eclipses result when the moon is swallowed by some cosmic animal
Fact - Tolerance and respect are not the same thing
Fact - There are many sensitive issues, not just religion. Should we then ban discussion of all of them?
Fact - Not talking about such issues does not make them go away. Indeed they may fester and cause more problems
Fact - Religious debate happens all the time, especially within religions.
Fact - Even when change comes from within, vigorous retaliation ensues, simply because people dislike change. The most vicious wars are internecine intra-faith wars in which each side seeks to eradicate the infidel
Fact - Hiding behind religion and using it to justify anything is ridiculous, and unfair if other people are being affected
Fact - If people's beliefs are so weak that they cannot even stand up to a little scrutiny, perhaps they shouldn't be holding them
Fact - Criticism, examination and discussion do not equate to attacks; progress is achieved through criticism, examination and discussion.