Welcome to Gaia! :: View User's Journal | Gaia Journals

Some evolutionists, when inquired about a reason that they believe in evolution, will tell you that they believe because, 'Ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny.'

Foremost, I want to state that ontogeny does NOT recapitulate phylogeny. That is the most ridiculous thing EVER! It makes no sense, even if evolution did happen, and I will tell you why, after I have defined some terms:


Ontogeny: This is the sequence of events in the development of an organism. For a human, it would be the embryo, fetus, and so on.

Recapitulate: This means to briefly summarize something.

Phylogeny: This is the sequence of events in the development of a species or taxonomic group of organisms. For example, fish, then amphibian, then reptile, and continuing forth.


Putting the words together, ontogeny recapitulate phylogeny, it states that the baby in the development process goes through the stages of evolution, appearing to be a fish, then amphibian, all the way to a human. (Or, in evolutionist terms, a 'mammal'.)


Before I say anything, does this not sound like the most ridiculous thing you have ever heard? Whether or not you are an evolutionist, it must give you pause to consider that, for an unexplained (and probably inexplicable) reason, the baby should go through the presupposed evolutionary stages.
Why would it do that? How does that make any sense at all?

It's like when, in cartoons, the characters shout aloud their attacks: it's absurd, but it often looks or sounds exciting. This sounds like nothing more than a fairy tell, perpetuated by the ignorant evolutionists who have no idea what they are talking about.

Moreover, the original evidence for ontogeny recapitulating phylogeny is a set of a fake drawings that do not resemble reality.
Scientists now possess real pictures of the developmental stages of a baby, and they are distinctly different in every respect from the fabricated drawings.


It doesn't seem, to me, that you have to be a skeptic to wonder why ontogeny would recapitulate phylogeny, it just seems nonsensical, pointless!


Ridiculous theory, got everyone believing we came from an ape-like ancestor. (Which is, incidentally, why there are still monkeys around)

Edit:

I should elaborate upon a couple more things:

First, the reason that the 'middle thing,' as a commenter so aptly described it, is no longer here because it shouldn't be here.
If one thing evolved just a bit better than everything else, then all of the similar species has to die, otherwise, the change will be mixed back into the population and lost.
That is why scientists are looking for fossil evidence of the 'missing link,' though they fail to realize that the entire chain is missing.

Nothing they find is ever a link in the chain, and furthermore; when they do find something that they claim to be a missing link, (such as Lucy) they later claim that they have doubts about it being a missing link, or dismiss it completely as an ancestor of modern homo sapiens.


Shifting the topic a bit, let me tell you about micro and macro evolution:

Aside from mutations, which is what most evolutionists believe changed creatures, (also known as Neo-Darwinism) evolutionists will tell you that macro evolution is long-term micro evolution.

For example, we see many different types of dogs. Big ones, little ones, short-haired ones and long-haired ones. Some with elongated muzzles while others have short squat ones.
This is 'micro evolution.'
In schools, they often teach that this process of micro evolution can change a dinosaur into a bird. Clearly, this is absurd, and it stems from a fundamental ignorance of micro evolution.

Micro evolution is the result of REMOVING genes from the gene pool, allowing the recessive genes to become prominent, and thus manifesting as a feature. (Such as longer fur)

Having this knowledge, I hope you now see how ridiculous it would be for one to keep losing genes until he is a new creature. That makes no sense at all.
Macro evolution CANNOT be long-term micro evolution, because macro evolution requires NEW genes, not a loss of genes.
How will losing genes make scales into feathers, or reptiles grow mammary glands?

The short answer is; it won't.

Evolution is poppycock in the light of 20th century science.



- Atari


Quote of the Day:

Similarity is used as evidence for evolution, because it shows that we came from a common ancestor. Conversely, difference is used as evidence for evolution, because it shows how much we evolved.
If difference is used as proof for evolution, and similarity is used as proof for evolution, then everything is proof for evolution!