Ernst Haeckel: Evolutionary Huckster

Ernst Haeckel, a German Zoologist, is famous for developing a series of images of embryos in development called Anthropogenie. These images, supposedly proof of evolution, dominated culture and textbooks for some time.
But Haeckel was wrong, and the damage he caused has never quite been undone. What happened?
Host Trey and Dr. Randy Guliuzza discuss this vital topic on episode 71 of The Creation Podcast!
Twenty Evolutionary Blunders:
store.icr.org/dr-randy-guliuz...
To become a member on KZbin: / @icrscience
To become a patron: / instituteforcreationre...
-
Do you have questions about science or Scripture? Post them in the comments and we might answer them in future episodes.
Tune in every other Tuesday here on KZbin for new episodes. You can also find the audio version on Spotify, Apple Podcasts, and Amazon Music.
Don't forget to subscribe to our channel to get notified about all of our upcoming episodes!
Hope to see you next time on The Creation Podcast!
---
Follow us!
Facebook: / icrscience
Instagram: / icrscience
X (Twitter): / icrscience
LinkedIn: / institute-for-creation...
Pinterest: / icrscience
TikTok: / icrscience
---
About ICR: www.icr.org/discover/
Podcasts: www.icr.org/podcasts
Store: store.icr.org/
Donate: www.icr.org/donate
Visit the ICR Discovery Center: discoverycenter.icr.org/

[@rubiks6]

We need to discuss this now because this is still in textbooks.

[@alexhudson-]

Public schools in general are the problem and the system absolutely needs revision. We are taxed on our property that we own for this system that we do not have any control over, which is preposterous. The government should not be in charge of our childrens education especially when we are paying for it.

[@CosmicExplosion]

I agree and we need to get it out of textbooks. Until then, keep up to date with Creation Evolution Headlines and Institute for Creation Research, of course. Never forget this is ultimately a spiritual war (2 Corinthians 4:4).

[@reg7916]

@CosmicExplosion thank you, I needed to be reminded of this verse🌻

[@tobias4411]

Most books nowadays are updated with real photos, much more detailed showing the extreme similarities between embryos. Yes folks, deal with the truth even if it may feel uncomfortable. It's 2024 not 1624. More and more christians also acceps evolution and big bang.

[@tobias4411]

Doesn't matter anymore, they have macro photographs nowadays, showing it.

[@amanda-thought]

I teach at a Good News Club on a public school campus and a few weeks ago another teach told the kids something along the lines of "calm down we're not animals" and every single one of the kids (mostly first graders) replied back "We are animals" Its amazing how early the foundational beliefs for evolution are laid in children. Almost everything we teach kids now is meant to prepare them for a life long belief in atheistic beliefs

[@beetsar]

We are animals. What on earth due you think we are?

[@technicianbis5250-ig1zd]

Keep an eye on cartoons, it starts there at a young age.

[@technicianbis5250-ig1zd]

​@@beetsar We are created in the image of God, we are not primates but a completely separate organism that no other can match.

[@beetsar]

@@technicianbis5250-ig1zd so god's a great ape that we share DNA with?

[@technicianbis5250-ig1zd]

@@beetsar No.

[@TRFrench]

...and these drawings are undistinguishable (and in fact IDENTICAL) with idol crafting. I wonder if we can get them in silver...

[@thunderous-one]

When your premise is a lie, all you can do is lie to defend it.

[@StudentDad-mc3pu]

Such as Gensis is an accurate description of creation - a clear lie.

[@sabhishek9289]

​@@StudentDad-mc3pu The testable predictions in Genesis have been proven to be true.

[@StudentDad-mc3pu]

@@sabhishek9289 Really? Can you give an example?

[@sabhishek9289]

@@StudentDad-mc3pu Testable predictions that were proven to be true included from the top of my head are as following: there was one single super continent in the past (confirmed Geography), the mother of humans living just around 6000 to 7000 years ago (confirmed by observable pedigree substitution rates), the ages of early biblical patriarchs being nearly 1000 years (confirmed by Gerontology and Data Science), Few mutations in the mitochondria (confirmed by Genetics), Homologous genes (confirmed by Genetics although the prediction of Homologous genes have been hijacked as proof for evolution through the Texas sharpshooter fallacy) etc.

[@sabhishek9289]

@@StudentDad-mc3pu @StudentDad-mc3pu Testable predictions that were proven to be true included from the top of my head are as following: there was one single super continent in the past (confirmed Geography), the mother of humans living just around 6000 to 7000 years ago (confirmed by observable pedigree substitution rates), the ages of early biblical patriarchs being nearly 1000 years (confirmed by Gerontology and Data Science), Few mutations in the mitochondria (confirmed by Genetics), etc.

[@guylelanglois6642]

Scientists seeing junk DNA is like my wife looking under the hood of our car.

[@JesusRodriguez-zy3wj]

My wife of 44 years and I both salute your wisdom and courage sir! It is time to get back to being able to laugh at all sides.

[@guylelanglois6642]

@JesusRodriguez-zy3wj married thirty-nine years this June. She doesn't service the cars and I haven't sewn clothes in all our years and we both like it that way. I was very fortunate to find one of the last great homemakers. I construct and she nurtures. As God intended.

[@JesusRodriguez-zy3wj]

@@guylelanglois6642 My youngest daughter is still on the market. One of the things I NEVER say to my wife is that my youngest daughter's cooking surpasses everyone. The BEST chicken marsala, croque monsieur, picadillo, filetillo salteado and many other dishes comes from her and everyone agrees though we all studiously avoid saying so at our frequent extended family gatherings. Even my middle daughter who spent years at cooking classes can only outdo her in a few dishes, like Thai peanut dressing. Her brownies are death traps. So, if you have a young man interested in a young earth creationist who might make him ask Christ to delay the rapture just so he can have one more bite; let me know.

[@guylelanglois6642]

@JesusRodriguez-zy3wj Unfortunately, sir, I raised four daughters, and they are all happily married. "To men" . My grandsons are a bit young but would definitely be looking for a cook that could match their mother's and grandmother. Sounds like your daughter will make some lucky guy very happy.

[@akmurf7429]

Blind cavefish. The fish is genetically broken and will never gain eyes again. Place it in the wild, in open daylight and it is toast (nowhere to hide)! It's relatives with eyes might survive, but it won't. The only reason it survives in the cave is because it is in the dark and that evens the playing field like giving a 100-pound woman a gun to defend herself against 200-pound men. The regaining of pigmentation is like the arctic fox regaining its pigmentation during the summer months. There are intelligently designed switches in the DNA that can be turned on and off with respect to environmental pressures. But the information is already there, it doesn't evolve every season. Anyone who cannot see the design in nature is like the cavefish. Blind!

[@tobias4411]

Hi, with respect I suggest you study vestigial structures in living organisms. It means that some parts of an organism's body no longer have any apparent use. They are leftovers from a previous form of the species before the speciation.The species accumulated several adaptations which made the extra part no longer useful/necessary for survival. Then, at some point during evolution it disappeared or stopped functioning. The vestigial eye of the blind cavefish is a good example of vestigial structures.Their eyes don’t allow them to see, due to loss of eye tissue. Cavefish embryos initially develop eyes, but they degenerate and become vestigial structures embedded in the head. We have flightless island birds with vestigial (non-functional wings) Examples: Penguin, kiwi, ostrich, kakapo, steamer duck. Hindlimbs in snakes and whales are another examples of vestigial structures (vestigial limb).

[@user-zu2zo8ji4n]

@akmurf7429 Cogent points! Unfortunately , some people will choose to not to believe.

[@ianmonk6211]

​@@tobias4411 I suggest you restudy it. There's no vestigial organs etc. Everything has a purpose. All vestigial arguments out forward by evilutionists have been proven false

[@tobias4411]

​@@ianmonk6211Can you show me one example of an vestigial structure proven false? Provide a link to back it up thank you.

[@ianmonk6211]

@@tobias4411 tail bone. On us and whales. With whales it's for reproduction. Appendix. While we can live without it it has a purpose. I think the thyroid too. Just Google lies in the textbooks by Kent hovind I think it's in that lecture. With all the proof you need

[@gordon985]

My father in law is a medical doctor retired. I asked him what he believes is the best evidence of evolutionism. He said embryology.

[@reg7916]

Absolutely, they hear and listen to what they want, too!!!! Thank you for continuing to push back on what does not line up with His Word🌻 & yes, they were designed. I agree we need to examine ourselves... so again, thank you for admitting this.

[@freightshayker]

What can be said about evolution and the so-called natural selection that is going on today ... in terms of not seeing something like humans developing gills or wings?

[@Matt-jc2ml]

That's a huge jump that would take millions of years, and there also has to be some type of survival benefit. You wouldn't just give birth to a fish, it's not x men

[@tobias4411]

Of course, dogs not growing as big as Texas, whales not walking on the streets, humans don't grow wings on their backs, amoebas don't grow arms... So evolution theory must be false! 😂. Oh wait...

[@user-ud9og6qm9h]

@@Matt-jc2mlso the stripes on tigers and zebras benefit their survival how??

[@stevepierce6467]

Actually, millions of years ago, ancestors to modern humans had gills. Your statement shows that you have never read a single word about evolution, so you display total ignorance about how it works, and especially, how SLOWLY it works, over millions and billions of years. On a model timeline of the age of the earth laid out on a football field, modern humans appeared about 1/3 of an inch ago.

[@user-mk9qy4yd5t]

It would be good to show the real images of embryonic development against the fake drawings, for comparison.

[@lovesickforone]

I know a few humans who show their tails... but we don't actually possess a tail at any time in our existence

[@globalcoupledances]

All Great Apes also are missing the tail. All inherited from a common ancestor

[@lovesickforone]

@@globalcoupledances If you want to believe your ancestors were great apes, that's your choice. It doesn't make it true, but it is your choice anyway.

[@tobias4411]

Human tailbone is a good example of an vestigial structure, it's a tailbone without a tail connected to it anymore. We knows that the tail disappeared around 25 million years ago, when Great apes diverged from monkeys. This could be a result to preserve energy and calories while evolving better balance. There is actually new research (published Feb 28 in the journal Nature claiming the connection of tail loss and a type of birth defect. It was a unique DNA mutation in the gene TBXT. If this is accurate, it's just another fine example how mutations actually can lead to something beneficial for species. Either way, or a combination of both its without a doubt that we once upon a time had a tail :-)

[@tobias4411]

​@@lovesickforoneIt actually doesn't matter what I, you or he thinks about the fact that we are apes. There are overwhelming evidence for it, Independent to what people think.

[@globalcoupledances]

@lovesickforone - Hominids are the "kind" great apes. And where are Apes or monkeys mentioned in the Bible? Adam and Eve were just also ancestors of monkeys and other Great Apes. Picture of God is not a White Man, but a far ancestor

[@list1726]

Thanks for posting

[@tccsatwincitiescreationsci6416]

Dr. Guliuzza is the best!

[@inhisimage]

These embryos were presented to me as fact in my grad degree in 2022.

[@tobias4411]

That's because it's a fact. Today we don't need drawings anymore, we have macro photographs showing it.

[@gordon985]

​@@tobias4411the new photographs are what was used to convict Hackel of fraud. His fake drawings were debunked over 100 years ago.

[@gordon985]

​@@tobias4411why would someone defend a convicted fraud. And still believe something scientifically disproven. And use the proof of fraud to defend it. Ask God for help.

[@jamesjaudon8247]

Look, the pictures line up. Even though the science shows that is not what is really happening. Look, imagine,see.

[@tobias4411]

@@jamesjaudon8247 Embrology is strong evidence for evolution. I know it must be devastating for any creationist to accept it. It brings up hard feelings. ALL fishes, amphibians, reptiles, birds and mammals embryos have pharyngeal arches, Human embryos start off looking like a fish embryo and then an amphibian embryo and then a reptilian ambryo and then a mammalian embryo and finally an ape embryo. Structures do develop in the human embryo that are homologous with pharyngeal arches in common ancestors. In fish, these structures develop into gills. In humans, these structures develop into bones in the jaw and ears.

[@dadsonworldwide3238]

Had the great debate listened, then biology would've began almost day one on code of life DNA by the Swedish discovery rather than a combative 100 years of playing connect the dots which I also remember the textbook perception management dope used in 70s & 80s.

[@ianmonk6211]

He was taken to court and prosecuted by his employer

[@captivedesk3168]

No he wasnt

[@ianmonk6211]

@@captivedesk3168 yes he was he was working for the university and the prosecuted him for the falsehoods

[@captivedesk3168]

@@ianmonk6211 citation?

[@michalp79]

You're talking about work from previous millennia. Now we can take real photos and even videos of embryos.

[@us3rG]

Humans used to play with human life like it was a joke, thel ancients have more anatomy knowledge from experience way more than the common man today.

[@Torby4096]

In HS biology in the 1970s, I already knew God for 10 years. When I saw this drawing, my thought was, "nonsence." When we got to "junk DNA," I thought, "they just don't know what it is for." I concluded, "If it looks like the Bible is not true, we must not understand something about what we are looking at,"

[@richardg3232]

Why are you still dancing around the truth? Haeckel lied deliberately. Yet, you allow terms like exaggeration, over zealous and artistic license to still be used in this video that downplays his outright lies. Yes, you did say fraud but even implying that his fakes might not be deliberate undermines the level of fraud that has persisted for 100+ years in textbooks.

[@loulasher]

Yes. His lie, which I believed for decades because I was taught it in school (like everyone else), did so much damage. That, and sign language in primates (another set of lies) I just accepted as true.

[@tobias4411]

Hi. Have already explained this topic in a post above. If follow-up questions, Im willing to answer in a respectful matter from both sides.

[@hrvad]

It's perhaps that people like him lie, and worse: when they lie, they do so with the blessing of their own conscience, because it's all for a good cause, don't ya know? It's like the Woke Left today. "Operational success" is more important than truth to them.

[@ArroEL922]

@@tobias4411 Respectful? No respectful due to Ernst: he was deliberately lying to support a false "theory".

[@tobias4411]

@@ArroEL922 I have done research about this topic. Ernst Haeckel was never convicted as fraud, there is no evidence for that. That's why creationists can't provide it when asked to. Haeckel didn't knew as much as we know today about evolution. That's why he got the details wrong and made mistakes in his drawings, BUT most importantly, it was corrected after the first edition of the book. So the fact is that the accusations against him were sloppy at best and fraudulent at worst. A credible accuser would have checked the later editions of the work, not the first edition. For the embryology question: Do human embryos have gill slits or not? Human embryos do not have true gill slits. However, during early stages of development, human embryos do have structures called "pharyngeal arches", which are sometimes referred to as "gill arches" due to their resemblance to the gill arches of fish embryos. These structures play a role in the development of various tissues in the head and neck region, but they are not functional gills. Truth is; ALL embryos start out very similarly. This is normal and ecpected in the evolution process. Note that ALL fishes, amphibians, reptiles, birds and mammals embryos have pharyngeal arches, (or gill arches). Human embryos start off looking like a fish embryo and then an amphibian embryo and then a reptilian ambryo and then a mammalian embryo and finally an ape embryo. Structures do develop in the human embryo that are homologous with pharyngeal arches in common ancestors! In fish, these structures develop into gills. In humans, these structures develop into bones in the jaw and ears. This means that Embryology provides evidence for evolution since the embryonic forms of divergent groups are extremely similar. Today we dont need drawings anymore to illustrate embryos development, we have real macro photos.

[@csmoviles]

Do you have the book translated into Spanish or Russian?

[@icrscience]

We do have some books in Spanish. You can find them at icr.org/store Thank you for watching.

[@RandyFelts2121]

Today it appears to go from complex to simple, but then there's a reason it's called dope.

[@christhewritingjester3164]

They have to leave these blunders and fruads in becuase if they didn't they would have to claim they don't know, which leaves room for other theories to come in. And the only other viable theory leads to God, whom they hate.

[@jameswelsh3433]

You might consider changing “random science question” to “surprise science question”. You can’t call them random if they always pertain to the day’s topic. This happens a lot! May God bless you all in for the work that you do!

[@icrscience]

Unintentional, but true!

[@zandor7097]

I'm interested in Harry Potter and Marvel/DC comics. Can you please discuss parselmouth since Eve can talk to snakes and Aquaman since Jesus can walk on water, thanks.

[@captivedesk3168]

Vestigiality is the retention, during the process of evolution, of genetically determined structures or attributes that have lost some or all of the ancestral function in a given species. Assessment of the vestigiality must generally rely on comparison with homologous features in related species.

[@FinancialAnimal8655]

Should people be skeptical of the bizarre, evidence free claim, that reality includes a supernatural realm?

[@johnglad5]

Free will is a supernatural event.

[@user-ff7iy9ks3g]

Free will is not even an event. It is the ability or capacity to select one thought or action among two or more genuine alternatives. There is nothing obviously supernatural about it, your naked assertion to the contrary notwithstanding.

[@johnglad5]

@@user-ff7iy9ks3g The ability to choose between two or more outcomes defies naturalism, ergo, supernatural. I am bewildered you can't see that. Not an event? Are you saying you have no free will?

[@user-ff7iy9ks3g]

@@johnglad5 My claim is that free will is a capacity. A particular choice is an event. Your claim is this: If naturalism is false, reality has a supernatural realm. Free will contradicts naturalism. Therefore, reality has a supernatural realm. This is a gross non-sequitur. To claim that reality has a supernatural realm is a positive claim and the burden of proof lies with those who make it. The greatest theologians in history, and I've read most of them, have failed in that burden. Many have explicitly stated the task is impossible. Some have claimed that the attempt is sinful. While I am open to being wrong, I am certainly not going to concede that such an audacious claim is true without proof or on the basis of naked assertions.

[@johnglad5]

@@user-ff7iy9ks3g You keep bringing up things I have not mentioned. Not a non sequitur. Naturalism states clearly that my brain is just chemistry following the laws of nature. When we think, exercise free will, we defy naturalism. Therefore it is a supernatural event. If neither is the case we are just biological robots. Thinking and free will are illusions. Do you have free will? You lost me when you said free will is a capacity. A particular choice is an event? You need to give more detail as to what that means.

[@tobias4411]

Why do this channel mute and censor people bringing up evidence against false claims?

[@hylaherping9180]

Care to take a guess why the apologist channel wouldn't want to allow counter evidence to their claims?

[@tobias4411]

@@hylaherping9180 Others do...

[@csmoviles]

We are seeing your comments all over the comment section 😂😂😂...so, I guess others can post theirs without any trouble. I find it ironic that you would talk about banning or cancelling the opposing views; since alm we see are just that : the religious adepts of darwinism . It starts then one is in a nursery school. The views that oppose macroevolution, those are hard to come by in state schools. They are virtually non-existent. I, for one, would know: as a Russian, who had a communist childhood, who lived through censorship; my 18 year old son has been going through the same thing, but in Spain. Christian world view is mocked. They would never dare to do the same to any other religion, though. The same pro darwin stuff, hyperfeminism, antisemitism and wokism as everywhere in the West. The west is literally shooting itself in the head with that ideology. The west could achieve such prosperity and wealth only thanks to the Judeo-Christian cosmovision. It is no longer what it used to be. And the consequences are horrific and tragic: mental illness is rampant as in depression, anxiety, panic attacks among other. Check the interview with Aayan Hirsi Ali (hope I spelt her name correctly) and Dawkins.

[@stormythelowcountrykitty7147]

I was a believer in Darwinian evolution - I thought that’s how God made the world. The more I learned however the clearer it became that Darwinian evolution does not work. That doesn’t mean young earth creationism is right (although I am tending that way). I suspect most of the fake evolution stuff is not intentional but rather seeing what is expected. It’s hard to be truly neutral!

[@robertvann7349]

How old would a modern day Doctor claim Adam's age was when he was 1 second old? 20 yrs old would produce a % error in the millions. God created the heaven and earth with the appearance of age. Dating techniques assume the world came into existence without the appearance of age.🎉🎉🎉🎉

[@tobias4411]

The bible says we lived in 900 years. It's not true. It's a misinterpretation of how people measured time in those days. The Bronze age goat herders didn't know where the sun went at night. So they copied Babylonian mythology, but didn't understand the sexagesimal (base 60) mathematics that the Babylonians used in their fables. NOBODY actually lived to be 900 they are just stories.

[@us3rG]

Everything is meaningless with humans ...unless there is a God before humans everything was meaningless too. It didn't exist

[@poliincredible770]

Acceptance of scripture requires acceptance of historical events. Acceptance of darwin's hypothesis requires imagination.

[@tobias4411]

Acceptance of evolution theory requires acceptance of science. Acceptance of scripture claims like man walking on water (unless he had anti-gravity in his sandals), man living in the belly of a whale., talking snake and donkey.. requires imagination.

[@poliincredible770]

@@tobias4411 can you name anyone in your family lineage who was not a human, or do you have to imagine that you descended from an ape?

[@tobias4411]

@@poliincredible770 Sahelanthropus tchadensis

[@poliincredible770]

@@tobias4411 did you actually trace your ancestry back to this creature or did you imagine that you are related to it?

[@tobias4411]

@@poliincredible770 I did not trace it. science did. Creationists assert that apes and humans are separated by a wide gap. If creationism was true and there was a large gap between humans and apes, it should be easy to separate hominid fossils into humans and apes. This is not the case.

[@monabale8263]

8:22; dna says, "hold my petri dish..."

[@csmoviles]

❤❤❤

[@dougsmith6793]

Sheesh. When I look at it from an engineering persepective, I see a feedback loop whose filter is the environment whose output is things that survive [in that environment] long enough to reproduce. The mechanism is so simple, self-initializing, and self-initiating that it's almost an insult to God to claim that God's intelligence was necessary to create it.

[@csmoviles]

Please do tell us what mechanisms you consider to be so simple))). They can't even be recreated using the avangard technologies and an insane and ridiculously large amount of money that goes into the desperate wish to create life...and you are saying that it wasn't a big deal ))) well, if your really think so, then we must question seriously your basic engineering skills

[@raj61091]

What about taking measurements and using math. That's what science is based on.

[@hansdemos6510]

There are also textbooks that use actual photos of various embryos to make the same points. The old drawings might have been rubbish, the facts are the same. Do these people seriously think that pointing to a mistake by some German dude 150 years ago negates the whole field of biology called Evolutionary developmental biology or "evo-devo"?

[@johnvahl762]

They are explaining the issues with the evidence used to support the underlying assumptions made by those who study Evolutionary Developmental Biology.

[@johnvahl762]

If I draw a map and mislabeled buildings or roads, it is wrong. If someone gets a satellite image and copy all of my labels for the roads and buildings, they are still wrong. The only difference is that the picture looks better and might be more easily disproved.

[@hansdemos6510]

@@johnvahl762 You said: _"They are explaining the issues with the evidence used to support the underlying assumptions made by those who study Evolutionary Developmental Biology."_ Not sure what you mean. School text books are necessarily less rigorous than the science they explain. This is normal, is it not? If you take the brevity of school text books for what the scientists themselves are doing, you are making a mistake. The modern scientific method will also evaluate assumptions, and all assumptions must be compatible with the available facts, so if you are trying to say that in the field of evolutionary developmental biology they don't, then I think you are mistaken. You said: _"If I draw a map and mislabeled buildings or roads, it is wrong. If someone gets a satellite image and copy all of my labels for the roads and buildings, they are still wrong. The only difference is that the picture looks better and might be more easily disproved."_ Your analogy assumes that the buildings and roads are known. They are not. These are all inferences based on the available evidence. If you see two buildings or road networks or whatever that look alike, then it is not unreasonable to think that they may have a common origin and a common function. If you draw the buildings and make them look more alike based on your reasonable inference, in order to get your point across, you may stray into a gray zone, but if you show photographs of the buildings and point out the similarities, I don't see how you can be accused of malfeasance, regardless of whether you turn out to be right or wrong later on when more evidence will have been discovered.

[@roccopanepinto9799]

I live and serve the Lord Jesus as a church-planter/pastor in Jena, Germany -- where Ernst Haeckel lived and worked. We have the oldest evoluion Museum founded by Haeckel the "Phyletische Museum". Over the years I have developed a cordial friendship with a retired ornithologist, Dr. von Knorre, who was once on the board of directors of the Phyletische Museum -- and even he decried Haeckel as a "Gauner" = con-man. I therefore find it amazing how evolution believers still cling to Haeckel's fudged drawings to back up their theory!

[@tobias4411]

Hi pastor, I think it's important to be aware of the time then was totally different than today. Haeckel’s Embryos shows how the most controversial images in the history of science became some of the most widely seen. A religion teacher would catch a pupil reading one of Haeckel’s books under the desk and denounce the illustrations as frauds. A priest would challenge an itinerant freethinker during a slide lecture. Or parents would warn their daughters that books with such horrible illustrations were unsuitable for girls. The big controversies started, during periods of intense debate over Darwinism, when such objections reached the press. Also remember, Haeckel was never convicted as fraud, there is no evidence for that. Haeckel didn't knew as much as we know today about evolution. That's why he got the details wrong, but it was corrected after 1st edition of his book. By the way, it doesn't matter anymore, since we have macro photographs these days showing it. During early stages of development, human embryos do have structures called "pharyngeal arches". Structures do develop in the human embryo that are homologous with pharyngeal arches in common ancestors. In fish, these structures develop into gills. In humans, these structures develop into bones in the jaw and ears. This means that Embryology provides evidence for evolution :-)🙊

[@roccopanepinto9799]

@@tobias4411 Tobias, I don't know where you live, but you are really not well-informed about Ernst Haeckel! For the year 2009 Jena was declared the "City of Science" in Germany and we had many world-renown scientists come through and give lectures in our city. One evolution scientist even came in from the University of Chicago: Prof. Dr. Robert J. Richards and he attempted to rehabilate Haeckel as a reliable scientist. I was there at his lecture and the first two rows were filled with professors for evolution biology and they were fuming at this American trying to cover up the fraudulant legacy of Haeckel and they blasted him! I even have close friendship with a PhD biologist who was on the board of directors of the evolution museum Haeckel founded and he decries Haeckel as a con-man! You claim that "Haeckel was never convicted as fraud, there is no evidence for that." That is not true! A famous contemporary of Haeckel, Professor Rudolf Virchow (famous as the founder of cellular pathology), denounced Haekel as a fraud and the Würzburg anatomy professor Carl Semper described these illustrations as “forgeries” in a publication as early as 1875. The embryologist and Nobel Prize winner Christiane Nüsslein-Vollhard also said in an interview with “Die Zeit” in 2003: “Ernst Haeckel faked things. Many of his pictures of organisms were simply invented to confirm his theory.” Here are just a few instances of Haeckels "fakes": The imaginary "Monera" -- Haeckel tried to fill the gap between non-living matter and the first signs of life -- and drew numerous pictures of this organism without a trace of evidence supporting it. A fraud! // Ever hear of Pithecanthropus alalus (speechless apeman)? This was the missing link between apes and man -- without a a scrap of evidence to support a single detail in the drawings. Fraud! And I could present you with many more of his frauds. When believers in evolution use such frauds to support their theory, then there is something terribly wrong! Prof. Dr. Erich Blechschmidt, former director of the Anatomical Institute of the University of Göttingen, one of the most internationally renowned human embryologists, wrote: “This so-called ‘basic law of biogenetics’ was a catastrophic error in the history of natural sciences. It has set biology back a full century in theoretical and practical terms” . Wake up!

[@tobias4411]

@@roccopanepinto9799 Hi again pastor, I have carefully read your post and here is my response. I claimed the truth about Haeckels fraud accusations. Haeckel was charged as fraud, but NOT convicted. That's a big difference, you know that, right? Being charged means that you are formally accused of committing a crime. However, if you are facing criminal charges, by law, you are innocent until you are found guilty. Being convicted means that you have been proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, right? So I was correct in my claim that he was never convicted as fraud. If you still claim he was convicted, please show me the evidence for that! There is none. I have asked other creationists the same, no one can provide such evidence. I have also read the document "Haeckel’s embryos: fraud not proven" by Robert J.Richards (Published online: 5 November 2008). You said other evolutionists "blasted" him, right? I'm not doubting you were there, but wonder who were these professors in evolution biology that "blasted" him? Why would they do that, if they have the same worldview? And about your PhD biologist friend, describing Haeckel as a con-man, how old is he? I mean Haeckel died 1919, we are talking 105 years ago! Regarding Rudolf Virchow, yes he denounced Haeckel as fraud, but as I said he was never convicted. Regarding Christiane Nüsslein-Volhard, I couldn't find anything about an interview 2003 with "Die Zeit". As I wrote in my previous post, it was a differ time then than now. At the time of Haeckel, when evolution biology was a revolutionary new field it was not uncommon that researchers looked for natural laws and therefore also exaggerated and simplified frequently to increase the acceptance within the field. You mention Pithecanthropus alalus, that originally coined to refer to a theoretical "missing link". It was just a hypothetical ancestor of man that Haeckel believed existed in Indonesia. He did drawings of that 1894. It was not a fraud ,the genus Pan was already in use at the time. The name lost validity sometime in the 1800's, and becoming a junior synonym of Homo.Pithecanthropus. That is now classed as Homo erectus, one of our species in homo genus. Java Man (Homo erectus erectus, formerly also Anthropopithecus erectus, Pithecanthropus erectus) is an early human fossil discovered in 1891. You didn't addressed the modern embryology, when they have extremely detailed photographs. Why? We don't need Hackels drawings anymore to see evidence for common ancestor! During the early stages of embryonic development, it can be difficult to distinguish between human embryos and those of other primates based on their appearance alone. What do you say about the development of embryo with pharyngeal arches in both fish and humans? How do you explain this? The fact that human embryos start off looking like a fish embryo and then an amphibian embryo and then a reptilian ambryo and then a mammalian embryo and finally an ape embryo. What's your explanation to that? Photographs proves that. What about Evo-Devo (Evolutionary developmental biology)? One more thing, about hominin fossils. When looking at skulls like KNM-ER 1470 and Peking man, how come that creationists have a hard time distinguish them from human or ape? First both Gish and Taylor considered them human. Later on Gish considered them ape, while Taylor considered them both humans! Creationists are sure there can't be an intermediate between human and ape, so why can't they decide if an individual skull is human or ape?? Young-earth creationist Cuozzo claimed that H. erectus fossils (in which he includes the Turkana Boy) should not be considered human. Old-earth creationist Ross claimed that not even Neandertals should be classified as human. Creationists assert that apes and humans are separated by a wide gap. If creationism was true and there was a large gap between humans and apes, it should be easy to separate hominid fossils into humans and apes. This is not the case. How do you explain that? Summary: Whatever Ernst Haeckel was fraudulent or not, doesn't really matter anymore to be honest. The truth is unpleasant to many but undeniable; humans are monkeys, in the same way that ducks are birds. We are in the hominid family of primates right now. Also majority of Christians accepts both evolution theory and Big bang theory.

[@littlewing0609]

They are raising plausible hypotheses that can be tested by actual data. And Genesis Creation cannot be treated as a hypothesis because it is claimed to be the truth that cannot be disproved by actual scientific tests. Stop claiming Creationism is a science.

[@technicianbis5250-ig1zd]

Key words in your comment were plausible hypothesis (means they can't prove it).

[@martinlag1]

The theory of ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny was considered by early biologists such as Haeckel and this is now rejected. This is the ONLY detail of the theory of evolution that was modified. Drawings of embryos are always exaggerated, for example relative sizes are adjusted to fit together on the same page. Now these drawings have been replicated by photographs, also scaled for size. Many modern textbooks use photographs now, to avoid this insidious overreach of the criticism outlined in this video. Shall we say the photographic series is also fraudulent? Of course not. Associated evidence from embryology such as homology are strong evidence for common descent. This is still accepted by biologists because evidence is evidence even if it is rejected by ICR. Pharyngeal arches, or gill arches (no, not gill tissue) are an example. This is understood and accepted by scientists. This video claims that common descent is part of the mistaken theory of Haeckel. This video is misleading.

[@laurieshouse]

Oh, just maybe, the common factor is a common designer, rather than a common ancestor.

[@richrogers2157]

Excellent and clear refutation to the foolish continuation of the disproven theory of design in this video , thank you.

[@deannesanv8931]

Interesting. Could you provide a link to the photographs you’re referring to?

[@jamgill9054]

Yes, these were proven to be inaccurate (not completely wrong), by scientist. Because we learned more about God's world. These drawings took some liberties that people at the time thought to be true. Sounds a lot like the bible doesn't it? The difference between the two is that science has moved on where creationists are stuck in 2000-year-old thinking and refuse to learn anything outside a book based on a very limited understanding of the world around the authors. Doesn't mean those people were bad, just means we've learned more. These images are still used because they still provide some useful information. Using this image debunks nothing.

[@kennedymwangi5973]

It's rich of a creationist to accuse anyone of basing their theory on imagination. The irony.

[@JRRodriguez-nu7po]

Actually the correct translation is a little lower than God. We will judge angels. They were created to serve us.

[@bh5317]

All the scholars in several of the translations got it wrong. Thank you for clearing that up.

[@JesusRodriguez-zy3wj]

I am a young Earth creationist, so please interpret this as CONSTRUCTIVE criticism, pun intended. Just as an error (in this case knowing fraud) once lodged into a fiel becomes at times nigh immutable; this also happens with creationist science and Bible translations. In creationist science, explanations of the second law of thermodynamics are ROUTINELY butchered. While I'm no physicist, I did work on the equations at a graduate level ~45 years ago for a semester (oddly, as part of one of my 4 STEM bachelors, but that's a long story as I did a bunch of graduate work). Without the active disorganizing force of the second law, biological life is IMPOSSSIBLE. Anytime you hear/read someone say that any of the 4 (0,1,2,3, yup) laws of classical thermodynamics or their information/chaos theory analogues were not operational in the Garden; you can be certain that person does not know the subject well enough to give an opinion. As to Bible translations, the most destructive mistranslation of a Bible verse is Matthew 7:1 “Do not judge so that you will not be judged." Koine Greek has TWO different words for no. Ou means absolute no, as in "no means no". Mei coincidentally means "maybe don't do it" or "be careful if you do it, try to do as little of it as possible" or similar. It is a cautionary warning no; NOT an absolute no. The context makes it abundantly clear that Christ NEVER said not to judge; simply warned that the same yardstick you use will be used on you. Unfortunately in this feminized "unconditional so called love" modern Churchianity; this is commonly ripped out of context to excuse all manner of sin. That said, I am no Greek or Hebrew scholar either, however, I have noticed quite a few poor translations that are just copied from one translator to the next. My next most egregious is Gen 1:27. Look up the ACTUAL Hebrew words, including the etymology and how used throughout Scripture and you will be surprised. Look, my first week in med school I stood I informed the chairman of the department, in open class, that not only he, but ALL medical textbooks were wrong about normal vital signs. It wasn't until the year after I graduated that the normal ranges for human vital signs were changed to what I said that day. Yes, I am a loose canon. Yes, I am a sinfully horribly arrogant man. But I am also a little child who can still see that the Emperor has no clothes and say so. Errors abound since even BEFORE the fall. Yes, there was error before the fall. Who told the woman (who was not yet named Eve, and that's very important), not to eat or even touch the the fruit? Check out the Hebrew of Gen 1:27 for the first of a very long set of clues sprinkled throughout Scripture. There's nothing deeper, more accurate and precise than Scripture. However, many gems lie hidden that you will NEVER find in commentaries .

[@akmurf7429]

Refer to, Heb 2:7,9 and Psa 8:5. In the book of Hebrews, Paul renders it Angels in the Greek (messengers G32). Although it can be rendered God in the Hebrew in the Psalms, we clearly have less power than the angels but are created in God's image, unlike the Angels. But we are also fallen like some angels. Paul states in 1 Cor 6:3 that we will judge the angels, after the rapture of course, but then we will be like them in our glorified bodies, Mar 12:25. Angels were created like us, to serve God and glorify Him, not man.

[@tshkrel]

We'll judge "certain" angels. Not all. And they were not created for that specific reason, though "some" do serve. Some dont want to

[@noahlarson1861]

​@JesusRodriguez-zy3wj Any chance you could expound a little more on the second law you mentioned there and how it pertains to creation?

[@tarp-grommet]

Fric: Christianity has collapsed among the young. Only 4% of Gen Z attend church. Frac: I have an idea. Let's claim we can "debunk" anything that doesn't agree with creationism. Fic: Brilliant! That should bring them back into the fold!

[@csmoviles]

Oh, and we can the fruit of it all: wokism and islam are spreading like cancer. Check out the interview with Aayan Hirsi Ali and Dawkins. If an atheist really thought God didn't exist he wouldn't be I vesting so much effort and energy in proving Christians wrong. Iam investing my energy into debunking Islam because of the bad fruit of it; and because it directly affects me as a Christian: they are commanded to cut our hands and heads; r..e our women and so on. What are atheists trying to achieve is beyond me: so, Christians don't believe that we are apes. We believe that we are created for a meaningful life that has a purpose to love God and everybody else around us. To love our enemy and help everyone who is in need. Atheism: ! What an awful way of life. Let's channel all out energy on destroying these people who are obsessed with loving thy neighbour. The irony is the mental benefits of having stability, peace and joy when one is a follower of Christ is already sufficient for us in this life. Christians are being persecuted and killed all over the world. Christ has been mocked in every blockbuster movie and in Hollywood. No one would ever dare to do that to other religions, among which is the religion ofndarwinism (well, satan will not attack his own ideology)...but I digress, as I was saying being in Christ has given us the kind peace that this world can't offer us. Can you say the same? Can you say that you have true peace and joy in your heart? I thought so. There is rampant psychological decline in young people. Most of them are depressed, full of anxiety and fear. They are truly lost and believe in anything and everything but in the fact that they are "wonderfully made". No wonder they are plagued with uncertainty, gloom and doom.

[@kelleemerson9510]

Am I the only one that believes it's both and only both makes sense?

[@brandypriddy9994]

You are not alone...

[@forestgiest1380]

Well, we have pictures today. And they look the same.

[@captivatingbitter]

...

[@stuartofblyth]

5:25. No, Sir, it's the other way around - "ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny".

[@Healitnow]

Here is what I post all over the science channels. The Big Bang Fantasy Even with a grade 12 in 1967 I can see the big bang is pure fantasy. The only explanation for our being here is an eternal being. Other than that no explanation of our existence can ever be, because at some point all other explanations have to have a beginning and there isn't one, yet we are here. I have a much easier time believing in an eternal God, than to believe the ridiculous explanation that we exploded into existence from either nothing, or a pinhead of matter. 1. I challenge all atheistic scientists to take any combination of any elements you want "the size of a pinhead or smaller" and create an explosion that will rock one city block, let alone create an ever-expanding universe. This is pure fantasy. If not, let me know when you have assembled the products for your demonstration. By the way, this will never happen because there is no such combination of products to assemble, just atheistic fantasies. 2. Next calculate the entire mass of the universes amounts of hydrogen, oxygen, nitrogen, and all other elements. Then mathematically remove the spaces between the protons, electrons, neutrons, and other particles, reducing the solid components to a single, space free, lump of matter. Now take the calculated solid materials of all the universe, and condense all of them into a pinhead size. Mathematicians will probably run out of space in the pinhead before condensing the volume of the earth, let alone the universe. 3. How would a pinhead of matter that would have infinity more gravity than a black hole, ever get a pimple on it, let alone explode. This will be impossible, as highly condensed black holes show us. Each individually are much larger than a pin head, while having a lot less matter, yet neither light nor explosions can escape from them. They observationally clearly show us that the explosion called the "Big Bang" is impossible. In short, it would appear that scientists are teaching deliberate lies to children. When they die and stand before God on the judgment day, having to account for all the souls they led to hell with deliberately false teachings, it will really suck to be them. Hell is a lake of fire, and the punishment for sin is life in prison. Just so you know, life on the other side is eternal for all of us, whether we were good or bad. Just the residence address is different.

[@robertvann7349]

Keep it simple bro. Evolution is based on Illogical impossible contradiction being true which are ABSOLUTELY OBJECTIVELY FALSE. A is B impossible? A non life caused the effect of B life A is B a false scientific hypothesis never evidenced in nature or labs

[@robertvann7349]

Keep it simple bro. Evolution is based on Illogical impossible contradictions being true which are ABSOLUTELY OBJECTIVELY FALSE. A is B, law of contradiction, logic science 101 A is B A non life caused the impossible contradiction effect of B life A is B simply a ABSOLUTE OBJECTIVE FALSE SCIENTIFIC HYPOTHESIS A non cell caused the impossible contradiction effect of B a cell A is B another evolution false scientific hypothesis never evidenced in nature or labs 🎉🎉🎉🎉

[@robertvann7349]

Not all Christian teachers teach hell is conscious death. This teaching is Illogical impossible contradiction A is B A spiritual death is conscious B spiritual life is conscious A is B a false Christianity doctrine As above so below A carnal death is unconscious B carnal life is conscious Fire will UNCREATE this present world of sin. God will simply uncreate the wicked after the 1000 yr reign and a new heaven and earth. Day and Night will be uncreated only spiritual light will exist and God the Father will be All and in All 🎉🎉🎉

[@tobias4411]

Nonsense. Big bang is the best way to explain the beginning of universe. It's supported by the observable expansion of space through Hubbles law, and redshift of galaxies, and the discovery of CMB which is accurately measured with orbiting detectors. This together is good evidences for that the Big Bang theory is the best and most accurate explanation of how universe came into existence The Big Bang follows the laws of physics as we understand them, ok? Every test they throw at it comes back in support of the theory. And don't forget, there was also the Nobel Prize given so, it can't be that bad can it?

[@tobias4411]

​@@robertvann7349Your misconceptions make you draw wrong conclusion. You mix things up. The transition from non-life to life (abiogenesis) on earth has never been observed experimentally. I think we both can agree on that, ok? Evolution isn't abiogenesis. They are two completely different things. One is about changes, the other one is about origin of life. The first one is a theory, the second is a hyphothesis. The evolution theory is extremely well supported by overwhelming evidence.

[@jkcrews09]

Suggestion: adjust your beginning opening, “Welcome to the creation podcast. The show where we discuss the science that confirms scripture.” This could be understood that science and creation don’t align all the time. While that might still be obvious that they don’t always, that is an interpretation understanding by finite humans. The Creator of the stuff we humans do science on spoke all that into existence. By definition the two align with each other.

[@yibaibashimu6223]

He didn't exaggerate or fake anything! He drew then exactly as they were--it's just that, since his era, embryos have evolved into more complex forms--just as evolution predicts they will. Cling to our evolutionary beliefs till death! Cling on, brothers and sisters (am i still allowed to say "brothers" and "sisters"?) CLING ON! CLING ON!

[@KenJackson_US]

Sarcasm is difficult to convey in prose.

[@JesusRodriguez-zy3wj]

@@KenJackson_US I think his sarcasm was extremely well conveyed.

[@S_raB]

Evolution requires millions & millions of years. Also, evolution can be visibly observed in just 170 years. Please, document how both can be true.

[@tobias4411]

​@@S_raBThere is no barrier between microevolution and macroevolution. They are just two sides of the same coin. They are both evolution. A lot of small scale things are going to make a big scale thing. A lot of bricks make a house.

[@S_raB]

@@tobias4411 So where in the fossil record is the trace evidence proving these 2 forms function together to change one species into another, wholly new & unique species? Particularly within primates = humans? Because every "reliable" source has either been a flatout lie/fabrication or provides literally zero actual evidence of primates developing into humans or any other species becoming an entirely new species.

[@gentletam2099]

There are similarities between different species because of the same designer and same creator for the same environment namely God

[@tobias4411]

No, humans have the exact same broken C-vitamine gene as chimpanzees. That can't be explained by a common designer, only with common ancestor.