الدكتور قواسمية
12-14-2013, 01:04 PM
SCIENTISTS DERIDE THE THEORY
They declare it to be utter nonsense.
"What is it [evolution] based upon? Upon nothing whatever but faith, upon belief in the reality of the unseen—belief in the fossils that cannot be produced, belief in the embryological experiments that refuse to come off. It is faith unjustified by works."—*Authur N. Field.
"The pharyngeal arches and clefts [creases] are frequently referred to as branchial arches and branchial clefts in analogy with the lower vertebrates, [but] since the human embryo never has gills called `branchia,' the term pharyngeal arches and clefts has been adopted for this book."—*Jan Langman, Medical Embryology, 3rd ed. (1975).
"Seldom has an assertion like that of Haeckel's `theory of recaptitulation,' facile, tidy, and plausible, widely accepted without critical examination, done so much harm to science."—*Gavin de Beer, A Century of Darwin (1958).
"As a law, this principle has been questioned, it has been subjected to careful scrutiny and has been found wanting. There are too many exceptions to it."—*A.F. Huettner, Fundamentals of Comparative Embryology of the Vertebrates, p. 48.
"The theory of recapitulation . . should be defunct today."—*Stephen J. Gould, "Dr. Down's Syndrome," Natural History, April 1980, p. 144.
"This law has been seriously questioned and is so obviously inapplicable in many instances that as a law it is now of historical interest only."—*W.R. Breneman, Animal Form and Function (1954), p. 407.
"[The] biogenetic law has `been demonstrated to be wrong by numerous subsequent scholars,' according to Bock, who was a biology professor at Columbia . .
"Raup and Stanley call the biogenetic law `largely in error'; Ehrlich and Holm note its `shortcomings' and its place in `biological mythology'; Danson says that it is `intellectually barren'; de Beer refers to the `evidence against the "biogenetic law" of recapitulation in Haeckel's sense'; Encyclopedia Britannica calls it `in error'; and even Mayr of Harvard describes the biogenetic law as `invalid.' In fact, Haeckel, the formulator of the "biogenetic law,' supported it with `faked' drawings."—W.R. Bird, Origin of the Species Revisited, Vol. 1, pp. 196-197. [See Bird for sources.]
"Anatomically homologous parts in different related organisms appear to have quite different embryonic origins. This is almost impossible to reconcile with orthodox Darwinian or neo-Darwinian theory, and it is by no means evident at the time of writing how such problems may be overcome."—*D. Oldroyd, "Charles Darwin's Theory of Evolution: A Review of Our Present Understanding," Biology and Philosophy (1986), p. 154.
علم الأجنة (Embryology ): يدحض نظرية التطور 100/100
http://www.voy.com/208012/559.html
They declare it to be utter nonsense.
"What is it [evolution] based upon? Upon nothing whatever but faith, upon belief in the reality of the unseen—belief in the fossils that cannot be produced, belief in the embryological experiments that refuse to come off. It is faith unjustified by works."—*Authur N. Field.
"The pharyngeal arches and clefts [creases] are frequently referred to as branchial arches and branchial clefts in analogy with the lower vertebrates, [but] since the human embryo never has gills called `branchia,' the term pharyngeal arches and clefts has been adopted for this book."—*Jan Langman, Medical Embryology, 3rd ed. (1975).
"Seldom has an assertion like that of Haeckel's `theory of recaptitulation,' facile, tidy, and plausible, widely accepted without critical examination, done so much harm to science."—*Gavin de Beer, A Century of Darwin (1958).
"As a law, this principle has been questioned, it has been subjected to careful scrutiny and has been found wanting. There are too many exceptions to it."—*A.F. Huettner, Fundamentals of Comparative Embryology of the Vertebrates, p. 48.
"The theory of recapitulation . . should be defunct today."—*Stephen J. Gould, "Dr. Down's Syndrome," Natural History, April 1980, p. 144.
"This law has been seriously questioned and is so obviously inapplicable in many instances that as a law it is now of historical interest only."—*W.R. Breneman, Animal Form and Function (1954), p. 407.
"[The] biogenetic law has `been demonstrated to be wrong by numerous subsequent scholars,' according to Bock, who was a biology professor at Columbia . .
"Raup and Stanley call the biogenetic law `largely in error'; Ehrlich and Holm note its `shortcomings' and its place in `biological mythology'; Danson says that it is `intellectually barren'; de Beer refers to the `evidence against the "biogenetic law" of recapitulation in Haeckel's sense'; Encyclopedia Britannica calls it `in error'; and even Mayr of Harvard describes the biogenetic law as `invalid.' In fact, Haeckel, the formulator of the "biogenetic law,' supported it with `faked' drawings."—W.R. Bird, Origin of the Species Revisited, Vol. 1, pp. 196-197. [See Bird for sources.]
"Anatomically homologous parts in different related organisms appear to have quite different embryonic origins. This is almost impossible to reconcile with orthodox Darwinian or neo-Darwinian theory, and it is by no means evident at the time of writing how such problems may be overcome."—*D. Oldroyd, "Charles Darwin's Theory of Evolution: A Review of Our Present Understanding," Biology and Philosophy (1986), p. 154.
علم الأجنة (Embryology ): يدحض نظرية التطور 100/100
http://www.voy.com/208012/559.html