its Bio 2210, and its Gaskin's theory, and we had a very very interesting lecture last night, which is why I brought it up. My professor said "fucking" in class, it was great.
Zanchief wrote:
Harrison wrote:I'm not dead
Fucker never listens to me. That's it, I'm an atheist.
The Kizzy wrote:its Bio 2210, and its Gaskin's theory, and we had a very very interesting lecture last night, which is why I brought it up. My professor said "fucking" in class, it was great.
Recapitulation was Haekel's theory. Did Gaskin modify it or have his own take on it? Like Duck said, it's been thoroughly discredited in its literal form. There are some links between embryo development and species development, but the latter doesn't replicate the former.
Why would you even begin to think it's true? It's already been proven wrong. With technology available today it's not considered anything more than an old farce. Notice the word "theory" again here. You know by now what a theory is right?
I guess this version is modified, basically shows that fossils found in the earth's layers follow the progression of a human embryo. Not that humans progress through the evolutionary process.
It was something that made you sit back and go, hmmmm........ very interesting stuff.
Think about it.
Layers of the earth are Molten Core, then no life (before a woman gets pregnant)
First life and layer on earth were one celled organisms like foraminiferans (think that was the word) {much like the fertilized egg is a one celled organism}
so on and so forth
Zanchief wrote:
Harrison wrote:I'm not dead
Fucker never listens to me. That's it, I'm an atheist.
The Kizzy wrote:I guess this version is modified, basically shows that fossils found in the earth's layers follow the progression of a human embryo. Not that humans progress through the evolutionary process.
That would be phylogeny recapitulating ontogeny, which doesn't make any sense at all. You can't claim that the fossil record follows the embryonic growth of a human, when the fossil record necessarily existed before humanity.
It was something that made you sit back and go, hmmmm........ very interesting stuff.
Think about it.
Layers of the earth are Molten Core, then no life (before a woman gets pregnant)
First life and layer on earth were one celled organisms like foraminiferans (think that was the word) {much like the fertilized egg is a one celled organism}
so on and so forth
If that's an accurate representation of your professor's lecture, I'd sue your school.
That is your opinion and you are entitled to it, I however do not agree. I do not underatnd how you can debate what fossils have been found in different layers of the earth. Makes no sense.
Zanchief wrote:
Harrison wrote:I'm not dead
Fucker never listens to me. That's it, I'm an atheist.
The Kizzy wrote:That is your opinion and you are entitled to it, I however do not agree. I do not underatnd how you can debate what fossils have been found in different layers of the earth. Makes no sense.
Which part is my opinion? Ontogeny doesn't recapitulate phylogeny. The doctrine's been discredited for quite some time now. Phylogeny can't recapitulate ontogeny simply because of the temporal discord. I never actually said anything about which fossils have been found in which layer of earth, but attempting to relate earth's geology to the gestation process is ridiculous. It may make an interesting metaphor, but there's absolutely no true correllation between the two.
The Kizzy wrote:That is your opinion and you are entitled to it, I however do not agree. I do not underatnd how you can debate what fossils have been found in different layers of the earth. Makes no sense.
