Evolution Flashcards Preview

Creation Apologetics > Evolution > Flashcards

Flashcards in Evolution Deck (36)
Loading flashcards...

What is the definition of "Spontaneous Generation" (also 'Abiogenisis')?

spontaneous generation (n) 1. (Biology) a theory, widely held in the 19th century and earlier but now discredited, stating that living organisms could arise directly and rapidly from nonliving material. Also called: abiogenesis (the production of living organisms by nonliving matter; spontaneous generation: a former belief.)


What is the Law of Biogenisis?

Biogenesis is the production of new living organisms or organelles. The law of biogenesis, attributed to Louis Pasteur, is the observation that living things come only from other living things, by reproduction (e.g. a spider lays eggs, which develop into spiders). That is, life does not arise from non-living material, which was the position held by spontaneous generation.[1][2] This is summarized in the phrase Omne vivum ex vivo, Latin for "all life [is] from life." A related statement is Omnis cellula e cellula, "all cells [are] from cells;" this observation is one of the central statements of cell theory.


What is the 'Panspermia" Theory?

Panspermia is a Greek word that translates literally as "seeds everywhere". The panspermia hypothesis states that the "seeds" of life exist all over the Universe and can be propagated through space from one location to another. Some believe that life on Earth may have originated through these "seeds". Mechanisms for panspermia include the deflection of interstellar dust by solar radiation pressure and extremophile microorganisms traveling through space within an asteroid, meteorite or comet. The first known mention of the concept of panspermia was in the writings of the Greek philosopher Anaxagoras (500 BC – 428 BC), although his concept differs from the modern theory: "All things have existed from the beginning. But originally they existed in infinitesimally small fragments of themselves, endless in number and inextricably combined. All things existed in this mass, but in a confused and indistinguishable form. There were the seeds (spermata) or miniatures of wheat and flesh and gold in the primitive mixture; but these parts, of like nature with their wholes, had to be eliminated from the complex mass before they could receive a definite name and character."


Are there modern-day scientists that believe in the theory of 'spontaneous generation'?

Dr. George Wald, Nobel Prize winner of Harvard University, states it as cryptically and honestly as an evolutionist can: "One has only to contemplate the magnitude of this task to concede that the spontaneous generation of a living organism is impossible. Yet here we are—as a result, I believe, of spontaneous generation." Scientific American, August 1954. That statement by Dr. Wald demonstrates a much greater faith than a religious creationist can muster. Notice that the great evolutionary scientist says it could not have happened. It was impossible. Yet he believes it did happen. What can we say to that kind of faith? At least the creationist believes that God was able to speak life into existence. His is not a blind faith in something that he concedes to be impossible.


What is the definition of "religion"

Religion: 1. a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs. 2. a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects. 3. the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices.


Is evolution a religion? What does its proponents say?

It is well known in the scientific world today that such influential evolutionists as Stephen Jay Gould and Edward Wilson of Harvard, Richard Dawkins of England, William Provine of Cornell, and numerous other evolutionary spokesmen are dogmatic atheists. Eminent scientific philosopher and ardent Darwinian atheist Michael Ruse has even acknowledged that evolution is their religion! "Evolution is promoted by its practitioners as more than mere science. Evolution is promulgated as an ideology, a secular religion—a full-fledged alternative to Christianity, with meaning and morality. . . . Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today." (Ruse, Michael, "Saving Darwinism from the Darwinians," National Post (May 13, 2000), p. B-3.) "We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, . . . in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated commitment to materialism. . . . we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counterintuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door." (Lewontin, Richard, Review of The Demon-Haunted World, by Carl Sagan. In New York Review of Books, January 9, 1997.)


Are creationists the only ones that are dumbfounded by the extravigant, "just so", untestable theories put forward by evolutionists?

We cannot identify ancestors or "missing links," and we cannot devise testable theories to explain how particular episodes of evolution came about. Gee is adamant that all the popular stories about how the first amphibians conquered the dry land, how the birds developed wings and feathers for flying, how the dinosaurs went extinct, and how humans evolved from apes are just products of our imagination, driven by prejudices and preconceptions.(Bowler, Peter J., Review of In Search of Deep Time by Henry Gee (Free Press, 1999), American Scientist (vol. 88, March/April 2000), p. 169.)


Do evolutionist use the class room to indoctrinate students?

Speaking of the trust students naturally place in their highly educated college professors, he says: And I use that trust to effectively brainwash them. . . . our teaching methods are primarily those of propaganda. We appeal—without demonstration—to evidence that supports our position. We only introduce arguments and evidence that supports the currently accepted theories and omit or gloss over any evidence to the contrary. (Singham, Mark, "Teaching and Propaganda," Physics Today (vol. 53, June 2000), p. 54.)


Are there modern-day scientists that believe in 'panspermia'?

In 1743 the theory of panspermia appeared in the writings of French nobleman, diplomat and natural historian Benoît de Maillet, who believed that that life on Earth was "seeded" by germs from space falling into the oceans, rather than life arising through abiogenesis. The panspermia theory was rekindled in the nineteenth century by the scientists Jöns Jacob Berzelius (1779–1848), Lord Kelvin (William Thomson) (1824–1907) and Hermann von Helmholtz (1821–1894). Lord Kelvin declared in 1871, "[W]e must regard it as probable in the highest degree that there are countless seed-bearing meteoric stones moving about through space. If at the present instance no life existed upon this Earth, one such stone falling upon it might, by what we blindly call natural causes, lead to its becoming covered with vegetation." In 1973 the late Nobel prize winning British molecular biologist, physicist and neuroscientist Professor Francis Crick, along with British chemist Leslie Orgel, proposed the theory of directed panspermia.


Is the belief in evolution a pre-requisite for scientific discovery? In otherwords, has there been a scientific advancement that could only have come about by first assuming evolution as fact?

There has never been a scientific discovery, advancement, or breakthrough that was contingent on a belief in evolution. Conversly, it appears that our environment, our habitat, and our universe was fine tuned for scientific discovery by an infinite supreme creator (examples provided in the book "Privilaged Planet").


What are the 3 pillars of Evolution?

1. Time - The current estimates for the age of the planet about 4.6 billion years.

2. Chance - A Swiss mathematician, Charles Eugene Guye, actually computes the odds against such an occurrence at only one chance in 10(160). That means 10 multiplied by itself 160 times, a number too large even to articulate. Another scientist expressed it this way: "The amount of matter to be shaken together to produce a single molecule of protein would be millions of times greater than that in the whole universe. For it to occur on earth alone would require many, almost endless, billions of years" (The Evidence of God in an Expanding Universe, p. 23). Evolutionist claim that the improbable becomes probable given enought time.

3. Natural Selection - i.e. 'survival of the fittest'. Stephen J. Gould (Natural History, 6-7/77, p.28) said, "The essence of Darwinism lies in a single phrase: natural selection is the creative force of evolutionary change. No one denies that natural selection will play a negative role in eliminating the unfit. Darwinian theories require that it create the fit as well." When Gould speaks of a "creative force", he could not be closer to speaking of God without mentioning Him. Yet, he ascribed the power to some natural "force". He made a god of a "force of nature". Julian Huxley made it clear what REALLY happened (Issues in Evolution, 1960, p.45), "Darwin pointed out that no supernatural designer was needed; since natural selection could account for any form of life, there was no room for a supernatural agency in its evolution."


Is Homology proof of "decent with modifications"?

Common designs points to a single designer


Is genetic mutation a plausible mechanism for adding new information to DNA code?



What is the difference between historical science and operational science?



What examples can be cited where mutations have added NEW, BENEFICIAL information to genetic code.

Fruit flies Peppered moths Finches


What is the difference between Order and Complexity?

It's the difference between a snowflake or crystal and dna code. One has highly repeatable organization that provides no information. The other does not repeat, but provides information. For example: the phrase 'abcabcabcabc' shows 'order' but is not informative. The phrase 'et tu Brute?' does not repeat and contains information.


What is the difference between macro-evolution and micro-evolution?

Macroevolution refers to major evolutionary changes over time, the origin of new types of organisms from previously existing, but different, ancestral types. Examples of this would be fish descending from an invertebrate animal, or whales descending from a land mammal. The evolutionary concept demands these bizarre changes. A review of any biology textbook will include a discussion of microevolutionary changes. This list will include the variety of beak shape among the finches of the Galapagos Islands, Darwin's favorite example. Always mentioned is the peppered moth in England, a population of moths whose dominant color shifted during the Industrial Revolution, when soot covered the trees. Insect populations become resistant to DDT, and germs become resistant to antibiotics. While in each case, observed change was limited to microevolution, the inference is that these minor changes can be extrapolated over many generations to macroevolution. Microevolution refers to varieties within a given type. Change happens within a group, but the descendant is clearly of the same type as the ancestor. This might better be called variation, or adaptation, but the changes are "horizontal" in effect, not "vertical." Such changes might be accomplished by "natural selection," in which a trait within the present variety is selected as the best for a given set of conditions, or accomplished by "artificial selection," such as when dog breeders produce a new breed of dog.


What was Darwin's famous quote regarding the obvious gaps in the fossil record?

Charles Darwin said in Origin of Species (Collier, 1962, p. 168), "As by this theory innumerable transitional forms must have existed, why do we not find them imbedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth? . . . I will here only state that I believe the answer mainly lies in the record being incomparably less perfect than is generally supposed (i.e., not enough fossils have been studied yet)." To continue (Ibid, p.308), "Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? . . . this, perhaps, is the most serious and obvious objection which can be urged against the theory."

"Contrary to what most scientists write, the fossil record does not support the Darwinian theory of evolution because it is this theory (there are several) which we use to interpret the fossil record. By doing so, we are guilty of circular reasoning if we then say the fossil record supports this theory."—*Ronald R. West, "Paleontology and Uniformitarianism," Compass, May 1968, p. 216.


Professor Richard Lewontin, a geneticist (and self-proclaimed Marxist), one of the world’s leaders in evolutionary biology, made this statement concerning prior commitments to evolution...

Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door. The eminent Kant scholar Lewis Beck used to say that anyone who could believe in God could believe in anything. To appeal to an omnipotent deity is to allow that at any moment the regularities of nature may be ruptured, that Miracles may happen. (Richard Lewontin, Billions and billions of demons (review of The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark by Carl Sagan, 1997), The New York Review, p. 31, 9 January 1997.)


Dr Scott Todd, an immunologist at Kansas State University, made this statement concerning evidence of intelligent design...

Even if all the data point to an intelligent designer, such an hypothesis is excluded from science because it is not naturalistic. (Todd, S.C., correspondence to Nature 401(6752):423, 30 Sept. 1999.)


Michael Ruse was professor of philosophy and zoology at the University of Guelph, Canada (recently moved to Florida), He was the leading anti-creationist philosopher whose (flawed) arguments seemed to convince the biased judge to rule against the Arkansas ‘balanced treatment’ (of creation and evolution in schools) bill in 1981/2. At the trial, he and the other the anti-creationists loftily dismissed the claim that evolution was an anti-god religion.

Evolution is promoted by its practitioners as more than mere science. Evolution is promulgated as an ideology, a secular religion—a full-fledged alternative to Christianity, with meaning and morality. I am an ardent evolutionist and an ex-Christian, but I must admit that in this one complaint—and Mr [sic] Gish is but one of many to make it—the literalists are absolutely right. Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today. ‘… Evolution therefore came into being as a kind of secular ideology, an explicit substitute for Christianity.’ (Ruse, M., How evolution became a religion: creationists correct? National Post, pp. B1,B3,B7 May 13, 2000.)


What is the "the scientific method"? In what way does the "theory" of evolution agree or disagree with this method?

The scientific method is a body of techniques for investigating phenomena, acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge. To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry is commonly based on empirical or measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning. The Oxford English Dictionary defines the scientific method as "a method or procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses."


What is 'falsifiability'? And why is it important to the Evolution/Creation debate?



What is 'circular reasoning'? How does evolutionary thought disply this?

Circular reasoning is often of the form: "A is true because B is true; B is true because A is true."

"The rocks do date the fossils, but the fossils date the rocks more accurately. Stratigraphy cannot avoid this kind of reasoning . . because circularity is inherent in the derivation of time scales."—*J.E. O'Rourke, "Pragmatism vs. Materialism in Stratigraphy," American Journal of science, January 1976.

"The intelligent layman has long suspected circular reasoning in the use of rocks to date fossils and fossils to date rocks. The geologist has never bothered to think of a good reply, feeling the explanations are not worth the trouble as long as the work brings results. This is supposed to be hard-headed pragmatism."—*J.E. O'Rourke, "Pragmatism vs. Materialism in Stratigraphy," American Journal of Science, January 1976, p. 48.

"It cannot be denied that, from a strictly philosophical standpoint, geologists are here arguing in a circle. The succession of organism as has been determined by a study of theory remains buried in the rocks, and the relative ages of the rocks are determined by the remains of organisms that they contain."—*R.H. Rastall, article "Geology," Encyclopedia Britannica, Vol. 10 (14th ed.; 1956), p. 168.


How does Radiometric Dating work?

An hourglass is a helpful analogy to explain how geologists calculate the ages of rocks. When we look at sand in an hourglass, we can estimate how much time has passed based on the amount of sand that has fallen to the bottom.

Radioactive rocks offer a similar “clock.” Radioactive atoms, such as uranium (the parent isotopes), decay into stable atoms, such as lead (the daughter isotopes), at a measurable rate. To date a radioactive rock, geologists first measure the “sand grains” in the top glass bowl (the parent radioisotope, such as uranium-238 or potassium-40).

They also measure the sand grains in the bottom bowl (the daughter isotope, such as lead-206 or argon-40, respectively). Based on these observations and the known rate of radioactive decay, they estimate the time it has taken for the daughter isotope to accumulate in the rock.


The reliability of radiometric dating is subject to three unprovable assumptions. What are they?

Assumption 1: Conditions at Time Zero

No geologists were present when most rocks formed, so they cannot test whether the original rocks already contained daughter isotopes alongside their parent radioisotopes. For example, with regard to the volcanic lavas that erupted, flowed, and cooled to form rocks in the unobserved past, evolutionary geologists simply assume that none of the daughter argon-40 atoms was in the lava rocks. Yet lava flows that have occurred in the present have been tested soon after they erupted, and they invariably contained much more argon-40 than expected.1 For example, when a sample of the lava in the Mt. St. Helens crater (that had been observed to form and cool in 1986) (Figure 1) was analyzed in 1996, it contained so much argon-40 that it had a calculated “age” of 350,000 years!2 Similarly, lava flows on the sides of Mt. Ngauruhoe, New Zealand (Figure 2), known to be less than 50 years old, yielded “ages” of up to 3.5 million years.3

Assumption 2: No Contamination

The problems with contamination, as with inheritance, are already well-documented in the textbooks on radioactive dating of rocks.7 Unlike the hourglass, where its two bowls are sealed, the radioactive “clock” in rocks is open to contamination by gain or loss of parent or daughter isotopes because of waters flowing in the ground from rainfall and from the molten rocks beneath volcanoes. Similarly, as molten lava rises through a conduit from deep inside the earth to be erupted through a volcano, pieces of the conduit wallrocks and their isotopes can mix into the lava and contaminate it.

Because of such contamination, the less than 50-year-old lava flows at Mt. Ngauruhoe, New Zealand (Figure 4), yield a rubidium-strontium “age” of 133 million years, a samarium-neodymium “age” of 197 million years, and a uranium-lead “age” of 3.908 billion years!

Assumption 3: Constant Decay Rate

Physicists have carefully measured the radioactive decay rates of parent radioisotopes in laboratories over the last 100 or so years and have found them to be essentially constant (within the measurement error margins). Furthermore, they have not been able to significantly change these decay rates by heat, pressure, or electrical and magnetic fields. So geologists have assumed these radioactive decay rates have been constant for billions of years.

However, this is an enormous extrapolation of seven orders of magnitude back through immense spans of unobserved time without any concrete proof that such an extrapolation is credible. Nevertheless, geologists insist the radioactive decay rates have always been constant, because it makes these radioactive clocks “work”!

New evidence, however, has recently been discovered that can only be explained by the radioactive decay rates not having been constant in the past.9 For example, the radioactive decay of uranium in tiny crystals in a New Mexico granite (Figure 5) yields a uranium-lead “age” of 1.5 billion years. Yet the same uranium decay also produced abundant helium, but only 6,000 years worth of that helium was found to have leaked out of the tiny crystals.

This means that the uranium must have decayed very rapidly over the same 6,000 years that the helium was leaking. The rate of uranium decay must have been at least 250,000 times faster than today’s measured rate!


Cite examples of how Radiometric Dating have given false time estimates.

Sedimentary rocks make up the layers of the Grand Canyon and these are not dateable by radiometric dating. All the canyon layers are ocean bottom sediments, filled with fossils of ocean-dwelling creatures and plants almost a mile high from top to bottom. The Cardenas Basalt bottom layer (below the Cambrian explosion) is usually dated with Rhobidium -Strontium and calculated to be about 1 billion years old.  Much later after the Grand canyon was already formed, igneous rocks were formed from a volcano on top of the canyon, that Indians saw erupt, only about 1000 years ago. (The volcano lava flows have Indian artifacts in them, and go over the canyon walls.) These rocks were dated using the same method in the lab and were assigned an age of 1.3 billion years old. How can the very top, volcanic rock be older than the very bottom layer basalt rock? Even evolutionists admit that those Indian artifacts are not 1.3 billion years old! This is a real and common problem with radiometric dating techniques. Consider also:

Mt. Etna – erupted 2100 years ago, but rocks were dated 25 million years ago.

Sunset Crater, Northern Arizona – erupted in 1065 AD, but rocks were dated 200,000 years old.

Lava flows at Mt. Ngaurhoe, New Zealand – erupted in 1949, 1954, but rocks dated 275,000 yrs old.

Hualalai basalt, Hawaii erupted 200 years ago, but rocks were dated 1.4 to 22 million yrs old.

Mt. Etna basalt, Sicily, erupted in 1971, but rocks were dated 140,000 to 350,000 yrs old.

Mount St. Helens erupted in 1980, but rocks were dated up to 2.8 million years old.

If you know the date of the source of the rock, they say you don’t have to accept this dating technique’s numbers… but if its an unknown sample, then they say: “Oh, you can trust the lab dates!”. You see, the radiometric dating technique’s do not work when you can check the dates, but you should trust them when you can’t check them. Got It?  Not very scientifically consistent is it?


What are 'Index Fossils'?

The encyclopedia Britannica defines index fossils as “any animal or plant preserved in the rock record of the Earth that is characteristic of a particular span of geologic time or environment. A useful index fossil must be distinctive or easily recognizable, abundant, and have a wide geographic distribution and a short range through time. Index fossils are the basis for defining boundaries in the geologic time scale and for the correlation of strata.”

The problem with using the geologic column and index fossils for dating is that the fossils are dated by the rock layers they are in and the rock layers are dated by the fossils that are in them. This is a classic case of circular reasoning. This dating of index fossils was done over 100 years before radiometric "dating" techniques were developed.



What is Radiocarbon (or Carbon 14) dating? What are some examples that falsify current evolutionary chronology?

Carbon 14 (or radiocarbon) is an entirely different method of dating materials in the earth. It is only used on material that was once alive. Bones, flesh, plants, and any remains that are not entirely fossilized into rock, is what C-14 can be used on. It is only good for a dating back with any confidence to less than 80,000 years. This is because C-14 (the radioactive parent element) has a half life of only 5,730 years. C-14 is from the atmosphere and part of the food chain. Plants take in as carbon dioxide, the C-14 is the carbon atom, instead of the normal and stable C-12. It is everywhere and all through the food chain, such that all living things as well as the atmosphere, have about the same amount of carbon-14 inside their living tissue. While the C-14 is replenished by breathing and eating, the C-14 already in the body is beta-decaying back to nitrogen N-14, and a steady state is held, matching the amount of C-14 in the body with the amount in the atmosphere. (only about 1 part per million of Carbon elements in CO2 is made up of C-14.)

Collected samples of coal (Metamorphosed plant remains) from deep mines from all over the earth thought to be hundreds of millions of years old, and therefore should be C-14 dead. These samples were sent to independent labs for C-14 dating.  EVERY ONE of the samples was dated to be only thousands of years old based on the C-14 content that was still there.

Diamonds from deep mines were also tested. Samples of industrial diamonds from around the world were also tested. (Since they are so dense, diamonds are not susceptible to internal contamination.) These are thought to have been formed early in the earth’s history – “billions” of years ago. And yet EVERY one had C-14 detectable. If DEEP-EARTH Diamonds contain C-14, it is truly impossible for this planet to be in the millions and billions of years in age.


Are shrimp evolving?

This 170-million-year-old fossil shrimp from the Jurassic period is no different from living shrimps.


Are dragonfly's evolving?

This 140-million-year-old dragonfly fossil found in Bavaria, Germany is identical to living  dragonflies.


Are scorpions evolving?

The oldest known fossil scorpion, found in East Kirkton in Scotland. This species, known as Pulmonoscorpis kirktoniensis, is  320 million years old,  yet no different from today's scorpions.


Are horseshoe crabs evolving?

Horseshoe crab fossil from the Ordovician period. This 450-million-year-old fossil is no different from specimens living today.


Have coelacanth's evolved?

The coelacanth was believed to be extinct until one day in 1938 one was found in the catch of a fishing trawler by a museum curator. This makes it a Lazarus taxon, a species that has 'risen from the dead,' thought to be extinct only to be discovered alive. The oldest fossil is 360 million years old, and it seems the fish has hardly changed since then. Many thought they went extinct 80 million years.


Are finches evolving?

Many text books claim that the variations observed in the beaks of the Galapagos finches lead to the formulation of Darwin's theory of evolution (specifically 'decendancy with variation). The hypothesis was that the differences in diets have lead to different bill sizes. However, this is strong evidence for micro-evoluion (changes within a species) and not macro-evolution (species changing into other species). In fact, evolutionary biologist Peter Grant has recently observed a 'reversal in the direction of selection' due to changes in climate. Additionally, it appears that the finch species are converging (or hybridizing) rather than diverging. This is contradictory to evolutionary predictions.


How does 'Haeckel's Embryos' help or hurt the case for evolution?

The evolutionary study of embryos reached a peak in the late 1800s thanks primarily to the efforts of one extraordinarily gifted, though not entirely honest, scientist named Ernst Haeckel (left). Haeckel was a champion of Darwin, but he also embraced the pre-Darwinian notion that life formed a series of successively higher forms, with embryos of higher forms "recapitulating" the lower ones. Haeckel believed that, over the course of time, evolution added new stages to produce new life forms. Thus, embryonic development was actually a record of evolutionary history. The single cell corresponded to amoeba-like ancestors, developing eventually into a sea squirt, a fish, and so on. Haeckel, who was adept at packaging and promoting his ideas, coined both a name for the process — "the Biogenetic Law" — as well as a catchy motto: "Ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny."

Haeckel was so convinced of his Biogenetic Law that he was willing to bend evidence to support it. The truth is that the development of embryos does not fit into the strict progression that Haeckel claimed.

Today, biology text books still include some derivative of Haeckels embryos in order to mislead students. The images depict embryos during mid stages with do seem to bare some resemblance. However, the theory Heackel and Darwin put forward is that embryos would look most similar at early stages. In fact, this is when embryos look most dissimilar.

Haeckels Embryos is a perfect example of evolutionists using misleading information to indoctrinate students and the general public.